Al Gore: Congress Subservient to King George

Welcome Huffington Post/Peter Daou readers.
----
UPDATE: CNN has been giving Al Gore's speech some attention, Wolf Blitzer, Larry King and this. Not the level of coverage he should receive, but it is something.
----

On C-Span right now, Al Gore is delivering a kick-ass speech. The former Vice President is blasting Bush for assuming the role of monarch and blasting Congress for bowing down and permitting Bush to walk all over the Constitution. The Hall appears to be packed and they sure do like Al Gore.

Gore calls for the immediate appointment of a special counsel to investigate Bush's well-documented habits of breaking the law. The former senator from Tennessee suggests that Patrick Fitzgerald would be a fine choice for the job of investigating outlaw Bushie.

A copy of the speech is here, and here are some snippets:

At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently. (thunderous applause). . .

The Congress we have today is unrecognizable compared to the one in which my father served. There are many distinguished Senators and Congressmen serving today. I am honored that some of them are here in this hall. But the legislative branch of government under its current leadership now operates as if it is entirely subservient to the Executive Branch. . .

In the United States Senate, which used to pride itself on being the "greatest deliberative body in the world," meaningful debate is now a rarity. Even on the eve of the fateful vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd famously asked: "Why is this chamber empty?"

The Executive Branch, time and again, has co-opted Congress' role, and often Congress has been a willing accomplice in the surrender of its own power. . .

I cannot disagree with the Liberty Coalition when it says that Democrats as well as Republicans in the Congress must share the blame for not taking action to protest and seek to prevent what they consider a grossly unconstitutional program. . .

We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.

I endorse the words of Bob Barr, when he said, "The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."

A special counsel should immediately be appointed by the Attorney General to remedy the obvious conflict of interest that prevents him from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the President. We have had a fresh demonstration of how an independent investigation by a special counsel with integrity can rebuild confidence in our system of justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the Executive Branch has violated other laws.

Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress should support the bipartisan call of the Liberty Coalition for the appointment of a special counsel to pursue the criminal issues raised by warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the President. . .

As Dr. King once said, "Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us."

Al Gore Gore Speech Bush King George Bob Barr Constitutional Crisis Liberty Coalition Tennessee

Hattiesburg Airs Book of Daniel, Nashville Doesn't

Despite the efforts of the radical rightwing American Family Association, the folks in Hattiesburg, Mississippi will be watching the new NBC series, The Book of Daniel. Unlike the Nashville NBC affiliate, the Hattiesburg station has rejected calls for censorship from extremist religious groups.

According to the WDAM-TV station manager, there are grown-ups in Hattiesburg, and they are intelligent enough to make their own decisions about what TV shows they will or will not watch.

"Basically our corporation does not feel that censorship is a road that we need to travel," said the station's general manager Jim Cameron.

"Our viewers are both intelligent and certainly capable of making their own decision about whether or not they want to watch it."

Too bad about Nashville, where the local NBC affiliate station manager has decided that this is a city of children, and he is our daddy.

Nashville is one of seven - of the 232 NBC affiliates in the nation - to pull the show. Most of the seven are here in the South where our churches are far better funded than our schools. Which is why we need people like WSMV-TV station manager, Elden Hale to be our daddy.

Tell daddy Elden Hale, Jr. what you think:

WSMV-TV station manager, Elden Hale, Jr.
615-383-4444,
e-mail: ehale@wsmv.com

WSMV-TV Channel 4
5700 Knob Road
Nashville, TN 37209
Programming@wsmv.com
(615) 353-4444

Book of Daniel NBC American Family Association Censorship Nashville Tennessee

Judicial Gag Rule

Judicial Gag Rule
By Bob Herbert

A casual newspaper reader or television viewer might have gotten the impression that the major problem with last week's Supreme Court confirmation hearings was that some senators on the Judiciary Committee talked too much. The truth, of course, is that the nominee, Samuel Alito, talked far too little.

Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat with designs on the presidency, was singled out for criticism. Senator Biden is unquestionably loquacious. We might as well stipulate that. But he's also a smart guy. And an occasion as important - even solemn - as a Senate inquiry into the fitness of a man to sit on the Supreme Court is as good a time as any for us to worry a little less about style points and a lot more about the substantive matters at hand.

When the president of the United States, who is abusing his power every which way he can, chooses for the Supreme Court an extreme right-winger who is all but mesmerized by the power elite, it would behoove us to pay closer attention to the substance of what Senator Biden and others are saying.

"The whole point here," said Mr. Biden, in an interview on the "Today" show, "is that nominees now, Democrat and Republican nominees, come before the United States Congress and resolve not to let the people know what they think about important issues."

The "real issue," he said, is whether the public has a right to know how Supreme Court nominees view certain crucially important matters, including matters involving threats to life and limb, or that ultimately might determine whether we will continue to live in a reasonably free society.

For example, Senator Biden asked: "Do the people have a right to know whether or not President Bush is able to go to war in Iran without Congressional approval, which his administration argues? That's a pretty basic subject. Do they have that right?

"Well, it seems to me a judge before us should say, 'Well, I think the Constitution says he does or he doesn't,' as opposed to saying, 'Well, he's bound by the Constitution,' which begs the question."

The confirmation hearings have become farcical, an obnoxious hide-and-seek ritual in which the administration's ultimate goal is to have the public know as little as possible - as opposed to as much as possible - about individuals being appointed to the most powerful court in the land. That's the opposite of the way a democracy should work.

Mr. Alito is on his way toward confirmation. He will probably vote to reverse Roe v. Wade. He will not be a champion of voting rights for minorities, or a bulwark against racial and gender discrimination. If his record is any indication, and we have very little else to go on, he will almost always side with the powerful interests, whether in government or the great corporations, against the little guy.

I can understand why the Republican Party - the party of Bush, Cheney, Frist, Abramoff and DeLay - would want such a man. But why the general public would want him is beyond me.

Sam Alito is the kind of guy who, rather than lend a helping hand, would slam the trap door on less-privileged individuals seeking opportunities similar to those he enjoyed. Nor is he trustworthy. I don't believe his story that he couldn't remember belonging to the bigoted group Concerned Alumni of Princeton, given the fact that he was happy enough in 1985 to tout his membership in the group on his application for a promotion in the Reagan Justice Department.

After Mr. Alito is confirmed, President Bush and Dick Cheney will pat their new justice on the back and help him into his judicial robes, wishing him well. He'll then get high-fives and warm embraces from his ideological soul mates, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. The Supreme Court will have tilted even more dangerously to the right and, in my view, the rights and protections of ordinary citizens - the little guys - will be in even graver peril.

The great post-World War II advances in civil rights and civil liberties, and the protection of ordinary citizens against the depredations of the rich and powerful, would never have happened without the courageous efforts of the enlightened justices who served on the Supreme Court in that era. They would surely never have happened with the likes of Alito, Thomas and Scalia making the important calls.

It will take many years to reverse this dismal tide. You might keep that in mind the next time you're considering whether to vote - or for whom to vote - in a presidential election.

Bob Herbert Bush Filibuster Alito Alito Scalito Supreme Court Roe Reproductive Rights Herbert

Al Gore to Go for the Bush Jugular

It is a measure of the bleakness of these times when the good news is that a Democrat has the courage to stand up and tell the truth (and the media will report it, maybe).

John Nichols, blogging at the Nation, seems to have had a peek at the speech Al Gore will deliver tomorrow at a bipartisan event. From Nichols' account, it is clear that Gore will go for the Bush jugular by invoking the specter of Nixon and issuing "a 'call to arms' in defense of the Bill of Rights and the rule of law" at a time when our Imperial President presumes that he is the law.

The former Vice President will be introduced by another defender of the Constitution, the infamously conservative Bob Barr.

Can we expect to read about this on the front pages of our free press? Will CNN take a break from the crisis of Oprah's book club long enough to pay attention to the trainwreck of the U.S. Constitutional Crisis?

If the glorified Founding Fathers were alive today, I swear they'd either be on a fast plane to Canada or arming the citizens for a revolution.

The Nation blog: (snippets)

In a major address slated for delivery Monday in Washington, the former Vice President is expected to argue that the Bush administration has created a "Constitutional crisis" by acting without the authorization of the Congress and the courts to spy on Americans and otherwise abuse basic liberties.

Aides who are familiar with the preparations for the address say that Gore will frame his remarks in Constitutional language. The Democrat who beat Bush by more than 500,000 votes in the 2000 presidential election has agreed to deliver his remarks in a symbolically powerful location: the historic Constitution Hall of the Daughters of the American Revolution. But this will not be the sort of cautious, bureacratic speech for which Gore was frequently criticized during his years in the Senate and the White House.

Indeed, his aides and allies are framing it as a "call to arms" in defense of the Bill of Rights and the rule of law in a time of executive excess.

Coming only a few weeks after U.S. Representative John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced resolutions to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and to explore the issue of impeachment, Gore in expected to "make the case that the country -- including the legislative and judicial branches and all Americans -- must act now to defend the systems put into place by the country's founders to curb executive power or risk permanent and irreversible damage to the Constitution."

Former U.S. Representative Bob Barr, the Georgia Republican who served as one of the most conservative members of the House, plans to introduce Gore. Barr, an outspoken critic of the abuses of civil liberties contained in the USA Patriot Act critic who has devoted his post-Congressional years to defending the Bill of Rights, refers to the president's secret authorization of domestic wiretapping as "an egregious violation of the electronic surveillance laws."

Gore Bush Bob Barr Al Gore Impeach Bush Gore Speech King George Constitutional Crisis

Kristof: In India, One Woman's Stand Says 'Enough'

In India, One Woman's Stand Says 'Enough'
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

The central moral challenge we will face in this century will be to address gender inequality in the developing world. Here in India, for example, among children ages 1 to 5, girls are 50 percent more likely to die than boys. That means that every four minutes, a little girl here is discriminated against to death.

One reason for such injustice is that many women docilely accept it - even enforce it. But that may be changing, as I found in a slum here in the central Indian city of Nagpur.

For more than 15 years, the mud alleys of the slum were ruled by a local thug named Akku Yadav. A higher-caste man, he killed, raped and robbed in this community of Dalits - those at the bottom of the caste ladder - and the police paid no attention. One woman, according to people here, went to the police station to report that she had been gang-raped by Akku Yadav and his goons, and the police raped her.

[...]

Other women pulled out chili powder from their clothes and threw it in the faces of Akku Yadav and the police. As the police fled, scores of women pulled out knives and apparently took turns stabbing Akku Yadav and cutting off his penis. He ended up as mincemeat, and the courtroom walls are still spattered with blood.

The police arrested a handful of women, including Usha, for the murder, but she conveniently could prove that she was not at the courtroom that day. And then the hundreds of women in the slum jointly declared that they had all joined in the killing, on the theory that if they all claimed responsibility, no single person could be punished.

"We all did it," affirms Rajashri Rangdale, a young mother. "We all take responsibility for what happened."

"I'm proud of what we did," agrees Jija More, a housewife. "We were all involved."

Read the whole thing. . .

Kristof Rape Patriarchy Gender Terrorism Feminism India Violence Against Women Nicholas Kristof

Rich: Is Abramoff the New Monica?

Is Abramoff the New Monica?
By Frank Rich

THERE'S nothing this White House loves more than pictures that tell a story - a fictional story. And so another mission was accomplished when President Bush posed with the 13 past secretaries of state and defense he hustled into the Oval Office 10 days ago: he could pretend to consult on Iraq with sages of all political stripes - Madeleine Albright, yet - even if the actual give-and-take, all 5 to 10 minutes of it, was as substantive as the scripted "Ask the President" town hall meetings of the 2004 campaign.

But this White House, cunning as it is, can't control all the pictures all the time. That photo op was quickly followed by Time's Jack Abramoff cover and its specter of other images more inopportune than op. Mr. Bush's aides, the magazine reported, were busy "trying to identify all the photos that may exist of the two men together." Translation: Could a Bush-Abramoff money shot as iconic as Monica on the rope line be lurking somewhere for a Time cover still to come?

This much is certain: 1) The Abramoff scandal, so far anyway, boasts plenty of cigars but no sex. 2) It has almost everything else, including the "Miami Vice"-style rub-out of a Florida casino-cruise-ship mogul who'd had contentious business dealings with Mr. Abramoff. Not without reason is the White House on a frantic search-and-destroy mission to root out any potential embarrassments. Mr. Bush's expert stage managers are smart enough to know that this scandal may metastasize from a cancer on Congress to a cancer on the Republican Party in general and this presidency in particular.

Washington's jaded conventional wisdom will tell you otherwise. It says that Mr. Abramoff's bribing of congressmen to do his clients' bidding is the same old generic Capitol Hill scandal dating to Grant and Harding, differing only in the sheer scale of the numbers (of politicians implicated, of moolah changing hands). The many conservative pundits now deploring Tom DeLay take a similarly reductive line. "Washington power can corrupt absolutely," explained the Wall Street Journal editorial page while bemoaning that "people like Mr. Abramoff" came "to Washington to clean up Washington" and then were corrupted by the capital's evil ways. The DeLay Republicans, you see, are merely repeating the history of the decadent, power-fattened Democrats who preceded them, most especially Jim Wright, the speaker of the House who resigned in 1989.

If it's all Washington's fault, of course, it's not the G.O.P.'s fault; the scandal can be quarantined to a few (or a dozen) bad apples who were seduced by a lobbyist's skyboxes and not-so-petty Indian casino cash. But that theory of the case conveniently denies the quarter-century-old provenance of Mr. Abramoff. This scandal's particular greedy, power-crazed ethos wasn't created by Washington - it was imported to Washington by him and two pals destined to rise to the top of the G.O.P. establishment, Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist. These ruthless three musketeers first converged in the College Republicans hierarchy in the early 1980's, long before they obtained the Washington power that could corrupt them (and years before the Wright scandal).

They preached a take-no-prisoners strategy and a specific ideology - do away with taxes, privatize government, free business from any regulation - that changed Washington far more than Washington changed them. Their triumph can be found everywhere today, from Halliburton's no-bid contracts in Iraq to the K Street project, a Norquist-championed and DeLay-sanctioned operation to intimidate corporations with business before Congress into hiring exclusively Republican lobbyists like Mr. Abramoff.

Read the whole thing...


Frank Rich Abramoff Bush K Street Ralph Reed Norquist Delay GOP Scandals Republican Corruption Rich

Quote of the Day: Impeach Him

"Impeachment is a tortuous process, but now that President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet and virtually dared Congress to stop him from violating the law, nothing less is necessary to protect our constitutional system and preserve our democracy."

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN,
The Impeachment of George W. Bush,
The Nation, January 30, 2006 issue

Bush King George Impeach Bush

Tears for Strip Search Sammy

And from Shakespeare's Sister:

"In related news, Congress has passed legislation requiring at least one fainting couch be made available at all future SCOTUS nomination hearings."

Filibuster Alito Alito Scalito Supreme Court Roe Media

Strip Search Sammy: Uncover His Dirty Secrets

Go strip search Sammy Alito and see what he's hiding underneath his robes over at Working for Change. While Stripsearch Sammy is stripping, you'll see plenty of opportunities to take action. Being an activist was never so naughty.



Alito ScAlito Strip Search Sammy Supreme Court Roe Reproductive Rights Filibuster Alito

Defeat ScAlito: View the Ad

It ain't over yet. Watch the new Save the Court ad over at People for the American Way.

PFAW:

"Media reports are underestimating the effect of Judge Samuel Alito’s testimony. A huge coalition – 75 organizations strong – is going to counter the spin that Alito’s confirmation is a foregone conclusion. We could really use your help.

The ad campaign to the left – along with PFAW’s work in the grassroots and on the Hill – is at a critical point. Senators are voicing strong concerns about Alito now that the hearings are over – and we need to generate a big voice that tells them: “defeat this nomination!"

Filibuster Alito Alito Scalito Supreme Court Roe AD Video

Dowd: Oprah! How Could Ya?

Oprah! How Could Ya?
By Maureen Dowd
WASHINGTON

"Martha-Ann Alito cries, and the Democrats back off from examining why Samuel Alito was so opportunistic about his bigoted alumni club and whether he will curb women's rights for generations. It's the wimpification of debate."

The day we mourned a man whose life was devoted to clarity, this city was hidden in fog. You couldn't see the Potomac, even on its bank.

There were many things to love about David Rosenbaum. He had a grin that always improved the weather. He was uncommonly generous to reporters he worked with and competed against. He was an exemplary husband, father, brother, uncle and grandfather.

But the truly astonishing thing about David, the Times reporter who was killed in a random robbery a week ago, was his unglamorous, unsanctimonious, unvain sort of goodness. He had a black-and-white sense of honor that was oddly old-fashioned in a capital slimed by lies, bribery, greed, corruption and ends-justify-the-means malarkey.

The skells, as Detective Sipowicz would say, saw David walking in his neighborhood after dinner and whacked him in the head with a pipe. One low-life bought laundry detergent, gas and tires with David's credit card while he lay dying.

Our friend David Shribman, the executive editor of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, wrote in The St. Petersburg Times, where David Rosenbaum started: "A thoughtful man struck down by the ultimate act of thoughtlessness. A man who taught others when to use 'that' and when to use 'which' only to be felled by that over which he had no control."

Despite George Washington and the cherry tree, we no longer have a society especially consecrated to truth. The culture produces an infinity of TV shows and movies depicting the importance of honesty. But they're really talking only about the importance of being honest about your feelings. Sharing feelings is not the same thing as telling the truth. We've become a country of situationalists.

Journalism, politics and publishing have been tarred by scandals that have revealed a disturbing insensitivity to right and wrong. Random House isn't concerned that an author makes up stuff in a book labeled nonfiction; it just kept counting the money after The Smoking Gun exposed James Frey's lies about his own life.

When Mr. Frey went on "Larry King Live" with his mom to defend his book's "essential truths," Oprah Winfrey called in to back him up. She sounded disturbingly like Scott McClellan. Despite doubts about facts in the book, she said, "the underlying message of redemption" still "resonates" with her. She should have said: "Had I known that many parts were fake, I wouldn't have recommended the book to millions of loyal viewers. I wouldn't have made this liar a lot of money." She should take a page from Stephen Colbert and put the slippery Frey on her "Dead to me" list.

For David Rosenbaum, just retired at 63 but still full of enthusiasms, there was a right way and a wrong way, and he possessed a natural knowledge of which was which.

"My father taught me the importance of always doing the right thing, always, even when it didn't really matter," his daughter, Dottie, said at the memorial service yesterday in a committee room in the Senate, David's old beat. "At my 12th birthday party, my parents took me and a bunch of friends to see a movie, and they counted up how many of us were already 12 so that they could pay the adult fare. ... even though none of us carried ID, and we all looked like total pipsqueaks."

As his pal Robin Toner put it, David thought that behind every arcane tax provision and appropriations bill, "there were real people, getting something or having something taken away by their government." You had to keep digging and arguing to find the truth in the fog. Even when he was smothered by conventional wisdom, Robin recalled, "David's voice would break out: 'I disagree!' "

He was practicing a lost art. Tough questioning now has no place in polite society. Martha-Ann Alito cries, and the Democrats back off from examining why Samuel Alito was so opportunistic about his bigoted alumni club and whether he will curb women's rights for generations. It's the wimpification of debate.

W. mau-maus the Democrats and the press on his administration's Freyish blurring of fact and fiction on Iraq, trying to stifle any debate over the phony genesis of the war as bad for morale. What's truly bad for morale is when the president suggests it's dishonest to have an honest debate about the Bush cabal's dishonesty.

If only someone had said, "I disagree!" in W.'s presence long ago, on pre-emptive war, on kidnapping and torture, on illegal eavesdropping.

David's tortoise-shell reading glasses are still hanging on his computer. That scrupulous gaze will be missed.

Maureen Dowd Filibuster Alito ScAlito Alito Supreme Court Roe Reproductive Rights Dowd

Book of Daniel Yanked: Nashville Too 'Sensitive'

The new NBC show, The Book of Daniel has been yanked from the air by the yokels at the local NBC affiliate, Channel 4.

According to the station's General Manager, Elden Hale Jr., the city of Nashville is too sensitive for the show, or Nashville is "a particularly religiously sensitive city."

What Elden means to say is that he's been hearing from some ever-vigilant fundamentalist Christians, who say the show is blasphemous. It's an Abomination cuz there's a gay man and a lesbian on the show.

The Book of Daniel "features one of primetime's few openly gay male characters, has a lesbian supporting character and is written by a gay screenwriter."

The American Family Association and Focus on the Family have orchestrated letter-writing campaigns in their ever vigilant campaign to stamp out every voice and every view that is not their own. And they don't care who they hurt.

Rather than letting us watch the show and rot in their mythical hell, they've convinced the local yokels at Channel 4 to join them in the campaign to promote Old-Time religious ignorance and bigotry.

Gawd help us. Can we raise some money for airfare to send these wackos to the Promised Land? But would Big Sur even take them?

Scroll down for contact info for Nashville's Old-Time Christian Channel 4. We can write letters too!

The Tennessean:

WSMV-Channel 4 pulled the new NBC show The Book of Daniel after the network rejected a Channel 4 request to air it overnight instead of during "family viewing time," WSMV General Manager Elden Hale Jr. said yesterday.

WSMV's general voice mailbox shut down within 20 hours of the airing of the two-hour premiere last Friday because 137 complaint messages jammed the machine, WSMV officials said. There also were complaints via e-mail and regular mail, including letters bearing church letterheads.

Channel 4 received no official complaint from local Episcopal churches or from organized protests, Hale said, adding that it was the quality, not the volume, of the complaints that impressed him.

NBC issued this statement yesterday: "The Book of Daniel is a quality fictional drama about an Episcopalian priest's family and the contemporary issues with which they must grapple. We're confident that our viewers can appreciate this creative depiction of one American family and will understand it to be an entertaining work of fiction."

Contact NBC viewer relations in New York at 212-664-2333.

Email Nashville's NBC affiliate: news@wsmv.com

Call them:
Advertising: (615) 353-4444
General (615)353-2241

Visit them or organize a protest:
WSMV-TV
5700 Knob Road
Nashville, TN 37209

UPDATE: Pam at Pam's House Blend has more, including a copy of the rightwinger's alert - which was distributed in Sunday school classes and churches - asking folks to convey their displeasure to NBC affiliates. The handout was distributed before the show aired! She has another post on the AFA's campaign against The Book of Daniel here.

Don't forget to hit that email link above and tell Channel 4 what you think!

Gay Homophobia Book of Daniel Human Rights NBC Censorship Channel 4 American Family Association Nashville Tennessee

Pro-Choice Sen. Snowe Won't Support Filibuster

Pro Choice Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) "does not believe that Judge Alito warrants a filibuster," according to her spokeswoman, Antonia Ferrier.

The Pro Choice senator may as well say she'll vote to confirm Alito. If Senator Snowe has been paying attention, she knows that Alito represents a grave danger to women's right to self-determination.

Nearly 70% of Americans say they would oppose Alito's confirmation if it appears that he would vote to overturn Roe.

The evidence clearly indicates that Alito continues to believe that the constitution does not protect a woman's right to reproductive freedom. With this view, a Justice Alito would feel duty bound to overturn Roe at the first opportunity. A Justice Alito would feel obligated to dismantle Roe incrementally until the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade presented itself.

There are 44 Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent in the Senate. As Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently acknowledged, the only way to stop Alito is with a filibuster. It takes 41 votes to sustain a filibuster, and we certainly can not count on all the Democratic senators.

Obviously, if Alito is to be blocked, all pro choice senators must be on board. That includes Republican senators, Snowe, Specter, Chafee, and Collins.

In previous years, Sen. Snowe has been given a pro choice score of 83% from NARAL and a score of 100% from Planned Parenthood. If the senator cares about her rating with these organizations, she needs to think again.

Contact Senator Snowe:
Phone Number: (202) 224-5344
Fax Number: (202) 224-1946
Email (webform)

No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.

--Margaret Sanger

Woman must have her freedom, the fundamental freedom of choosing whether or not she will be a mother and how many children she will have. Regardless of what man's attitude may be, that problem is hers -- and before it can be his, it is hers alone. . As it is the right neither of man nor the state to coerce her into this ordeal, so it is her right to decide whether she will endure it.

--Margaret Sanger

Supreme Court Senator Snowe Alito Scalito Filibuster Alito Abortion Rights Reproductive Freedom

Harry Reid's Statement on Alito Hearings

Here's Sen. Harry Reid's statement on the Alito hearings (from my inbox). Scroll down for links to Senate Judiciary contact info.

I have followed the Alito hearings closely. Democrats on the Committee did their jobs by asking tough questions about important issues: civil rights, privacy, environmental protections, the danger of unchecked presidential power and others. Unfortunately, Judge Alito’s responses did little to address my serious concerns about his 15-year judicial record.

I have not forgotten that Judge Alito was only nominated after the radical right wing of the President's party forced Harriet Miers to withdraw. The right wing insisted that Justice O'Connor be replaced with a sure vote for their extreme agenda. Four days of hearings have shown that Judge Alito is no Sandra Day O'Connor.

Senate Democrats will meet next week to discuss the nomination.

You'll find all the contact info you ever wanted for the Senate Judiciary Committee at Booman Tribune. There are links to petitions near the top of the comment section.

It doesn't matter if you don't have a senator on the Judiciary Committee. The Commitee is charged with representing the entire country. Email them, call them, fax them.

Tell them to filibuster.

The Moveon.org petition is here.

Harry Reid Supreme Court Scalito Alito Filibuster Alito Reproductive Rights

NY Times: Alito's Disturbing Views

There's a great editorial on the dangers posed by Alito in the Times today.

Here's the teaser:

Some commentators are complaining that Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings have not been exciting, but they must not have been paying attention. We learned that Judge Alito had once declared that Judge Robert Bork - whose Supreme Court nomination was defeated because of his legal extremism - "was one of the most outstanding nominees" of the 20th century. We heard Judge Alito refuse to call Roe v. Wade "settled law," as Chief Justice John Roberts did at his confirmation hearings. And we learned that Judge Alito subscribes to troubling views about presidential power.

Those are just a few of the quiet bombshells that have dropped. In his deadpan bureaucrat's voice, Judge Alito has said some truly disturbing things about his view of the law. In three days of testimony, he has given the American people reasons to be worried - and senators reasons to oppose his nomination. Among those reasons are the following:

EVIDENCE OF EXTREMISM

OPPOSITION TO ROE V. WADE

SUPPORT FOR AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY

INSENSITIVITY TO ORDINARY AMERICANS' RIGHTS

DOUBTS ABOUT THE NOMINEE'S HONESTY

The debate over Judge Alito is generally presented as one between Republicans and Democrats. But his testimony should trouble moderate Republicans, especially those who favor abortion rights or are concerned about presidential excesses. The hearings may be short on fireworks, but they have produced, through Judge Alito's words, an array of reasons to be concerned about this nomination.

Go read the whole thing, better yet send it to your senators.

Supreme Court Alito New York Times ScAlito Roe Feminism Reproductive Rights Abortion Rights Regulating Women

Feminist Bloggers On ScAlito or Where Are the Fighting Dems?

Still hoping for a miracle here, or some fighting Dems. Here's a small snapshot of some feminist thought from the blogosphere on the seemingly hopeless ScAlito hearings.

Ampersand at Alas a blog explains why "abortion rights will not revert to the states," or why no state is safe if Alito ascends to the High Court.

Black Feminism weighs in on Alito and Husband Notification and Abortion and Black Liberation.

Marisacat over at Media Girl notes that none of us really expect much from the Dems: "Democrats, first they bitch then they capitulate. Yes I heard Kennedy, Yes I heard Schumer: I am fucking worn out with senatorial pique." There's lots more at Media Girl.

Pseudo-Adrienne reminds us that the only reason ScAlito "is even before the Senate Judiciary Committee today is because Harriet Miers wasn't conservative enough," and that like Uncle Clarence Thomas, ScAlito "will say and do anything to be confirmed." Scroll down for more at Liberal Feminist Bias.

ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES says we need a new name for Alito, something stickier than Stripsearch Sammy or ScAlito. She links to a beginning list of possible names. In another post, the blogger adds to the growing chorus that laments the nomination of yet another white man: "There are things that men or whites in this society do not experience, and having eight men and one woman and only one black Justice on the Supreme Court will not provide a balanced menu of possible human experiences."

Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money weighs in on the merits of filbustering Alito.

Citizen's Rent deconstructs wingnut Sen. Coburn's performance and says we need some fighting Dems.

Morgaine reminds us to urge our senators to axe ScAlito. She provides the one stop link.

Diane of DED Space has a post at MoJo Blog which looks at the Yale Report on Alito.

Sappho at Sappho Manifesto has a scary and hilarious pix of Alito and summarizes the many reasons to oppose the Supreme wannabe in a post titled, Same Shit, Different Asshole.

Shakespeare's Sister weighs in on Mrs. ScAlito's sudden burst of tears.

Over at Pandagon, Pam Spaulding has a post entitled, Sammy: ‘All your wombs could belong to us’. Nuff said.

The last word comes from Spyderkl at Evil Mommy, she says, "if you're waiting to see whether or not there will be a filibuster...please don't hold your breath."

Bush v. Choice has lots more.

Photo via All Hat No Cattle

Alito Scalito Supreme Court Reproductive Rights Feminism Pro Choice Regulating Women Abortion Roe

Five GOP Senators in Group Opposing Alito

According to the WaPo, the Republican group - Republican Majority for Choice - that announced its opposition to Alito yesterday has five GOP senators on its advisory committee. (see below)

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter is one of the five. Specter says he has not yet made up his mind and did not participate in the group's decision.

The moderate Republican self-identifies as pro choice. But like a lot of politicos who are stuck in an outdated two party system, Specter is forced to curry favor from two very different camps. According to Elizabeth Cavendish of NARAL Pro-Choice America:

"Arlen Specter is pro-choice the way Louisiana is French."

Specter received a grade of 21 out of 100 on a NARAL pro choice scorecard.

There are only the following 4 senators listed at the Republican Majority for Choice website:

Senator Olympia Snowe (ME)
Senator Arlen Specter (PA)
Senator Lincoln Chafee (RI)
Senator Susan Collins (ME)

Giving the WaPo the benefit of the doubt, I wonder who the other one is?

Supreme Court Alito Scalito Specter Feminism Pro Choice Abortion Reproductive Rights

Captain Bush Accepts Congressional Spy Hearings

Bushie has finally accepted the fact that no matter how much he pouts or shouts, there will indeed be Congressional hearings on his Spying On America program.

Now Bushie says the hearings will be "good for democracy."

But Captain Bush has one caveat.

"There will be a lot of hearings and talk about that, but that's good for democracy. Just so long as the hearings, as they explore whether or not I have the prerogative to make the decision I made, doesn't tell the enemy what we're doing. See, that's the danger."

Bushie warned that rhetoric can embolden our enemies. He meant to say that Howard Dean should just shut up.

But surprise, surprise, an Ap-Ipsos poll finds that most Americans want Captain Bush to get a warrant before he eavesdrops on them. Interestingly, the poll finds that most Republicans don't care all that much for constitutional rights or even privacy. "Almost three-fourths of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to require court warrants."

Now we understand why they selected Captain Bush.

But Hispanic voters do care about constitutional rights. A new poll among Hispanics finds precious little support for the Republican side of Congress. According to the poll, Democrats have "a stunning 61-21 lead over the GOP among Hispanic registered voters." ( via Donkey Rising)

Bush Snoopgate Eavesdropping Captain Bush Bush Rides a Bike

Herbert: The Lawbreaker in the Oval Office

The Lawbreaker in the Oval Office
By Bob Herbert

The country has set the bar so low for the performance of George W. Bush as president that it is effectively on the ground.

No one expects very much from Mr. Bush. He's currently breaking the law by spying on Americans in America without getting warrants, but for a lot of people that's just George being George. Forget the complexities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or even the Fourth Amendment's safeguards against unwarranted (pun intended) government intrusion into matters that we have a right to keep private.

On his frequent trips home to his ranch in Texas, the president likes to ride his bicycle. He's not studying the Constitution.

"People are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick," said Mr. Bush, as he defended his authorization of warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency on phone calls and e-mail into and out of the U.S.

As the president put it, "If somebody from Al Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why."

Well, that's true, Mr. President. But Congress and the Constitution have spoken as clearly as a bright sun on a cloudless afternoon about these matters: if you're going to eavesdrop on Americans in the U.S., you'd better run out and get a warrant.

You have to act fast? O.K., do what you have to do - but you then have to apply for a warrant within 72 hours. If, after three days, you can't explain to a court - a secret court, at that - why you need to be spying on somebody, then you need to stop that spying.

It has become fashionable to say that this controversy is about the always difficult problem of balancing civil liberties and national security. But I think the issue is starker than that. The real issue is President Bush's apparent belief - stoked at every opportunity by that zealot of zealots, Dick Cheney - that he can do just about anything he wants (mistreat prisoners, lock people up forever without filing charges), and justify it in the name of fighting terror.

"There's an enemy out there," said Mr. Bush.

That's also true. But this is not China or the old Soviet Union. . . .

Read the whole thing..

Bob Herbert Bush Cheney Snoopgate Spying Eavesdropping Impeach Bush King George Herbert

Why Would ScAlito Lie?

Chris Bowers over at MYDD makes the case that ScAlito is lying about his association with Concerned Alumni for Princeton (CAP).

Why would ScAlito lie about CAP?

The Nation has the dirt on CAP from the conservative group's own magazine, Prospect:

"People nowadays just don't seem to know their place," fretted a 1983 Prospect essay titled "In Defense of Elitism." "Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children."

By this point the editor of Prospect was Dinesh D'Souza, who brought to its pages a new level of coarseness aimed at those who did not know their place. "Here at Princeton homosexuals are on the rampage," complained a 1984 news item in Prospect--this after a gay student group had dared to protest being denied permission to hold a dance at a campus club. Another article poked fun at Sally Frank, a Princeton alumna who was suing the university for denying women access to all-male eating clubs. It noted that a Rhode Island woman who'd won a discrimination suit against a mining company had subsequently died in an on-the-job accident. "Sally Frank, take note," it quipped.

There's more..

Supreme Court Alito ScAlito Regulating Women Abortion Roe Feminism Reproductive Rights Concerned Alumni for Princeton

Another Christian Charged with Rape, Incest, Etc.

Personally, I prefer for my children to hang with heathens and queers.

The Tennessean:

BRENTWOOD, Tennessee — A Brentwood man was arrested yesterday on charges of raping and sexually abusing two of his children over the course of five years.

The suspect is involved in the Christian book-publishing industry, according to police and numerous Web sites.

Americablog and C.E. Petro have more.

Christian Hypocrisy Tennessee Rape

Republican Group Opposes Alito

After viewing ScAito's performance in the senate confirmation hearings, the Republican Majority for Choice has determined that it cannot and will not support the Supreme Court Justice wannabe.

The group regrets that the Bushies are forcing average Republicans to abandon GOP policy and candidates.

The backlash against the rightwing wackos is gaining momentum.

The Republican Majority for Choice (RMC) regrettably announces its opposition to the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

RMC is an organization whose core mission is to protect the right to choose as outlined in Roe v. Wade and to represent the millions of Republicans who strongly support this right. After much research and analysis of Mr. Alito’s own record and statements on this issue of individual freedom it is clear that he is an advocate for further restricting this right.

There is no crystal ball to predict how a Justice Alito would rule in future cases; therefore we have closely monitored the confirmation hearings with the hope that Judge Alito would offer some clarifying statements that would allay our concerns about his record. Instead, he side-stepped the issue of whether or not the right to privacy in the Constitution extends to reproductive choice. He avoided answering whether Roe was settled law and existing precedent required a health exception to statutes limiting a woman’s access to abortion. . .

The reality is that Judge Alito would not have to vote to overrule Roe in order to be the architect of the denial of a woman's right to choose. He could give lip service to respecting Roe while upholding the numerous legislative efforts to chip away at reproductive freedom. The cumulative result is that Roe v. Wade and its progeny are rendered meaningless. . .

The selection of Judge Alito sends a very clear message from the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership in Congress that they are willing to continue steering the party into a marginalized corner that puts it at odds with most voters. . .

We will no longer stand by while women’s rights are used as a political soapbox for either party.

Read the whole thing..

Hat tip to Jessica at Bush v. Choice

Supreme Court Choice Alito Scalito Bush Feminism Reproductive Rights Regulating Women Abortion Roe

ScAlito and His Women

Why can't these women sit at home and enjoy the show in the comfort of their home? Cause tradition demands that a man trot out his women whenever he's out to snare the big job. Cuz it's just too lonely and scary out there without a few women strategically placed behind you.

Yeah, I always get snarky whenever I watch the men in charge discuss the fate of the women behind and beneath them.

Photo seen at Wonkette

Regulating Women Feminism Choice Supreme Court Scalito Alito Roe Abortion Patriarchy Reproductive Rights

Dowd: Doing the Alito Shuffle

"[H]e approved the strip search of a 10-year-old girl but is not probing too deeply into what the executive branch is doing."

Doing the Alito Shuffle
By Maureen Dowd

You’ve got to like a man who knows how to juggle.

Samuel Alito picked up the skill on a summer vacation a decade ago, and his juggling talent was on full display yesterday as he tried to balance the old Sam, who was eager to impress Reagan revolutionaries with his zeal, with the new Sam, who is eager to impress a bipartisan Senate panel with his open-mindedness.

It was a tale of two Sams.

Is he the old Sam, who devised ways to upend Roe v. Wade and crimp abortion rights? Or the new Sam, who has great respect for precedent and an “open mind” about abortion cases?

Is he the old Sam, who plotted ways to tip the balance of power to the executive branch? Or the new Sam, who states that “no person in this country is above the law, and that includes the president”?

Is he the old Sam, who said Robert Bork “was one of the most outstanding nominees of this century” and “a man of unequaled ability”? Or the new Sam, who shrugged off that statement as the dutiful support of one Reagan appointee for another?

Is he the old Sam, who cited membership in a Princeton alumni club that resisted the admission of women and minorities when he was seeking a promotion in the very white Reagan old boys’ club? Or the new Sam, who has “no specific recollection of that organization,” unless, of course, he innocently joined it to support R.O.T.C. on campus, and who says he’s been shaped partly by his hopes for his 17-year-old daughter, Laura, and by his sister’s experiences “as a trial lawyer in a profession that has traditionally been dominated by men”?

Is he the old Sam, who thoughtlessly blew off a pledge to recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard, where he has a six-figure mutual fund? Or the new Sam, who admits that the problem was not “a computer glitch,” as he had suggested, and humbly says, “If I had to do it over again, there are things that I would have done differently”?

The judge didn’t deign to say what he thought of illegal wiretaps – which you’d think would be an easy one.

About the judge’s memory lapses, Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, drolly noted, “And I hope you’ll understand if any of us come before a court and we can’t remember Abramoff, you’ll tend to believe us.”

Some of his answers, Senator Joe Biden complained to Chris Matthews, did not “ring a chord of sincerity.” (The National Review Web site says the voluble Biden got in 3,673 words and held Judge Alito to 1,013.)

You don’t have to know the difference between horizontal and vertical stare decisis, or between emanations and penumbras, to see that the man who could take Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat and yank back women’s rights was, in a word, shifty.

Or in three words, shifty, sapless and sighing.

To offset his reputation on women’s rights, he even played the henpecked husband. When Republican senators used the expression “When did you stop beating your wife?” about Democratic questions, Judge Alito riposted, “I wasn’t asked whether she had stopped beating me.”

His basic defense to Democrats boiled down to: “I was just saying what my boss wanted to hear at the time.” Haven’t we had enough yes-men mangling government for the last five years? Heck of a job, Sammy.

Read the whole thing ..


Maureen Dowd Supreme Court Alito Scalito Reproductive Rights Feminism Abortion Roe Bush Dowd Choice

Now Playing in the Oval Office

The lobbying that dare not speak its name...

Via American Idle







Jack Abramoff Delay Abramoff Republican Corruption

Kristof: Waging a War We Could Be Proud Of

Waging a War We Could Be Proud Of
By Nicholas D. Kristof

One of the lessons of the tsunami a year ago is that however stingy we Americans have been in giving foreign aid, we want to do better.

For every $100 of national income, the U.S. gives 17 cents in overseas development assistance – a lower percentage than any donor country except Italy. But after the tsunami, Americans responded with a wave of stunning generosity, and there is growing bipartisan support for helping poor countries.

It’s an opportunity that President Bush should seize, by working with Tony Blair and Kofi Annan to wage a Global War on Poverty.

President Bush could help revive his floundering presidency by providing moral leadership to the world. He has taken half-steps in this direction, with his landmark programs against AIDS in Africa and against sex trafficking, but his overall efforts against global poverty have been grudging. It’s sad when we must rely on a compassionate rock star, Bono, or a generous computer geek, Bill Gates, for moral vision on poverty – instead of on our president.

If the tsunami demonstrated how generous Americans could be, it also showed the blindness of a system that responds to natural disasters but neglects ongoing suffering. For example, here in the northwestern Sri Lankan town of Puttalam, people might be better off if the tsunami had reached this far and sucked a few victims out to sea.

Read the whole thing..

Kristof Poverty Nicholas Kristof War on Poverty Bush

Alito Hearings: Day Two

Alito said his approach to the issue of abortion would be different today than in 1985. He said that "his 1985 statement -- that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion -- accurately reflected his view at the time, and he cautioned that the principle of respect for Supreme Court precedents is not 'an inexorable command' binding justices in future rulings."

Remarkably, Alito defended his draconian opinion holding that women must notify husbands before obtaining an abortion. Anyone who thinks this guy is mainstream, needs to look at his 19th century view on the State's right to mandate old-time wifely duties.

Things should get much more interesting now that Kennedy is on.

C-SPAN has the witness list and more.

Supreme Court Alito Roe Feminism Abortion Reproductive Rights Reproductive Rights

If Roe v. Wade is Overturned

If Roe v. Wade is Overturned

This map is based on estimates by the Guttmacher Institute. Tennessee falls into the "most likely to protect abortion" because the State Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution protects a woman's right to choose, or safeguards the right to privacy.(Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v. Sundquist, 38 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000))

Any day now, Republican lawmakers will be introducing yet another proposal for a constitutional amendment to change all that. It's their yearly ritual. Some of these amendments have sought to ban abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or when the procedure would save a woman's life!

The reason the proposed amendments fail every year is because the House is controlled by pro choice Dems. If the House falls to the Republicans this year - due to the Tennessee Waltz scandal - we can expect some dramatic changes.

Hat tip to Amanda at Pandagon via Pharyngula via Give It Up Blog

Supreme Court Alito Tennessee Abortion Reproductive Rights Alito Roe Feminism

Save the Males! Wah-wah!

by MzNicky

Population-wise, U.S. women outnumber U.S. men, 51 to 49 percent. For some, this seems to indicate that the females of this country, composing as they do the “majority,” can now sit back, relax, and “stfu” already. Besides, these particular individuals are prone to disingenuously point out, “we” have already “given” women the right to vote; “we” have decided they may earn (almost) as much money for doing the same work that “we” do; and “we” have granted, theoretically, women control of their own uteri—sort of, sometimes, in some cases, void where prohibited by law—until such time as “we” decide to “take” it back again.

The embedded assumption here is that it’s a “man’s world,” and thus men are the possessors of rights, privileges, and legal protections, theirs to dole out or rescind as they please. And because of a persistent clinging to this age-old assumption rattling around, unexamined, somewhere in humanity’s collective unconscious, many seem genuinely surprised when, given all the goodies men have thus far seen fit (albeit grudgingly) to "give" women, the occasional ungrateful harridan still pops up, wanting even more.

This is when "they" resort to backlash behavior, expressed with all the exasperation and pent-up resentment of a parent trying to deal with a recalcitrant child. “What about the men!” They wail. “There's more money spent on breast cancer research than on prostate cancer!” “Women already get favoritism in the workplace!” “Title IX discriminates against boys!” “Save the males!” And so forth.

Which is all meant to obscure the facts that:

1) Until NIH revisions were instituted in the late-1980s to early 1990s, women weren't included in most medical-research clinical trials—including those involving breast cancer. (Yes, that’s right. Breast-cancer research studies used men only as subjects until those whiny feminists started complaining about it.) As it turns out (who'd a-thunk it!), women's bodies often function differently than do men's. For example, the realization that heart attacks, the number-one killer of women, symptomatically present differently in women than in men is a relatively recent one. And increases in breast-cancer research only occurred when, during the early 1990s, enough feminists got fed up with the spiraling rates of the disease, coupled with its stagnant survival rates, to organize at the grassroots level and go to DC and demand it.

2) Women still get the short end of the stick on payday: Median income in 2003 for American males was $40,668; for women, $30,724—a wage gap of 75.5 percent. Given that for decades women were considered incapable of performing many—nay, most—jobs at all, and were thusly excluded from the work force, we are apparently supposed to "stfu" and be grateful that rewards for our labor aren't currently of comparatively less monetary value than they once were.

We’ve now endured more than 30 years of whining over Title IX—you know, the argument that the 1972 Education Amendments imposed federal “favoritism” for girls and women, which grousing usually centers around sports (although the legislation applies to discrimination in other areas as well). Neatly omitted from such demurring over the concept that females are U.S. citizens, too, is the given that, if the playing field in such school activities had been level in the first place, and of course it was not, there would have been no need for the amendment.

Feminists are also treated to what some feel is the trump rejoinder, which usually goes something like: “If women really want equality, why don’t they register for the draft? Feminists just want to have it both ways, blah blah blah.” Well, let’s have it both ways, shall we?

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), first drafted in 1923 and still being introduced at every Congressional legislative session since, was lobbied into defeat in 1982 by Phyllis Schafly and others of her ilk, who successfully demonized the proposed Amendment with visions not only of unisex bathrooms and men being forced to change diapers, but also of women being drafted into military service, just the same as men! And now that the very equality the ERA would have ensured is only a distant memory in the American psyche, the sticking point, amazingly enough, is now dusted off and used to berate feminists with a braying version of “Oh yeah? What about the draft, you hypocritical bitches?”

Please note, if you will, the rabid sexism inherent in the notion that female offspring are somehow more valuable than those who are male and thus should be “protected” from such unseemly possibilities. This is what we mean by gender discrimination. It cuts both ways.

Hurts, doesn't it?

Feminism Backlash Equality ERA Gender Discrimination Patriarchy Misogyny

Posted by egalia for MzNicky

No Dems Took Money from Abramoff

"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true."

-- DNC Chairman Howard Dean,
on CNN Late Edition

See the video at Crooks and Liars.

Shamelessly lifted from Taegan Goddard

Abramoff Republican Corruption Republican Scandal Howard Dean Video Wolf Blitzer Jack Abramoff

Desperately Seeking Bush / Abramoff Photos

The White House is desperately seeking all photos of Bushie and Abramoff. The fear is that said photos might actually demonstrate that Bushie and Jack Abramoff travel in the same Republican Circles of Corruption. It's not clear what the Bushies intend to do with any and all photos capturing Bushie and Jack Abramoff in the same general vicinity. Offer a reward? Send the evidence down the memory hole?

Whatever their intent, we're sure the Bushies will get some help from the left side of the blogosphere. If you should find some genuine photos, please send them here.

And while the newest White House talking point is, Jack Who?, the AP reports that "GOP fundraiser Jack Abramoff and his lobbying team logged nearly 200 contacts" with the Bush Administration in its first ten months.

Bush Abramoff Bush and Abramoff Memory Hole Republican Corruption

ScAlito Poll: Majority of Americans Brain Dead

The Washington Post reports that a majority of Americans are brain dead and thereby support the confirmation of ScAlito to the Supreme Court. According to the Post, a majority of Americans believe that ScAlito would never vote to overturn Roe.

This confirms our suspicions that many of the polls are, a.) rigged, or, b.) conducted by some certifiable heckuva-job Brownie clones, or, c.) the majority of Americans are brain dead. (Disclaimer: I used to work for some of these polling companies, and I vote for b. Cast your vote in the comment section.)

But never mind. If the Dems do their job - and make the confirmation hearings wildly entertaining - enough people will begin to pay attention and the poll numbers will change dramatically. This, in my humble opinion, is our best hope.

The hearings start at noon today. Get your popcorn ready.

Washington Post:

A majority of Americans favor the confirmation of federal appeals court judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court and an even larger proportion believe Alito would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 high court ruling that legalized abortion, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

As hearings begin today in the Senate on his nomination, the survey found that 53 percent of the public says Alito should be confirmed to serve on the court--virtually identical to the proportion that supported John Roberts' confirmation as chief justice four months ago. One in four--27 percent--say Alito should be rejected by the Senate.

Another Post article looks briefly at some of the many problems that a Justice ScAlito would present to ordinary Americans, brain dead or otherwise. The story includes the following choice quotations:

"He indicates in his job application his view about what the Constitution guarantees in terms of, for example, women and the issue on abortion. We haven't had a statement like that since Robert Bork."

-- Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)

"What can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?"

-- Samuel A. Alito Jr., 1985

"[T]he Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

-- Samuel A. Alito Jr., 1985

Alito ScAlito Supreme Court Bush Feminism Roe Patriarchy Reproductive Rights Regulating Women

Bob Herbert: The Nixon Syndrome

This is, in my view, one of Herbert's better columns. In 723 words, the New York Times columnist lays out the chilling consequences of having a poorly educated man with monarchial ambitions in charge of our nation's fate.

Herbert resurrects the following quotation from Richard Nixon, a quotation which perfectly captures George W. Bush's view of presidential powers:

"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." --Richard Nixon

But who needs quotations from Nixon to illustrate the incompetent and nightmare quality of King George's regime? Obviously, the Boy King is perfectly capable of doing that in his own words.

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." --George W. Bush, Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

"[I'm] occasionally reading, I want you to know, in the second term." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 16, 2005

The Nixon Syndrome
By BOB HERBERT

Whether he knew it or not, President Bush was faced with a crucial philosophical choice in the frightening and chaotic aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

He could have followed the wise counsel of Edward R. Murrow, who memorably told us, "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home." But he didn't. He chose instead to follow the disturbing course mapped out by Barry Goldwater, who insisted, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice ... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

That choice changed the character of America for the worse, leading (like a character's tragic flaw in an ancient drama) to the mindless invasion and occupation of Iraq; the imprisonment without trial of thousands of so-called terror suspects, who were denied the right to protest their innocence or confront their accusers; the now-infamous torture memo from the Justice Department; the abuses at Abu Ghraib; the reprehensible practice of rendition, in which individuals are kidnapped by U.S. officials and handed over to regimes known to specialize in torture; the creation of super-secret C.I.A. prisons - the dungeons of the 21st century; and, as recently revealed, the president's decision to authorize illegal eavesdropping - spying - on American citizens.

The president has been cavalier about the profound issues embedded in his radical makeover of America. Perhaps he doesn't understand them. As the controversy grew over the warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens by the National Security Agency, Mr. Bush, apparently annoyed, said at a press conference, "The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."

Well, Mr. President, one of the great things about democracy American style is that important national issues are always subject to a robust national discussion. And few things are more important than making sure that a president with a demonstrated tendency to abuse the powers of his office is not allowed to lay the foundation for the systematic surveillance of the American people.

For a president - any president - to O.K. eavesdropping on U.S. citizens on American soil without a warrant is an abomination. First, it's illegal - and for very good reasons. Spying on the populace is a giant step toward totalitarianism. In the worst-case scenario, it's the nightmare of Soviet-style surveillance.

Read the entire column..

Bob Herbert Bush Nixon Spying Snoopgate Eavesdropping King George Herbert New York Times

Quote of the Day: Give 'em Hell Harry

"Tom DeLay bears much of the responsibility for the culture of corruption Republicans have created in Washington, D.C., but his removal from House leadership alone will not end the pervasive cronyism and corruption that he and Washington Republicans created."

--Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader

Harry Reid Tom Delay Democrats Delay Culture of Corruption

A Minimal Requirement for Samuel Alito

From the conservative Wall Street Journal, we learn that most Americans do not currently support Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court, according to the latest Harris poll.

Only 34% support the confirmation, while 31% oppose it, and 34% are as yet undecided. The kicker is: "[N]early 70% of those surveyed . . would oppose Judge Alito's confirmation if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal."

On the subject of Alito's views on Roe v. Wade, the record is clear:

Judge Alito has not only opposed Roe v. Wade, he has also worked to overturn it. When he applied for a promotion in the Reagan administration in 1985, he wrote that he was "particularly proud" of his legal arguments "that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." In meetings with senators, Judge Alito has talked about his respect for Roe, but he has said nothing to discourage his supporters on the religious right who back him because they believe he will vote to overturn it. The American people have a right to know, unambiguously, where Judge Alito stands on Roe.

As The Times notes in the editorial cited above, the Senate needs to consider a far more important question than Alito's stated positions, or evasions, on Roe, or presidential power, or congressional power, or even "one person, one vote."

The more important qustion is: Does the record indicate that Samuel Alito is honest?

Clearly, it does not:

The Senate should also explore Judge Alito's honesty. According to a senator he met with, he tried to dismiss his statement about the Constitution's not protecting abortion as merely part of a job application, which suggests he will bend the truth when it suits his purposes. Judge Alito has said he does not recall being in an ultraconservative group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which opposed co-education and affirmative action. That is odd, since he boasted of his membership in that same 1985 job application. The tortuous history of his promise to Congress to recuse himself in cases involving the Vanguard companies, which he ultimately failed to do, should also be explored.

Obviously, it is asking too much to expect honesty from politicians. But for a lifetime appointment to the High Court of the land, surely we can insist on the minimal requirement of honesty.

Alito ScAlito Supreme Court Roe Feminism Reproductive Rights Regulating Women