BLINK!
The Republican majority
finally voted to reinstate a credible Ethics Committee.
After all the
spiteful rhetoric, however, we might expect a House "Nuclear Option" to begin anytime as both sides begin to try take out the other side.
Watch out, Pelosi! Seeing as how DeLay is a shortimer, you have to figure that they've put a target on your back.
Republican Hypocrites on Parade!
These Senators voted against the money nescessary to keep an armored Humvee productionline running at full capacity until July 31. 38 of the 39 are Republicans. Some things never change. The Wrong Wing fights to defend the fetus, but then fight to cut any programs that might help it when it's born. Then their Fearless Leader starts a war based on lies and misinformation and they are willing to let the kids sent over there fend for themselves.
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
The Link
Weenie-Assed Democrats! Listen up! You tell 'em, girl.
Dumb Dems let GOP run wild
Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate
04.28.05 - AUSTIN, Texas -- Being of the populist persuasion, I am a terminal fan of Thomas Frank, who has gone from "What's the Matter With Kansas?" to "What's the Matter With Liberals?" in the current issue of the New York Review of Books, which is a good spot for it.
Those of us in the beer-drinking, pick-up-truck-driving, country-music-listening school of liberals in the hinterlands particularly appreciate his keen dissection of how the Republicans use class resentment against "elitist liberals," while waging class warfare on people who work for a living.
The unholy combination of theocracy and plutocracy that now rules this country is, in fact, enabled by dumb liberals. Many a weary liberal on the Internet and elsewhere has been involved in the tedious study of the entrails from the last election, trying to figure out where Democrats went wrong. I don't have a dog in that fight, but I can guarantee you where they're going wrong for the next election: 73 Democratic House members and 18 Democratic senators voted for that hideous bankruptcy "reform" bill that absolutely screws regular people.
And it's not just consumers who were screwed by the lobbyist-written bill. The Wall Street Journal shows small businesses are also getting the shaft, as the finance industry charges them higher and higher transaction fees. If Democrats aren't going to stand up for regular people, to hell with them.
Now here's some populist lagniappe (that's a word us populists often use) for you to chew on.
The Economic Policy Institute reports the economic well-being of middle-class families has declined between 2000 and 2003 for three reasons: the generally lousy economy, the Bush tax policies and the cost of health care.
Pre-tax incomes for middle-class families of every type (children, young singles, seniors, single mothers) are down, leaving the typical household with $1,535 less income in 2003 than in 2000, a drop of 3.4 percent.
After taking into account changes in both pre-tax incomes and taxes, the finding remains that most middle-class families lost ground between 2000 and 2003. This is true for married couples with children, elderly couples and young singles, although single mothers did gain 1.9 percent because of the greater refundability of child tax credits.
Family spending on higher insurance co-pays, deductibles and premiums escalated, rising three times faster than income for those married with children, absorbing half the growth of their income.
The Tax Justice Network recently reported the world's richest individuals have placed $11.5 trillion in assets in offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes, a sum 10 times the GDP of Great Britain. The most authoritative study yet done shows that rich people clip $860 billion in coupons a year off this money.
"Governments appear unable, or unwilling, to prevent the rich employing aggressive strategies to minimize their tax liabilities," said the Observer of Britain. We can emphasize the "unwilling" with this administration.
The ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay reached 301-to-one in 2003. The average worker takes home $517 a week, while the average CEO earns $155,796, according to BusinessWeek. In 1982, the ratio was 42-to-one.
Dialogue between President Bush and a citizen during a February meeting in Nebraska, where Bush was trying to sell his scheme to privatize Social Security:
Woman: "That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute."
Bush: "You work three jobs?"
Woman: "Three jobs, yes."
Bush: "Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)"
One out of every two jobs created in the United States over the past 12 months was taken by a worker over 55. Economist Dean Baker says the flood of older workers is caused by the falling value of retirees' 401(k)s and the cost of health care.
The number of long-term unemployed who are college graduates has nearly tripled since 2000. Nearly one in five of the long-term jobless are college graduates, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a brand-new study out showing the uneven division of the fruits of the supposed economic recovery:
"The data show that the share of real income growth that has gone to wages and salaries has been smaller than during any other comparable post-World War II recovery period, while the share of real income growth that has gone to corporate profits has been larger than during all other comparable post-World War II recoveries."
In previous recoveries, workers got an average of 49 percent of the national income gains, while corporate profits got 18 percent. This time, the workers are getting 23 percent and the corporations are getting 44 percent -- about one half as much as the share that has gone to corporate profits.
None of that apply to you? Good. Go listen to Tom DeLay give another lecture on moral values.
(c) 2005 Creators Syndicate
URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=18967
Novak Makes Coulter Look Credible
I can’t stand Bob Novak. I have always thought the episodes of Crossfire with him as the Wrong Wing stooge were the worst. For that matter, I don’t like Carville’s continuous pandering to the audience, either. But, at least he makes some sense…… sometimes.
After he did such a good job for the White House, in outing a CIA operative –without any of the legal repercussions that would befall a lesser stooge, I might add – he appears to have been called on again.
On Crossfire Steve McMahon is talking about the Republican desire to privatize Social Security. Novak, from MediaMatters:
challenged Democratic strategist Steve McMahon to "name me one" Republican who has ever said "let's privatize Social Security." When McMahon responded that President Bush has done so, Novak exclaimed, "That's a lie!" Novak defended his statement by suggesting a distinction between Bush's plan for private Social Security accounts and "privatization."Well, as only the world of blogs can do, MediaMatters has him cold:
Bob Novak before the word came down from party headquarters (Capitol Gang, Sept. 14th, 2002 where we find Mark Shields at mid-Outrage of the Week) ...
Mark Shields: In an Orwellian abuse of the language, conservatives, including even the respected Cato Institute, insist that they're now for Social Security choice, not for dreaded 'privatization'. Yes, and war is peace.
Robert D. Novak.
NOVAK: I'm still for privatization. I’ve never understood what Bob Novak did to get on tv anyway, but this seals the deal. Bob Novak does the impossible: he makes Ann Coulter look credible.
Injustice Sunday - How many lemming churches will fall for this hypocrisy?
Radical right's anti-filibuster show an assault on truth
By Larry Dale Keeling
HERALD-LEADER EDITORIAL WRITER
Welcome to Injustice Sunday.
Today, if all goes as planned, Kentucky will play host to a well-scripted immorality play in which political and religious extremists pummel truth beyond recognition and twist Christianity into an ugly caricature of itself in their crusade to give Dubya the opportunity to perform an extreme makeover on the federal courts, packing their benches with enough "faith first, law last" judges to tilt our legal system dangerously toward the model of the Spanish Inquisition.
To achieve their goal, they will pull a couple of pages from the Neo-con Republicans Political Playbook.
So, expect someone, perhaps Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (he of the long-distance medical diagnosis who once again is reaching out from afar to kiss up to the religious extremists) to repeat the hogwash he and others have been spreading lately: that Senate Democrats' threat to filibuster some of Dubya's more controversial appellate nominations is unprecedented.
You don't have to go back to 1968, when Senate Republicans led a successful filibuster against the nomination of then-Justice Abe Fortas for chief justice of the Supreme Court, to expose that falsehood.
You need only go back to 2000, when Frist himself cast one of the votes against cloture in the filibuster of Richard Paez's appeals court nomination. That was one of 14 filibusters of appeals court nominations that resulted in cloture votes between 1980 and 2000.
Unprecedented? Unmitigated bull.
Expect also to hear some tripe about Senate Democrats filibustering against "people of faith and moral conviction." To buy into that malarkey, you must believe that the 204 judicial nominees approved during Dubya's first term (only 10 of the most controversial were blocked by the Democrats) are lacking in "faith or moral conviction." I suspect some of those folks might take exception to such an assertion.
So, you may hear Focus on the Family's James Dobson, another of the pettifoggers scheduled to star in this immorality play, repeat his comments likening the black robes of Supreme Court justices to the white robes of the Ku Klux Klan.
Or some other member of the cast might reiterate House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's assertion: "The time will come for (the judges involved in the Terri Schiavo case, whom he accused of running 'amok') to answer for their behavior."
Such inflammatory remarks, uttered with reckless disregard for the violence they might incite against judges, tell me all I need to know about how far out on the fringe these zealots reside.
Only extremists would slobber so rabidly over the prospect of undoing 200 years of Senate tradition. True conservatives wouldn't rush so hastily to change the rules of the game in that chamber.
Of course, neo-cons are not true conservatives. They never have been, and they never will be. They are radical activists pushing an extreme agenda that promotes an unholy mixture of theocracy and plutocracy, perhaps more accurately defined as loot-ocracy.
Ironically, Frist and company claim filibusters are unconstitutional in regard to judicial nominations but are hunky-dory when it comes to legislative issues.
A filibuster is a filibuster. Either it's good, or it's bad. Frist's hypocritical argument to the contrary just provides further proof that he and his fellow neo-cons aren't real conservatives because real conservatives don't advocate situational ethics.
Mainstream religious groups such as the National Council of Churches have denounced the exploitation of "faith" in today's Injustice Sunday theatrics. And traditional conservatives such as syndicated columnist George Will and former senator and GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole reject Frist's "nuclear option" of changing Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster in regard to judicial nominations.
"Think down the road," Dole has urged his fellow Republicans. And they should, because the political pendulum stays in constant motion.
Someday, the pendulum will swing back toward the Democrats, giving them control of the White House and Senate. When that day comes, Republicans will be powerless to stop a Democratic president from packing the courts with liberal judges if they follow Frist's lead now.
But one defining trait of the political and religious extremists who lead the radical right is an arrogance so strong that it does not allow for the possibility that their current reign will ever end. It is this arrogance that leads them to ignore negative poll numbers and continue their quest to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations so that Dubya will be free to do his extreme makeover of the federal judiciary.
Thus, we in Kentucky get the "privilege" of hosting Injustice Sunday, with its assault on truth, mainstream Christianity and the concept of a fair and impartial system of justice.
Better if we had been spared that dubious honor.
Repug 101: If You Don't Like the News.... Stop It!
We Don't Need No Stinkin' Terrorism Stats!
More Republicans Eating Their Own!
Geez! You gotta love having this guy around. I hope he stays for a few more months.
DeLay Slams Supreme Court Justice By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
Tue Apr 19, 7:56 PM ET
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay intensified his criticism of the federal courts on Tuesday, singling out Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's work from the bench as "incredibly outrageous" because he has relied on international law and done research on the Internet.
DeLay also said he thought there were a "lot of Republican-appointed judges that are judicial activists."
The No. 2 Republican in the House has openly criticized the federal courts since they refused to order the reinsertion of Terry Schiavo's feeding tube. And he pointed to Kennedy as an example of Republican members of the Supreme Court who were activist and isolated.
"Absolutely. We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous," DeLay told Fox News Radio. "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."
Although Kennedy was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan, a conservative icon, he has aroused conservatives' ire by sometimes agreeing with the court's more liberal members. Nevertheless, it is unusual for a congressional leader to single out a Supreme Court justice for criticism.
Dan Allen, a DeLay spokesman, declined comment on the interview.
DeLay himself has been criticized for his comments following Schiavo's death, which came despite Congress' passage of a law ordering the courts to review her case. All of the federal courts, from the trial judge in Florida to the Supreme Court, refused to do so.
"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," DeLay said in a statement.
He apologized last week, saying he had spoken in an "inartful" way.
Conservatives have been pushing to get the Senate to confirm President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, which Senate Democrats are blocking. The House has no power over which judges are given lifetime appointments to the federal bench.
However, DeLay has called repeatedly for the House to find a way to hold the federal judiciary accountable for its decisions. "The judiciary has become so activist and so isolated from the American people that it's our job to do that," DeLay said.
One way would be for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the clause in the Constitution that says "judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior," he said. "We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."
TIME Magazine - Ann Coulter: Ms. Wrong Wing
Nimrod Ann Coulter makes her living telling lies and slobbering epithets about liberals. As a reward, Time Magazine puts her on the cover. Oh well, I think Saddam made the cover didn't he? Maybe not.
I'm amused at the Time Quick Poll: Do you think Ann Coulter makes a positive contribution to the political culture?
By 1:00 pm Pacific time 561,000+ had voted. 83% agreed that she did not.
Errrrrr...... She is such scum.
Republicans Eating Their Own - It's a good thing!
McCain irks Republicans over anti-filibuster optionBy Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 16, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. John McCain has once again enraged Republicans by publicly opposing Majority Leader Bill Frist's plan to employ the so-called nuclear option for ending the filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees.
"Look, we won't always be in the majority," Mr. McCain told MSNBC's "Hardball" host Chris Matthews Thursday night. "I say to my conservative friends, someday there will be a liberal Democrat president and a liberal Democrat Congress. Why? Because history shows it goes back and forth. I don't know if it's a hundred years from now, but it will happen. And do we want a bunch of liberal judges approved by the Senate of the United States with 51 votes if the Democrats are in the majority?"
Mr. McCain particularly outraged conservatives by telling Mr. Matthews that Republicans have done the same thing to Democrats in the past, a point that Republicans dispute.
Conservatives responded yesterday by coordinating a three-pronged attack on the Arizona Republican aiming to either flip him or kill any hope he may have of running for president again in 2008.
The so-called nuclear option, is a rare, parliamentary procedure that would bar the filibustering of judicial nominees.
"He will have no presidential hopes if he pursues this course," said Manuel Miranda, a former Frist staffer who now chairs the National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters. "This very well may be the first primary campaign between Bill Frist and John McCain."
Mr. Miranda's coalition -- a group of more than 150 conservative organizations that don't normally take part in judicial fights but are deeply involved in Republican primaries -- has begun a letter-writing and e-mail offensive in not only Mr. McCain's home state of Arizona, but also the key primary states of Michigan and South Carolina.
It was in Michigan that Mr. McCain achieved his surprise upset over candidate George W. Bush in the 2000 primary campaign and it was in South Carolina that Mr. McCain was defeated by fervent conservatives. Mr. McCain has been traveling in Michigan, South Carolina and other primary states, fueling speculation that he will run again in 2008.
Combating the Democratic filibusters has become a hot issue among conservatives, who see the judicial branch as the last bastion of liberalism. Mr. Frist, who also appears to be running for the Republican nomination, will be rewarded if he gets Mr. Bush's nominee on the bench, conservatives say, and Mr. McCain will be punished if he opposes those efforts.
"If Senator McCain refuses to stand up for fairness, it will damage his carefully crafted image and whatever aspirations he might have," said Marshall Manson with the Center for Individual Freedom, one of the groups in Mr. Miranda's coalition. "The people who care about this issue are watching carefully, and they have long memories."
Mr. McCain said yesterday he is not worried. "That's fine," he said. "We just returned from Michigan and we had great crowds. I'm very popular there, which I'm grateful for."
In a letter to activists, Mr. Miranda urged conservatives of every stripe to plead with Mr. McCain to switch his position.
Mr. McCain told The Washington Times yesterday that his position isn't new and he won't change his mind. "That's nothing new. I've said that for awhile," the senator said. But in previous statements, Mr. McCain was always very careful to say he remained open-minded about considering Mr. Frist's arguments.
Democrats, meanwhile railed against Mr. Frist yesterday for his planned participation in "Justice Sunday Simulcast," which the Family Research Council will pipe into churches across the country during Sunday services a week from tomorrow.
Mr. Frist, of Tennessee, and other conservatives say that the Democratic filibusters against Bush nominees are based on their opposition to any nominees who have personal religious beliefs, such as opposition to abortion, even if they vow never to let such beliefs enter into their judicial rulings.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, told reporters yesterday that Mr. Frist's participation in the simulcast is "beyond the pale."
"He should rise above all of this," he continued. "God does not take part in partisan politics. I do know that God does care about poor people, sick people, widows. orphans, people who are burdened with debt. I think those really are moral issues. We're not here today to say we're more religious than they are. Religion should not play a part in what goes on here."
Unless Democrats back down, Republicans say Mr. Frist will likely push for the nuclear option -- which they call the constitutional option -- sometime between now and the end of May.
Tom Delay's House of Scandal
Now this is a great site! The minority party is learning how to be "the loyal opposition". It's about time!
Tom Delay's House of Scandal
The Conservative Values Monitor
Major cudos go out to Pam for giving us
The Conservative Values Monitor.
How Low Can He Go?
George W. Bush claimed a mandate after the November elections with 50.7% of the vote. According to
Terry M. Neal of the Washington Post:
"You'd have to back to at least the early 1800s to find a president who has been re-elected by a closer margin."
Well, in Dubya's defense, it's not the lowest amount for a first election. Given that Bush was not elected to his first term, but rather
selected by the 5 Supremes, he has a higher first election percentage that Clinton.
With his approval rating down to 45% his mandate seems to going by the wayside. The only one more unpopular these days is Tom DeLay.
Tom DeLay has to go
Now that Hot Tub Tom has threatened US Judges, it’s time for him to move on. He shouldn’t wait for the next election, but rather just go peacefully into the slime from which he slithered.
Even his own party will be happy to see him go. None other than Dick “Go-fuck-yourself” Cheney has distanced himself from DeLay:
Cheney said he backed efforts to help save Terri Schiavo’s life, but strongly disagreed with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who wants retribution against judges who blocked restoration of her feeding tube.
“I don’t think that’s appropriate . . . There’s a reason why judges get lifetime appointments.” From Armondo.
As Judd said, “If Cheney says you’ve gone over the line, you’ve gone way over the line.”
So the Liberal Media is all over this, right?
Wrong! This would be a Swiss outlet reporting while the corporate Wrong Wing media are looking over there! It's Micheal Jackson!..... No, now look over there! It's Terri Schiavo! ...... No, There! It's the Pope!
"Pay no attention to man behind the curtain!"
American Citizen Held Without Charges or Lawyer
Guess Who?
Thanks to Jeff:
Clue #1:
I am the President, and was told that my army is torturing prisoners (presupposing that I think that's a bad thing), so I hired the lawyer who said torture was 'okee-dokee, so long as I said there's a war on' to be the next Attorney General.
Clue #2:
I am the President and was told that my country was under attack, so I squirmed a bit in my chair and continue the photo op.
Clue #3:
I am the President and my national security adviser ignored multiple terrorism warnings, including one cryptically entitled 'Al-Qaeda determined to strike in the US' and that terrorist organization subsequently carried out the most successful attack ever on our soil, so I fired the Secretary of State who demonstrated some concern that 'the crazies' were running foriegn policy, and promoted her into that position.
Clue #4:
I am the President and my first term was marred by an inability to bring other countries to collaborate with me, so I hired someone who has said that the UN is an obsolete and useless organization to be my ambassador to the UN.
*Jeopardy theme plays here*
We Knew This Was Coming. Didn't We?
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.
Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:17:./temp/~bd1Gh5:@@@L&summ2=m&
Driving Bush Crazy
From AmericaBlog:
Dems Approach on Soc. Security Driving Bush Crazyby Joe in DC - 3/31/2005 07:12:00 PM
The Bush team seems to have misjudged the way the Democrats would respond to the Social Security issue. Based on past history, Bush throws out an idea, like tax cuts or education or gay marriage, and the Democrats respond with a series of policy proposals. Then, they are in the debate with him and he gets most of what he wants.Not this time. On Social Security, the Democrats are actually being strategic by not proposing anything. That response has the White House in a tizzy. They don't know how to respond. Yesterday, in Iowa,
Bush practically begged the Democrats to act like they used to:
President Bush suggested Wednesday that lawmakers who oppose his proposal for a Social Security overhaul could face political problems as a result."To answer the question of the skeptics, we do have a serious problem," Bush said in an interview aired on WMT AM radio here and on WHO NewsRadio in Des Moines. Bush conducted the interview at a local diner, the Spring House Family Restaurant. "Now is the time to fix it, and I think there is a political price for not getting involved in the process."Bush added: "I think there is a political price for saying, `It's not a problem, I'm going to stay away from the table.'"In his Social Security travels, Bush has aimed to emphasize the positive and appear the model of bipartisanship - promising Democrats there will be no political retribution for bringing forward any idea to fix the system and arguing that the matter is too important to be the subject of partisan bickering.The problem he has is that he is hanging out there all by himself on this one. And, the only one paying a political price is Bush. This issue, along with Schiavo, is causing his approval numbers to tank. Even the
Reverend Moon's paper had to acknowledge as much. There really is no reason for the Democrats to play with Bush on this.
Besides, when they do, he only screws them anyway.
