Image
Demagoguery
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."

Franklin D. Roosevelt


Regular Reads
Eschaton
Tapped
Daily Kos
The Liquid List
Matthew Yglesias
Talking Points Memo
Slacktivist
James Wolcott
Michael Berube
Political Animal
How Appealing
MaxSpeak, You Listen!
Tbogg
TalkLeft
Rittenhouse Review
Neal Pollack
Suckful
Cursor
John Moltz
Southern Appeal
Nathan Newman
The Poor Man
NRO's "The Corner"
Pandagon
Wonkette
Legal Fiction
Sugar, Mr. Poon?
Carpetbagger Report
Balkinization
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time w/ Norbizness
This Is Not Over


Contact Us
Eugene Oregon
Noam Alaska
Helena Montana
Frederick Maryland
Zoe Kentucky
Arnold P. California


Mutual Admiration Society
DCCC's The Stakeholder
Abolish the Death Penalty
Busy Busy Busy
Uggabugga
New American Empire
Staunch Moderate
A La Gauche
The Moderate Voice
The Sneaky Rabbit
Bluegrassroots
Political Strategy
Cutting to the Chase
Acrentropy
The Blue Bus
American Monkey
Restless Mania
Your Right Hand Thief
Naked Furniture
Dimmy Karras
The Department of Louise
Torvus Futurus
HellaFaded
Live From the Nuke Free Zone
Proof Through the Night
No More Apples
Slapnose
PoliGeek
Irrational Bush Hatred
The Slugging Southpaw
I Voted for George
Nosey Online
Donna's Place
Schadenfreude
Resource.full
wordsimageslife
The Bully Pulpit
Lying Socialist Weasels
TJ Griffin
To The Barricades
Omni-Curious
Eat Your Vegetables
Stoutdem
Suddenly Routine
The Story So Far
Skimble
Marstonalia
The Lefty Directory
ZipSix
ReachM High Cowboy Network
John Hoke's Personal Asylum
Riba Rambles
The Bone
Fables of the Reconstruction
The Modulator
Planet Swank
Scoobie Davis Online
Single-Minded
World Phamous
The Good Life
Something's Got To Break
Upside-down Hippopotamus
Damfacrats 2004
The Fulcrum
BeatBushBlog
archy
Yankee From Mississippi
It's A Crock!
Red Wheelbarrow
Apropos of Nothing
Political Parrhesia
The Mahablog
Mousemusings
Restlessgeist
Galois
Muise in Gradland
American Leftist
Political Blog Directory
Boiled Meat
John Costello
Skydiver Salad
The Game & How We Played It
Soupie's BBQ and Daycare
Odd Hours
Nebraska Liberal
The American Street
Approximately Perfect


If you have linked to us and don't see your name, please send us an e-mail and we'll add you.


Recommendations
















Archives:


-- HOME --



This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?
Friday, July 09, 2004


Safire's Explanation Falls Flat

On his political blog at the New Republic's website, Noam Scheiber has some witty and adept observations of the political scene. In this recent post, Scheiber refers to a Bill Safire column that sought to distinguish Bush's Veep choice with Kerry's choice:
Bill Safire sounds like he's making a distinction without a difference:

"When Bush chose Cheney in 2000, that expressed confidence in victory: Cheney was seen not primarily as a campaigner, but as an active participant in the coming administration, which even his fervent detractors admit he has been. Bush was then filling in a gap, too -- his foreign policy inexperience -- but his pick was directed at governing, not campaigning."

Maybe I'm a little quaint when it comes to these things, but my impression was that voters' assessment of your ability to govern kinda matters when you're campaigning for president. The idea that you could somehow separate your ability to campaign from perceptions of your ability to govern seems pretty ridiculous. To take Safire's example, it's entirely possible that Bush wouldn't have won in 2000 without Cheney's implicit reassurance that the new administration was up to the job. Which makes Cheney's selection every bit as "political" as Edwards's, possibly more. (And, of course, trying to create the perception that a pick is non-political is a highly political calculation in itself.)


posted by Frederick Maryland at 4:52 PM




Blogging the National Journal

There is some interesting stuff in the most recent issue of the National Journal, but since it is subscription only, I'll just share it with you here.

From "Bush's Political Family: Unhappy Campers," a staffer who worked for Bush's father says

"The extended Bush family is not just nervous about this election -- there's a lot of disappointment and even disgruntlement with this White House," said the ex-Bush aide. And on one policy where there does seem to be a sense of purpose in the current administration, Iraq, this ex-assistant was deeply bothered by the officials directing it. "These are driven, ideological people, who really have an agenda and are not necessarily troubled by facts or even shaken by them," he said.

Ticking off a list of issues -- from resisting stem-cell research, to Iraq, to the war on terrorism, to the dressing-down that the administration received in a Supreme Court decision declaring that it cannot indefinitely lock people away and deny them a lawyer or a court hearing simply because it has labeled them "enemy combatants" -- the former Bush aide bluntly said: "There is a huge swath of issues that bespeak arrogance and cowboy approaches. It's a kind of [screw] 'em attitude. Not only is there not a recognition that you need broad popular support to govern -- they just don't care."

Also, the Journal takes a look at the allegations that Kerry and Edwards are two of the most liberal senators and analyzes their own rankings

Rank Among 100 Senators - Ranked Most Liberal Senator

Kerry
1999 - 16th
2000 - 23rd
2001 - 11th
2002 - 8th
2003 - 1st

Edwards
1999 - 31st
2000 - 19th
2001 - 35th
2002 - 40th
2003 - 4th

If you average out their rankings (not counting 2003 when they were clearly positioning themselves to run for president and trying to keep the base happy) Kerry ranks 14th and Edwards ranks 31st.

And finally, I am now aware that there is a bill (H. R. 2661) working its way through the House to name the still-under-construction Capitol Visitor Center after Strom Thurmond. No word yet on if it will also require separate but equal entrances or if blacks will even be allowed in.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:22 PM




I Wonder What Happened

Via The Carpetbagger Report I found out that just two weeks ago, the Wasington Post's Dan Froomkin had a little blurb on the lawsuit filed by the AP seeking access to microfilm of all of Bush's military service records. At the time, Froomking reported

Associated Press Assistant General Counsel Dave Tomlin told me yesterday that AP reporters began trying to get the documents back in February, but hit roadblock after roadblock.

Tomlin said the AP has been informed that the microfilm in question does indeed exist. Tomlin said that because paper records can vanish and be tampered with, the microfilm "would erase any questions."

Odd isn't it then that, though the microfilm that "would erase any questions" did exist just two weeks ago, today is was revealed that it had inadvertently been destroyed.

What a strange coincidence.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:09 PM




The Will to Believe

Why the people involved in Iran/contra aren't all in jail is something that continues to baffle me. But even more baffling is why these people are allowed to continue to serve as pundits and why The National Review provides Michael Ledeen a platform from which to spew his idiocy. Take this Corner post, for example, on the Senate Intelligence Committee's report

The "intelligence committee" of the world's greatest deliberative body has now coughed up a report, and guess what? It is critical of the intelligence community. imagine! what a shock, such a newsworthy conclusion.

Never mind that we have known this for decades, and got confirmation of the most dramatic sort on 9/11.

But what gets me is that it has now become part of the conventional wisdom that Iraq did NOT have WMDs. None at all. Not hardly ever, that is. So when, say, Polish soldiers find some, "coalition authorities" are quick to say, nah, that doesn't count, that's older stuff. As if old WMDs weren't real.

I assume Ledeen is referring to this article

Artillery shells found by Polish troops in Iraq definitely contained the deadly nerve agent cyclosarin, Poland's military has said.

Because he certainly wasn't referring to the one that came out the following day

Sixteen rocket warheads found last week in south-central Iraq by Polish troops did not contain deadly chemicals, a coalition spokesman said Friday...

[edit]

The Coalition Press Information Center in Baghdad said in a statement Friday that the 122-millimeter rocket rounds, which initially showed traces of sarin, "were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals."

It's not that the Coalition Authority was saying old WMDs don't count - they were saying things that are not WMDs don't count.

It's a subtle difference.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:45 PM




Late but Good

OK, so I fell a couple of weeks behind on reading Get Your War On, but this one is just too good not to post.



posted by Arnold P. California at 12:56 PM




If At First You Don't Succeed, Change the Rules

Once again, when House Republicans were faced with defeat, they kept a vote open long enough to browbeat party members into submission

House Republicans yesterday beat back what was shaping up as a successful attempt to rewrite a controversial provision of the USA Patriot Act, by more than doubling the time usually allotted for a floor vote so that House leaders could persuade enough fellow Republicans to change their votes and the outcome. The reversal spared the White House a legislative defeat.

As the official 15-minute voting period finished, the House appeared to have approved by a 213-206 vote an amendment that would have required law enforcement to go to a regular court -- instead of a secret court -- to get permission to demand library and Internet access records of people it is investigating. The amendment, offered by Representative Bernard Sanders, Independent of Vermont, was meant to tighten rules that even initial supporters of the Patriot Act now say gave too much search and seizure authority to the government.

But House Republican leaders, determined to keep intact a counterterrorism law passed a month after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, extending the voting time to 38 minutes while they won over enough Republicans to bring the vote to 210-210. The amendment died on the tie vote.

The New York Times reports that among those changing their minds during the ensuing 23 minutes was Nick Smith. You may recall that the last time the Republicans pulled this stunt, Smith alleged that they tried to bribe him with a $100,000 but he refused to change his vote.

I wonder how much they had to bribe him with this time.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:54 AM




Never Ask a Question ...

... that you don't want to hear the answer to. That's a popular adage, especially in politics. That's why I'm scratching my head after reading the quote in this morning's Washington Post by Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican consultant. This is what Rogers had to say about the issue of homeland security:
"The contrast [between Edwards and] Cheney just couldn't be more stark on this issue. Who's going to be tougher on terrorists who want to kill you and your family? Cheney or Edwards? It is just going to be laughable."
Really? The very same article suggests that Edwards will have some useful ammunition to carry into a vice-presidential debate against Cheney:
In the summer of 2001, when much of the Republican and Democratic policy community was obsessed with missile defense, Edwards urged more attention to terrorism. The North Carolina senator had such limited luck pitching an OpEd article on terrorism to major newspapers that the piece, warning of poor cooperation among federal and local law enforcement, ended up in the weekly Littleton Observer, circulation 2,230 -- four weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks.

... Edwards surprised participants in 2002 meetings with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and European foreign policy experts, said William Drozdiak, executive director of the Transatlantic Center of the German Marshall Fund ... "He was hungry for some foreign policy exposure and experience," Drozdiak said. "I was fairly skeptical. I expected a lightweight, but I came away with a favorable impression. He asked a lot of smart questions and actually listened, which is not a noteworthy quality of the Bush people."
As your high school teacher used to say, compare and contrast:
Counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke's prepared testimony to the 9/11 Commission: (Note: Vice Pres. Cheney is a standing member of the National Security Council and one of the NSC "Principals" to which Clarke refers below.)

"On January 24, 2001, I requested in writing an urgent meeting of the NSC Principals committee to address the al Qaeda threat. That meeting took place (more than 7 months later) on September 4, 2001. It was preceded by a number of Deputies Committee meetings, beginning in April. Those meetings considered proposals to step up activity against al Qida, including military assistance to anti-Taliban Afghan factions.

"The Bush Administration saw terrorism policy as important but not urgent, prior to 9-11. The difficulty in obtaining the first Cabinet level (principals) policy meeting on terrorism and the limited principals' involvement sent unfortunate signals to the bureaucracy about the Administration's attitude toward the al Qaeda threat."
Care to ask any other questions, Mr. Rogers?

posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:46 AM




Mission Accomplished: Files Destroyed

According to Reuters News Service:
The Pentagon says military records related to President Bush's service in the National Guard more than 30 years ago were inadvertently destroyed, The New York Times reported on Friday.

Payroll records of "numerous service members," including Bush, were ruined in 1996 and 1997 during a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the newspaper said, citing the Pentagon.

Bush's whereabouts during his service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War have become an election-year issue, with some Democrats accusing him of shirking his duty. The destroyed files covered a three-month period.
Which three-month period? Again, an interesting coincidence:
The destroyed files cover three months of a period in 1972 and 1973 when Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question, the newspaper said. No back-up paper copies of the records could be found, the Pentagon said in notices dated June 25, according to the Times.
According to Reuters, the destruction of these records was announced by the Department of Defense's Freedom of Information office "in letters to the Times and other news organizations that for nearly half a year have sought Bush's complete service file ..."

posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:30 AM




Daily Darfur

Sudan's Foreign Minister warned Washington that it might provoke an Iraq-style crisis by threatening sanctions over Darfur

Ismail warned "those voices which have drawn the world to the Iraq war not to take it to a new war which it will be difficult to disengage from."

[edit]

"There is a conspiracy targeting the Sudan, its identity and structure and we have to be cautious and ready for every possibility," said Ismail, adding that Khartoum opposed the imposition of sanctions against any Sudanese.

China, Russia, Pakistan, Algeria, Brazil and others appear to oppose any attempt by the UN to impose an embargo or sanctions on Khartoum.

Colin Powell warns that disarming the militias and getting humanitarian into Darfur is a "race against death"

37 Sudanese immigrants who fled Darfur are stranded in international waters as Italy refuses to grant them asylum or let them land.

The AP profiles a family that hid from the Janjaweed for six months, foraging for food in the trees and sneaking into a nearby town at night to look for water.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:05 AM


Thursday, July 08, 2004


You People Are So Sensitive!

Those of you who aren't gay, please imagine for a moment that you are. Now imagine you're involved in a lawsuit, and the judge who will preside has written a letter to the local newspaper saying: "In my opinion, gays and lesbians should be put in some type of mental institute." Might you have the teensiest little suspicion that the judge might not give you a fair hearing?

The Mississippi Supreme Court, by a 5-2 vote, decided (pdf) that the judge couldn't be sanctioned because his remarks were protected by the First Amendment. Traditionally, judges aren't supposed to say things that would call into question their ability to decide cases impartially, but the boundaries are in some flux since a Supreme Court decision in 2002 struck down a Minnesota rule saying judges couldn't announce their views on controversial issues.

I have a different concern than the judge's bias, though: I think he's not competent to be a judge. A judge has to have some grounding in the society around him, and anyone who would publish a statement like that and then say that "he didn't mean to offend anyone" has lost touch with reality. The Mississippi Supreme Court majority, whether it was right or wrong as a matter of law, at least understood the social context of the remark: "There are millions of citizens who believe Judge Wilkerson's religious views are exactly correct. There are still millions more who find his views insulting."

Actually, the court's reasoning was quite interesting. It said that an impartial judiciary is crucial, but forcing judges who are actually not impartial to suppress their views so as to appear impartial is counterproductive:
Allowing – that is to say, forcing – judges to conceal their prejudice against gays and lesbians would surely lead to trials with unsuspecting gays or lesbians appearing before a partial judge. Unaware of the prejudice and not knowing that they should seek recusal, this surely would not work to provide a fair and impartial court to those litigants.
It went on to point out that the judge would surely face recusal motions from any gay or lesbian who appeared in his court, and that even if the judge really believes he could be fair to them in spite of his religious views, he could end up in hot water if he refused to recuse.

(If anyone thinks my comments about the judge's competence were entirely in jest, check out the text of the letter the judge sent to the newspaper, and ask yourself whether, strictly based on the judge's struggle with the English language, you would want him on the bench:
Dear Editor:
I got sick on my stomach today as I read the (AP) news story on the Dog attach [sic] on the front page of THE MISSISSIPPI PRESS and had to respond!

AMERICA IS IN TROUBLE!

I never thought that we would see the day when such would be here in AMERICA.

The last verse of chapter one of the book of Romans in our HOLY BIBLE is my reason for responding and sounding the alarm to this. You need to know as I know that GOD in Heaven is not pleased with this and I am sounding the alarm that I for one am against it and want our LORD to see and here [sic] me say I am against it.

I am sorry that the California Legislature enacted a law granting gay partners the same right to sue as spouses or family members. Also, that Hawaii and Vermont have enacted such a law too.

In my opinion gays and lesbians should be put in some type of a mental institute instead of having a law like this passed for them.

I don,t [sic] know but I believe if we vote for folks that are for this we will have to stand in thh [sic] judgement of GOD the same as them.

I am thankful for our Legislators and pray for wisdom for them, on such unbelievable legislation as this.
May GOD bless each one of them in JESUS CHRIST NAME I pray!

Thank you for printing this,

Connie Glen Wilkerson

Bro. Connie C. Wilkerson
[stamped]
Anyone who wants to wallow in more of this latter-day Cardozo's eloquence can check out the dissenting opinion for a partial transcript of a radio interview Brother Wilkerson gave after his letter was published.)

By the way, I think that the reference to a dog attack suggests that the article to which the judge was responding was about the California decision that allowed the lesbian partner of a woman killed by a dog to sue the dog's owners, just as a spouse is allowed to sue for a tort against his or her deceased husband/wife.

posted by Arnold P. California at 8:53 PM




Does the National Review Employ Fact-Checkers?

The administration's point man--outside of government--for drumming up support for judicial nominees is C. Boyden Gray, who was White House Counsel to the first President Bush. While denouncing liberal pressure groups who have weighed in on the judge wars, Gray heads a conservative pressure group called the Committee for Justice. CFJ burst onto the scene with TV ads in the home states of moderate Republican senators implying that if the senators failed to vote for any of Bush's nominees, it would prove that the senators were anti-Catholic. The TV ads don't seem to be on their website anymore, but this subsequent radio ad in Maine--reassuring voters that their two Republican senators toed the party line and turned out not to be anti-Catholic after all--should give you an idea of the kind of rhetoric that drives Vermonter Patrick Leahy and other Catholic opponents of Bush nominees up the wall.

Anyway, Gray has an interesting column on 4th Circuit nominee Claude Allen on the NRO website. Here's how it begins:
In April 2003, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Claude Alexander Allen to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reaches from Virginia to South Carolina.
Here's what's funny about that: Gray seems to have forgotten that the Fourth Circuit includes Maryland and West Virginia. Here's what's funnier: the principal reason Allen's nomination hasn't moved is because he's taking a seat that "belongs" to Maryland.

Federal statutes simply designate the total number of judges in each circuit, but Presidents and the Senate observe an informal understanding as to how many judges are supposed to come from each state within the circuit. This understanding is almost literally never violated. When a Maryland judge departs, he's supposed to be replaced by another Marylander. Maryland's two senators, both Democrats, are apoplectic that Bush ignored their state's claim on the seat. And their anger is not unreasonable; Orrin Hatch, who understands the rules of the game, has repeatedly said that he sympathizes with his colleagues' position.

Of course, one reason Bush bypassed Maryland is that even with Hatch's watered-down version of the blue-slip rule, the two Democratic senators could have forced him to appoint a relatively moderate nominee. But considering that the 4th Circuit went for several years without any of North Carolina's seats being filled because of Jesse Helms's invocation of the blue-slip rule to block every one of President Clinton's nominees for eight years, it's hard to sympathize with Bush's end-run.

But to read Gray's column, you'd think that Allen was being opposed because his children were home-schooled. Those "maniacal" liberals! What a ridiculous basis for denying confirmation! How could one possibly be expected to reach a compromise with such lunatics?

Well, they may be "elitest and anti-democratic," but at least liberals can read a map.

posted by Arnold P. California at 7:33 PM




Judicial Activism: Then and Now

With the Senate set to hold a cloture vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment next week, condemnations of the Massachusetts SJC's upsetting of longstanding custom and tradition will likely increase in volume again.

As it happens, today is the anniversary of the SJC's decision in Commonwealth v. Jennison, another decision that upset the custom and tradition of Massachusetts.

Jennison, a white, was charged with assaulting Quack, a black. His defense was that Quack was his slave. Quack claimed his prior master and mistress had freed him. But the court didn't bother with the factual question of whether Quack had been freed. It said instead:
Whatever sentiments have formerly prevailed in this particular or slid in upon us by the example of others, a different idea has taken place with the people of America, more favorable to the natural rights of mankind, and to that natural, innate desire of Liberty, with which Heaven (without regard to color, complexion, or shape of noses) features) has inspired all the human race. And upon this ground our Constitution of Government, by which the people of this Commonwealth have solemnly bound themselves, sets out with declaring that all men are born free and equal -- and that every subject is entitled to liberty, and to have it guarded by the laws, as well as life and property -- and in short is totally repugnant to the idea of being born slaves. This being the case, I think the idea of slavery is inconsistent with our own conduct and Constitution; and there can be no such thing as perpetual servitude of a rational creature, unless his liberty is forfeited by some criminal conduct or given up by personal consent or contract.
The Massachusetts Constitution cited here, by the way, was essentially drafted solo by John Adams, and it is often referred to as the oldest democratic constitution currently in force. The Jennison case itself was decided in 1783, the year of the American victory in the War of Independence. The U.S. Constitution was drafted four years later and ratified two years after that, with the Bill of Rights being added after a further two years. The 13th Amendment, when the federal Constitution finally caught up with the Massachusetts Constitution (as interpreted by the SJC) and abolished slavery, didn't come until 1866. Massachusetts was in the vanguard among the states, as abolition caught on slowly in some other parts of the North. New York, my current home, didn't completely abolish slavery until the 1820s, for example.

posted by Arnold P. California at 5:23 PM




That Sounds Plausible

From the AP

Afghan forces arrested three Americans, including a purported former Green Beret, after raiding a jail they were allegedly running in the Afghan capital and finding prisoners hanging from their feet, officials said Thursday.

The U.S. military, facing a widening inquiry into prisoner abuse, quickly distanced itself from the three, who had been posing as American agents before being detained Monday. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Thursday "the U.S. government does not employ or sponsor these men."

Afghan officials also dismissed claims by the apparent ringleader, Jonathan K. Idema, that he was a "special adviser" to their security forces, saying the three had posed as military agents on a self-appointed hunt for terrorists.

The Americans and four Afghans who were detained along with them "formed a group and pretended they were fighting terrorism," Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalali said. "They arrested eight people from across Kabul and put them in their jail."

Another Afghan security official said intelligence and police officials who raided the group's house Monday found the prisoners strung up by their feet.

"They were hanging upside down," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He said a report showed the men also were beaten.

Are we to believe that these 3 Americans just waltzed into Afghanistan on their own, scrounged up some military uniforms and assault rifles, passed themselves off as "special advisers," started their own prison and began abusing prisoners without any assistance (or resistance) from the military or CIA?

Claims that "the U.S. government does not employ or sponsor these men" remind me of similar government denials from the mid-80s when Eugene Hasenfus was shot down while delivering military supplies to the Contras and captured by the Nicaraguan government - from Theodore Draper's "A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affairs"

As might have been expected, a denial reflex took over in official circles. The immediate reaction in Washington was to disavow any connection with the plane. Secretary of State [George] Schultz said that it had been "hired by private people" who "had no connection with the US government at all." ... [Elliot] Abrams exhibited the most bravado in his first public statement on October 7. He said that "some very brave people" had been willing to bring materiel to Nicaragua, and added: "God bless them ... If these people were involved in this effort, then they were heroes." On October 8, President Reagan denied that there was any US government connection with the flight; he praised the efforts to arm the contras and compared them to the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:37 PM




Protect Yourself. Don't Vote

Yes, I know, that headline qualifies me as Cynic of the Week. From the ABC News website:
The United States is tightening security in the face of a steady stream of intelligence indicating al-Qaida may seek to mount an attack aimed at disrupting elections, the White House said.

... Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said the Bush administration based its decision to bolster security on "credible" reports about al-Qaida's plans, coupled with the pre-election terror attack in Spain earlier this year and recent arrests in England, Jordan and Italy.

"This is sobering information about those who wish to do us harm," Ridge said.
So what's the sobering information?
U.S. officials do not have specific knowledge about where, when or how such an attack would take place, but the CIA, FBI and other agencies "are actively working to gain that knowledge," Ridge said.
But as sobering as this news is, ABC News reports, "Notwithstanding the heightened air of vigilance, the government is not raising its color-coded terror alert status, [Ridge] said." So what's the purpose of this ridiculous, color-coded alert system? The Secretary of Homeland Security tells Americans we have "sobering information" that people want "to do us harm," but Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is quoted as saying, "There's, obviously, no reason for panic, or paralysis."

I suggest that, in the future, the Administration adopt a more simplified statement that it can release to the public and news media when the notion arises:
Official Statement of the
Department of Homeland Security:


WATCH OUT. Relax.

SOMETHING COULD HAPPEN. Go On With Your Lives.

TERRORISTS ARE PLOTTING. Security Is Tight.

BRIDGES ARE POSSIBLE TARGETS. No Need for Panic.

WE DON'T KNOW WHEN OR WHERE. Local Officials Have Been Notified.

God Bless America.
For inquiries, please contact the DHS Press Office.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 3:59 PM




"To Induce Vomiting ...."

I've noticed a few conservative websites with ads and links promoting the sale of Peter Robinson's book, How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. This is how Publishers Weekly describes the book:
Robinson's self-help/memoir/Reagan hagiography is an All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten for right-wingers. The former White House speechwriter ... illuminates 10 life lessons in a love letter to the Gipper ("How," Robinson asks, "did such a nice guy get to be President?").

By looking at both the historical (supply-side economics, the Cold War, Iran-contra) and the personal (Reagan's beliefs, his relationship with his family), Robinson unearths maxims such as "Do your work" and "Say your prayers." The stories are engaging, and he tosses in dashes of philosophy, such as the nature of good and evil ...

... while Robinson's respect for the former president verges on deification, especially as he glosses over Reagan's shortcomings ("Now, I myself was never able to get worked up over the deficits," Robinson says), this book provides solid, if somewhat obvious, lessons that will appeal to the legions of Reagan fans.
Something tells me Robinson isn't "able to get worked up over" our current president's sky-high deficits either.

Well, enough about that book. The book that Reagan fans are sure to love should appear in bookstores very soon. It's called Touched By an Angel: The Day Reagan's Limo Ran Over My Foot.

And, yes, that was a joke (although this title is not).

posted by Frederick Maryland at 3:36 PM




Nat'l Review on Edwards

In this editorial, the National Review (available online) critiques John Kerry's choice for veep and makes it clear the magazine doesn't agree with other Republicans who (predictably) have called it a bad choice:
We are inclined to think that Kerry's calculation was correct: Edwards brings real strengths to the Democratic ticket. He is an attractive figure. Voters seem to respond to youth, energy, and good looks. Edwards may also help Kerry appeal to centrist voters: Americans outside the South have a dated perception of how conservative southern Democrats are.

Edwards's campaign speech, though centered on the idea that Americans who are not rich have little hope of making it on their own, somehow comes across as optimistic. So Kerry may find himself competing with Edwards over who can better excite the crowds. The competition may be good for Kerry. Edwards does not much help him win voters concerned about national security -- but Kerry was always going to have to stand or fall on his own in this area.

Republicans will be tempted to make an issue of Edwards's background as a trial lawyer. They should not overestimate the extent to which the public at large shares their dislike of trial lawyers. They make their money, after all, by telling sympathetic stories that win over ordinary people.
On the other hand:
Edwards does, however, have weaknesses. He has a very liberal voting record. Kerry-Edwards is the least ideologically balanced ticket the Democrats have run since 1984. Edwards reinforces the protectionist cast of the ticket, and of the contemporary Democratic party. While many voters worry about jobs going abroad, how well does that worrying comport with the optimism that the campaign wishes to project?
Two points in response to this excerpt.

First, on the issue of a "balanced" ticket, perhaps the Dems are simply taking a page from the GOP playbook. Bush didn't attempt to strike a conservative-moderate balance when he chose Cheney in 2000; both were clearly conservatives. (This ticket was a far cry from '76 when President Ford's advisers convinced him to name a then-little-known Kansas senator with conservative credentials, Bob Dole, because it would placate the Reagan wing of the party.)

Second, when NR cites "protectionis[m]" as an Edwards' position that bothers them, they are providing an example of at least one issue on which the ticket can be called "balanced" -- i.e., Kerry supported NAFTA, Edwards has called it a bad trade pact.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 3:23 PM




Another Reason to Hate Polls

Zogby International has released its new poll on the presidential race (Kerry still up by 2 pts.) and related issues. On the topic of whether the country is on the right or wrong track, here is what Zogby officials have written:
The majority of respondents continue to say that the country is headed on the wrong track (48%), while 47% feel the US is on the right track. This response has virtually remained unchanged over the last three months.
Virtually unchanged? A closer look at the past three months reveals that the gap between those choosing the "right track" and "wrong track" has fluctuated quite a bit -- from a high of 14 percentage points to a low of 1 point (the most recent poll):
July 6-7
Right Track .... 48%
Wrong Track .... 47%
(GAP: 1 pt.)

June 2-5
Right Track .... 44%
Wrong Track .... 50%
(GAP: 6 pts.)

May 10-13
Right Track .... 40%
Wrong Track .... 54%
(GAP: 14 pts.)

April 15-17
Right Track .... 44%
Wrong Track .... 49%
(GAP: 5 pts.)


posted by Frederick Maryland at 2:16 PM




Manufacturing Verbal Nonsense

This week, the president of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Jerry Jasinowski, has made some ridiculous comments about John Edwards' presence on the Democratic presidential ticket.

First, there was this Tuesday release to the media in which Jasinowski was quoted:
"[Edwards] has voted against tax cuts, repeal of the absurd OSHA ergonomics rule, a solution to the asbestos crisis, sensible limits on health care liability, repeal of the death tax, development of natural gas resources, terrorism insurance, Medicare reform and Trade Promotion Authority, to name a few. He has voted against the interests of manufacturers and working people time and time again."
As one considers whether Edwards votes against the interests of working people, it's worth noting the average, hourly manufacturing wages in the 50 states -- a high of $19.71 in Michigan to a low of $11.19 in South Carolina (which SC officials are clearly quite proud of -- "We're #50! We're #50! ...").

Am I missing something? Judging from those wage rates, it boggles the mind to understand how average working people stand to suffer if the estate tax remains in place or if the Bush tax cuts are maintained (as Kerry and Edwards propose) for all Americans except those in the wealthiest income brackets.

Then on Wednesday, Jasinowski chose these words to explain the level of hostility that his business lobby has toward Edwards:
"Trial lawyers are the pariahs of the business community, which is more frightened by them than terrorists, China or higher energy prices."
Okay, wait a minute here. First, Bush's Secretary of Education tells an audience that the National Education Association is a "terrorist organization." Now the leader of the premier business lobby in Washington asserts that John Edwards is more menacing than terrorists. Perhaps our country would have more success fighting terrorism if the people in the White House and America's corporate executive suites actually knew whom the real terrorists were.

If most business operators, as Jasinowski suggests, consider a plaintiffs' attorney to be an equal or worse threat to America than al Qaeda, then it's a very sad commentary on their values.

While the reference to "terrorists" was outrageous, the inclusion of China was simply bizarre. Is Jasinowski saying that business leaders have a serious fear of China? If so, I'd be curious to know the basis of this fear. A look at recent history suggests that the opposite is true: NAM and other business groups have long been 'bullish' on China and quite anxious to gain access to China -- either as a consumer market or as a site for locating manufacturing facilities, or both.

In case Jasinowski has forgotten, the most significant China-related legislative proposal arose four years ago when Congress debated whether to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to the communist nation. If the NAM and other business groups were angered or fearful of China, they did nothing to show it when that proposal came before Congress. In fact, groups like NAM were crucial in securing passage of PNTR. As Reuters reported in this Sept. 19, 2000 story:
In a victory for big business that could transform Sino-U.S. relations, the U.S. Senate will give final approval on Tuesday to a hotly contested bill granting permanent normal trade relations to China despite stiff opposition from organized labor and human rights groups.

... A bitterly divided House of Representatives approved permanent normal trade relations in May after an unprecedented lobbying campaign by pro-trade business groups eager to tap the vast Chinese market place ... Business groups, which spent millions of dollars lobbying lawmakers, said it would boost exports and create high-paying jobs.

... "This legislation means that we've overcome the rising forces of protectionism," said Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers.
A search of NAM's website reveals little indication of why China would be a source of great fear to U.S. businesses. Other than raising the issue of alleged "currency manipulation" by the Chinese government, NAM officials would seem to have very little to complain about.

Message to NAM's press office: You might want to work on some new "talking points" for Mr. Jasinowski.



posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:37 PM




The Great Marriage Debate

Today, the right-wing Heritage Foundation is sponsoring an event on the federal marriage amendment entitled "The Great Marriage Debate: The Hardest Questions and the Best Answers." Heritage will feature commentary by senators Wayne Allard (R-CO), Sam Brownback (R-KS), and John Cornyn (R-TX) as well as Reagan-era attorney general Ed Meese, all of whom are on record in support of an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage.

Call me a nitpicker, but I have to object to Heritage's use of the term "debate." A debate is "a discussion involving opposing viewpoints; an argument" or "a formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition." Pulling together a group of people who are all on the same side of the issue does not a debate make. The terms "sermon" or "pep rally" seem more appropriate. Perhaps we should pass around a hat and buy Heritage the latest edition of Websters.

posted by Noam Alaska at 1:29 PM




Daily Darfur II

Colin Powell says Sudan is not following through on its promises to help those in Darfur and the US is threatening to impose sanctions.

Meanwhile, France continues to prove that, aside from being cheap, they are either idiots or assholes - or possibly both

France expressed doubt Thursday that international sanctions against Sudan might improve the situation in the violence-wracked western Darfur region.

"In Darfur, it would be better to help the Sudanese get over the crisis so their country is pacified rather than sanctions which would push them back to their misdeeds of old," junior foreign minister Renaud Muselier told Radio France Internationale.

"I am not sure that that position (of sanctions) is the best one given that the (Sudanese) government has started a peace process between the north and the south."

Muselier's comments appeared to undermine moves for sanctions proposed by the United States and Britain.

Considering that France actively supported and armed the side that perpetrated the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, maybe they should just shut the hell up.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:45 PM




Inexperienced

When I saw that Republicans were mobilizing to tag John Edwards as too inexperienced to be vice president, I was about to get all righteously indignant. The idea that Edwards, with 6 years of senate experience, is somehow unfit to be second-in-command is laughable considering that Bush was arguably even more inexperience when he decided that he wanted to be the Commander in Chief.

But then I thought about it a bit more and realized that, if anybody knows the dangers of having inexperienced people in positions of power, it's the Republicans.

Considering that Bush's presidency has been a monumental failure, I think his criticisms of Edwards are worth listening to.

Maybe the Bush campaign ought to start running anti-Edwards ads

I'm George Bush and I approve this ad.

It is a dangerous world, filled with war, terrorism and proliferating nuclear weapons. This is a time that demands experience and leadership, qualities that John Edwards simply does not possess.

After having a president who spent nearly half his time in office on vacation before 9/11, we all learned the dangers of having a lazy, inexperienced oaf occupying the White House. Furthermore, our economy is in the tank and our standing in the world has plummeted, all because this same inexperienced president had no understanding of, or idea how to handle, domestic or foreign affairs.

We cannot afford to let that happen again.

Re-elect President George Bush.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:47 AM




Morning Snark

It's not nearly as noble as the Daily Darfur, but I was grateful to Ruben Bolling for serving up an extra helping today.
Reality is the hottest thing in Hollywood! And the great thing is -- many of us live in it!


posted by Helena Montana at 9:44 AM




Daily Darfur

African Union peacekeepers heading to Darfur "will protect civilians as well as peace monitors and humanitarian workers, AU chairman Olusegun Obasanjo said Thursday." How 300 soldiers and 60 unarmed monitors are going to protect 1 million refugees in an area the size of France was not explained.

Oxfam says "this week is the true test of world leaders' commitment to solving the humanitarian crisis in Darfur."

The UN says aid agencies are desperately racing to get supplies to refugees in need but are already being hampered by the rains.

Some are warning that "Nigeria is heading for a violent implosion that would dwarf the crisis in Sudan's Darfur region."

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:17 AM


Wednesday, July 07, 2004


You're Electing the Court

The justices who serve on the U.S. Supreme Court aren't elected. But, even so, the complexion of the court over the coming years will be determined largely by this election. How could the court change depending upon the victor?

Columbia University Law Professor Michael C. Dorf tries to answer that question in this column on FindLaw.com:
Voters who are still undecided between President Bush and Senator Kerry would do well to contemplate how the (U.S. Supreme) Court could differ depending on which man prevails in November.

Extrapolating judicial decisions from the commitments of the President who nominates Justices is fraught with uncertainty. Nonetheless, whatever Ralph Nader may say about the interchangeability of Republicans and Democrats, when it comes to judicial appointments, a clear contrast emerges.

... Three Justices -- Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas -- remain committed to overturning Roe. Meanwhile, two of the Court's three oldest members -- Justices Stevens and O'Connor -- are part of the six-Justice majority for recognizing a constitutional right to abortion.

Should President Bush have the opportunity to name anti-Roe successors to these two Justices -- or to any two or more of the six Justices who oppose overturning Roe -- there is little reason to doubt that he would seize it. The result would be a Supreme Court majority for eliminating the constitutional right to abortion.

... A Bush victory will greatly increase the likelihood that Congress and the state legislatures will be able to ban most abortions at some point in the next four years. In contrast, a Kerry victory will almost surely preserve the status quo of legal abortion ...

On other issues as well, the differences between Bush and Kerry could prove decisive.

For example, last year, a 5-4 majority upheld preferences for disadvantaged racial minorities in law school admissions in Grutter v. Bollinger. The Bush Administration had filed a brief urging the Court to invalidate the program. A Bush victory in November could spell the end for affirmative action in higher education, and also more broadly -- for instance, in nearly all employment contexts as well.

Two years ago, in the case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, a different 5-4 majority upheld a Cleveland private school voucher program, despite the fact that 96 percent of the students who received the vouchers redeemed them at religiously affiliated schools. Should Kerry be elected, his nominees would likely side with the Zelman dissenters in insisting on a stricter separation of church and state.

... The Court is also closely divided on questions of states' rights. In the last seven years, the Court has invoked states' rights to invalidate all or part of the ... Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Violence Against Women Act; and the Americans with Disabilities Act ... it is fair to say that Bush Justices would be much more likely than Kerry Justices to invoke states' rights to strike down civil rights legislation.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 6:05 PM




Read Beyond the Headline

The Corner's John Derbyshire trumpets this AP story

U.S. Removes Two Tons of Uranium From Iraq

In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.

The nuclear material was secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility and airlifted out of the country to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory for further analysis, the department said in a statement.

Actually, he didn't so much trumpet it as he merely linked to it thusly

THIS WILL BE ALL OVER THE NY TIMES FRONT PAGE TOMORROW -- NOT!

I guess the implication is that it won't be in the New York Times because it is further proof that Iraq did indeed have WMDs and, as you know, the "liberal media" loves nothing more than to try to undermine the president.

Ignoring the fact that the NYT actually ran 2 articles on the topic today, these seem to be rather important paragraphs

Wilkes said ``a huge range of different isotopes'' were secured in the joint Energy Department and Defense Department operation. They had been used in Iraq for a range of medical and industrial purposes, such as testing oil wells and pipelines.

And

The radioactive sources included "a huge range of all types," including isotopes of the elements cobalt, cesium and strontium, Mr. Wilkes said. Such sources are commonly used to provide radiation for cancer treatments, or for industrial X-rays, he said. They can also be used to sterilize medical equipment or kill bacteria in food.

My God, Iraq was using radioactive material to treat cancer and sterilize medical equipment? The monsters! Good thing we bombed them.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 3:55 PM




Photographs That Tell the Story

Again, Times columnist Nicholas Kristof:
International attention is finally focusing on the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, but even with 10,000 people dying there each month, we haven't yet dared to call it genocide. To meet some of the people whose lives are at stake — orphans, widows, rape victims — see the slide show of my photos that I've put this web page.

Look them in the eye and try to say this isn't genocide.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 2:18 PM




Edwards Risk Is a Familiar One

From Nicholas Kristof's op-ed in today's New York Times:
"Is there a risk in choosing Mr. Edwards? Sure, Mr. Kerry might drop dead. Then we'd have a very inexperienced president -- again!"


posted by Frederick Maryland at 2:16 PM




Kazakhstan's Whore

In a special advertising supplement inside yesterday's Washington Post, U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) declares that the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan "is dynamically moving forward" and has "achieved democracy and personal freedoms ..." Cannon states, "A great deal of credit for Kazakhstan's coming of age should go to its leader, President Nursultan Nazarbaev." But Cannon offers no concrete evidence that anything resembling democracy exists in that nation.

On the other hand, this 2003 report by Human Rights Watch strongly suggests that President Nazarbayev deserves "credit" for an array of repressive and corrupt activities:
"... Kazakh government repression of independent media reached crisis proportions (in 2002), as journalists were attacked and beaten, threatened with death, and jailed. Media outlets connected to President Nursultan Nazarbaev's political rivals, and journalists who attempted to expose official corruption, were particular targets of the crackdown.

"... President Nazarbaev continued to consolidate economic and financial power while severely curtailing public inquiry into the alleged misuse of government oil revenues ... in late 2001 and early 2002 that the government secretly held approximately U.S.$1.4 billion in a Swiss bank account under Nazarbaev's control. After repeated government denials, on April 4 Prime Minister Imangaly Tasmagambetov confirmed the existence of the account ...

"... police and prosecutors sought to punish those who engaged in religious activity but were affiliated with unregistered religious groups. ... In a particularly disturbing case, on October 27, 2001 police in Kyzl-Orda province beat Asylbek Nurdanov, the leader of an unregistered Baptist church, and forcibly committed him to a mental institution; he was released on November 16.

"... Kazakhstan remained the only country in the region that was not a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."
Next to Congressman Cannon's statement (delivered on the House floor in June) is a box that lists the 12 political parties in Kazakhstan that "are expected to field candidates in the Parliamentary election" later this year. But according to an April '04 report by HRW:
"Unless the government and international community act now to protect political freedoms, the country's parliamentary elections, scheduled for October 2004, are unlikely to meet international standards.

"... On November 17, 2003, President Nazarbaev authorized Kazakhstan's signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This is also a welcome step, although as of this writing, the parliament has yet to ratify the treaty."
So does Congressman Cannon really believe that President Nazarbayev wants to "build [democracy] through hard work"? Or is Cannon simply providing political cover as payback for the country's support of the Bush administration's war on terrorism?

Let's hope, judging from the "news" section of Cannon's website, that human rights matter half as much to him as the men's volleyball team at Brigham Young University.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:05 PM




More on Judicial Nominations

As I mentioned earlier, Bush is traveling to North Carolina and Michigan to highlight the fact that judicial nominees from those states have been stalled by Democrats in the Senate.

Today, the White House released a fact sheet on the topic in which they made the following points

The extraordinary delays in the Senate are harming the administration of justice -- especially in North Carolina and Michigan.

Eight of these nine vacancies have been open more than 1,000 days.

The North Carolina appeals court vacancy has been open for nearly ten years and is the longest standing vacancy in the country (3,629 days).

One of the Michigan appeals court vacancies has been open more than nine years (3,355 days).

The District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina vacancy has been open more than six years and is the longest standing district court vacancy in the country.

Those seats sure have been open for a long time. I wonder why that is? Perhaps because, as Arnold explained,

For Clinton's entire eight years in office, not a single N.C. judge was confirmed to the 4th Circuit. The reason was that Jesse Helms unilaterally blocked them all under the "blue slip" process.

Since it is apparently so vital to fill these vacancies, maybe some Republicans will now explain why they intentionally kept some of them open for .... oh, six years.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:51 PM




Earth to the Chamber: "So What's New?"

Are you sitting down? A shocking bulletin courtesy of today's Washington Post -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is unhappy that John Kerry has chosen a former trial lawyer as his running mate. According to the Post:
"Thomas J. Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, vowed that his group would abandon its neutrality and work to defeat the Democrats."
Neutrality? In what galaxy is the Chamber’s ideology considered neutral? Consider this evidence and ask yourself whose side the Chamber has been on:
"I can't thank you all enough for your support, and I can't thank you enough for letting me come by and make my case."

President Bush, speech to the U.S. Chamber, April 16, 2001


"The Chamber urges opposition to any weakening amendments" to Senate Bill 14 that "attempt to implement the Kyoto Protocol through emission caps on, or mandatory reporting of, carbon dioxide" ... or that "mandate significant increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards" for cars.

U.S. Chamber letter to members of the U.S. Senate, May 6, 2003


"U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue is promoting overseas outsourcing of jobs as a way to boost the economy and even increase employment ... Donohue acknowledged the pain for people who have lost jobs to offshoring -- an estimated 250,000 a year, according to government estimates. But pockets of unemployment shouldn't lead to "anecdotal politics and policies," he said, and people affected by offshoring should "stop whining."

Rachel Konrad, staff writer, Associated Press, July 1, 2004


Four years ago, the U.S. Chamber's president said, "Solutions to expand access to (health care) coverage should build upon the successes of the employer-based system." But what Chamber officials didn't say in this press statement is that they aren't even firmly behind the principle that employers should feel obligated to provide health care coverage. In fact, this list from the Chamber's website offers small businesses an equal number of 'pros' and 'cons' as to whether they should offer health benefits. Paperwork "hassles" are among the Chamber’s cons, which include this advice: "There is a way for a small employer to control costs and return certainty to the process: push any additional costs on to employees. While that may solve the financial problems, it creates many others. Even if you don't want to push all the costs on to employees, pushing some of the costs on to them is inevitable."

U.S. Chamber press release, Jan. 13, 2000; U.S. Chamber's Online Small Business Center, accessed July 2004


"The Bush tax cuts had strong advocates here in the Chamber of Commerce, and we're very grateful for the support you provided for the effort."

Vice President Dick Cheney, speech to the Chamber, March 29, 2004


posted by Frederick Maryland at 12:30 PM




Daily Darfur

Republicans Sam Brownback and Frank Wolf recently returned from Darfur

"We heard countless stories about rape, murder and plunder. We talked to rape victims. We saw the scars on men who had been shot. We watched mothers cradle their sick and dying babies, hoping against all odds that their children would survive," [said Wolf]

[edit]

"It is ethnic cleansing. I believe that clearly the seeds of genocide have been sown in Darfur," Brownback said.

Human Rights Watch is urging U.N to impose sanctions on Khartoum and the Janjaweed militias it is accused of supporting.

Fighting between the Janjaweed and SLM/A and JEM killed at least 70 and displaced thousands more.

The UN says the Janjaweed are now attacking humanitarian convoys.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:14 AM




Holmes and Other Judges

The following Democrats are punks for helping to confirm J. Leon Holmes by a vote of 51-46

Breaux (D-LA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)

The following Republicans deserves credit for voting against him

Chafee (R-RI)
Collins (R-ME)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Snowe (R-ME)
Warner (R-VA)

Thanks to these Democrats, Bush has managed to get another anti-choice right wing nut job onto the bench - one who thinks, among other things, that the proper role of "the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband."

In other judge-related news, Bush is traveling to North Carolina today where he is scheduled to deliver a speech complaining that his judicial nominees are being treated poorly by the Democrats in the Senate.

So, as a little pre-emptive strike, I encourage you to take a look at this Committee for Justice chart (pdf format) chronicling annual judicial confirmations since 1980. It isn't accurate for Bush, but what it shows is that he has had more judges confirmed in his first term than Reagan or his father, and is only a few confirmations behind Clinton

Reagan - Judges Confirmed During First Term: 164
Bush I - Judges Confirmed During First Term: 194
Clinton - Judges Confirmed During First Term: 202
GW Bush - Judges Confirmed During First Term: 197

And if Republicans want to argue percentages, Bush is doing better there too

Reagan - Percentage of Nominees Confirmed During First Term: 88%
Bush I - Percentage of Nominees Confirmed During First Term: 73%
Clinton - Percentage of Nominees Confirmed During First Term: 81%
GW Bush - Percentage of Nominees Confirmed During First Term: 88%

Of course, I don't expect Republicans to let "the facts" get in the way of complaining about obstruction.

If you want a good collection of judicial stats, check out this Congressional Research Service report (pdf format) "Judicial Nomination Statistics: U.S. District and Circuit Courts, 1977-2003."

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:29 AM


Tuesday, July 06, 2004


The Prognostications of Dick Morris

Back in May, Morris was telling Bill O'Reilly that the chances of Kerry naming Hillary Clinton as his Vice President were "100%"

The [Kerry] campaign is falling apart. The base needs to be energized. You have got to go with Hillary.

[edit]

O'REILLY: Well, why does she want to be vice president, why would she want that job?

MORRIS: Because somebody is going to have it. If the job were repealed, she'd be fine. But somebody is going to be Kerry's vice president if he wins, and if it is not Hillary, that person is going to be the Democratic candidate in 2012.

O'REILLY: All right. That makes sense. And that is why they don't want Senator -- I'm fogging out, from North Carolina. I can't believe I can't remember.

MORRIS: Edwards.

O'REILLY: Edwards.

MORRIS: Which does Kerry no good. I mean, the South isn't going to vote for a vice president.

O'REILLY: OK. So you believe that Bill Clinton is pushing for the V.P. But Kerry doesn't really like Hillary. There's no -- but JFK didn't like LBJ, so that doesn't...

MORRIS: Exactly. There's no great -- there's no hatred there, I mean, after all, they did help Kerry. Mary Beth Cahill and other people were people who both came from Kennedy and from Clinton. And I think that there's a -- I think that ultimately, Kerry is going to get the message that he's going to be picking knives out of his back all September and October unless he takes a hostage named Hillary and puts her on his ticket.

[edit]

O'REILLY: Listen, I have no -- I think it would be an interesting choice myself. I don't have any...

MORRIS: It would guarantee 100 percent...

I now look forward to hearing Morris explain how Kerry picking Edwards is all part of some diabolical Clintonian plan.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:54 AM




The Other Noteworthy News

The news that will dominate the media attention this Tuesday is John Kerry's announcement of Edwards as his running-mate. Given the options Kerry had, I think he made the best choice. Edwards has the potential to help Kerry appeal to independents and other swing voters, and Edwards' presence on the ticket immediately helps to put North Carolina into play.

But the most troubling news today for the Bush White House isn't political -- it's economic. Reuters' business desk reports:
Oil prices rose to their highest level in a month on Tuesday ($39.33 a barrel) as supply disruptions in Iraq and Nigeria added momentum to a five-day rally .... U.S. oil has gained almost four dollars since last Tuesday in a rally carried along by Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi's comments that oil prices were "fair."
Kerry and Edwards should remind voters not only of rising gas prices, but particularly of the Bush administration's opposition to raising CAFE standards -- the fuel efficiency of automobiles.

The White House and Congress did the Saudis and other major oil producers a big favor when they blocked a 2001 Senate plan to raise those standards. Kerry and Senator John McCain co-sponsored the Senate proposal. It would have saved 2 million barrels of oil a day. But when you're as tied to the oil and natural gas industries as Bush & Co. are, rising oil prices aren't bad; they're good. From this crowd's perspective, rising oil prices make domestic drilling more financial viable and they make natural gas prices more competitive.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:50 AM




Unexpected Resistance

There have been many stories lately about the Bush-Cheney campaign's plan to organize voters through churches. Well, it appears their little scheme may have been too cagey even among their strongest, Christian fundamentalist-leaning supporters. When the Baptists and the Evangelicals are offended, you know BC04 may have some serious problems.
Southern Baptist church-state specialist Richard Land said he is “appalled” at an effort by President Bush’s re-election campaign that includes seeking possession of the membership directories of churches.

Bush-Cheney ’04 has provided coalition coordinators with a sheet asking them to give their church directories to the campaign, talk to church groups about the re-election effort and distribute “Voter Guides” in the churches. The instructions consist of 22 responsibilities and the deadlines by which they should be completed prior to the Nov. 2 election.

“I’m appalled that the Bush-Cheney campaign would intrude on a local congregation in this way,” said Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “It’s one thing for the church to have a voter registration drive, to seek to inform church members on public policy issues, to encourage church members to fulfill their Christian duty and vote, and to encourage them to vote their values, beliefs and convictions. It’s another thing entirely for a partisan campaign to ask church members to bring in church directories for use as contact lists by the campaign and to seek to come into the church and do a voter registration drive and distribute campaign literature.”

A leader in the National Association of Evangelicals had a similar take.

It sounds like “an overzealous campaign worker ... stepped over the line of appropriate behavior,” said Richard Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the NAE. “[W]hen party officials, whether Republican or Democrat, do that, it’s simply the obligation of church members to determine what is appropriate, ethical and legal and to say, ‘No.’”

The Bush-Cheney campaign defended the effort.

“By no means are we calling on people to conduct political activity at their places of worship,” campaign spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Baptist Press. “Our approach is peer-to-peer contact.

“We believe that people of faith have the right do engage in the political process,” she said. It is the campaign’s job to identify those religious adherents who support Bush but did not vote in 2000 and turn them out for the election, she said, adding, “We are just trying to engage more of our fellow citizens in the political process.”

The instruction sheet, which was provided to BP by a source other than the Bush-Cheney campaign, includes the following:

-- “Send your Church Directory to your State Bush-Cheney ’04 headquarters or give [it] to a BC04 Field Rep.

-- “Identify another conservative church in your community who you can organize for Bush.

-- “Talk to your Pastor about holding a Citizenship Sunday and Voter Registration Drive.

-- “Begin to organize a voter registration drive at your church.

-- “Talk to your Church’s seniors or 20-30 something group about Bush/Cheney ’04.

-- “Finish calling all Pro-Bush members of your church and encourage them to vote.”

It also instructs coordinators to host on two occasions a “Party for the President” with church members and to distribute voter guides on the two Sundays before the election. It does not specify the source of the voter guides.

The request for church directories to be given to the campaign disturbed Land the most, he said. If he were a pastor, Land said, he would tell members from the pulpit that for them to give their directories to a campaign is a “violation of the trust of your fellow church members and of the body collectively, just as it would be inappropriate to share it with a marketing group.”

Land supports church involvement in voter registration and education. The ERLC is promoting its own effort and Internet site, iVoteValues.com, to encourage Christians to register and for churches to sponsor nonpartisan voter registration and education efforts.

“The bottom line is -- when a church does it, it’s nonpartisan and appropriate. When a campaign does it, it’s partisan and inappropriate,” Land said.


posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:41 AM




Whatever Happened to the NCLB Revolt?

Stateline has an interesting piece on how last year's much-ballyhooed grassroots rebellion to the President's education policy panned out.
At the height of this yearÂ?s backlash against President BushÂ?s signature domestic policy initiative, 27 state legislatures drafted 54 bills to protest the costs, penalties and unprecedented federal oversight of school policy under the 2002 act.
Yeah, I remember that, plus lots of media coverage to boot. But as the story notes, only 3 states (all with GOP governors) signed bills criticizing NCLB and no state joined the NEA's call to file suit against the law. But that's never the point in the fights. The saber-rattling did have some effect though.
Fearing election-year fallout, the Education Department made several changes to its rules enforcing the law, which sets out to raise student performance and requires states to give annual reading and mathematics tests to students in third- through eighth-grade and 10th grade.

Behind the scenes, at least 40 state agencies currently are negotiating for even greater flexibility in federal rules to try to reduce the number of schools penalized by the act. Since the law was passed, more than a quarter of the nation's schools have been tagged as 'needing improvement.'
Does that mean that this has all faded into the wonky background, not to be brought up again this year? Don't count on it.
Some analysts predict renewed political furor over the law if the number of penalized schools increases as expected when this year's testing results are released by states through the summer and early fall.


posted by Helena Montana at 10:15 AM




Look Ma! No legs!

Update on the upcoming Federal Marriage Amendment vote...
Despite an intense lobbying effort last week by advocates of a constitutional ban on gay marriage, several senators locked in close reelection contests say they have yet to feel pressure from constituents to support the amendment.
...
But although the coalition sent out updates on where Daschle
and other senators it considers to be on the fence on the issue would
be appearing, Daschle campaign spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said gay
marriage was not on the minds of the crowds.

The constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a
union between a man and a woman "didn't come up once," Pfeiffer said.
"We've heard from almost no one."
...
Tom McClusky, director of government affairs for the Family
Research Council, acknowledged that the lobbying effort was an
attempt to influence the election, even if just to let voters know
where each senator stands on the issue.


posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:14 AM




The Hazards of Channel-Surfing

Last night, a journey through the channels offered by my cable TV operator brought this couch potato face-to-face with the CNBC television show hosted by Dennis Miller, conservatives' newest fire-breathing dragon of the airwaves.

What pearls of wisdom did Miller have to impart? Let's see .... French President Jacques Chirac is "a punk." Miller likes President Bush because he "has balls." (So did Chancellor Hitler when he ordered the German luftwaffe to assist General Franco's forces in Spain by conducting a three hour-plus bombing raid of the city of Guernica in 1937 -- the first sustained aerial bombardment of a civilian population.)

Just before he offered these assessments of world leaders, Miller interviewed actor Robert Gant, a gay man who stars in Showtime's series "Queer As Folk." Miller pronounced himself a supporter of gay marriage, but warned Gant in a most condescending tone that he and other gay people shouldn't "overplay your hand."

That's tellin' 'em, Dennis. Those gays should consider themselves lucky to make it through the weekend without being bashed. Don't they know how great it is to live in America?

posted by Frederick Maryland at 9:57 AM




Daily Darfur

The African Union plans on sending 300 peacekeepers to Darfur where they will join some 150 unarmed African Union monitors. Provided Khartoum cooperates, the peacekeepers will protect refugees in Sudan and Chad.

Khartoum has also pledged to disarm the Janjaweed, but

Sudanese refugees have heard promises before. When the government and rebel groups signed an April 8 cease-fire, some returned to the ruins of their villages to rebuild — only to be attacked all over again.

[edit]

Even if el-Bashir's government is serious about disarming the militias, some humanitarian workers in Darfur privately questioned their ability to contain the armed bands, which roam a vast and desolate region the size of France. In previous disarmament efforts in Liberia and Sierra Leone, fighters lay down their weapons only to pick them up again soon after because they could find no better work.

Government and human rights groups are still contemplating whether genocide is taking place - many say it does not meet the legal definition

Jean-Hervé Bradol, head of Médecins Sans Frontières, also said last week after returning from visiting MSF projects in Darfur that the use of the term genocide was inappropriate, speaking instead of "a mass campaign of repression directed against civilians".

Wesley Clark and John Prendergast say

The time has come for decisive action by the West and Africa aimed at preventing a full-scale famine and bringing peace to this long-suffering country.

And finally, France (which has donated a whopping $3.5 million dollars in humanitarian aid compared to the nearly $200 million the US has donated) is coming a little late to the game and getting in a little grandstanding.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:20 AM


Monday, July 05, 2004


Try, Try Again

From Cheney's July 4th speech in New Orleans:
Cheney said Hussein sent a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service to Sudan to train al-Qaeda in bomb-making and document-forgery. Cheney said Hussein was part of a terrorist threat that was largely unchecked before Bush's presidency.
I also heard that when Bin Laden was a child that he had a dog named Saddam and that when Saddam was a child he had a kitten named Osama! Coincidence? I think not! Their ties are irrefutable!

Also, here is an early report about the next target in Bush's war to end all wars. (Hint: it's not at all who you might expect.)



posted by Zoe Kentucky at 7:01 PM




Irony Alert

In Chareston, WV, during Bush's speech on the 4th of July, the following anti-American activity happened in the presence of our dear leader:
Two Bush opponents, taken out of the crowd in restraints by police, said they were told they could not be there because they were wearing shirts that said they opposed the President.
If that is indeed the whole story and the protesters weren't doing anything to actually disrupt Bush's speech, that is totally f*cked up.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 6:55 PM



Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com