Tuesday, January 31, 2006

SOTU Tonight by pResidential Failure


With a job approval at 39 percent, Bushie's SOTU is sure to be a widely viewed and jeered event. Here in East Nashville, progressives will gather at the 5-Spot to see what new failures King George has in store for us.

According to the latest WSJ-NBC poll:

Mr. Bush's overall job-approval rating remains at 39%, down from 50% immediately following his 2004 re-election. The proportion of Americans who credit the president with being "honest and straightforward" has fallen to 38% from 50% in January 2005; the proportion that gives him high marks for "strong leadership qualities" is 42%, down from 52%.

Hat tip and Graphic Via Talkleft

But Bushie isn't unpopular everywhere. The Boy King gets his highest approval ratings from Utah, the nation's most Rethuglican state. (via Wonkette) They love him in White Utah. They also have a thing for polygamists.

Be sure to catch some of Chris Matthews wingnut coverage of the SOTU. Apparently, Matthews is hoping to move on over to Fox News.

Quote of the Day: The Politics of New Orleans


"I think that basically we are now watching a deliberate policy of neglect take root. . Cynical minds might suggest that the destruction of the Democratic vote in Louisiana was a mixed blessing. If you rebuild New Orleans, all those Democrats might come home."



Speaking to a friendly audience in San Francisco, Sen. Clinton speculated on the significance of the assignment of Karl Rove to oversee the relief effort in the Gulf.

25 Democratic Senators in the U.S. Senate


Here's the list of 25 senators who supported the ScAlito Filibuster. We should thank them for their efforts. If your Democratic Senator is not on this list, you might want to give her/him an earful.

Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (D-DE)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Clinton, Hillary Rodham (D-NY)
Dayton, Mark (D-MN)
Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT)
Durbin, Richard (D-IL)
Feingold, Russell D. (D-WI)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Jeffords, James M. (I-VT)

Kennedy, Edward M. (D-MA)
Kerry, John F. (D-MA)
Lautenberg, Frank R. (D-NJ)
Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT)
Levin, Carl (D-MI)
Menendez, Robert (D-NJ)
Mikulski, Barbara A. (D-MD)
Murray, Patty (D-WA)
Obama, Barack (D-IL)
Reed, Jack (D-RI)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Sarbanes, Paul S. (D-MD)
Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY)
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)
Wyden, Ron (D-OR)

One Democrat didn't vote: Tom Harkin
(via Talkleft )

BTW, Congressman Harold Ford (D) - who hopes to replace Frist in the Senate - came out against the filibuster!

Kristof: Take a Hike

by Nicholas D. Kristof

First, a quiz: What "vegetable" do American infants and toddlers eat most?

Weep, for it's the French fry. A major study conducted by Gerber found that up to one-third of young children don't eat any vegetable daily, but that the French fry is the single most common one they do consume. And among children age 19 months to 24 months, 20 percent eat French fries at least once a day.

President Bush is slated to discuss health care in his State of the Union address tonight. It's about time: it's scandalous that babies born in the United States are less likely to survive their first year than babies born in Slovenia. But the solutions to the health crisis lie less in reorganizing medical treatment than in improving public health — such as steering kids away from French fries.

Read the whole thing

Monday, January 30, 2006

Survey Says: Dems Should Lead


The new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds: "Americans — by a 16-point margin, 51 to 35 percent — now say the country should go in the direction in which the Democrats want to lead, rather than follow Bush. That's a 10-point drop for the president from a year ago, and the Democrats' first head-to-head majority of his presidency."

Furthermore, "[T]he Democrats hold a 16-point lead in 2006 congressional election preferences, 54 to 38 percent among registered voters, their best since 1984." [via Political Wire]

And Bushie's numbers are just as miserable. Only "42 percent of Americans approve of his work, 56 percent disapprove." Not since Nixon has a pResident done so poorly at the outset of his sixth year in office.

Let's face it folks, there are only going to be more Republican scandals, more Republican indictments, and more misery in the nation wrought by the Incompetent and Crooked Bush Regime between now and election day.

In other words, the prospects for the Dems can only get better. Granted, we'll still have to whip the Dems into shape, but that beats the hell out of living under the thumb of the Republican Taliban.

Hat tip to the Progressive Daily Beacon

Tenn. Legislators File 18 Anti-Choice Bills


And they haven't been back in session for a month yet. Can we say womb envy? I mean really, Eve came out of Adam's rib, Athena came out of Zeus's head, and the following men in the Tennessee General Assembly can't stop obsessing about women's wombs:

Pinion (D)
Maddox (D)
Herron (D)
Jackson (D)
Miller (R)
Casada (R)
Finney (R)
Newton (R) - indicted and resigned, but his bills live on

Here are 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats you never ever want to vote for.

And that goes double for the Dems.

And if you feel like telling them that, just click on their names and send them an email saying: I just found out you are anti-choice - you've lost my vote.

The Dems really need to hear from you.

Sen. Miller says he's not running again, but beware cause he's flip-flopped on that before.

All 18 bills were originally introduced in 2005, but they like to recycle their work, cuz you wouldn't know they were back in session if they weren't scheming to double the white population.

A few of their especially interesting creations via NARAL:

Miller (R)
S 333
Prohibits abortion after five weeks of pregnancy except in cases of life endangerment.

Miller (R)
S 334
Prohibits abortion throughout all stages of pregnancy except in cases of life endangerment. Would establish personhood at fertilization, which could outlaw most contraceptives, fertility treatments, and stem-cell research.

Jackson (D)
S 2217
Amends definition of "another, individual, individuals, and another person" throughout criminal code to include "unborn child at every stage of gestation."

Jackson (D)
SJR 48
Attempts to reduce or eliminate state constitutional protection for a woman's right to choose.

Casada (R)
H 1383
Allows pharmacists and related professionals to refuse to provide or dispense contraceptives in all or most circumstances.

Pinion (D)
H 2247
Amends existing biased counseling and mandatory delay law that has been declared unconstitutional and unenforceable. Requires women receive state-mandated lecture prior to obtaining abortion services; prohibits abortion unless women wait an additional 24 hours after receiving lecture.

I'd like to write the resumes for these yahoos:

Job Description: Regulating Women's Wombs

Ever since Bush began his occupation of the White House, conservative lawmakers have been frothing at the mouth at the prospect of regulating women. They've literally gone wild writing and passing anti-abortion and anti-contraception bills.

If ScAlito makes it to the High Court, you can be sure they'll double their efforts.

Call, fax, and email some senators before it's too late.

Tell them to FILIBUSTER!

Herbert: The Lost Children

By Bob Herbert

The times — as a fellow named Dylan sang more than 40 years ago — they are a-changin'.

This time it's not the emergence of the tie-dyed 60's and the flowering of the boomer generation. But the changes are at least as fundamental.

A generation from now non-Hispanic whites will make up less than 60 percent of the U.S. population, and by 2050 they will be just half. Nine out of 10 American students currently attend public schools. It is likely that within a decade fewer than half of the public school students will be white.

The dramatic changes in public school enrollment will not be a result of white flight, according to a new study by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University: "It is because of a changing population structure created by differential birth rates and age structures and a largely nonwhite international flow of millions of immigrants. Since whites are older, marry at later ages, have smaller families and account for a small fraction of immigrants, these changes are almost certain to continue."

So, with these changes in mind, what's happening with the black and Latino students who already account for more than a third of the public school population, and who should be expected to play an increasingly important role in shaping American society?

Not much that is good.

Read the whole thing

Krugman: A False Balance (Jackgate)

In the excellent column below, Paul Krugman nails the Katie Courics of the world for falsely claiming that the Jack Abramoff scandal is a bipartisan scandal. Thank you Paul Krugman!

By Paul Krugman

"How does one report the facts," asked Rob Corddry on "The Daily Show," "when the facts themselves are biased?" He explained to Jon Stewart, who played straight man, that "facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda," and therefore can't be reported.

Mr. Corddry's parody of journalists who believe they must be "balanced" even when the truth isn't balanced continues, alas, to ring true. The most recent example is the peculiar determination of some news organizations to cast the scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff as "bipartisan."

Let's review who Mr. Abramoff is and what he did.

Here's how a 2004 Washington Post article described Mr. Abramoff's background: "Abramoff's conservative-movement credentials date back more than two decades to his days as a national leader of the College Republicans." In the 1990's, reports the article, he found his "niche" as a lobbyist "with entree to the conservatives who were taking control of Congress. He enjoys a close bond with [Tom] DeLay."

Mr. Abramoff hit the jackpot after Republicans took control of the White House as well as Congress. He persuaded several Indian tribes with gambling interests that they needed to pay vast sums for his services and those of Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay aide. From the same Washington Post article: "Under Abramoff's guidance, the four tribes ... have also become major political donors. They have loosened their traditional ties to the Democratic Party, giving Republicans two-thirds of the $2.9 million they have donated to federal candidates since 2001, records show."

So Mr. Abramoff is a movement conservative whose lobbying career was based on his connections with other movement conservatives. His big coup was persuading gullible Indian tribes to hire him as an adviser; his advice was to give less money to Democrats and more to Republicans. There's nothing bipartisan about this tale, which is all about the use and abuse of Republican connections.

Yet over the past few weeks a number of journalists, ranging from The Washington Post's ombudsman to the "Today" show's Katie Couric, have declared that Mr. Abramoff gave money to both parties. In each case the journalists or their news organization, when challenged, grudgingly conceded that Mr. Abramoff himself hasn't given a penny to Democrats. But in each case they claimed that this is only a technical point, because Mr. Abramoff's clients — those Indian tribes — gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans, money the news organizations say he "directed" to Democrats.

But the tribes were already giving money to Democrats before Mr. Abramoff entered the picture; he persuaded them to reduce those Democratic donations, while giving much more money to Republicans. A study commissioned by The American Prospect shows that the tribes' donations to Democrats fell by 9 percent after they hired Mr. Abramoff, while their contributions to Republicans more than doubled. So in any normal sense of the word "directed," Mr. Abramoff directed funds away from Democrats, not toward them.

True, some Democrats who received tribal donations before Mr. Abramoff's entrance continued to receive donations after his arrival. How, exactly, does this implicate them in Mr. Abramoff's machinations? Bear in mind that no Democrat has been indicted or is rumored to be facing indictment in the Abramoff scandal, nor has any Democrat been credibly accused of doing Mr. Abramoff questionable favors.
There have been both bipartisan and purely Democratic scandals in the past. Based on everything we know so far, however, the Abramoff affair is a purely Republican scandal.

Why does the insistence of some journalists on calling this one-party scandal bipartisan matter? For one thing, the public is led to believe that the Abramoff affair is just Washington business as usual, which it isn't. The scale of the scandals now coming to light, of which the Abramoff affair is just a part, dwarfs anything in living memory.

More important, this kind of misreporting makes the public feel helpless. Voters who are told, falsely, that both parties were drawn into Mr. Abramoff's web are likely to become passive and shrug their shoulders instead of demanding reform.

So the reluctance of some journalists to report facts that, in this case, happen to have an anti-Republican agenda is a serious matter. It's not a stretch to say that these journalists are acting as enablers for the rampant corruption that has emerged in Washington over the last decade.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Filibuster Momentum Growing & Growing



Update #2: Save the Court will send your faxes for you, free and easy. Oh, and Senator Biden now says he supports the filibuster.

UPDATE: A week ago Durbin said he had 38 votes for a filibuster, and "this morning,
Senators Joe Biden (D-DE) and Barack Obama (D-IL) announced they are voting No on cloture."

Bob Fertik over at Democrats.com says, the senators are 'freaking out' cause they're getting so many calls for a filibuster. They've "turned off their DC phones and their voicemails are full."

Fertik provides this page of local phone and fax numbers. Tell them to either support a filibuster or stay away from the senate on Monday!

Fertik has lots more including a Democratic Traitor Watch and a Waffler Watch. Know your traitors and wafflers.

Raw Story reports that, as of late Saturday night, 13 Democratic Senators have officially signed on to the filibuster. That includes centrist Hillary Clinton!

Gee, it seems like only yesterday, there was one.

The intensity of the internet response on this has been beyond belief," georgia10 told RAW STORY in an email. "Constituents have raised so much support for the filibuster--Senators' mailboxes are full, inboxes are overflowing, fax machines are running out of paper, and phone lines are ringing off the hook. Considering each internet activist represents not only their own concerns, but the concerns of millions of Americans, the support for a filibuster is astounding."

All weekend long, bloggers called the Young Turks have been 'filibustering' on a 24-hour video feed as they implore their viewers to call their Senators and tell them to take action.

[D]espite what a few polls have shown, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas insists that it's not just liberal Democrats backing the effort.

"This is probably the most united I've ever seen the Democratic establishment, that is, Democrats without offices in the U.S. Senate. Even the DLC is calling for a filibuster. Center, left, right -- all corners of the party agree," Kos blogged on Saturday.

Can you believe it? We might actually see some fighting Dems. Yeah, I'm not holding my breath, but I am making the calls.

Kevin at Lean Left has free fax numbers and the DC numbers, which will, presumably, be working again Monday morning.

The toll free numbers to Congress' switchboard - 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.

Ted Koppel on Broadcast Media


Ted Koppel shares his insight on broadcast media via a New York Times Op-Ed (scroll down). Koppel says the media is not driven by political agenda, nor public interest, rather it is driven by the number one American value, the all-consuming "fight for money."

And Now, a Word for Our Demographic
By TED KOPPEL
Snippets:

The popular illusion that television journalists are liberals does them too much honor. Like all mercenaries they fight for money, not ideology; but unlike true mercenaries, their loyalty is not for sale. It cannot be engaged because it does not exist. Their total lack of commitment to any cause has come to be defined as objectivity. Their daily preoccupation with the trivial and the banal has accumulated large audiences, which, in turn, has encouraged a descent into the search for items of even greater banality. . . .

Indeed, in television news these days, the programs are being shaped to attract, most particularly, 18-to-34-year-old viewers. They, in turn, are presumed to be partly brain-dead — though not so insensible as to be unmoved by the blandishments of sponsors. . .

It's regrettable, perhaps, that only money and the inclination to spend it will ultimately determine the face of television news, but, as a distinguished colleague of mine used to say: "That's the way it is."

Read the whole thing...

Don't forget to boycott MSNBC.

Post-Roe World: Punishing Women for Failure to Breed


Lynn Paltrow has written an excellent, if unnerving, glimpse of the post-Roe world, a world we may soon find ourselves living in.

As if we needed any more reasons to call senators and insist on a filibuster!


Huffington Post (snippets):

A Post-Roe World With Criminal Penalties Our Mothers Could Not Have Imagined
by Lynn M. Paltrow

With the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade just past, many fear that it will be the last. US Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito, for example has stated that he believes that Roe, the 1973 decision recognizing a woman’s fundamental right to choose to have an abortion, has no foundation in the Constitution and many are predicting that his appointment is all but guaranteed.

Yet neither Sam Alito nor either side of the abortion debate has fully addressed is what a post-Roe America would look like. In fact, if Roe is overturned and abortion once again criminalized, the penalties for having an illegal abortion or helping someone get one will be far worse than anything our mothers could have imagined 30 years ago. . . .

Women are six times as likely to spend time in prison as they were in the early 70’s, and today more than one million are under the control of the criminal justice system. The fact that a majority of these women are mothers of young children is no deterrent to their incarceration. And, according to Amnesty International the conditions for imprisoned women are often cruel including being shackled during labor, subjected to violence, and being denied essential medical care. This is the age of retribution not rehabilitation.

Eric Sterling, President of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation notes that federal and state law enforcement agencies are twice as big as they were in 1973 and their investigative powers have been dramatically expanded. He warns that in states where abortion is re-criminalized people should expect strict enforcement with the use of stings, informants, wiretaps, computers and databases to gather evidence and obtain guilty pleas. Women who leave a state that has criminalized abortion to have one elsewhere should expect to be prosecuted upon their return. . .

In fact, since 1973 dozens of states including Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky and Illinois have passed feticide and other laws establishing independent fetal rights, with some states declaring that the unborn (from fertilization) are full legal persons for purposes of the right to life. The South Dakota Taskforce also recommends that the State Constitution to include a provision that provides “the unborn child, from the moment of conception, with the same protection of the law that the child receives after birth.” Equating the zygote, embryo and fetus with full legal persons, means that in states that do ban abortion (and six have already specifically said they would) women who have illegal abortions and the doctors, clergy members, and friends who help them, are likely to be punished as murderers.

Even with Roe still in effect, there are women who have been arrested and are serving time on murder charges for having suffered unintentional stillbirths. In South Carolina, a woman was convicted of homicide by child abuse based on the scientifically unsupported claim that her drug use during pregnancy caused her to suffer a stillbirth. In Utah, a woman was charged with murder based on the claim that she caused a stillbirth by refusing to have a c-section earlier in her pregnancy. If women are now being arrested as murderers for having suffered stillbirths, one should assume that in a post-Roe world intentional abortions would be punished just as seriously.

A tip of the feminist hat to Donkey o.d.

Bushies Censor Climate Scientist


We all know how much the Bushies appreciate science. So here they are again, censoring a NASA scientist who is merely saying that if we don't do something to stop global warming, we are going to lose the planet.

For the crime of speaking science, the Bushies have threatened the scientist with "dire consequences," and cancelled his media interviews!

Got Freedom?

Place your bets on whether this latest Big Brother effort is:

a) meant to bring on the End Times real quick
b) simply another example of pure stupid greed by the moronic Bush Cabal

Either way, we are screwed.

Snippets from The Times (read it and weep):

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said. . .

"Communicating with the public seems to be essential," he said, "because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."

Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.

In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr. Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet."

He said he was particularly incensed that the directives had come through telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents.

Dr. Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied."

The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet."

The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.

After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.

Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews.

There's more...

Saturday, January 28, 2006

SOTU Preview Video (heh)


Watch this funny preview of the State of the Union.

James Adomian excels at playing Bushie.

State of the Union 2006

Hat tip to MYDD

Impeach Video




The Impeach Project has what they call an 'Impeach Video', but it looks like an ad to me, and a classy one at that.

Don't forget, Bushie will be in Nashville next Wednesday.

Stay tuned for news of the protest.

Study: Jackgate Is a Republican Scandal


Don't expect to hear it on CNN. The study was conducted by Dwight L. Morris and Associates, a non partisan research company that is commonly cited by all kinds of media, even the rabidly rightwing Fox News and World Net Daily.

In an analysis entitled, Dems Don't Know Jack, the American Prospect reports, hey dummies, "it’s a Republican scandal."


The study found:

in total, the donations of Abramoff's tribal clients to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up;

five out of seven of Abramoff's tribal clients vastly favored Republican candidates over Democratic ones;

four of the seven began giving substantially more to Republicans than Democrats after he took them on;

Abramoff's clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over twice as much to Democrats than the GOP -- exactly the reverse pattern.

Hat tip to Scott Shield.

For the latest on the inability of Katie Couric, Matt Lauer and Tim Russert to get it, see Think Progress.

Friedman: State of the Union

The only way we could hear the kind of State of the Union speech Friedman is dreaming of is if we heard it from President Gore. It's a great speech Friedman, but it's definitely a little on the green and innovative side for our Bushie.

I'll count myself lucky if the pResident doesn't devote his State of the Union speech to laying out a plan for bringing on the End Times.

By Thomas L. Friedman

On Tuesday President Bush will deliver his State of the Union and map out priorities for his last three years. The direction in which America needs to go is obvious: toward energy independence. If Mr. Bush steps up to that challenge, this speech could be a new beginning for his presidency. If he doesn't, you can stick a fork in this administration. It will be done — because it will have abdicated leadership on the biggest issue of our day. Here's the speech I'll be listening for:

My fellow Americans, on May 25, 1961, President Kennedy gave an extraordinary State of the Union address in which he called on the nation to marshal all of its resources to put a man on the Moon. By setting that lofty goal, Kennedy was trying to summon all our industrial and scientific talent, and a willingness to sacrifice financially, to catch up with the Soviet Union, which had overtaken America in the field of large rocket engines.

"While we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first," Kennedy said, "we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last."

I come to you this evening with a similar challenge. President Kennedy was worried about the threat that communism posed to our way of life. I am here to tell you that if we don't move away from our dependence on oil and shift to renewable fuels, it will change our way of life for the worse — and soon — much, much more than communism ever could have. Making this transition is the calling of our era.

Why?

Read the whole thing..

Dowd: Oprah's Bunk Club

By Maureen Dowd

We should have known the guy was not really a bad-boy, tattooed "It's time to throw down" brawler when he had to bring his mom on the Larry King show to protect him.

On Thursday, the unmasked memoirist's proud mother was replaced by a punitive national matriarch. Watching Oprah flay Frey was riveting. At The Times and at Doubleday, staffers were glued to their TV sets.

It was a huge relief, after our long national slide into untruth and no consequences, into Swift boating and swift bucks, into W.'s delusion and denial, to see the Empress of Empathy icily hold someone accountable for lying and conning — and embarrassing her. (Though she and her producers should have known questions were raised early on about the book.)

In a society obsessed with sin and redemption, this was the superfecta: Oprah admitting her flawed judgment and rescuing her reputation, while carving up James Frey for sinning in his book about sin and redemption.

Read the whole thing ..

Friday, January 27, 2006

Koufax Award Nominee

Well, I'm pinching myself, but it looks like it's true that this humble little blog is a Koufax award nominee. As they say, sort of, at the Oscars, this little blog would be nowhere without some very fine readers. So thanks dear readers for making this possible, cause it is certainly an honor to be a nominee.

And thanks to C.E. Petro at Thoughts of an Average Woman - who is also a Koufax award nominee - for being the first to clue me in. I had no idea.

Koufax awards are for lefty bloggers and there are various categories, such as 1) Best Single Issue blog, 2) Best New Blog, 3) Most Deserving of Wider Recognition and 4) Best State and Local blog - the category your TN Guerilla Women blog woke up and found herself in.

There are lots more categories, including Best Blog, won by Daily Kos last year. Jesus General is a former Best Humor winner.

A few of the ones I'm familiar with (nominated in various categories): Pam's House Blend, The Heretik, Eleventh Hour South, Facing South, Tiny Cat Pants, Sisters Talk , Dictionopolis in Digitopolis , I Blame the Patriarchy, Attywood, Redneck Mother , and Think Progress.

TV On The Fritz and Brittney at Nashville is Talking have more about some of the Tennessee nominees.

Voting is not yet open, so everyone has time to check out some fine lefty blogs.

Congratulations to this year's nominees!

Survey Says: We Do Not Like Thee Dr.Frist


Survey USA has released its new 50 state poll of job approval ratings for all U.S. Senators.

Billy Frist has a net approval rate (approval minus disapproval) of 5 percent. That compares to a net approval of 54 percent earned by each of the two most popular senators, Daniel Inouye and Olympia Snowe.

There are six senators more unpopular than Frist.

And the man thinks he has a shot at the presidency? Senator Frist will be fortunate if he can find a hospital that will allow him to practice medicine.

Hat tip to Political Wire

Dead to the World -or- Really Left Behind

Felix G. Rohatyn, former ambassador to France, weighs in on our country's failure to look to and learn from older and more ethically and morally advanced nations.

There's no doubt about it, as a nation we are very much an adolescent and a heterosexual male one at that. Rohatyn points out that Samuel Alito is a firm subscriber to the provincial standpoint that makes us United Statesians appear so small and mean in the eyes of our more mature allies.

It's a good read.

From The Times:

Dead to the World

DURING my four years as the American ambassador to France, I discovered that no single issue was viewed with as much hostility as our support for the death penalty. Outlawed by every member of the European Union, the death penalty was, and is, viewed in Europe as a throwback to the Middle Ages. When we require European support on security issues — Iran’s nuclear program; the war in Iraq; North Korea’s bomb; relations with China and Russia; the Middle East peace process — our job is made more difficult by the intensity of popular opposition in Europe to our policy.

Several years ago, Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke to the senior staff of our embassy in Paris on this issue to help them explain our position to a very hostile French audience. I was agreeably surprised when he indicated his belief that sooner or later, we would have to take into account the views of Europeans in determining what constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Last March, the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, abolished capital punishment for juvenile offenders, concluding that the death penalty for minors is indeed cruel and unusual punishment. “Our determination,” Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority decision, “finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty.”

While, unsurprisingly, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, it is notable that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor agreed with Justice Kennedy that international trends affect the meaning of “cruel and unusual punishment.” Justices Scalia and Thomas, on the other hand, took the majority to task for taking “guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislators.”

This attitude, reflecting a narrow and parochial view of the issue, is also found in Judge Samuel Alito’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to the Supreme Court: “I don’t think it appropriate or useful to look to foreign law in interpreting the provisions of our Constitution. I think the framers would be stunned by the idea that the Bill of Rights is to be interpreted by taking a poll of countries of the world.”

To the contrary, globalization has made it not only “appropriate or useful” but vital to look at foreign laws. It is in our interest to be aware of their impact whether they concern antitrust, food safety or the death penalty. Contempt for the laws of our allies is a major factor in our increasing isolation in the world; our present posture in Iraq reflects that reality. That is why is it is deeply troubling that the next member of the Supreme Court will most likely share Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas’s point of view.

The Supreme Court is our most respected institution. Whether it is conservative or liberal is important; but it is even more important that it be enlightened. It must show understanding, if not respect, for other peoples’ beliefs and laws, and occasionally be willing to support reasonable changes. Our Constitution, itself, was an extension of Enlightenment ideas that were incubated on the Continent. It certainly did not spring up in a vacuum, but was affected by strains of political thinking in Europe.

“That our understanding of the Constitution does change from time to time has been settled since John Marshall breathed life into its text,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote last year, concurring with Justice Kennedy. Taking the views of 450 million Europeans into account is not a sign of weakness on our part, nor is it a commitment to change our views. It is simply recognition that the laws of our most important allies, our biggest foreign investors, foreign employers, foreign customers and trading partners are worthy of our attention. That is a sign of enlightenment.

Hat tip to Nevada Thunder

Krugman: Health Care Confidential

By Paul Krugman

American health care is desperately in need of reform. But what form should change take? Are there any useful examples we can turn to for guidance?

Well, I know about a health care system that has been highly successful in containing costs, yet provides excellent care. And the story of this system's success provides a helpful corrective to anti-government ideology. For the government doesn't just pay the bills in this system — it runs the hospitals and clinics.

No, I'm not talking about some faraway country. The system in question is our very own Veterans Health Administration, whose success story is one of the best-kept secrets in the American policy debate.

Read the whole thing..

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Kerry Wants to Lead Filibuster

UPDATE #2 - Hillary Clinton supports a filibuster. Please ignore the media's whining about the hopelessness of it all. The idiotic media is why we're in this mess. CNN's big story of the day is that Kerry must be elitist cuz he was at a fancy ski resort (along with some Rethuglicans) when he called for the filibuster. Never friggin' mind the 1001 reasons for a filibuster, or impeachment for that matter, the big story is Kerry is elitist. CNN sucks.

Update: CNN has confirmed that Kerry is working on getting the votes for a filibuster.

Bob Fertik reports that Kerry wants to lead a filibuster and is working on rounding up the votes.

Fertik also provides a breakdown on the numerical obstacles - 8 Democrats Who Are Blocking a Filibuster.

Developing....

NY Times to Dems: Filibuster Damit


An editorial in today's Times expresses the prevalent feelings of disgust over a political party that behaves more like a doormat than an opposition party.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but you always lose if you fail to even muster the courage to stand and fight.

If the Dems won't stand up and fight against the appointment of an overt Bush yes man to the Supreme Court, what in hell are they good for?

Senators in Need of a Spine

[P]ortraying the Alito nomination as just another volley in the culture wars vastly underestimates its significance. The judge's record strongly suggests that he is an eager lieutenant in the ranks of the conservative theorists who ignore our system of checks and balances, elevating the presidency over everything else. He has expressed little enthusiasm for restrictions on presidential power and has espoused the peculiar argument that a president's intent in signing a bill is just as important as the intent of Congress in writing it. This would be worrisome at any time, but it takes on far more significance now, when the Bush administration seems determined to use the cover of the "war on terror" and presidential privilege to ignore every restraint, from the Constitution to Congressional demands for information.

Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster — particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote.

A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

UPDATE: Tim Johnson of South Dakota has joined with fellow Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska to form a gang of 2 Democratic Traitors who cast their senate votes for Alito.

Al Gore's Film at Sundance


Al Gore's film - 'An Inconvenient Truth'- just premiered at Sundance, and it received a STANDING OVATION, observes today's WaPo. Since the 2000 election, Gore has been touring the planet with his "one-man, ever-evolving multimedia slide show" telling the story of how global warming is here, and tsunamis and more are coming.

Of course, we know what the one-man-planet-wrecker Bushie has been doing since 2000.

PARK CITY, Utah -- Has ever a little indie film faced a greater hurdle? Imagine this sales pitch: Babe, it's a movie about global warming. Starring Al Gore. Doing a slide show.

With charts.

About "soil evaporation."

Improbable? Perhaps. So it's all the more amazing that "An Inconvenient Truth" had its world premiere at the Sundance Film Festival on Tuesday night before an enthusiastic audience that gave the former vice president and his movie a big standing O.

Among the film's lessons: Earth's glaciers are melting, the polar bears are screwed, each year sets new heat records. Al Gore sometimes flies coach. He also schleps his own bags.

The morning after his debut as leading man, Gore pronounces this whole Sundance thing "a most excellent time." He is wearing earth tones again. He seems jolly . He brought Tipper and the kids. He is attending parties and posing for pictures with his fans and enjoying macaroni and cheese at the Discovery Channel soiree. He's palling around with Larry David of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," who says, "Al is a funny guy." But he is also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.

There's more at Hollywood Reporter.

More on Al Gore: What People Are Saying About Al Gore

A President Who Can Do No Right

By Bob Herbert

We should be used to it by now. There are a couple of Congressional committees trying to investigate the tragic Hurricane Katrina debacle, but the Bush administration is refusing to turn over certain documents or allow certain senior White House officials to testify before the committees under oath.

Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat who is by no means unfriendly to the Bush crowd, said this week, "There has been a near-total lack of cooperation that has made it impossible, in my opinion, for us to do the thorough investigation that we have a responsibility to do."

Once again the president has, in effect, flipped the bird at Congress. He's amazing. Forget such fine points as the Constitution and the separation of powers. George W. Bush does what he wants to do. He won fewer votes than Al Gore in 2000 and then governed as if he'd been elected by acclamation. He dispensed with John Kerry in 2004 by portraying himself — a man who ran and hid from the draft during Vietnam — as more of a warrior than Mr. Kerry, a decorated combat veteran of that war.

Reality has been dealt a stunning blow by Mr. Bush. The administration's high-handedness with the Katrina investigators comes at the same time as disclosures showing that the White House was warned in the hours just before the hurricane hit New Orleans that it might well cause catastrophic flooding and the breaching of the city's levees.

That was early on the morning of last Aug. 29. On Sept. 1, with the city all but completely underwater, the president went on television and blithely declared, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."

This guy is something. Remember his "Top Gun" moment aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln? And his famous taunt — "Bring 'em on" — to the insurgents in Iraq? His breathtaking arrogance is exceeded only by his incompetence. And that's the real problem. That's where you'll find the mind-boggling destructiveness of this regime, in its incompetence.

Fantasy may be in fashion. Reality may have been shoved into the shadows on Mr. Bush's watch. But the plain truth is that he is the worst president in memory, and one of the worst of all time. Many thousands of people — men, women and children — have died unnecessarily (and thousands more are suffering) because of his misguided and mishandled policies.

Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser for George H. W. Bush, counseled against the occupation of Iraq at the end of the first gulf war. As recounted in a New Yorker article last fall, he said, "At the minimum, we'd be an occupier in a hostile land. Our forces would be sniped at by guerrillas, and, once we were there, how would we get out?"

George W. Bush had no such concerns. In fact, he joked about his failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Like a frat boy making cracks about a bad bet on a football game, Mr. Bush displayed what he felt was a hilarious set of photos during a spoof that he performed at the annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents Association in March 2004.

The photos showed the president peering behind curtains and looking under furniture in the Oval Office for the missing weapons. Mr. Bush offered mock captions for the photos, saying, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere." And, "Nope, no weapons over there, maybe under here."

This week, as the killing of American G.I.'s and innocent Iraqis continued, we learned from a draft report from the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction that, like the war itself, the Bush plan for rebuilding Iraq has been crippled by incompetence and extreme shortages of personnel. I doubt that this will bother the president any more than any of his other failures. He seems to truly believe that he can do no wrong.

The fiasco in Iraq and the president's response to the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe were Mr. Bush's two most spectacular foul-ups. There have been many others. The president's new Medicare prescription drug program has been a monumental embarrassment, leaving some of the most vulnerable members of our society without essential medication. Prominent members of the president's own party are balking at the heavy hand of his No Child Left Behind law, which was supposed to radically upgrade the quality of public education.

The Constitution? Civil liberties? Don't ask.

Just keep in mind, whatever your political beliefs, that incompetence in high places can have devastating consequences.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Tell Chris Matthews to Apologize



By Peter Daou - New THE TRIANGLE: Matthews, Moore, Murtha, and the Media: What's the common thread running through the past half-decade of Bush's presidency? What's the nexus between the Swift-boating of Kerry, the Swift-boating of Murtha, and the guilt-by-association between Democrats and terrorists? Why has a seemingly endless string of administration scandals faded into oblivion? Why do Democrats keep losing elections? It's this: the traditional media, the trusted media, the "neutral" media, have become the chief delivery mechanism of potent anti-Democratic and pro-Bush storylines. And the Democratic establishment appears to be either ignorant of this political quandary or unwilling to fight it.

Read the whole thing - if you care about taking our country back, you should read it.

Speaking of pro-Bush storylines: MSNBC's Chris Matthews has repeatedly compared Democrats to Osama bin Laden. Join the campaign to hold the media accountable by going to Open Letter to Chris Matthews.

Tell Hardball's advertisers what you think about an MSNBC political pundit who compares you to Osama bin Laden.

Matthews needs to wake up and acknowledge his behavior. He needs to apologize.

Tell them to Filibuster Alito


Call them and tell them to Filibuster Alito!

Leadership:

Harry Reid, NV Democratic Leader (202) 224-3542
Dick Durbin, IL Assistant Democratic Leader (202) 224-2152
Patrick Leahy, VT Ranking Member Judiciary Committee (202) 224-4242

Senators leaning toward filibuster, call and urge them on:

Toll free Phone numbers:
1-888-355-3588 or 1-888-818-6641

Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas
Mark Pryor, Arkansas
Diane Feinstein, California
Joe Lieberman, Connecticut
Joe Biden, Delaware
Barack Obama, Illinois
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
Susan Collins, Maine
Olympia Snowe, Maine
Bill Nelson, Florida
Kent Conrad, North Dakota
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
Lincoln Chaffee, Rhode Island
Tim Johnson, South Dakota

{Hat tip to Georgia10)

The moderate Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska will vote for Alito. As yet, Ben Nelson is the only Democratic defector.

Moderate Dem, Bill Nelson of Florida will vote against Alito.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., announced his vote for Alito today.

Only Republican Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine; and Ted Stevens of Alaska have not yet publicly committed to vote for Alito.

Call them!

While We Wait for the Jack & Bushie Photos




I Wish I Knew How to Acquit You


It appears that it is Jack Abramoff who is showing the Bushie/Abramoff photos off to the media, all the while refusing to give permission for publication. Abramoff seems to be up to his old Jackgate tricks, or sending a signal to the White House, something like, 'gimme what I want, or else you'll see Us on the cover of Time.'

Photo via One Good Move, where you can also see the Daily Show clip that unleashed this oh-so steamy shot of Jack and Bushie on the world. Gawd, isn't Bushie a little on the hairy side?

Caption via Yes But No But Yes

Bush the Incompetent


Harold Meyerson at the WaPo has a really great piece on moronic Bushie, and, Bush the Incompetent is his title.

Here's a snippet:

Incompetence is not one of the seven deadly sins, and it's hardly the worst attribute that can be ascribed to George W. Bush. But it is this president's defining attribute. Historians, looking back at the hash that his administration has made of his war in Iraq, his response to Hurricane Katrina and his Medicare drug plan, will have to grapple with how one president could so cosmically botch so many big things -- particularly when most of them were the president's own initiatives.

In numbing profusion, the newspapers are filled with litanies of screw-ups. Yesterday's New York Times brought news of the first official assessment of our reconstruction efforts in Iraq, in which the government's special inspector general depicted a policy beset, as Times reporter James Glanz put it, "by gross understaffing, a lack of technical expertise, bureaucratic infighting [and] secrecy." At one point, rebuilding efforts were divided, bewilderingly and counterproductively, between the Army Corps of Engineers and, for projects involving water, the Navy. That's when you'd think a president would make clear in no uncertain terms that bureaucratic turf battles would not be allowed to impede Iraq's reconstruction. But then, the president had no guiding vision for how to rebuild Iraq -- indeed, he went to war believing that such an undertaking really wouldn't require much in the way of American treasure and American lives.

It's the president's prescription drug plan (Medicare Part D), though, that is his most mind-boggling failure. As was not the case in Iraq or with Katrina, it hasn't had to overcome the opposition of man or nature. Pharmacists are not resisting the program; seniors are not planting car bombs to impede it (not yet, anyway). But in what must be an unforeseen development, people are trying to get their medications covered under the program. Apparently, this is a contingency for which the administration was not prepared, as it has been singularly unable to get its own program up and running. . .

How could a president get these things so wrong? Incompetence may describe this presidency, but it doesn't explain it. For that, historians may need to turn to the seven deadly sins: to greed, in understanding why Bush entrusted his new drug entitlement to a financial mainstay of modern Republicanism. To sloth, in understanding why Incurious George has repeatedly ignored the work of experts whose advice runs counter to his desires.

Dowd: Delusion and Illusion Worthy of Dickens

Delusion and Illusion Worthy of Dickens
By Maureen Dowd

The Democrats will never win the White House as long as they're stuck in Bleak House. They're slipping and sliding in the same crust-upon-crust of mud and caboose-creeping fog and soft black drizzle and flakes of soot that blacken the chamber of law in the opening of the terrific Dickens novel (now an irresistible PBS series).

The lumbering pace of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce will pale compared with the time it will take the cowed and colicky Democrats to yank back power from Republicans skilled at abusing it.

The party simply seems incapable of getting the muscular message and riveting messenger needed to dispel the mud, fog, drizzle and soot emanating from Karl Rove's rag-and-bone shop on Pennsylvania Avenue.

As the White House drives its truckload of lies around the country, it becomes ever clearer that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore are just not the right people to respond to the administration's national security scare-a-thon.

We got mired in Iraq in the first place partly because Dick Cheney and Rummy thought that, post-Vietnam and post-Clinton, America was seen as soft. One shock-and-awe session, one tyrant stomped on, they reckoned, and the Arab world would no longer see Americans as wimps. That reasoning turned out to be dangerous, flying in the face of warnings from our own intelligence experts.

But Karl Rove is still dishing out the same line, and it's still working: those who want to re-evaluate the strategy in Iraq are soft. Those who want to rein in the Patriot Act are soft. Those who question the Alito doctrine of presidential absolutism are soft. Those who don't want to break the law and snoop on Americans are soft - not just soft, but practically collaborating with the terrorists.

"Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview" on national security, Mr. Rove said last week, "and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong - deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

But you only need to check the paper daily to see that this administration has been deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong on everything: from the promise to rebuild Iraq and the consequences of deploying a strained Army this long in an insurgent war to the failure to respond to the aftermath of Katrina, after dissembling about pre-storm alarms.

The bumbling Bush team that ignored the warning "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" also ignored one that went something like: "Katrina Determined to Attack New Orleans." And now the White House is trying to inhibit Congressional questions on Katrina, just as it did for the 9/11 inquiries.

The administration's p.r. offensive on warrantless - and questionably effective - snooping is so aggressive that it has even risked exposing the president to an occasional unscripted, but still not tough, question. So he rambles on about steering clear of "Brokeback Mountain" and the therapeutic value of mountain biking. And he calls Barney, the Scottish terrier, "the son I never had." (Barney's dad is all bark and no bite.)

The White House is as skittish about bilked Indians as it is about billing-and-cooing cowboys. It admits it has pictures of the president with Jack Abramoff, but won't cough them up.

While he was out defending his scofflaw behavior, W. had to address the fact that the real nuclear threat (Iran), as opposed to the fake nuclear threat (Iraq), is embarrassing him. He told the Iranian people: "We have no beef with you." (State Department reporters puzzled over how that might be translated into Farsi: "We have no cow with you"?)

You couldn't turn on a TV this week without seeing Torture Guy Alberto Gonzales give all-purpose legal cover to Dick Cheney as that Grim Peeper ravages the Constitution. At a Georgetown University speech, W.'s legal lickspittle ignored a few student protesters, but he might have learned something from their banner, emblazoned with words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

In their usual twisted way, the Bushies are reducing their abuse of the law to a test of testosterone - knowing that the Democrats will play Judy to their Punch.

The Dems need to drum up a decent message so they look as if they know what the Dickens they're doing before the November election. Otherwise, they'll look like bowed supplicants holding out gruel cups to Karl Rove and pleading, "Please, sir, I want some more."

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Another Day, Another Lie from Bushie


So the White House knew about the seriousness of Katrina. The Bushies were forewarned about Katrina’s devastating impact.

"The White House was told in the hours before Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans that the city would probably soon be inundated with floodwater, forcing the long-term relocation of hundreds of thousands of people, documents to be released Tuesday by Senate investigators show."

The warning included, "predictions of breached levees, massive flooding, and major losses of life and property."

Yet on Sept. 1, Bushie said: "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."

Probably our Boy King was playing with Mrs. Beasley the day the warning arrived, or maybe he was napping cuz he had a bad hangover. Who knows what in hell his Crony Cabal was doing?

Good thing the Rethuglicans are strong on national security, or we'd all be in big trouble, eh?

Oh well, as the saying goes, another day, another lie from Bushie.

Before Bushie's latest lie came to light, Molly Ivins observed (in her latest column):

"American journalism [needs] to get over reporting the Bush administration as though it were a credible source. We need to face facts."

Yeah, like the fact that you can't believe a word your lying government tells you.

Read Molly Ivins, one of the few American journalists who has a clue, here.

Alito Gets Party Line Vote


****
Update: Armando at dkos reports that "Democrats will push for extended debate on the issue, with every Democratic member taking the floor to stretch out debate in what will amount to a non-filibuster filibuster."
****
As expected the Senate Judiciary Committee vote for Alito was a party line vote. The ten Republicans voted for the extremist judge, the eight Democrats voted against him.

It's time for Arlen Specter to stop claiming that he is pro choice.

Like Sen. Feinstein said, "If one is pro-choice in this day and age, in this structure, one can’t vote for Judge Alito. It is simply that simple. I am very concerned about the impact he would have on women’s rights."

Outside the Capitol, anti-Alito protesters fought the good fight and carried signs reading, "Oppose Alito, Save Roe."

The real battle will be the full senate vote, probably later this week.

White House Bracing for Impeachment Hearings


Happy days may be on the horizon, and it's about fu*king time. "The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress," according to Insight Magazine.

Insight's anonymous administration source says, "A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment."

Bring it on!

Sources said a prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. They said the hearings would focus on the secret electronic surveillance program and whether Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Administration sources said the charges are expected to include false reports to Congress as well as Mr. Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to engage in electronic surveillance inside the United States without a court warrant. This included the monitoring of overseas telephone calls and e-mail traffic to and from people living in the United States without requisite permission from a secret court.

Sources said the probe to determine whether the president violated the law will include Republicans, but that they may not be aware they could be helping to lay the groundwork for a Democratic impeachment campaign against Mr. Bush.

"Our arithmetic shows that a majority of the committee could vote against the president," the source said. "If we work hard, there could be a tie." . . .

Sen. Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and Pennsylvania Republican, has acknowledged that the hearings could conclude with a vote of whether Mr. Bush violated the law. Mr. Specter, a critic of the administration’s surveillance program, stressed that, although he would not seek it, impeachment is a possible outcome. . .

Mr. Specter and other senior members of the committee have been told by legal constitutional experts that Mr. Bush did not have the authority to authorize unlimited secret electronic surveillance. Another leading Republican who has rejected the administration's argument is Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

On Jan. 16, former Vice President Al Gore set the tone for impeachment hearings against Mr. Bush by accusing the president of lying to the American people. Mr. Gore, who lost the 2000 election to Mr. Bush, accused the president of "indifference" to the Constitution and urged a serious congressional investigation. He said the administration decided to break the law after Congress refused to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government," Mr. Gore said.

"I call upon members of Congress in both parties to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution,” he said. “Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of American government that you are supposed to be under the constitution of our country."

Read the whole thing..

Hat tip to Taegan Goddard

Tierney: Sex, Lies and OxyContin

In his latest column, John Tierney continues his assault on Bushie's out-of-control ultra-zealous Drug Enforcement Administration.

Tierney notes that the DEA's War on Drugs, is often a War on Doctors.

The "drugs for sex" trial in Pittsburgh appeared to be a triumph for the Drug Enforcement Administration, which had helped investigate the doctor. But now it looks more like a frightening example of what's wrong with the D.E.A.'s war against doctors.

Read the whole thing..

Alito Vote Today



Alito is expected to clear the Senate Judiciary Committee vote today. The vote will likely split along party lines - 10 Republicans vs. 8 Democrats.

Sign Kerry's anti Alito petition.


Monday, January 23, 2006

Bushie's Executive Masturbation Proclamation



King George spoke to abortion opponents today and told his ever dwindling portion of the country:

This is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens and is rooted in America's deepest principle. And history tells us that with such a cause we will prevail.

These principles call us to defend the sick and the dying, persons with disabilities and birth defects, all who are weak and vulnerable, especially unborn children.

Bushie added:

Human life is a gift from our Creator, and should never used (sic) as a means to an end. We will not sanction the creation of life only to destroy it.

Meanwhile rumors are flying that Bushie will soon issue an the Executive Masturbation Proclamation forever forbidding male masturbation, cuz everyone knows The Creator has ordained that life begins at ejaculation.

(Note: According to the principles of PResidential Prerogatives, this proclamation will be null and void whenever the mood strikes King George.)

Reasons to Oppose Alito

"[The] Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." -- Samuel Alito

The Senate Judiciary Committee votes on Alito tomorrow (Filibuster Possible). The latest poll (ARG) puts the Bushie job approval at its lowest point ever. Among all Americans, "36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president." Among registered voters, Bushie does better, yeah, one point better - 37%. (via Josh Marshall)

The American people have no confidence in Bushie, why on earth would the Senate Judiciary Committee give him a vote of confidence by voting to confirm Alito?

In today's Times, the paper comes out against Alito, and also does a very fine job of summarizing the dangers that a Justice Alito would present to America. Said dangers sound a whole lot like the dangers King George presents.

New York Times:

Judge Alito's Radical Views

If Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings lacked drama, apart from his wife's bizarrely over-covered crying jag, it is because they confirmed the obvious. Judge Alito is exactly the kind of legal thinker President Bush wants on the Supreme Court. He has a radically broad view of the president's power, and a radically narrow view of Congress's power. He has long argued that the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. He wants to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and has a history of tilting the scales of justice against the little guy.

As senators prepare to vote on the nomination, they should ask themselves only one question: will replacing Sandra Day O'Connor with Judge Alito be a step forward for the nation, or a step backward? Instead of Justice O'Connor's pragmatic centrism, which has kept American law on a steady and well-respected path, Judge Alito is likely to bring a movement conservative's approach to his role and to the Constitution.

Judge Alito may be a fine man, but he is not the kind of justice the country needs right now. Senators from both parties should oppose his nomination.

It is likely that Judge Alito was chosen for his extreme views on presidential power. The Supreme Court, with Justice O'Connor's support, has played a key role in standing up to the Bush administration's radical view of its power, notably that it can hold, indefinitely and without trial, anyone the president declares an "unlawful enemy combatant."

Judge Alito would no doubt try to change the court's approach. He has supported the fringe "unitary executive" theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution. He has also put forth the outlandish idea that if the president makes a statement when he signs a bill into law, a court interpreting the law should give his intent the same weight it gives to Congress's intent in writing and approving the law.

Judge Alito would also work to reduce Congress's power in other ways. In a troubling dissent, he argued that Congress exceeded its authority when it passed a law banning machine guns, and as a government lawyer he insisted Congress did not have the power to protect car buyers from falsified odometers.

There is every reason to believe, based on his long paper trail and the evasive answers he gave at his hearings, that Judge Alito would quickly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. So it is hard to see how Senators Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, all Republicans, could square support for Judge Alito with their commitment to abortion rights.

Judge Alito has consistently shown a bias in favor of those in power over those who need the law to protect them. Women, racial minorities, the elderly and workers who come to court seeking justice should expect little sympathy. In the same flat bureaucratic tones he used at the hearings, he is likely to insist that the law can do nothing for them.

The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around this nomination. But there is no reason to believe that Judge Alito is any more popular than the president who nominated him. Outside of a small but vocal group of hard-core conservatives, America has greeted the Alito nomination with a shrug - and counted on senators to make the right decision.

The real risk for senators lies not in opposing Judge Alito, but in voting for him. If the far right takes over the Supreme Court, American law and life could change dramatically. If that happens, many senators who voted for Judge Alito will no doubt come to regret that they did not insist that Justice O'Connor's seat be filled with someone who shared her cautious, centrist approach to the law.