American politiX

Live Blogging: Presidential Address

2005-09-15T21:03:00.000-04:00

9:02 PM - President Bush's walk to the podium was a bad start. In 2001, it would have worked. But now everyone is so used to these dramatic entrances that appear forced and a little phony.

9:04 PM - The president's story about the citizen who lost everything but his spirit was a nice touch. While it is a political trick used by all politicians to tell a "real" story, it still works.

9:07 PM - Will President Bush address the issue of race? He has to. If he doesn't, he is a coward. I hope he does. It is important for the nation that we have an honest discussion about race and Katrina.

9:11 PM - I'm glad that the president has credited those who have opened their doors to evacuees. Those are the real heroes, and I'm glad they weren't overlooked.

9:14 PM - The president appears to be doing OK, not great. I do have a problem with his words about the rebuilding without any explanation of his administration's decision to suspend the federal Davis-Bacon law, which guarantees that all construction jobs be paid a fair wage.

Most should suspect that our tax dollars will go to increasing big corporations' bottom lines, while they exploit illegal aliens, not U.S. citizens, for their labor.

9:18 PM - The president is listing his three initiatives, and he mentioned tax cuts for businesses in the New Orleans area. From a policy standpoint, this is a good idea. From a political standpoint, the president should have not made this his number one priority. The president is becoming predictable when it comes to tax cuts. It's always his first priority.

This wouldn't be bad except for the way that Republicans have put tax cuts over other priorities in dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Immediately after the disaster, the RNC pushed for eliminating the estate tax. Then Congress wanted to extend tax cuts for capital gains and dividend income. Shameless!

9:20 PM - The president just mentioned "weapons of mass destruction." I hope he didn't really mean "weapons of mass destruction programs!"

9:24 PM - The president is talking about how strong we are as a nation. This is the kind of talk that America needs to hear. Of course, it would have been nice if he said this a week ago, but I guess it is better late than never.

9:25 PM - The speech is over. Not as strong an ending as we are used to from this president. I can't see how this speech solves the president's problems.

9:28 PM - I'm still amazed at how weak the speech's closing was. The president tried too hard to speak in terms that the people of New Orleans would understand, but it didn't appear as if he felt it. It was just like John Kerry when he went hunting in Ohio. Just a little too phony.

9:31 PM - FOX News has four right-wing conservatives critiquing the speech. How fair & balanced! It's too bad that FOX is so willing to mislead its viewers. It's even worse that there are people that buy this stuff.

9:34 PM - The woman on FOX News discussed how Bush appeared to take an LBJ-style liberal view on poverty when addressing the United Nations this week. Of course, most believe that liberals better handle domestic issues. It is wise for the president to lurch left.

9:35 PM - Sean Hannity has Governor Barbour on the show. I wonder how long until the smearing of Governor Blanco begins! She has done a remarkable job. She has handled two storms - Hurricane Katrina and the attacks launched at her by Republicans in Washington.

9:38 PM - On MSNBC, Tucker Carlson, who just called himself a "right-winger," is ripping the speech, because the president came across as "liberal-lite." The president acknowledged that racism causes poverty and has proposed more government. Tucker believes that the right-wing base of the Republican Party is going to be upset with the speech.

9:40 PM - "He (President Bush) is a big spender," said self-proclaimed right-winger Tucker Carlson.

9:43 PM - Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland has given the president some credit for taking a more liberal approach to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. He did say that "the devil is in the details," and this is so true. Vague policy speeches are fine, but let's see what the Bush administration does with it.

9:45 PM - Cummings blasted all those critics who are discussing cost. He mentioned that this is about human lives, not money. Well said Congressman.

His comment about how if we can rebuild Iraq, we can surely rebuild the Gulf Coast was brilliant!

9:46 PM - Barbour is now on MSNBC. He talking about tax cuts and how important they are. Apparently, Barbour got the RNC talking points.

9:47 PM - Chris Matthews asked Barbour if he agreed with Blanco's statement that the federal government should pick up 100% of the tab to clean up the Gulf Coast. Barbour dodged the question and Matthews let him off the hook. It is a shame how the Republicans have made this disaster such a partisan issue.

9:50 PM - A black business owner said that he doesn't think racism is the biggest issue. He said that it is money and whether businesses in New Orleans are used or whether the federal government outsources all the work to carpet baggers.

9:54 PM - Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) is speaking to Rita Crosby. He's talking tax cuts too. Again, those RNC talking points really made the rounds.

Vitter is an absolute embarrassment to the state. He came out initially after the storm and attacked the federal government. Then when he remembered that he was a Republican, he flip-flopped and praised the federal government, while attacking Governor Blanco. What a disgrace!

9:58 PM - Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said that the speech probably came up short. Brinkley said the speech was 10-days late, it was not a memorable speech, and it won't stop the loss of confidence that people now have in the president.

UPDATE: Read the speech transcript. View the speech at Inside Politics at CNN.

Compassionate Conservatism among casualties of Katrina

2005-09-09T23:21:00.000-04:00

As the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina unfolds on television, Americans are increasingly disgusted with the lack of leadership shown by the Bush administration. President George W. Bush has scored low marks with the American people, with an overwhelming majority saying that he botched the handling of the infamous category 5 hurricane that hit the Gulf Coast two weeks ago.

According to a recent CBS poll, only 38 percent of Americans approved of Bush's response to the hurricane, while Zogby found only 36 percent of Americans approved of President Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina. The Pew Research Center had the worst news for Bush, showing only 28 percent of Americans approving of Bush's response to the hurricane [PDF - 84 KB].

The Bush White House is desperately trying to salvage their public relations nightmare. Today, the Brownie was out and the girl scout was in. Michael D. Brown, head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was ousted from his position overseeing the hurricane cleanup, and former Bush Communication czar, Karen Hughes was brought in as the Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy. If anyone can spin the White House out of this mess, it is the French-born Karen Hughes.

Unfortunately for Hughes, too many Republicans have gone off script and have given her more work than necessary. Republicans love to tell people that they care about average Americans, not just the rich ones. Sadly, no one's buying it. And this week, too many Republicans showed their true colors. Here are some memorable quotes by our favorite compassionate conservatives.

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them."

- Barbara Bush, showing that blue blood that has been a strong Bush family trait - 09/05/05

"While countless Americans are pulling together to lend a helping hand, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are pointing fingers in a shameless effort to tear us apart."

- RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, responding to the Democrats' call for accountability - 09/07/05

"The Senate needs to do its part by making tax relief permanent and burying the death tax (estate tax) forever."

- RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, discussing the RNC's top priority as thousands of fellow Americans die in the South - 09/01/05 (only 3 days after the hurricane hit the Gulf Coast)

"Given the abysmal failure of state and local officials in Louisiana to plan adequately for or respond to the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the city of New Orleans, and given the long history of public corruption in Louisiana, I hope the House will refrain from directly appropriating any funds from the public treasury to either the state of Louisiana or the city of New Orleans."

- Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Texas), writing Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) and calling for a halt to emergency funds to the areas hithard by Hurricane Katrina - 09/07/05

"We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did."

- Congressman Richard Baker (R-Louisiana), overheard speaking to a group of lobbyists.

"I mean, you have people who don't heed those (hurricane) warnings and then put people at risk as a result of not heeding those warnings. There may be a need to look at tougher penalties on those who decide to ride it out and understand that there are consequences to not leaving."

- Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) - 09-03 or 04/05

"Moral of the story: People were warned to get out. Those who stayed paid a price for that decision. If you rely on the government, you’re likely to be disappointed. No government can protect you or provide for you. You have to do it yourself. If a Category 5 story is headed your way, get out fast."

- Right-wing TV and radio commentator Bill O'Reilly - 09-02-05

"It looks like a lot of that place (New Orleans) could be bulldozed."

- U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) - 08/31/05

"Some people chose not to obey that (evacuation order). That was a mistake on their part."

- U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, blaming the victims of Hurricane Katrina

"Unfortunately, that's going to be attributable a lot to people who did not heed the advance warnings. I don't make judgments about why people chose not to leave but, you know, there was a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans. And to find people still there is just heart-wrenching to me because, you know, the mayor did everything he could to get them out of there. So, we've got to figure out some way to convince people that whenever warnings go out it's for their own good. Now, I don't want to second guess why they did that. My job now is to get relief to them."

- Michael D. Brown, DHS Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Emergency Preparedness and Response

Scalia and Thomas are big losers in Roberts CJ nomination

2005-09-05T12:15:00.000-04:00

As featured today on Daily Kos.

This morning, President George W. Bush nominated Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to be the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. This nomination comes in the wake of the death of former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died over the weekend from cancer at the age of 80 years old.

While liberal groups will never admit it, this is good news for their cause. Roberts is seen to be conservative, but much less so than his likely predecessor. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has promised to remain on the court until her replacement is found, so for the brief time that Roberts is the Chief and the Court is filled at nine sitting justices, the U.S. Supreme Court will actually be more liberal than the court under Rehnquist.

The big losers in this announcement are the extreme right-wing activists, particularly those of the religious right, who have been hoping for a Chief Justice Scalia or Thomas. Both of those scenarios are now impossible.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are extremely conservative and very activist jurists. If the religious right and those in the conservative community were hoping for a court aimed at overturning liberal precedence, those were the two men they needed in the Chief Justice position.

While he is conservative, Roberts has been a vocal advocate for judicial restraint and does not feel that the Court should actively overturn precedence. Roberts has told senators privately that he will "respect settled law" if approved to the Supreme Court. This statement is important for those who fear Roberts might vote to overturn the 1973 landmark case, Roe v. Wade, which recognized a woman's right to privacy when making reproductive decisions.

This morning's announcement is historic. The big winner is obviously Judge Roberts. At the age of 50, he is guaranteed to head the High Court for possibly 30 or 40 years.

Believe it or not, the other winners are the liberal groups, like NARAL, People For the American Way, and others. Of course, they'll never be happy with any of Bush's nominees, but this is definitely the best that they could ever hope for.

The big losers are the right-wing groups, like Progress For America, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and especially the religious right, who will now witness a U.S. Supreme Court that will briefly move to the left but in the end stay virtually the same.

And of course, the biggest losers are Justices Scalia and Thomas. These two men dreamed of heading the High Court, and Bush would have preferred to select one of them for Chief. Unfortunately, timing is everything, and Rehnquists death prior to the Roberts' hearing ruled out their chances and extinguished their dreams of serving as Chief Justice of the United States.

BREAKING NEWS: Chief Justice Rehnquist dies

2005-09-03T23:37:00.000-04:00

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the ultraconservative activist jurist on the nation's highest court, has passed away at his home in Virginia. Rehnquist was 80 years old.

"The Chief Justice battled thyroid cancer since being diagnosed last October and continued to perform his dues on the court until a precipitous decline in his health the last couple of days," said Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg.

Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1971 by President Richard Nixon and was elevated to Chief Justice by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. During his time as head of the court, the Rehnquist Court proved to be the most activist court in U.S. history, striking down more acts of Congress than any other court.

The death of Rehnquist creates an opportunity for President George W. Bush to nominate another conservative jurist to the bench. But the death of the leading activist conservative doesn't give the president much room to move to the right.

With the confirmation hearings for Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. scheduled to begin on Tuesday, the whole situation may get flipped on its head. How will the extremist groups on the right and those groups on the left react? Will the fight intensify? My guess is yes.

UPDATE: Conservative pundit George Will, on ABC News' This Week, declared the Rehnquist Court to be the most activist in American history, striking down 30 acts of Congress. This number has not even been approached by any other court. The panel also noted the most activist decision of the Court's history, Bush v. Gore, which occurred under Rehnquist's watch.

Help the victims of Hurricane Katrina

2005-08-30T23:02:00.000-04:00

Hurricane Katrina is behind us, but for many the pain is just beginning. Whether you're a bleeding-heart liberal or a compassionate conservative, please give what you can to help our fellow Americans in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, and elsewhere.

Below is a post by DNC contributor Josh McConaha on the Democratic National Committee's blog. In order to be bipartisan, I checked the Republican National Committee's web site to include their message as well, but nothing was available.

The DNC blog posting provides very important information regarding the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Even after being hit by Katrina, the situation in the Gulf states continues to worsen...

In Mississippi, hundreds are feared dead.

Helicopters plucked frantic survivors from rooftops of inundated homes on Tuesday and officials said hundreds of people may have died in Hurricane Katrina's attack on the U.S. Gulf Coast, which sent a wall of water into Mississippi and flooded New Orleans.

The economic cost of the hurricane's rampage could be the highest in U.S. history, according to damage estimates.

"The devastation is greater than our worst fears," Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco told a news conference. "It's totally overwhelming."

New Orleans is filling with water. The mayor is saying 80% of the city is underwater.

The historic city of New Orleans was steadily filling with water from nearby Lake Ponchartrain on Tuesday after its defenses were breached by the ferocity of hurricane Katrina.

With the floodwaters rising in many areas, threatening the French Quarter, residents were plucked from the roofs of their homes, bodies were seen floating in the streets and rescuers searched the city in boats and helicopters.

"We probably have 80 percent of our city under water; with some sections of our city the water is as deep as 20 feet. Both airports are underwater," Mayor Ray Nagin told a radio interviewer.

Troops in Iraq are worried about what's happened to their homes and families...

"It's a significant emotional event. Their families are on the forefront of the disaster," said Lt. Col. Jordan Jones of the 141st Field Artillery of the Louisiana National Guard.

"They're all watching TV and some have seen their neighborhoods completely submerged in water."

Jones, from Luling on the west bank of Lake Pontchartrain, said he hasn't been in touch with his own family for three days because of clogged phone lines, but that his neighbors had helped board up their home.

"It's hard, a lot of soldiers are watching this play-by-play, they're having a hard time," said Lt. Taysha Deaton, a spokeswoman for the unit.

Take time now to visit the American Red Cross website and donate to the relief efforts. This is bigger than politics - so many have already lost so much, we as a country need to band together to help.

Well said Josh!

Harris stumbles on abortion issue

2005-08-28T22:23:00.000-04:00

In an act of desperation, Congresswoman Katherine Harris (R-Sarasota) has decided to debate abortion in her attempt to unseat Democratic Senator Bill Nelson. Unfortunately for her, Harris has taken an extreme position that places her well outside the mainstream of Florida's voters, and she has flip-flopped as compared to prior statements.

Senator Bill Nelson is one of the United States Senate's true moderate politicians. He isn't with the conservatives, and he isn't with the liberals. He is truly camped out in the middle, along with most of Florida and the nation. Nelson's GOP opponent, Katherine Harris, used to be a centrist, but now as the Republican base becomes narrower and more extreme, Harris has been forced to the extreme right.

Running too far to the right or to the left is a losing strategy in Florida, a state famous for its centrist views. Harris may feel that she must move to the far right in order to shore up support among reliable GOP voters, but as a result, she may be torpedoing herself among swing voters before the campaign even begins.

Harris now states that she is against abortion in all cases, even if the failure to terminate a pregnancy results in the death of the mother. This position is so far to the extreme that according to a recent poll, only 16.1% share her view on this issue [PDF - 368 KB]. Bill Nelson, on the other hand, shares the values of the overwhelming majority of Americans and Floridians when it comes to abortion rights. Nelson opposes government control over the reproductive rights of women, but he favors parental notification for minors obtaining abortions and he favors a ban on late-term abortions. According to a study by the centrist political group, The Third Way, Nelson's position is shared by 62.8% of the nation's voters [PDF - 368 KB].

The fact that Harris is so far outside the mainstream on the issue of abortion is bad enough, but what makes it worse is that she has taken a 180 degree turn on the matter. In 1994 when she first ran for the Florida Senate, Harris was a pro-abortion candidate. That year, pro-life groups attempted to claim Harris as one of their candidates, but she fought them over the issue. Harris opposed the pro-life groups, claiming that she was pro-choice.

According to Barbara Zdravecky, executive director of Planned Parenthood in Sarasota County, Harris met with her prior to the 1994 election and voiced her support for abortion rights. Now according to Zdravecky, "Definitely, she's (Harris) changed."

Katherine Harris is in a heap of trouble. Polls show her falling far behind Senator Nelson, and she has been the subject of countless attacks by members of her own party. (Democrats have largely ignored her.) Now as she tries to jump start her campaign, she chooses a losing issue. Not only does she choose a minority view (opposing abortion even if necessary to save the life of the mother), but she flip-flops from her prior statements.

No one will ever know for sure what Katherine Harris believes. Is she pro-abortion, like she was in 1994, or is she anti-abortion, like she says she is today?

Harris apparently only believes in getting elected to higher office, and she is obviously willing to say whatever it takes to get there.

Joke of the day

2005-08-19T10:15:00.000-04:00

A Marine squad was marching north of Basra when they came upon an insurgent soldier badly injured and unconscious. Nearby, on the opposite side of the road, was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state.

The Marine was conscious and alert.

As first aid was given to both men, the Marine was asked what had happened. The Marine reported, "I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent.

Seeing each other we both took cover. I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein was a miserable low-life scumbag, and he yelled back that President Bush is a rich, good-for-nothing egotist."

"We were standing there shaking hands when a truck hit us."

Religious right group protests military funerals

2005-08-08T08:39:00.000-04:00

While more radical than Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and James Kennedy, the Reverend Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas has been a notorious leader of the religious right in this country. For years, Phelps has joined those on the right by expressing his concern that America is becoming a Godless nation due to its support of homosexuality. Now because of his extreme opposition to gay Americans, Phelps and his church are leading a series of protests at the funerals of fallen U.S. servicemen simply because they fought for a country that he views as pro-gay.

On Friday, Phelps and members of the WBC congregation protested across the street from the funeral services of 21-year-old Spc. Edward Myers who was killed in Iraq. (See video footage.) The church group claimed that they would protest any soldier who fought on behalf of a country that is Godless and supports homosexuality. Phelps' congregation is different from most anti-war protestors. They are not protesting the war, like activists on the left, but rather celebrating the war because it is taking the lives of U.S. soldiers. They are however protesting the memory of the troops. The Phelps' congregation protested another funeral on Saturday afternoon and is planning more in the coming weeks.

Reverend Phelps gained national media attention by mobilizing his church after the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard. On October 7, 1998, Shepard, a 21 year old student from Wyoming, was robbed, severely beaten, tied to a fence, and left to die solely because he was gay. The crime caused national outrage and renewed an effort to add crimes against homosexuals to national hate crime legislation. Phelps felt strongly that Shepard was doomed to eternity in hell because of his sexual orientation and led a protest at the slain 21 year old's funeral. In recent years, the Phelps church has protested funerals of AIDS victims, claiming that the deadly disease is God's retaliation against homosexuals.

Phelps has had some interaction with politics. In the early 1990s, Phelps and his WBC congregation openly campaigned for the Clinton-Gore ticket, stating that he believed the WBC could influence Vice President Al Gore to support an anti-gay agenda once in office. When the congregation observed that the opposite was true, Phelps and others openly protested the Clinton administration, even traveling to Iraq to support Saddam Hussein who was at the time the subject of attacks by the United States. When former Senator Albert Gore, Sr. passed away, Phelps protested the funeral, yelling at the Vice President "your dad's in Hell." Currently while Phelps is not affiliated with any major political parties or groups, his ideology is closer to those in the religious conservative community.

Phelps is by far the most extreme of the anti-gay crusaders, but he is not alone. Just following 9/11, conservative televangalists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson stated that the deadly terrorist attacks were the fault of liberal groups and individuals, including homosexuals.

Falwell said, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

Robertson said, "Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system."

Falwell and Robertson later apologized for their over-the-top language, but don't expect Phelps to do the same. The Westboro Baptist Church has been around for many years, and they do not appear to be going anywhere. All that Phelps and the WBC can do is serve as a reminder that too often the "Christian right" is neither.

Florida discussion leads to Novak's suspension from CNN

2005-08-05T06:33:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, conservative columnist Robert Novak lost his cool during a debate with Democratic stategist James Carville and used profanity on the air. Immediately following the spectacle, CNN announced that Bob Novak would be temporarily suspended from the network.

The two political veterans were discussing the upcoming senate race in Florida, where after yesterday's announcement by Speaker Allan Bense (R-Panama City) that he would not be running, the GOP nominee in waiting appears to be Congresswoman Katherine Harris (R-Sarasota). She will face current Senator Bill Nelson in the general election.

During the back-and-forth, Carville tried to interject, but Novak would not let him speak. Here is the discussion from the CNN transcript:

CARVILLE: Yes. You know the two happiest people in America today about this decision, is Bill Nelson and Jay Leno. I mean --

(ED) HENRY: Bill Nelson the Democratic Senator.

CARVILLE: The Democratic Senator and Jay Leno. That -- I mean, they're going to go nuts over this. They're messing with my make-up, but you really don't know who it is. I mean, let's say this: She's going to be good for the humor circuit. She's going to be good for the speech circuit and she's good for a lot. And I think that Nelson -- I think, it's probably no secret that the White House wanted the speaker to run and I suspect that the Nelson people are, you know, feeling pretty good here today.

NOVAK: A couple of points here: The first place, don't be too sure she's going to lose. All the establishment's against her and I've seen these Republican -- anti-establishment candidates who do pretty well. Ronald Reagan, I guarantee you that the establishment wasn't for him. We just elected a senator from Oklahoma, Senator Tom Coburn, everybody in the establishment was against him. She might get elected -- So, wait. Just let me finish what I'm going to say, James. Please, I know you hate to hear me, but you have...

CARVILLE: He's got to show these right wingers that he's got backbone. [It's why the Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you.] Show them you're tough.

NOVAK: Well, I think that's bullshit. And I hate that. Just let it go. (Novak leaves set.)

HENRY: OK. James, what do you think though, seriously about this Senate race, James, that the -- that basically the Katherine Harris and Bill Nelson, if they do square off, what do you think -- what will that mean for Bill Nelson? He's considered an endangered incumbent.

CARVILLE: Yeah. I don't think -- I think it's actually pretty good news that far down, because I think they thought this speaker would be a tougher guy. It was just one of these things. I think Nelson's feeling pretty good right now. It won't be a primary. He'd rather not have a primary. But I suspect he's feeling pretty good.

Novak is facing a great deal of pressure due to his role in the entire Plamegate scandal, where a White House aide may have leaked the name of a covert CIA agent to the press for political gain.

There is much speculation that Novak cut a deal with the special prosecutor, and many have questioned the columnist's integrity. Carville's comment about the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page was a dig at Novak and may be seen by some as a shot below the belt.

Novak's freakout on the air is further evidence that the Plamegate scandal is still hot and will not be going away anytime soon.

Below are links to the video. Do not use more than one link; the videos are all the same. Multiple URLs have been provided in case you experience high traffic at one in particular.

Media Matter (view only): http://mediamatters.org/items/200508040004

Crooks and Liars #1 (WMP): http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Inside-Politics-Novak-Freaks.wmv

Crooks and Liars #2 (QT): http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Novak-flips-out.mov

Crooks and Liars #3 (WMP - best quality with extra footage): http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_ip_novak_walk_off_set_050804a.wmv

Crooks and Liars #4 (QT): http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_ip_novak_walk_off_set_050804a.mov

BREAKING NEWS: President Bush appoints John Bolton as United Nations Ambassador

2005-08-01T10:07:00.000-04:00

President George W. Bush just appointed John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations. President Bush has the right to circumvent the United States Senate and use the recess appointment under Article 2, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

Bolton was awaiting a vote to be installed as ambassador, but his nomination faced bipartisan opposition.

Bolton is the highest ranked official to be installed by the recess appointment in recent years and the first U.N. Ambassador to ever receive a recess appointment.

How will this appointment play out in the halls of Congress? Read my thoughts from June 20th: http://americanpolitix.blogspot.com/2005/06/recess-appointment-of-bolton-is-good.html

Common sense legislation on guns

2005-07-30T10:09:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, the United States Senate voted for common sense and shielded the gun manufacturing industry from frivilous lawsuits. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, S. 397, was sponsored by Senator Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) and passed the Senate with a vote of 65-31.

Gun companies can still be held liable if their products are faulty, but they can no longer be sued for criminal acts beyond their control. The Senate should be applauded for their action to protect the rights of lawful gun owners. Those who support federalism, however, should be concerned with the fact that the limitations also apply to the state courts.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Many gun control advocates have seen lawsuits against gun manufacturers as the best way to limit this right. Their reasoning is if you financially cripple the gun makers, then they will no longer be able to produce guns, and therefore gun owners will no longer have a product to purchase. The United States House of Representatives passed legislation last year to limit frivilous lawsuits against gun makers, but the bill was withdrawn by the sponsor, Senator Craig, after Democrats loaded up the bill with amendments, most notably one that would extend the assault weapon ban.

Many trial lawyers will label this bill as "tort reform," but this bill is far from the usual GOP tort reform that is typically hostile to consumers. Most so-called tort reform only protects big business while opening up consumers to great harm. This bill is different. Gun makers can still be sued for faulty products, but they cannot be sued if their products are used in unlawful acts that are beyond their control.

The same arguments that were made by the gun industry could be applied to almost any other product. Consider automobiles. What would happen to consumers if everytime a lawsuit arose involving a car, the auto manufacturers had to be added as civil defendants? For instance, a car maker would be sued everytime their cars were used during the commission of a crime or even everytime damages resulted from a car accident where a driver violated a traffic law. Such a legal environment would cause car prices to rise substantially and most of us would no longer be able to afford driving.

The bill passed yesterday simply requires gun makers to be treated like every other manufacturer. Congratulations to the United States Senate for finally exercising some common sense.

BREAKING NEWS: Bush to announce Supreme Court nominee tonight at 9:00 PM

2005-07-19T13:02:00.000-04:00

CNN is reporting that President George W. Bush will announce his choice for the United States Supreme Court tonight at 9:00 PM.

UPDATE (4:51 PM): Sources confirm that Judge Edith Brown Clement, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, will not be President Bush's selection to replace current Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Judge Clement, an ultra-conservative jurist, received a call this afternoon saying that the administration was choosing to go in a "different direction."

Does this mean the moderate-to-liberal Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez will get the nod?

Expect a Supreme Court nominee either today or tomorrow

2005-07-19T08:13:00.000-04:00

As the situation regarding Valerie Plame heats up, many expect President George W. Bush to change the subject by naming a nominee to the United States Supreme Court very soon.

Following an ABC poll yesterday showing that only 25% of Americans believe that the White House is cooperating with the investigation of the leak of a CIA operative and that 75% of Americans believe Karl Rove, Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff, should be fired if it is learned he leaked the name of a CIA agent, the Bush administration desperately needs a distraction. The White House hopes that a new headline will remove this scandal from the news.

Expect a major announcement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court very soon!

Mehlman reinforces GOP's poor record with black voters

2005-07-17T14:36:00.000-04:00

This afternoon on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman made controversial comments that only reinforce the fact that his party is completely disconnected from the interests of African Americans in this country.

John King, who was substituting for Wolf Blitzer, questioned Mehlman about the chairman's shocking admission earlier in the week that the GOP had used a Southern Strategy in order to gain white voters by pitting them against black voters. Initiated by Senator Barry Goldwater and President Richard Nixon, then perfected by President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush, the Southern Strategy allowed Republicans to encourage "disaffected Southern white voters to vote Republican by blaming pro-civil rights Democrats for racial unrest and other racial problems." Essentially, the Southern Strategy created a belief that a vote for the Republicans was a vote against African Americas, thereby getting angry white voters to join the GOP.

Mehlman shocked the American public this week by apologizing for the actions of his party. Mehlman said, "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

Mehlman's apology angered many in the so-called "Party of Lincoln" who would like to see the party's politics of racial division continue. Radio talk show host and GOP mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh attacked the NAACP, the oldest civil rights organization in the country, calling it the "National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People." Limbaugh also attacked Mehlman's apology for the GOP's use of the Southern Strategy.

Limbaugh said, "Know what he's [Mehlman's] going to do? He's going to go down there and basically apologize for what has come to be known as the Southern Strategy, popularized in the Nixon administration. He's going to go down there and apologize for it. In the midst of all of this, in the midst of all that's going on, once again, Republicans are going to go bend over and grab the ankles." Limbaugh concluded by saying, "It is just -- it's absolutely absurd."

The CNN interview with Ken Mehlman then touched on the fact that President Bush again this year refused to address the NAACP. Mehlman avoided the question, and John King let the chairman dodge the issue completely.

The part of the interview that was most absolutely shocking was the misstatement by Mehlman when he called James Byrd, Jr. a racist. James Byrd was the black man from Texas who was dragged to his death in 1998. The three men responsible for his brutal murder, Shawn Allen Berry, Lawrence Russel Brewer, and John William King, were eventually convicted. President Bush, then the Texas Governor who oversaw the most state executions in recent history, refused to aggressively seek the death penalty for these men, and Berry escaped a death sentence for this brutal crime.

The issue with Mehlman is that he confused Byrd with one of his murderers. Melman said, "The NAACP unfortunately in the 2000 campaign likened the president to James Byrd, who was a racist killer in east Texas, who the president brought to justice." While the RNC may try to dismiss this as a simple misstatement, they cannot do successfully. Would Mehlman confuse President Abraham Lincoln with John Wilkes Booth? Would he mistake Dr. Martin Luther King with James Earl Ray? Would he confuse President John F. Kennedy with Lee Harvey Oswald? It is impossible to make such an error when one cares deeply about the subject matter discussed. This slip of the tongue by Mehlman only reinforces that fact that Republicans cared little about the murder of James Byrd, Jr. in 1998 and today the Republicans refuse to care about the interests of the African American community.

Mehlman believes that the GOP can coax black voters back to their party by reminding them that Lincoln was a Republican and to accuse the Democrats of taking the black vote for granted. If Mehlman and the Republican Party think that such tactics will work, they are wrong.

BREAKING NEWS: O'Connor may accept Chief Justice if offered

2005-07-10T10:46:00.000-04:00

This morning on CBS' Face The Nation, host Bob Schieffer spoke with the Republican Chairman and the Ranking Democratic Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), respectively. On the show, the panel carefully disected the wording used by Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her letter to President George W. Bush. The thought among the panel was that there was a significant chance that O'Connor would stay on the United States Supreme Court if President Bush were to elevate her to the position of Chief Justice.

In her letter to the president, O'Connor said, "This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor." (emphasis added) It is important to note that O'Connor did not state that she would retire from the Supreme Court, simply resign her position as associate justice.

Both Specter and Leahy confirmed that a group of senators had approached O'Connor within the past month and floated the idea of her becoming the next Chief Justice. According to both Specter and Leahy, she was very much interested in the possibility.

Of course, this whole scenario depends on a vacancy in the top position. Whether Chief Justice William Rehnquist will resign is the subject of much debate in Washington and throughout the country. No one knows what will happen, and O'Connor is not confirming or denying whether she would stay if the top position were offered. We'll just have to wait and see.

UPDATE (5:03 PM): Face The Nation has now made their transcript available. Download it here [PDF - 60.0 KB]. You will find the discussion about O'Connor waiting for the Chief Justice offer beginning on page six.

BREAKING NEWS: London hit by coordinated attacks

2005-07-07T07:28:00.000-04:00

Less than 24-hours after being awarded the 2012 Olympic games, London was rocked by six coordinated explosions, aimed at London's underground subway, or "The Tube," and a separate explosion aimed at a double-decker bus during their rushhour. At this time, police confirm that the seven explosions have claimed two lives with approximately 95 people injured.

Prime Minister Tony Blair cited that these terrorist attacks were planned to coincide with the beginning of the G8 summit in Scotland. Blair declared that the G8 summit would continue and that the world's leaders would not waiver from their greater goals.

Blair plans to leave the summit and return to London.

No responsibility for the attacks has been assigned or claimed.

UPDATE (7:39 AM): Scotland Yard now reports that the number of attacks was four - three on the underground and one on a double-decker bus.

UPDATE (7:43 AM): Emergency Services in London is now announcing that the number of fatalities has reached double-digits. CNN now reports that their efforts are no longer rescue, but instead recovery. The number of deaths is expected to increase.

UPDATE (8:24 AM): Prime Minister Tony Blair leaves the G8 summit for London.

UPDATE (8:29 AM): President George W. Bush makes statement decrying the terrorist attacks in London.

UPDATE (8:35 AM): Radical islamist web site claims responsibility for attacks in London. Analysts are unfamiliar with both the terrorist group claiming responsibility and the web site where the claim was made. Terrorist statement cites revenge against England as the motivation for the attack.

UPDATE (10:23 AM): Metropolitan police department and representatives of other emergency services convene press conference in London.

UPDATE (10:38 AM): Sources confirm at least 33 people dead and more than 350 people injured by this morning's terrorist attacks in London.

UPDATE (11:52 AM): Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff holds press conference and raises Homeland Security Advisory System to HIGH (orange) for only the mass transit sector of the country's transit system. Chertoff encourages Americans to continue using mass transit, but stresses we remain alert and report any suspicious activities.

Bush warms to Kyoto Treaty

2005-07-07T07:11:00.000-04:00

On his way to meeting with world leaders in Gleneagles, Scotland for the G8 (Group of 8) summit, President George W. Bush made an about-face and reversed the Republican Party's position on global warming. Now, the president concedes that the phenomenom does in fact exist and that it is caused by human activity.

For years, Republican politicians have denied the existence of global warming or at least said that it was unrelated to human activity, but today President Bush admitted that the theory ridiculed by conservatives as "junk science" is a matter of fact. "Listen, I recognize the surface of the Earth is warmer, and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," Bush said at a news conference in Denmark.

Bush remains opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for industrialized countries to reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990. He argues that the treaty is unfair to countries like the United States and would devastate the U.S. economy.

Coincidences surrounding Watergate

2005-07-06T17:52:00.000-04:00

Today, Washington Post writer and world-acclaimed author Bob Woodward released his long awaited book on W. Mark Felt, the FBI deputy director during the Watergate Scandal best known as Deep Throat. The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat hit bookstands today, and most expect it to become an instant best seller. One interesting fact that isn't being reported is the irony of the book's release date.

Today while the book detailing the number-two man at the FBI during Wategate was released, the number-one man at the FBI during that time passed away. L. Patrick Gray, acting FBI Director during the Watergate investigation, died today at age 88.

Now before Rod Serling enters the room smoking a cigarette, it gets spookier.

Take yourself back to May 29, 2004. Both Samuel Dash and Archibold Cox passed away on that day. Dash was the chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee and Cox was the independent special prosecutor who was fired by President Richard Nixon during the Saturday Night Massacre.

Not really news - just interesting Watergate trivia.

Davis supports freedom for the Cuban people

2005-07-04T11:42:00.000-04:00

On this 229th birthday of our great country, all Americans should commend Florida Congressman Jim Davis (D-Tampa) for his attempt to promote freedom among the Cuban American people and to those on the island itself. Sadly, it was the three Cuban American congressmen from Miami, who by opposing Davis' amendment did more to keep Fidel Castrol in power.

Last Thursday, Davis, who is running for governor, introduced an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have eased restrictions on Cuban Americans who wish to visit family members in Cuba. Davis' amendment would have reversed a widely unpopular policy implemented by the Bush administration just one year ago to the day. Unfortunately, the Davis amendment failed 208-211.

Davis faces former Democratic Party Chairman Scott Maddox and state Senator Rod Smith (D-Gainesville) in next year's primary election for governor. The victor will go on to face the winner of the GOP primary race between Attorney General Charlie Crist and Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher.

On June 30, 2004, the Bush administration implemented a policy that would significantly limit travel by Cuban Americans who wish to see their families on the island located just 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The policy, which prompted outrage within Florida's Cuban American community, also limits the amount of money that Cuban Americans can send to family on the island. The changes were spurred by a 2004 Report to the President [link to table of contents for HTML version or complete report in PDF format - 4.4 MB] of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba.

Since the administration of President John F. Kennedy, the United States has imposed an embargo against the communist island, but it has failed to topple the country's brutal dictator. Fidel Castro continues to enjoy great power, the Cuban people remain oppressed, and recently Castro was listed as one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, with an estimated worth of $550 million, by Forbes magazine. Still, the embargo issue has been a rallying cry for right-wing Cuban American politicians whose own success depends on that of Fidel Castro.

Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Miami) argued that Davis' amendment would weaken the 40+ year embargo, but Davis shot back that Diaz-Balart was misleading. "This is not a debate over the embargo," Davis said. He insisted that the amendment was about "family values," intent on reuniting families who have been separated due to the Castro regime.

Davis was unsuccessfully, but no one can argue that he lost. The closeness of the vote should motivate the congressman to continue his fight for freedom in Cuba. Davis only needs two members to change the vote in order to win next time. The empty rhetoric of members like Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Miami), Congressman Mario Diaz Balart (R-Miami) and his brother Lincoln is growing old and stale. More and more Cuban Americans realize that the policies of the hard liners in Miami have only made Castro stronger.

Davis took a chance, and his political opponents may try to use the issue against him next fall. Still, he did what is right for this country and what was best for the Cuban people. The Cuban patriot Jose Marti said, "Con todos y para el bien de todos." ("With all the people and for the good of all the people.") There's no doubt that Marti would have approved of Davis' act of courage last Thursday.

AP: Potential Candidates for Supreme Court

2005-07-01T14:40:00.000-04:00

Potential Candidates for Supreme Court

By The Associated Press

A look at some possible candidates for the vacancy on the Supreme Court:

SAMUEL A. ALITO:

Dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Alito, 55, has been a strong conservative voice in his 15 years on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considered to be among the most liberal.

On one hot-button issue, Alito was a lone dissenter in a case striking down a Pennsylvania law requiring women seeking abortions to inform their husbands. Alito argued that the Pennsylvania legislature "could have rationally believed" that married women might seek abortions because of perceived problems such as finances or a husband's prior opposition that could be rectified if the couple talked before an abortion.

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down the spousal notification requirement and reaffirmed the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Alito also has written a majority opinion holding that a city's holiday display that had a menorah did not violate the First Amendment's establishment clause — which bars the federal government from declaring a national religion — because it included secular symbols such as Frosty the Snowman.

He dissented in cases that loosened the legal standards for bringing a sex discrimination lawsuit.

In a dissent to a ruling that upheld the constitutionality of a federal law banning the possession of machine guns, Alito argued for greater state rights in reasoning that Congress had no authority to regulate private gun possession.

On the bench, Alito is known to be probing but more polite than the often-caustic Scalia.

Before President George H. W. Bush nominated Alito to the federal appeals court in 1990, he served as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey (1987-1990), where his first assistant was Michael Chertoff, now the Homeland Security Department secretary.

Alito was the deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration (1985-87) and assistant to the solicitor general (1981-85).

His New Jersey ties run deep. The son of an Italian immigrant, Alito was born in Trenton and graduated from Princeton University. He headed to Connecticut and Yale University, where he received his law degree in 1975.

In a 1999 case, Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark, the 3rd Circuit ruled 3-0 that Muslim police officers in the city can keep their beards. The police had made an exemption in its facial hair policy for medical reasons (a skin condition known as pseudo folliculitis barbae) but not for religious reasons.

Alito wrote the opinion, saying, "We cannot accept the department's position that its differential treatment of medical exemptions and religious exemptions is premised on a good-faith belief that the former may be required by law while the latter are not."

In a May 2005 profile in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger, Alito said, "Most of the labels people use to talk about judges, and the way judges decide (cases) aren't too descriptive. ... Judges should be judges. They shouldn't be legislators, they shouldn't be administrators."

EMILIO GARZA:

A former Marine and Texas state judge, Garza, 58, sits on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and was considered for a Supreme Court seat by the first President Bush.

Appointed a federal judge by President Reagan and elevated to the 5th Circuit in 1991, he has become best known for his views that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that abortion regulation should be decided by state legislatures.

In 1992, for example, he voted to strike down a Louisiana law criminalizing abortion in deference to Supreme Court precedent. But in his opinion, Garza made clear his disdain for Roe v. Wade.

"Two essential facts seem apparent: The Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion and ... the long-standing traditions of American society have permitted abortion to be legally proscribed," he wrote. "Because the decision to permit or proscribe abortion is a political choice, I would allow the people of the state of Louisiana to decide this issue for themselves."

In 1997, Garza voted with the majority to strike down a Louisiana law allowing judges to deny abortion to a minor and notify her parents. He criticized Roe's legal reasoning in a concurrence.

His opinions in those two cases have drawn the ire of women's and abortion rights groups, who fear that if elevated to the high court Garza would be a reliable vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

An avid questioner in oral arguments, Garza's written opinions tend to be clear and scholarly.

In other cases:

- Garza dissented from a 5th Circuit decision in 2001 affirming a lower court decision to grant a prisoner's habeas corpus petition. The prisoner established that his attorney had slept through major portions of his trial. Garza argued that the claim of ineffective counsel was insufficient because the prisoner failed to show that the trial's outcome was prejudiced by the sleeping lawyer.

- Garza wrote for the 5th Circuit majority in a 1999 case upholding a district court's summary judgment in favor of the police and city of Lago Vista, Texas, in a civil rights case in which a woman alleged her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures were violated when she was arrested for driving without wearing a seat belt, a violation of state law. Her children also were not wearing seat belts, another violation of Texas law. Garza said there was probable cause for the arrest and that it was not conducted in an "extraordinary manner" harmful to the woman's privacy interests. Such a violation is a misdemeanor, typically punishable by a fine.

Garza was born in San Antonio, Texas, and received his bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Notre Dame. He returned to Texas and earned his law degree from the University of Texas in 1976.

ALBERTO GONZALES:

Every time — and there have been five so far — that George W. Bush has asked Alberto Gonzales to accept top jobs in his government, Gonzales has said yes. A possible nomination to the Supreme Court, for which Gonzales is believed to be in the running, could make it six.

Such a nomination would make him the first Hispanic to serve on the nation's highest court. He achieved another first in February when he was sworn in to office as the nation's 80th attorney general and the first Hispanic to lead the Department of Justice.

The decade-old friendship between Bush and Gonzales dates to 1995 when, as Texas governor, Bush plucked Gonzales from a corporate law firm in Houston and named him the governor's general counsel. Since then, Gonzales' fortunes have risen in tandem with Bush's.

In 1997, Bush named Gonzales to the post of Texas secretary of state, making him the state's top elections official. Two years later, Bush nominated for a seat on the Texas Supreme Court.

After Bush became president in 2001, Gonzales left the court to become White House counsel, where he provided legal advice to the president and helped him fill vacancies on the federal bench.

It was in this position that Gonzales wrote a legal memo in 2002 contending that Bush had the right to waive anti-torture laws and international treaties that provide protections to prisoners of war. Critics have said the memo helped lead to abuses of the type seen at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Gonzales also drafted rules for the military war tribunals created after terrorist attacks.

Soft-spoken and known as "the judge" to his White House colleagues or "Al" to friends, Gonzales also has critics on the right, who think he is too much of a moderate. The mistrust stems from his time on the Texas Supreme Court when he joined with the majority to affirm a pregnant teenager's right to seek an abortion without telling her parents.

Gonzales accused two dissenters in that case of "unconscionable judicial activism" — words that came back to haunt him after Bush nominated one of the judges, Priscilla R. Owen, to a seat on the federal appeals court. Democrats threw Gonzales' words back at the White House.

If nominated to the high court, Gonzales' advice to Bush regarding the treatment of prisoners in the war on terror is certain to be a source of questioning during Senate confirmation hearings, as was the case during hearings on his nomination to be attorney general.

Gonzales, 49, has an up-from-the-bootstraps story that President Bush is fond of telling. He is the son of Pablo and Maria, migrant farm workers from Mexico, neither of whom finished elementary school, and he grew up near Houston in a two-bedroom house with his parents and seven siblings.

Gonzales graduated from high school in the 1970s and, with little thought of going on to college, he joined the Air Force. He also spent two years at the Air Force Academy before he changed his mind and decided to pursue a legal career instead of his dream of becoming a pilot.

He graduated from Rice University and Harvard Law School before launching his career.

Critics of Gonzales' qualifications for a seat on the Supreme Court would highlight his limited judicial experience — two years on the high court in Texas. But the thin paper trail gives opponents scant insight into his judicial philosophy and thinking on major issues of the day to use against him.

Critics also may question his close relationship with Bush and whether that might jeopardize his independence or influence his court rulings.

During an online chat the White House sponsored earlier this year, Gonzales' answer to a question about his new job suggested an awareness of his changed role within the administration.

"While I was counsel to the president, I served as the president's lawyer. As attorney general, my primary allegiance is now to the Constitution and the American people," he replied.

Described as not being ambitious, Gonzales told senators at his confirmation hearing in January: "Let me make clear. I'm not a candidate for the Supreme Court."

EDITH HOLLAN JONES:

President Bush's father considered Edith Hollan Jones for a vacancy on the Supreme Court in 1990 but instead nominated David H. Souter. The announcement of Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement raises the possibility that the president would nominate a woman — and the brainy, hard-line conservative Jones could be his choice.

Jones espouses a judicial philosophy that underscores the adage that less is more.

"The federal judiciary has an important but ultimately limited role in society," she said in an interview with Douglas K. Moll in the November/December 2001 issue of the Houston Lawyer. "I favor legislative authority over judicial authority. We have an obligation to make law as clear as possible. It is law to guide all of the people."

Jones, 55, has served on the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals since 1985 when President Reagan tapped her for the post. She has ruled and written on a range of cases, including states' rights, abortion, endangered species act and sexual harassment.

Among her notable opinions:

- McCorvey v. Hill in 2004. Norma McCorvey was Roe in the landmark 1972 case that legalized abortion. She asked the court to overturn the ruling, arguing that abortion has a detrimental effect on women's long-term emotional state.

The court dismissed the motion, but Jones wrote.

"If the courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe's balancing scheme with present-day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman's 'choice' is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child's sentence far more advanced, that the Roe court knew."

She called the Roe decision an "exercise of raw judicial power."

In a speech sponsored by the Federalist Society in January 2003, Jones said the Supreme Court's decisions since the 1960s have been at odds with American values. She talked of the "modish, untested philosophical notions and extreme libertarianism that would have left the (Constitution's) framers aghast."

The Warren Court "extravagantly assumed the power to dictate new 'rights' not expressly stated in the Constitution and in so doing foisted its philosophical vision on the United States with consequences far beyond the Court's imagining," Jones said.

Born in Philadelphia, her family moved to San Antonio where she competed on the debate team and participated in extemporaneous speaking at Alamo High School.

She headed north — way north — to Ithaca, N.Y., to attend Cornell University and then got her law degree from the University of Texas. Upon graduation in 1974, she worked at the law firm of Andrews, Kurth, Campbell & Jones in Houston, handling bankruptcy work. She was the firm's first woman partner, an achievement that occurred while she was on maternity leave. She has two sons.

J. MICHAEL LUTTIG:

The 51-year-old Luttig is considered a solid conservative choice. The Texas native worked in the Justice Department during the first Bush administration and has served on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.

The self-described legal nerd wrote the 1999 4th Circuit decision that struck down a key provision of 1994 Violence Against Women Act. The Supreme Court agreed on a 5-4 vote that Congress overstepped its bounds in giving rape victims the right to sue their attackers for monetary damages.

In that ruling and others, Luttig has been a defender of states' rights to set their own policies — a hallmark of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's jurisprudence.

Criminal cases and rendering justice are more than theoretical exercises for Luttig, whose father was murdered in a carjacking more than a decade ago.

In 1994, Napoleon Beazley, 17, confronted businessman John Luttig in the driveway of his Tyler, Texas, home and shot him twice in the head. Luttig's wife, Bobbie, was shot at and crawled beneath the couple's Mercedes Benz and played dead.

In an interview with the Tyler Morning Telegraph, the younger Luttig said his father was a compassionate man who would have given his car to Beazley. He also testified at Beazley's trial, saying, "My dad was my hero. He still is my hero. I worshipped the ground he walked on. I still do."

Beazley was executed in 2002 after the Supreme Court deadlocked 3-3 on his appeal to stop the execution. A tie allows an execution to proceed.

Three justices recused themselves from the case — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and David Souter.

The younger Luttig had clerked for Scalia from 1982-83 when Scalia was a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In 1991, during the rancorous Supreme Court nomination fight over Thomas, Luttig helped shepherd the nominee through the process.

The Supreme Court is familiar territory for Luttig.

He served as a law clerk to Chief Justice Warren Burger from 1983-84 and a special assistant to the chief justice from 1984-85. After four years in private practice, Luttig worked in the Justice Department in the first Bush administration and was assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel.

The Virginia resident graduated from Washington and Lee University and received his law degree from the University of Virginia. In 1991 President Bush made him the youngest federal appeals court judge — at age 37.

MICHAEL McCONNELL:

A respected conservative legal scholar, McConnell, a judge on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, enjoys bipartisan support in the academic community. He opposed President Clinton's impeachment and the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore that made George W. Bush the president.

Liberal interest groups are wary of McConnell because he is personally opposed to abortion. He has criticized the legal reasoning in Roe v. Wade and as a law professor, used Life magazine photos of fetuses to spark student discussion of whether abortion amounts to a taking of human life.

During his 2002 Senate confirmation hearing for the federal appeals court, however, McConnell insisted he would follow precedent in upholding Roe.

"The abortion question is completely settled," he told senators. "The only avenue for change is through constitutional amendment. ... It is not going to happen." At another point, he stated: "It is settled law. I am committed to enforcing and obeying that."

After McConnell was questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) of New York said that while he disagreed with many of McConnell's positions, the nominee "showed himself to be more of an iconoclast than an ideologue" in his candid discussion of his views.

His writings advocate ending the rigid separation of church and state that prevailed in the 1970s, and he thus supports school vouchers. That shift to a more "neutral" state approach to religion is central to the Bush administration's goal to funnel more government money to religious social service programs.

The self-described theologically conservative Christian, however, opposed government-sponsored prayer in schools.

McConnell, 50, also is a strong supporter of judicial restraint, arguing that Congress and not the courts should be the authority on defining and enforcing civil rights.

McConnell is not without critics from the political right. Lawyer Andy Schlafly, the son of longtime conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, recently wrote that McConnell is "every bit as hostile to conservative legal principles as (David) Souter turned out to be." Souter was named to the Supreme Court by the first President Bush and has disappointed conservatives by repeatedly siding with its more liberal members. Schlafly cited McConnell's refusal to say Roe v. Wade should be overturned, as well as a legal philosophy that "hostile to government expressions of faith."

JOHN G. ROBERTS:

Roberts, who has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003, was one of President Bush's least contentious picks for the bench.

A former Rehnquist clerk, Roberts was associate counsel to President Reagan from 1982-86 and then served in the first Bush administration, arguing cases before the Supreme Court from 1989-93.

During the Clinton administration, Roberts became a highly sought-after private lawyer in Supreme Court cases, representing clients such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association in a discrimination case, and carmaker Toyota in winning limits on a disabled workers claims.
Roberts had been in line to join the appeals court in 1992, but his nomination during the first Bush administration died in a Democratic-controlled Senate.

Roberts, 50, has generally avoided weighing in on disputed social issues. Abortion rights groups, however, have maintained that he tried during his days as a lawyer in the first Bush administration to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Roberts did help write a brief that stated "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Roberts' nomination to the appellate bench attracted support from both ends of the ideological spectrum.

Some 146 members of the D.C. Bar signed a letter urging his confirmation, including officials from the Clinton administration. The letter stated: "He is one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate. He is also a wonderful professional colleague both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness.

A native of Buffalo, N.Y., Roberts received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard.

J. HARVIE WILKINSON III:

Wilkinson, 60, another prospect from the 4th Circuit, has been consistently conservative in his rulings since being put on the court by President Reagan in 1984.

For example, he was part of a panel that ruled in 2003 that the government could indefinitely detain without legal rights American citizens captured overseas in the war on terror. The Supreme Court reversed that decision, with moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's blistering statement, "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

The Supreme Court agreed with Wilkinson, however, in his 1987 ruling that struck down a city minority set-aside program.

In his book, "One Nation Indivisible: How Ethnic Separatism Threatens America," Wilkinson explains his opposition to affirmative action, which he says is "the most dangerous of policy prescriptions for a multi-ethnic nation." He argues that such policies separate rather than unite the many races, and advocates for a celebration of multiculturalism and diversity.
He has less clear-cut views on the issue of reproductive rights.

Those who argue that Wilkinson supports Roe v. Wade point to a decades-old article he co-wrote in which he said that "although Roe has been severely criticized, the decision is not an illogical extension of the court's earlier decisions in matters of intimate association."

But in 1998, Wilkinson joined an opinion upholding a Virginia parental notification law for minors seeking abortions. Wilkinson called the law "a very mild and moderate form of regulation."

Unlike many other judges, Wilkinson frequently speaks and writes about his views on affirmative action and other subjects. Before his court career, he was editorial page editor of the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot and taught law at the University of Virginia.
While in law school he ran for Congress as a Republican and lost in 1970.

Wilkinson also:

- Wrote the majority 4th Circuit opinion in 1996 upholding the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that barred gays serving in the military from revealing their sexual orientation.

- Says judicial activism is frequently practiced by both liberal and conservative judges, which he seems to blame on a lawsuit culture that has shifted power from people to the judges (Michigan Law Review article, May 2000).

- Frowns upon what he says is a trend by the Supreme Court of relying on international law or looking to what other countries do when deciding cases. Wilkinson said that while comparisons to other countries cannot be avoided in an age of globalism, "the court's legitimacy must ultimately rest on reliance and reference to the American Constitution and to American democratic outcomes."

- Dissented on a panel of three judges that in 1986 upheld an emotional distress award for the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who was publicly lampooned in Hustler magazine. While criticizing the ad itself, Wilkinson said "nothing is more thoroughly democratic than to have the high and mighty lampooned and spoofed." The Supreme Court later overturned the emotional distress award.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. AmericanpolitiX.com has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is AmericanpolitiX.com endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Nelson fights offshore oil drilling

2005-06-27T19:31:00.000-04:00

Following a flip-flop earlier this year by his senate colleague, Republican Senator Mel Martinez, who voted for an expansion of oil drilling and weakened the ban on drilling off the Florida Gulf Coast, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson is now taking his fight directly to the people of the Sunshine State.

On his senate web site, Nelson allows Florida citizens to sign an online petition that sends a clear message to the federal government and the Bush administration that Floridians "don't want big oil companies setting up rigs or using seismic explosions off Florida's coast."

Nelson, a former astronaut, congressman, and state insurance commissioner, has been a leading critic of the Bush administration's goal of increased oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. While Martinez has changed his position and says that he now opposes oil drilling off Florida's coast, Nelson has been consistent in his opposition.

Recess appointment of Bolton is good for Democrats

2005-06-20T19:25:00.000-04:00

Late this afternoon, the United States Senate voted to continue debate on the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. Earlier in the day, a frustrated President George W. Bush complained that the final vote had not yet occurred and implied that he would be willing to exercise his right to make a recess of appointment, essentially circumventing the Congress and installing his appointment without the constitutionally required advise and consent of the Senate. Republicans are grinning ear to ear, claiming victory. Democrats seem down in the dumps. It's the Democrats, however, who should be looking forward to this aggressive act by the president and should claim victory of their own.

In my previous post, I discussed how President Bush has lost complete control of the agenda in Washington. The nomination of John Bolton was sailing toward a smooth approval when the vote was derailed by a Republican, George Voinovich of Ohio. At around this time, information had surfaced that many members of the Senate found troubling. Allegations emerged that Bolton had threatened members of the intelligence community when they were unwilling to bend the truth. The most colorful story, however, was that Bolton badgered a woman in an international hotel. According to Ms. Melody Townsel, "When I was dispatching a letter to [US] AID, my hell began. Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel, throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door, and genuinely behaving like a madman. I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton then routinely visited me to pound on the door and shout threats." Now with the Bolton nomination on the ropes, President Bush is looking to skirt the rules and get his guy into the U.N.

Democrats should be salivating. Unlike the battle over judicial nominations where the Democrats have blocked appointments because the nominees were seen as outside the mainstream and too conservative, the Democrats have decided to extend debate on the Bolton nomination due to the actions of the White House, or should I say the "inactions." On behalf of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delaware), the ranking Democrat on the committee, and Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut), have asked the White House to provide information pertaining to Bolton's current role as the undersecretary of state. The White House has refused. While the Democrats have conceded that Bolton has the votes to be approved, they have recognized their constitutional role in the nomination process and have requested additional information. The White House has denied this pertinent information from not only Biden and Dodd, but from the American people.

Democrats should just sit back and wait for Bush to act. The question that Democrats should be asking over and over is "What is the White House hiding?" As we saw the American people frown on the White House's conduct during the concealment of records from Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, they will again voice their disapproval. As Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) stated on Hardball this evening, even Republicans Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and John McCain (R-Arizona) have acknowledged that it is reasonable to hold up a nomination if an administration refuses to turn over pertinent information and documents. Boxer stated that the White House is not saying the requests are inappropriate. They are simply stonewalling.

Voters generally dislike politicians, especially if they are dishonest. While no one can state with certainty that the Bush administration is being dishonest or that they are hiding anything regarding the Bolton nomination, the appearance of inpropriety is damaging to the White House's credibility. Democrats should exploit this fact.

President Bush achieves lame duck status

2005-06-18T12:57:00.000-04:00

It's official. George W. Bush is a lame duck president. He has completely lost control of the leadership in Washington, and even his fellow Republican are throwing him overboard. It looks as though it is going to be a long 3-1/2 years for the president.

Last night, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act, House Resolution 2745, which would gut funding from the United Nations if a certain number of reforms are not made within the international organization. Earlier this week, the Bush administration strongly opposed this bill, arguing that such a vote would undermine the President's ability to conduct foreign policy. Bush urged the House to reject the legislation.

The response from House Republicans - "you're not our leader anymore." Even after taking $23 million in campaign funds from the President during a GOP fundraiser earlier this week, House Republicans rebuffed the leader of their party. H.R. 2745 passed last night by a vote of 221-184, with only 7 Republicans siding with President Bush. Even compromise legislation offered by Congressman Tom Lantos (D-California 12th), which would have given Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discretion to withhold the funding, was soundly rejected by House Republicans.

This latest defeat for Bush comes on the heels of other high-profile embarrassments for the White House. The White House was publicly humiliated when seven moderate Republicans, led by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), spearheaded a deal with Senate Democrats on judicial nominees, essentially killing the nominations of at least two Bush nominees. This deal angered conservative activists and embarrassed the president.

Most significantly, President Bush has been forced into a corner over stem cell research, threatening to exercise his first veto on legislation weakening his stringent standards on this area of scientific research. The House bucked the President by passing stem cell legislation, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) has promised a full senate vote by the end of July. Conservative lawmakers, like Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) have pledged to filibuster the bill, but proponents of the legislation claim that they have more than the 60 votes need to end debate. Additionally, former first lady Nancy Reagan is lobbying heavily for the bill to weaken Bush's stem cell research standards.

As right-wing columnist Bob Novak pointed out, Bush has faced defeat after defeat at the hands of his own party. While the president likes to portray the Democrats as the "Party of No," it is actually the Republicans that have torpedoed his legislative agenda and undercut his ability to lead. Despite the president's warning, Senate Republicans passed a highway spending bill that exceed the maximum amount designated by the Bush administration. The nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations was significantly sidetracked by Republican Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio). Senator Brownback has placed a hold on the nomination of Julie Finley as ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) because of her support of abortion rights. The CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement), which must be ratified by Congress, is on life-support and its fate is uncertain. And Bush's social security reform appears to be dead-on-arrival, with prominent Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Congressman E. Clay Shaw (R-Florida 22nd) offering competing proposals, virtually pulling the rug out from under President Bush.

President Bush has become the Rodney Dangerfield of Washington. He gets no respect from anyone. Most of his legislative priorities are doomed or close to it. While the president whines about obstructionism by the Democrats, it is in fact his own party that has turned on him. And based on recent polls, the American people have turned on him too.

Is this the GOP's idea of minority outreach?

2005-06-10T17:20:00.000-04:00

In the wake of the GOP's outrage over DNC Chairman Howard Dean's statement about the Republican Party being a "white, Christian party", Republicans are aggressively attempting to portray their party as one open to people of all races. Now the GOP's arguments appear shallow and meaningless as the United States Senate pursues the nomination of a controversial, presidential appointment.

President George W. Bush has appointed Henrietta Holsman Fore, the current director of the United States Mint, to the position of undersecretary of state for management. This position oversees human resources and the civil rights office for employees from the State Department around the world. At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) questioned the appointee over her controversial and racist statements made during a question-and-answer session after a 1987 speech at Wellesley College.

"At the time, news accounts of the speech reported that Fore suggested blacks preferred pushing drugs to working in factory jobs and that Hispanic workers were lazy. The remarks were misunderstood, Fore said, but she resigned as a Wellesley trustee to quell the controversy at the college."

"Obama questioned Fore about the racial comments for more than 20 minutes, repeatedly pressing for an explanation of the remarks. When her answers did not satisfy him, Obama said he wondered what type of environment she would create for employees who were black, Hispanic or had other racial backgrounds if she held a 'stereotypical notion of how various people performed.'"

Senator Obama, the only African American in the U.S. Senate, says that he may block a vote on Fore's appointment. But what about the new inclusive Republican Party? Instead of just whining about the poor, yet somewhat accurate, statements by the DNC chairman, perhaps the GOP should remedy this sad situation by urging the president to withdraw Fore's nomination. Let's see how the Republican Party feels about diversity.

Amnesty International blew it

2005-06-05T10:01:00.000-04:00

Just over a week ago, Amnesty International, the widely respected human rights organization, issued their AI Report 2005 on human rights abuses around the globe. This Amnesty International Report cited failures by national governments and international organizations in dealing with human rights violations and called for greater international accountability. In the report, Amnesty International admonished the United States, among other countries, for our detention policies in Guantanomo Bay, Cuba. AI Secretary General Irene Khan went on to declare the camps to be "the gulag of our times."

While conditions in Guantanomo are questionable, Amnesty International's report lost credibility by comparing our current situation in Cuba to that in the former Soviet Union. President George W. Bush decried the Gulag comment, stating "I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. It's an absurd allegation." President Bush is right. The world needs reform at Guantanomo Bay, but now that will probably not occur. As a result of AI's irresponsible choice of words, the real issues surrounding prison camps in Guantanomo will likely remain ignored. Because of this mistake, AI's 2005 Report has failed.

The term Gulag is an abbreviation for Glavnoe Upravlenie ispravitel'no-trudovykh Lagerie, or the Main Directorate of Corrective Labor Camps. The Gulag was a network of 476 forced-labor prison camps in the former Soviet Union during most of the 20th century. The Gulag began under Vladimir Lenin and operated under many Russian leaders, most notoriously Joseph Stalin. The Gulag was run by the Soviet secret police, originally known as the Cheka and later known as the KGB. Approximately 20 million people were held within the Gulag, some for hiding "grain in cellars; owning too many cows; ... being Jewish; being Finnish;" etc., but most were jailed as political prisoners. It is estimated that approximately three million people perished in the Gulag.

Americans are taught little Russian history, so the lack of outrage following the gulag comment by Amnesty International is not surprising. But there should be outrage, because the comparison of the Gulag and the Guantanomo camps is ludicrous. (For an excellent discussion on this subject, read "Equivalency Test: Gulag v. Gitmo" in The New Republic by David Bosco.)

Imagine if the AI Report had compared the prison camps in Guantanomo to the Nazi concentration camps during World War II. The Holocaust resulted in the murder of over 6 million Jews, along with killings of homosexuals, gypsies, the physically or mentally disabled, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Polish intellectuals, Soviet Prisoners of War, and others. If Amnesty International had compared American prison camps in Cuba to the Nazi concentration camps or even limited the comparison to one camp, such as Auschwitz, the outrage across this country would be deafening and rightfully so. The Gulag comment should have prompted the same anger.

Amnesty International is a great organization. Conservatives and liberals have equally embraced the organization's findings in the past in efforts to stop human rights violations. And recent news reports do in fact indicate that conditions at Guantanomo Bay are beneath those one would expect from our great nation. Amnesty International had the opportunity to make a difference, but instead they tried to make their report sexy by recklessly using an offensive phrase. Amnesty International blew it!

Pentagon flushes previous denials regarding the Koran

2005-06-03T20:32:00.000-04:00

Following reports by Newsweek magazine that American interrogators at Guantanamo had mishandled the Koran, specifically that the Muslim holy book had been flushed down a toilet, officials at the Pentagon and within the Bush administration voiced their anger. Some believed that the Newsweek story led to riots in Arab nations, where at least 16 lives were lost during the unrest. The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard Myer, however disagreed with the opinion of the White House that the story caused the rioting. Still, Newsweek eventually retracted their story, stating that the incident could not be confirmed.

The Pentagon subsequently admitted five minor incidents involving the Koran, but those examples paled in comparison to that alleged in the Newsweek story. Now the Pentagon is admitting that the Koran was in fact seriously mishandled by U.S. interrogators. While the toilet incident was not confirmed, the Pentagon now admits that the holy book was kicked, stepped on, and in one case splashed with human urine.

This shocking revelation is just another example that the Bush administration is botching the War on Terror. All Americans should be proud of the brave men and women that serve in our country's armed forces. At the same time, we should be outraged that the civilians at the Pentagon and the Bush administration continue to dishonor their service. For decades, American has provided moral leadership to the world. The Bush administration jeopardizes that role.

As a result of the Bush administration's sloppy oversight, poor planning, and arrogant lack of leadership in the War on Terror, our soldiers and our country are put at risk. Enough is enough! We need reform in the federal government and accountability in the Bush administration.

Permanent Open Thread

2005-06-03T08:43:00.000-04:00

Feel free to use the comment feature on this post to freely discuss the political issues of the day.

Did Values Voters just decide another election?

2005-05-25T23:29:00.000-04:00

Tonight, the Fox Network topped the ratings with the season finale of their hit reality show American Idol. The widely anticipated conclusion produced a winner, and for those in the blue states (or the blue areas of red states), the result was unexpected. Carrie Underwood, the country singer from Oklahoma, won the on-air election over Bo Bice, the rocker from Alabama. Carrie was good, but she probably has "values voters" to thank for her victory.

On November 2, 2004, President George W. Bush defied the odds and was reelected to office over Senator John F. Kerry. Exit polls on election day showed "moral values" to be the biggest factor by voters in deciding their ballot choice. Among the 22 percent of voters who cited moral values as their primary motivator in the polling booth, an overwhelming majority, or 79 percent, supported Bush.

America is divided. Following the election, cable news networks decorated their studios with large maps of the nation, segmented into red and blue states. Carrie Underwood was definitely a red state kinda girl. She grew up on a farm in the Sooner State and was known on the hit FOX program for choosing country hits to sing during the competition. In addition, she often chose songs that had religious and patriotic undertones. In past shows, Carrie has sung tunes like "When God Fearin' Women Get The Blues," and "God Bless The Broken Road," and her most popular choice has been Martina McBride's hit "Independence Day." Tonight Carrie sang "Angels Brought Me Here," and her first single, which will be released next month, is entitled "Inside Your Heaven." I guess we know who Senator Bill Frist voted for ...

While Bo Bice fans on the west and east coasts are still scratching their heads wondering how victory escaped them, maybe they will start to understand the importance of the so-called "values voters." Doubt it though - they'll probably just accuse Underwood fans of rigging phone lines in Ohio.

Senate reaches deal on filibusters - Winners & Losers

2005-05-23T21:54:00.000-04:00

Following the close of business today, a bipartisan group of 14 senators reached a deal [PDF] on filibusters in the United States Senate, thereby preventing the showdown scheduled for tomorrow. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) had planned to implement the "nuclear option" tomorrow to end debate on two judicial candidates who were nominated by President George W. Bush.

The term "nuclear option," which was coined by the Senate Rules Chairman, Senator Trent Lott (R-Mississippi), described the plan to eliminate the use of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate for judicial nominees. The bipartisan group, led by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), announced their compromise during a press conference at approximately 7:15 PM this evening.

THE TERMS

At first glance, the agreement appears to benefit the Democrats. The filibuster is preserved, and the Democrats have guaranteed an up or down vote for at least three of the ten filibustered nominees. Two of those nominees are not guaranteed to receive up or down votes. The Democrats reserve the right to use the filibuster for future judicial nominees in "extraordinary circumstances." Furthermore, the signors of the agreement will determine when an "extraordinary circumstance" exists.

WINNER

The American people. Republicans had threatened to eliminate the traditional procedure of the judicial filibuster, and Democrats threatened to retaliate by slowing the Senate to a halt and putting forth their own ideas for chamber business. Perhaps the assertion that the American people won with this compromise can best be supported by looking at the blogs. Bloggers from the extreme right and the extreme left are "extremely" upset. This usually means that the majority of Americans in the middle are in good shape.

Conservatives Complain

While the liberal bloggers are still waiting to see what happens, conservative bloggers are furious.

Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters says, "it's a significant victory for Reid. He just smoked Frist, and now he's using that hard-won "comity" to blast Bush and Cheney for power grabbing and perverting the Constitution. Yeah, great going, GOP."

Michelle Malkin has included a graphic on her blog of a belt buckle that has the image of an elephant with the words, "Republicans Buckle."

Scared Monkeys says, "Compromise reached! Republicans screwed!"

John Hinderaker of Power Line, who broke the Dan Rather story, says, "To me, it looks like a pathetic collapse on the part of the Republicans--not the leadership, but Senators like McCain who sold out their party."

Hugh Hewitt says, "It is impossible to say whether this is a "terrible" deal, a "bad" deal, or a very, very marginally "ok" deal, but it surely is not a good deal."

Matt Margolis from Blogs for Bush says, "THIS DEAL SUCKS... EVERY NOMINEE DESERVES AN UP-OR-DOWN VOTE!!!"

Liberals Complain

Eschaton is not happy and says, "I don't know about you, but I don't like it."

TalkLeft says, "Total capitulation by Democrats. Total victory for Frist. Let them spin it how they want, it's a loss for the Democrats."

Wonkette says, "Deft Senate centrists craft a filisaving deal that disappoints everyone equally."

The Daily Kos actually views the deal as a good thing.

Unfortunately, most liberal blogs are taking the night off, but you can get some idea of how the left-wing extremists feel by reading the comments on the blogs above.

LOSER

Majority Bill Frist. Frist lost huge. He set the bar too high and was able to meet expectations. Frist told America that he demanded an up or down vote on ALL nominees. He clearly lost and let down the religious right. They will not forget that he failed to deliver. President Bill Frist ain't going to happen.

WINNER

Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada). Reid did the opposite of Frist; he set the bar low. His only goal was to preserve the filibuster for future nominees, especially a possible nominee to the United States Supreme Court. Many liberals were upset that he set his goals too low, but his strategy appeared to pay off today. In his press conference after the announcement of the deal, Reid was essentially able to look into the TV camera and say that he won.

LOSER

Senator John McCain. This choice may be shocking for some, considering that McCain led the bipartisan group to developed the compromise. He would be a "winner" if he was not running for president in 2008. John McCain just wrote off any chance of winning the GOP nomination for president, not that he had much of a chance before.

WINNER

Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island). Senator Chafee has been under attack for not being in lockstep with the Republican leadership. Of course, he is in no better shape than he was before the deal was met, but the heat has now been taken off of him. As far as conservative anger, there are too many others that are in the rank and file Republicans' sights, and therefore, Chafee has somewhat of a pass.

LOSER

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina). Senator Graham has been considered a maverick in recent years - one who is not only willing, but actually seems to look forward to, bucking the Republican leadership. During the announcement, he spoke out against the White House and demanded that the Senate be heard. While his comments are responsible, they break from the typical GOP talking points. Don't be surprised if Graham has a primary challenge in 2008.

WINNER

Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia). Senator Byrd, the longest serving member of the Senate, has taken a lot of heat from the right-wing extremists and has been labeled a liberal wacko. Tonight at the press conference, Senator John Warner (R-Virginia), one of the more conservative members of the Congress, treated Byrd like he was a king. When Byrd spoke this evening, he was practically treated like royalty by members of both parties.

Captain Ed, Michelle Malkin continue to mislead on Bush's abortion increase

2005-05-23T00:51:00.000-04:00

This morning during his appearance on Meet The Press, DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated that the number of abortions nationally has increased 25 percent under George W. Bush as opposed to during the administration of President Bill Clinton. Conservatives have already been polluting the Internet with attacks on this remark, but they fail to provide any data to support their claims.

Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters states that this figure is untrue. Does he support this claim? Of course not - conservatives never let facts interfere with their outrageous claims. He instead cites a post on his own blog. (How suspicious!) On his own post, Captain Ed doesn't offer any statistics to support his claim that abortions have not increased since 2000. Instead when faced with his claim stating that the increase in abortions under President Bush did not occur, Captain Ed sadly concedes that he could not find any data to support it.

Michelle Malkin goes a step further. Most remember Malkin, the infamous author who defended Japanese internment during World War II in her 2004 book, as the political lightweight who crumbled under questioning by Chris Matthews of Hardball when she tried to push the right-wing conspiracy theory that Senator John Kerry (D-Massachussetts) shot himself while in Vietnam in order to be awarded a purple heart. In the ultimate sign of weakness, Malkin then cried about the encounter with Matthews on her blog.

On her blog today, Malkin provides three links that are to support her claim that the 25 percent increase statistic isn't true. Ironically, she links to three separate posts on her own blog. (The act of using him or herself as their own source is a commonly used dirty trick by conservative columnists.)

The statistic that has drawn the ire of conservatives is from a memo by conservative, pro-life professor Glen H. Stassen. Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary. His memo discusses trends in national abortion rates and uses statistical reasoning to determine that abortion rates have increased since 2000. Professor Stassen provides a thorough explanation of his findings in an online interview.

Conservatives love to complain about political pundits that attack people of faith. Maybe this time instead of assaulting Christian Professor Stassen, these right-wingers will take a look in the mirror and stop their vicious attacks.

Dean excels on Meet The Press

2005-05-22T20:56:00.000-04:00

According to conservative writer Robert Novak, many Democrats were nervous about national DNC Chairman Howard Dean's scheduled apearance on this morning's Meet The Press with Tim Russert. Relying on anonymous sources, a practice frowned upon following the Newsweek scandal from last weekend, Novak quoted two individuals who allegedly stated they were not looking forward to Dean's appearance following his somewhat controversial statements of recent months. [NOTE: Novak has displayed a pattern of poor ethical choices in journalism. He is most known for his illegal leak of Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative.] After viewing this morning's episode, those concerns were put to rest. Dean did an exceptional job on MTP and hit it out of the park.

Dean has been somewhat impressive as national chairman, because he is doing something that Democrats rarely do - he is trying new things. He is actively pushing the Democratic agenda in the so-called red states, those that voted for President George W. Bush in 2004, and is changing the way liberals discuss the issues that matter to all Americans. He is taking the fight to the GOP and as exhibited this morning under questioning from Russert, he is unwilling to walk away from a fight. Dean's style of leadership was on display this morning.

Tim Russert is the toughest interviewer on television, and today he was throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Dean. He hit the chairman from all sides, pulling out quotes from the chairman and trying to find ways to force Dean into a corner. Dean stood his ground and defended his assertions, some that have recently drawn criticism from Republicans.

One quote, which apparently drove Novak completely mad, was from May 14th when Dean gave his opinion on what should happen to ethically-challenged Majority Leader Tom Delay. "I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence down there courtesy of the Texas taxpayers." Russert questioned the wisdom of this quote, asking Dean how he could declare Delay guilty before he has been tried for any crime. Dean confidently responded, "To be honest with you, Tim, I don't think I'm prejudging him. The things that I just read off--offering the congressman's son campaign money, providing Westar, the energy company, with a seat at the table in exchange for contributions, using the Department of Homeland Security to track down the private plane of political enemies--those are things that he has already been adjudicated for. Now, the question is: Where is this going to end up? I think there's a reasonable chance that this may end up in jail."

Dean also ventured away from the typical Democratic talking points and spoke on issues that used to be off-limits for his party. Dean recognized that moral values was an issue in the last campaign, and he wasn't afraid to discuss the topic. "The problem is it is galling to Democrats, 48 percent of us who did not support the president, it is galling to be lectured to about moral values by folks who have their own problems. Hypocrisy is a value that I think has been embraced by the Republican Party. We get lectured by people all day long about moral values by people who have their own moral shortcomings."

Dean also bucked his right-wing critics by doing something that his opponents claim he doesn't do - he offered an alternative position on the future. "I think one of the things that we're going to insist on is ethics in government. I'd like some real political and campaign and electoral reform as part of the Democratic Party platform as we offer a different vision to the American people."

This is the kind of forward-thinking optimism that the GOP has lacked since Ronald Reagan left the party. Unfortunately, the GOP has adopted a negative agenda and has let down the country.

Americanpolitix.com congratulates Chairman Howard Dean for his exceptional performance on Meet The Press this morning.

[NOTE: Today's Meet The Press will be re-aired on MSNBC tonight at 10:00 PM EST.]

Santorum compares McCain, others to Adolf Hitler

2005-05-21T03:22:00.000-04:00

When a leader of the national Republican Party invokes the name of Adolf Hitler in his speeches, it is worth a mention. This past Thursday during the debate over the filibuster in the United States Senate, Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) compared those members that oppose the "nuclear option" to Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler. "The audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.'" Santorum directed this statement toward all Democratic senators, Republican Senators John McCain (R-Arizona), Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island), and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), and Independent Senator Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont).

Santorum's comment screams out hypocrisy, because it contradicts his statements from this past March. During a debate on ending the 200 year tradition of the filibuster, Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) described how Hitler, as German Chancellor during the 1930s, used his majority status to change the rules to gain more power. Byrd never compared anyone to Hitler, but the Republicans still complained. National Republican Chairman Ken Mehlman stated that Byrd's comments were "reprehensible and beyond the pale." And at the time, Santorum said that Byrd's words "lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate."

Santorum is now attempting to backtrack, but the damage has been done. He has insulted his colleagues, and he owes the American people an apology.