Their mission is simple:
"The Big Brass Alliance was formed in May 2005 as a collective of progressive bloggers who support After Downing Street, a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups formed to urge that the U.S. Congress launch a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war. The campaign focuses on evidence that recently emerged in a British memo containing minutes of a secret July 2002 meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials."You should join to if you support an investigation or impeachment. Americans at least deserve some answers.|W|P|111760146345183446|W|P|Big Brass Alliance|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|Rob, you convinced me! Rob|W|P|I'm sure it didn't take too much convincing :) Chris Woods|W|P|You're right, it didn't. Thanks again. jarnocan|W|P|Wow, I gotta get me a set of those balls . This blog is set up so cool- love all your links!!! I've played with my template a little but pretty wimpy/skimpy. jarnocan.blogspot.com NoBu**Sh**zone. I love the new forum http://bigbrassblog.com/phpbb/"Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ''fixing" the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. US intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes -- evidence was thin and needed fixing. President Clinton was impeached for perjury about his sexual relationships. Comparing Clinton's misbehavior to a destructive and costly war occupation launched in March 2003 under false pretenses in violation of domestic and international law certainly merits introduction of an impeachment resolution. Eighty-nine members of Congress have asked the president whether intelligence was manipulated to lead the United States to war. The letter points to British meeting minutes that raise ''troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war." Those minutes describe the case for war as ''thin" and Saddam as ''nonthreatening to his neighbors," and ''Britain and America had to create conditions to justify a war." Finally, military action was ''seen as inevitable . . . But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.""If Clinton can get impeached for getting blowjobs in the Oval Office and then deciding he didn't need to tell a federal Grand Jury about it, then I think Bush can be impeached for high crimes, treason, and lying to the people of the United States. All of these things have led to the deaths of almost 2,000 American men and women. How much longer will we let these things go on? Check out DowningStreetMemo.com. Hat-tip to Suburban Guerrilla.|W|P|111759574889971488|W|P|The 'I' word?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|Considered joining the Big Brass Alliance? We got a mention on CNN (WMV) today, despite only being a few days old.The Downing Street Memo, while not the "smoking gun" in the strictist sense, is certainly a clear declaration of what the Bush Regime was doing all along...we knew it, but it's now confirmed by outside sources (ones that can't be said to be Democrat attackers).
It warrants an investigation, at the very least.
"Bradlee said today, "The thing that stuns me is that the goddamn secret has lasted this long." He was the Post's executive editor during Watergate and now is a vice president of the newspaper."To steal a phrase from Atrios--heh, indeedy.|W|P|111758379199985503|W|P|Who knew DC could keep a secret this long?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"This is not Live Aid 2. These concerts are the start point for The Long Walk To Justice, the one way we can all make our voices heard in unison. This is without doubt a moment in history where ordinary people can grasp the chance to achieve something truly monumental and demand from the 8 world leaders at G8 an end to poverty. The G8 leaders have it within their power to alter history. They will only have the will to do so if tens of thousands of people show them that enough is enough. By doubling aid, fully cancelling debt, and delivering trade justice for Africa, the G8 could change the future for millions of men, women and children."These concerts look like an amazing thing--if only there was one closer to Des Moines. Looks like I might have to make a roadtrip to Philly. Check out more information here. Line-ups at each location are as follows: (London looks like the best location)
- Hyde Park, London: U2, REM, Coldplay, Sir Paul McCartney, The Cure, Dido, Keane, Sir Elton John, Annie Lennox, Madonna, Muse, Razorlight, Scissor Sisters, Joss Stone, Stereophonics, Sting, Robbie Williams, Mariah Carey, Velvet Revolver, Bob Geldof, The Killers, Snow Patrol
- Museum of Art, Philadelphia: Stevie Wonder, The Dave Matthews Band, Bon Jovi, Maroon 5, P Diddy, Jay-Z, Sarah McLachlan, Rob Thomas, Keith Urban, 50 Cent, Kaiser Chiefs, Will Smith (host)
- Eiffel Tower, Paris: Jamiroquai, Craig David, Youssou N'Dour, Yannick Noah, Andrea Bocelli, Calo Gero, Kyo, Placebo, Axelle Red, Johnny Halliday, Manu Chao, Renaud
- Brandenburg Gate, Berlin: A-ha, Crosby, Stills and Nash, Brian Wilson, Lauryn Hill, Bap, Die Toten Hosen, Peter Maffay
- Circus Maximus, Rome: Duran Duran, Faith Hill, Irene Grandi, Jovanotti, Tim McGraw, Nek, Laura Pasini, Vasco Rossi, Zucchero
"David Shipler, who recently joined me on a panel at UNC, tells a striking story about a single mother he met while researching his book, The Working Poor. She had no savings and low earnings, so she had to live in a drafty wooden house. This exacerbated her son's asthma. That led to two ambulance rides to the hospital. Those trips led to ambulance charges she couldn't pay. Those charges damaged her credit report. And so then she was denied a loan to buy a mobile home. That meant she had to stay in that drafty house—the house that contributed to her son's asthma attacks. And she had to buy a car from a sleazy dealership that charged her 15 percent interest. As one little boy David met told his mother, “Being poor is expensive.”"The entire post, and hopefully the next few days' posts, will also be full of the wonderful analysis that Sen. Edwards brings to us on poverty in his first post. Having grown up in very modest surroundings myself, even being deemed a poor child by the federal government during my elementary and middle school years, I have some understanding of poverty. But it isn't that great of an understanding, and I feel fortunate for that. Now, with my political ambitions, I hope to fight poverty the same way Sen. Edwards is.|W|P|111758250319909711|W|P|It ain't cheap being poor|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly."This from a Slate.com article, and quoted from Scott Norvell in the Wall Street Journal.|W|P|111757847739621501|W|P|Faux News admits bias|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Why isn't the right-wing blogosphere or media tackling the issues of the Deep Throat revelation? Power Line hasn't posted anything, and Fox News is barely reporting it (and when they are, they seem to be challenging the admission and revelation). Fascinating, hmm......|W|P|111757732203253005|W|P|An interesting question|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Woodward Confrims Felt Is 'Deep Throat'"Go read the full article here.|W|P|111757557420416969|W|P|Woodward confirms it|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"It was John Felt, the FBI's #2 at the time. The upcoming Vanity Fair has a long interview with the newly named source, and the Captiol Buzz points us towards an advance copy of the article. It's pdf, but this is a big fucking moment. Off you go."Go read the pdf now, I'm working on it, but I've also got to get ready for work.|W|P|111755491589800204|W|P|Deep Throat revealed!!!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|Remember before jumping to conclusions that WaPo and Woodward/Bernstein refuse to confirm anything and any prospective Deep Throat has a strong economic incentive to claim the privilage. Just sayin'.Chase
Chris Woods|W|P|I'm pretty positive its him. The Felt family has already contacted the Washingon Post, and it looks like the Post is getting ready to publish a huge article about it tomorrow, and Bob Woodward will be having one printed on Thursday. Unless they're gonna outright call him a liar, then I'd say W. Mark Felt is our man."After all, every American who has a relative with one of these diseases—which means nearly every American—is beginning to understand the issue in a new way: it's "pro-cure" versus "anti-cure," with the anti-stem-cell folks in danger of being swept into the medical wastebin of history."He's absolutely right. Look, my brother has a devastating disease that has given him almost no immune system. He used to have 8-hour transfusions every 3 or 4 weeks to stay healthy and alive. Now they've been able to improve the technology and science so that he take a shot of the stuff a week in the privacy of his home. Someday science may be able to get the medicine he needs into pill form. But they'll never be able to cure the disease. And it will still cost my family (and him on his own eventually) and the insurance companies hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. Stem cell research can cure it. His immunologist worked for a research group that had been using the federally-funded stem cell lines; that is, up until they all got contaminated and they had to suspend most of the research. My grandfather has Parkinson's disease. Stem cell research can cure that, too. My cousin has diabetes. Stem cell research can cure that as well. This is a political movement. In 2006, the winners will be pro-cure. I'm pro-cure, are you?|W|P|111750662653695451|W|P|It is time to launch the Pro-Cure movement|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
David Schantz|W|P|The only way I can really explain my feelings on this is to quote a friend that was talking on the subject of genetically modified food when he said,"The Bible says we should praise God not play God." Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see everyone I know (including my wife and myself) that has health problems cured. I just question some of todays technology, maybe it's an age thing.God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
Chris Woods|W|P|Playing God, I think, comes up with issues such as cloning human beings for the sake of cloning human beings. I don't know where I stand on that morally.But when it comes to praising God, I think the fact that we're trying to prolong and protect the amazing gift of life that he granted to us makes supporters of stem cell research righteous in their cause.
"The U.S. military nearly set off a sectarian crisis Monday by mistakenly arresting the leader of Iraq's top Sunni Muslim political party, while two suicide bombers killed about 30 police, and U.S. fighter jets destroyed insurgent strongholds near Syria's border. . . . The arrest of Iraqi Islamic Party leader Mohsen Abdul-Hamid, his three sons and four guards did little to help efforts to entice Iraq's once-dominant Sunni community back into the political fold. The Sunnis lost their influence following Saddam Hussein's ouster two years ago."Well, that's just great. We're helping them to bring about a civil war!|W|P|111749190820774104|W|P|Aren't we the smart ones|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse."God bless you all.|W|P|111747950687794248|W|P|Memorial Day|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"BROWNBACK: George [Stephanopoulos] and Arlen, when did each of your lives begin? When did your life biologically start? And we shouldn't be researching on that life at any time during its continuum unless we have your consent. When did your life start? SPECTER: Well Sam, I'm a lot more concerned at this point about when my life is gonna end."In case you didn't know, last fall Sen. Specter was diagnosed with Hodgkins Lymphoma and is currently undergoing severe chemotherapy while maintaining his duties as Senator from the state of Pennsylvania. Brownback was a total jack-off.|W|P|111741833656470803|W|P|Specter on stem cell research|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
David Schantz|W|P|Chris, Your brother will be in my prayers. I'll also be praying for all of those who are now serving or have served their country in the past. I hope you will stop by to answer my Question Of The Week.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic
jon|W|P|After we paid for our kids summer camp canada we found it tough to recover! I totally agree with you!"The war on Newsweek shifted attention away from how the Guantanamo prisoners have been treated, how that treatment has affected the battle against terrorism and what American policies should be. Newsweek-bashing also furthered a long-term and so far successful campaign by the administration and the conservative movement to dismiss all negative reports about their side as the product of some entity they call "the liberal media." . . . . . .I fear that too many people in traditional journalism are becoming dangerously defensive in the face of a brilliantly conceived conservative attack on the independent media. Conservative academics have long attacked "postmodernist" philosophies for questioning whether "truth" exists at all and claiming that what we take as "truths" are merely "narratives" woven around some ideological predisposition. Today's conservative activists have become the new postmodernists. They shift attention away from the truth or falsity of specific facts and allegations -- and move the discussion to the motives of the journalists and media organizations putting them forward. Just a modest number of failures can be used to discredit an entire enterprise. . . . But this particular anti-press campaign is not about Journalism 101. It is about Power 101. It is a sophisticated effort to demolish the idea of a press independent of political parties by way of discouraging scrutiny of conservative politicians in power. By using bad documents, Dan Rather helped Bush, not John Kerry, because Rather gave Bush's skilled lieutenants the chance to use the CBS mistake to close off an entire line of inquiry about the president. In the case of Guantanamo, the administration, for a while, cast its actions as less important than Newsweek's."It really is an assault on the media by Washington Republicans and the Wingnuts. If you criticize or take away from a positive gain that they make, then you're a liar, a fraud, and un-American. The attack on an independent media seems to be quite coordinated with the consolidation of power being taken by the Bush Regime (which I discussed yesterday). The greater the ability to propogate their lies, the easier it is for them to attack the media and the easier it is to confuse and manipulate Americans.|W|P|111722912490856053|W|P|Conservative attack on the media|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Shut it down. Just shut it down. I am talking about the war-on-terrorism P.O.W. camp at Guantánamo Bay. Just shut it down and then plow it under. It has become worse than an embarrassment. I am convinced that more Americans are dying and will die if we keep the Gitmo prison open than if we shut it down. So, please, Mr. President, just shut it down. If you want to appreciate how corrosive Guantánamo has become for America's standing abroad, don't read the Arab press. Don't read the Pakistani press. Don't read the Afghan press. Hop over here to London or go online and just read the British press! See what our closest allies are saying about Gitmo. And when you get done with that, read the Australian press and the Canadian press and the German press."Go read the whole piece, it is quite impressive. I wonder if the "freedom-lovers" will get on his back about this. How long do you think it will be before Power Line slams him as not being a patriot?|W|P|111721024645090194|W|P|Shut it down|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The campaign to prevent the Senate filibuster of the president's judicial nominations was simply the latest and most public example of similar transformations in Congress and the executive branch stretching back a decade. The common theme is to consolidate influence in a small circle of Republicans and to marginalize dissenting voices that would try to impede a conservative agenda. House Republicans, for instance, discarded the seniority system and limited the independence and prerogatives of committee chairmen. The result is a chamber effectively run by a handful of GOP leaders. At the White House, Bush has tightened the reins on Cabinet members, centralizing the most important decisions among a tight group of West Wing loyalists. With the strong encouragement of Vice President Cheney, he has also moved to expand the amount of executive branch information that can be legally shielded from Congress, the courts and the public. Now, the White House and Congress are setting their sights on how to make the judiciary more deferential to the conservative cause -- as illustrated by the filibuster debate and recent threats by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and others to more vigorously oversee the courts. ... With control over the House Rules Committee, which determines which bills make it the floor, how they will be debated and whether they can be amended, Republicans have made it much harder for Democrats to offer alternatives -- for example, a smaller tax cut than one Republicans advocate. Democrats also are increasingly shut out of the final negotiations on legislation between the House and the Senate before bills are sent to Bush for his signature."Ezra is right, he sounds incredibly shrill. I think this just proves what I started talking about a long time ago as the Bush Regime started to ascend into power. As the Congress begins lining up his way, he consolidates power in the Cabinet and the Executive, his last stop on the Regime train is the judiciary--meaning a Supreme Court nominee. The compromise achieved by the Gang of 14 slowed him down a bit--will it hold as a permanent block to the Regime train?|W|P|111720990287178646|W|P|GOP tilting the Balance of Power|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Unadulterated Underdog|W|P|You worded it exactly right. The Bush Administration is the Bush Regime. Unadulterated Underdog|W|P|Bush wants absolute power. He may step down in 3 years, but he wants a system so that his picked successor will win no matter what Democrats do. He wants to use propaganda to destroy all opposition, he wants to install the Republican Central Committee as the governing body of the US and he wants to insure that companies will never again be required to treat employees with respect and good benefits. Bush is absolute evil and anyone who supports him is either brainwashed or badly confused.- The Bush administration is, as this piece in today’s Washington Post puts it, working to “consolidate influence in a small circle of Republicans and to marginalize dissenting voices that would try to impede a conservative agenda.”
- They are doing so with a historically unprecedented, at least in this country, degree of secrecy, and therefore lack of accountability.
- These same people, acting with unprecedented centralization of power, and secrecy, have taken it upon themselves to suspend the most basic rights enumerated in our constitution, and are carrying out the functional equivalent of a police state on Guantanamo Bay, and at various prisons around the world. It is a police state in which torture is condoned and prisoners are, on occasion, murdered. According to Amnesty International, the United States is operating a “gulag” that “has sought to justify the use of coercive interrogation techniques, the practice of holding 'ghost detainees' (people in unacknowledged incommunicado detention) and the 'rendering' or handing over of prisoners to third countries known to practice torture,” More here.
- While they pay rhetorical tribute to “democracy,” they side with tyrants whenever convenient.
- In response to even the most carefully documented evidence, the White House simply refuses to engage and, instead, impugns the character of those who present it, like this: “In response, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said, 'I think the allegations are ridiculous, and unsupported by the facts.'" They also take Orwellian doublespeak to a level that would have embarrassed Orwell. “'We've also - are leading the way when it comes to spreading compassion,’ Mr. McClellan said."
- And one reason they get away with it is that many in the media, even alleged “liberals” are eager to help. And I don’t mean just Fox, Rush, and the entire structure of the conservative echo machine.
- No less important in allowing it all to take place, is that the so-called “Gang of 500,”—the insiders of the mainstream media, do not really care about any of the above.
"Call me shrill, ideological, or whatever you like, but I think we’re losing our Constitution, our civil liberties, and in many significant respects, our country. When future historians look back on this period, they will wonder, most of all, I think, how we let it go without a fight."This is indeed an interesting period of American history. How will I explain this to my children and grandchildren? I do not know. . .|W|P|111715963976642765|W|P|7 Easy Steps to Lose a Country|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Meesher|W|P|Just a minor point about "Orwellian doublespeak... that would have embarassed Orwell." Anything even slightly Orwellian would have upset Orwell, because the word is used to refer to the practices that he was warning against."Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the steward of President Clinton’s economic policy, told the House Democratic Caucus yesterday that it needs to continue to “hold firm” in its opposition to President Bush’s effort to reform Social Security and advised the Democrats not to introduce their own plan, according to aides and lawmakers in the meeting. Rubin, who has gained huge stature in the party for presiding over the national finances during the Clinton boom years, counseled congressional Democrats against engaging Republicans on specifics. He urged them instead to cast the debate in terms of principles, with opposition to deficit spending as their guiding conviction. “Putting out a Democrat plan on Social Security would be a horrible mistake because right now it’s the president’s principles against our principles,” Rubin said, according to a Democratic leadership aide. The aide added that Rubin told his party colleagues that it would be hard to win a battle of specifics."Look, I'm pretty sure that Democrats can mark this down as another victory this year. There is low public support for any of the Bush Regime's ideas, the math just doesn't make sense (as Paul Krugman has repeatedly shown us), and it is just a plain bad idea (even philosophically). As Josh Marshall says:
"Add to this the fact that the president is clocking in at under 30% support on Social Security and most Americans now understand that he wants to dismantle the program and the whole thing really becomes a no-brainer. In fact, Dems should really start making the point now that they are the ones who stopped President Bush from phasing out Social Security this year. Be loud, be proud."We don't rub it in the Washington Republicans' faces enough. We're winning now. This is three in a row. Let's not stop it here. We're tired of being the Chicago Cubs of national politics the past couple of years--we get so close and blow it in the end. Now we're winning early and making substantial gains, especially in state legislatures. Let's pick up these victories and slam it in the GOP's face. Rub it in until it hurts. It is time to brag and to boast. It is our turn and we won't relent--we CAN'T relent. No compromise, no deals. We're gonna win this. Advantage Democrats.|W|P|111715800036911354|W|P|Where does Social Security privatization stand?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Jason|W|P|Thanks for the Clark post. He was my candidate in '04, and I still strongly believe that he is an outstanding thinker and a tremendous asset to the Democratic Party."But if the Washington Republicans stopped to listen to the American people, this is what they’d hear: Americans are sick and tired of getting caught in the crossfire of partisan sniping. Americans want us to put the common sense center ahead of nonsense . Americans want us to bring people together, to focus on what we owe to one another, and the responsibilities we share. And Americans want their agenda – their jobs, their health care, their security – to get back on the front burners of the nation’s agenda."The Washington Republicans are out of touch with America, especially their leader, George W. Bush. But the agenda continues:
"Americans are coming to realize this Republican Congress is out of touch with the real problems of working families and that the agenda the Republicans are advancing is at odds with what people in this country really care about. We Democrats have something better to offer. A reform agenda that will cleanse Washington…give power to the people – not special interests…and make sure that everyday Americans and their concerns get back on the Congressional calendar. Strengthening our national defense. Rebuilding our economy. Providing families with affordable health care. Making America energy independent. Securing our retirement. That’s our agenda. That’s America’s agenda. But the Republican Congress has put all this and more on hold. I hope that now we can finally turn to the people's business."Democrats should repeat this over and over again to themselves. This is what we're fighting for. This is what you will bring your constituents. This is what America wants AND deserves. And thankfully, he's a Democrat who understands the importance of national security:
"We need a common sense reform agenda for the common good. And that starts with defending our nation and making it more secure. As of this month, more time has passed since 9-11 than the time between Pearl Harbor and the defeat of Japan. During those three years and eight months – sixty years ago – we invaded North Africa and Normandy. We freed people from the Philippines to France. Hitler lay dead and Tojo was in chains. We had defeated fascism around the world and had begun to build the new United Nations. But today Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, our homeland is still not secure, we’re still not energy independent, and – in many ways – Americans are less safe than we were before 9-11. Democrats are the party of national security. And we have an agenda to defend America from danger. We stand for increasing our military strength by 40,000 troops so we can wage the War on Terror on every front. We stand for securing our borders and bridges, our seaports and airports, our nuclear and chemical plants. We stand for tracking down and securing the loose nuclear weapons that threaten our people. And we will honor our troops and their families by making sure they get the benefits they have earned."Let's follow-through.|W|P|111715421753978846|W|P|Harry Reid just gets it|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Unadulterated Underdog|W|P|Sorry, friend. I'm in California on vacation. I have internet but no tv. I know Bolton will be confirmed but damn, at what a cost."Now I wonder when Mr. Bush and Mr. DeLay will find the time to address - or rather, to denounce - the depraved ways in which the United States has dealt with so many of the thousands of people (many of them completely innocent) who have been swept up in the so-called war on terror. People have been murdered, tortured, rendered to foreign countries to be tortured at a distance, sexually violated, imprisoned without trial or in some cases simply made to "disappear" in an all-American version of a practice previously associated with brutal Latin American dictatorships. All of this has been done, of course, in the name of freedom."I again refer you to my post on the GOP life crisis, as Herbert's premise for this article is the recent discussion over human life and embryonic stem cell research. Herbert is right. Washington Republicans have essentially said that protecting human life is not as important as bringing people freedom. But what good is freedom to hundreds of thousands of dead people?|W|P|111712437636177250|W|P|Is it really on the march?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany persuaded Iran on Wednesday to continue its freeze on nuclear activities, averting a diplomatic crisis that could have led to punitive international measures against Iran. In exchange, the Europeans offered to present Iran with detailed, step-by-step proposals by early August at the latest on how to move toward consensus on the shape of Iran's nuclear program. Last November in Paris, Iran agreed to suspend all of its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities while it negotiated the economic, nuclear, political and security benefits it would receive."This is good news. It'll just be interesting to see how the renewed compromises end up. Someday the US will be able to have diplomatic power like this again.|W|P|111707489831197402|W|P|Iran to continue freeze on nuclear work|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
David Schantz|W|P|Chris,Yes it will be interesting to see how long Iran continues to cooperate. They don't have a real good record on telling the truth about their nuclear programs. What do you suppose brought this change on? Or was there a change at all?Even though we don't agree on the gun control issue I'd like to thank you for stopping by my site. I'd like to invite you back. I have now posted a response to your comments. I also wanted to let you know both of your sites are interesting, I'll be stopping in from time to time.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
Aggressive-Voice|W|P|Is Bolton "waaaaaaaay out of the mainstream" too?"Nearly a dozen detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba told FBI interrogators that guards had mistreated copies of the Koran, including one who said in 2002 that guards "flushed a Koran in the toilet," according to new FBI documents released today. The summaries of FBI interviews, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union as part of an ongoing lawsuit, also include allegations that the Koran was kicked, thrown to the floor and withheld as punishment and that guards mocked Muslim prisoners during prayers. The release of the new FBI documents comes in the wake of an international uproar over a now-retracted story by Newsweek magazine, which reported that an internal military report had confirmed that a Koran was flushed down a toilet. The retracted story has been linked by the Bush administration to deadly riots overseas."I'm sure they'll love the ACLU even more now because of this. Honest to god, the whole Newsweek blow-up keeps looking more and more ridiculous as these allegations continue to unfold--and are substantiated by documents and interviews of those in our own damn government. Nevertheless, I'm sure this will be said to have been uncorroborated completely and totally unsubstantiated so the wingnuts will say we have to disregard it and Newsweek still lied and people died. But if they're so pissed off about people lying and then people dying, why aren't they monstrously upset at the Bush Regime? Huh? Fuckin' hypocrites.|W|P|111706379138047048|W|P|FBI documents show Koran abuse at Gitmo|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."So much truth in one statement.|W|P|111706297280779527|W|P|The truth|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Fred|W|P|I would expect more as time goes on... Sar|W|P|Great blog, Chris! I found you through BE Rocket."You'd think, after months on the campaign trail, that the combatants would know they needed some sound bites rather than just a solid performance. So why don't they call up Aaron Sorkin, or indeed Geoffrey Nunberg, and commission a few? Why don't they go in for the kill?"|W|P|111704703828009739|W|P|Bring the 'zingers' back into politics|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|Sen. Inouye has been missing some time in the Senate lately because his wife in being treated for cancer. Given that even with all of the Democrats voting against her she still would have been confirmed, he probably didn't see much point in voting. Just a guess... Unadulterated Underdog|W|P|Frist will still bring up his nuclear option if the filibuster sees a lot oof use in the days ahead. We should proceed cautiously. A truce is called, nothing more."At a White House press briefing Monday, Press Secretary Scott McClellan, pressed by reporters and with Afghan President Karzai in disagreement, retreated on claims that Newsweek's retracted story on Koran abuse cost lives in Afghanistan. He also claimed that he had never said it did, even though a check of transcripts disputes that. On May 16, for example, he said, "people have lost their lives." On May 17, he said, "People did lose their lives," and, "People lost their lives" due to the Newsweek report."Oops.|W|P|111699037855183872|W|P|A liar in the Press Room|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"That's why insiders see a quiet consensus developing around Reform Lite. Republicans seem increasingly willing to abandon Bush-style accounts and their opposition to any tax increases. And Democrats have privately expressed a willingness to accept benefit cuts and hand Bush half a victory rather than be seen as blocking needed changes. "We are getting within striking distance of really constructive proposals," says a leading Democratic Social Security strategist."Look, we gave President Bush a half-win last night while making the Dobsonites look like fools. It was only a half victory for us, so let's not let the special winning Kool-Aid get to us. As Markos says, "expect all hell to break loose" if those 7 Democratic senators decide to compromise on this. Honest to God, there is no crisis in Social Security. The math people use to talk about some kind of imminent crisis is just plain wrong and bad math. The bigger domestic entitlement problem are the fiscal issues facing Medicare. It is a much, much bigger liability than Social Security will ever be. Furthermore, the 'reforms' that Congress passed (if you can even say they did that after the amazingly long vote they took) made the problem even worse and was simply a movement to kiss tons of pharmaceutical complany ass. The fact is, if Democrats defy the party orders on Social Security there will be some hefty consequences. Like no financial help from the DCCC or DSCC for campaigns in 2006. That should get their attention. Here's what Dems should do, according to Liberal Oasis' Bill Sher:
"In one fell swoop, Democrats should declare the following:Sounds like a damn good plan to me. We need a big victory, and this can be our chance. If you've got thoughts on Social Security, leave them in the comments. There is no compromise when it comes to issues like this.|W|P|111698254359555209|W|P|Time to move on to more pressing matters|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comThe Social Security debate has ended, as the public has rejected partial privatization and is not demanding any hasty changes to the system. In turn, Democrats will no longer participate in congressional hearings on Social Security, and will not debate Social Security with Republicans in the media, at least until Republicans drop privatization. Instead, Democrats will begin addressing the real crisis of Medicare and skyrocketing health care costs, by putting on the table a few comprehensive reform plans, leading their own hearings to foster public debate and discussion about them, and culminating with a single plan for the party to run on in the 2006 congressional elections. Why would this strategy work? Because it flows from what Democrats have already been saying."
Rob|W|P|Frist isn't bound by the agreement...the deal the 14 Senators signed basically made no committment on Saad and Myers. Thus the Democrats (the 7 on the agreement) are free to join in a filibuster of them without breaking the agreement, and if Frist uses one of them to "go nuclear" the 7 Republicans should join the Democrats in opposing the nuclear option.Nothing in the agreement really prevents Frist (who didn't sign onto it anyway) from calling for a cloture vote...but if the Republicans stick to their end, they'll block the nuclear option.
Chris Woods|W|P|What irks me though is that Harry Reid decided that this was a decent enough compromise to comply with, and he encouraged numerous Democrats to agree to it as well.You would think the majority leader would attempt to bring back the comity of the Senate as well, but when you're the wingnut's whipping boy, I guess not.
Rob|W|P|You mean you actually expected Frist to bend at all?If I continue with the analogy of Bush as Palpatine, Frist is a good stand-in for Vader...except he never was "good". :)
Chris Woods|W|P|I think the whole compromise left me wishing for the whole Senate comity and getting along thing. I was confused because the moderates actually agreed on something :-).But that's past now. I hope he enjoys his leadership position while he's got it. Another failure like the one he got last night, he's in even deeper shit.
Chase was right: the House was getting jealous that the Senate was getting all of the attention so now they're preparing to vote on a bill for stem cell reasearch. Beyond my own personal beliefs on stem cell research (if you want to know them, ask and I'll tell--I think I already have in a post somewhere on here anyway), I think the bill is a good thing for America, as well as all ailing Americans. The White House has already stated their distaste with the bill, and President Bush has already threatened a veto if it makes it his desk. The veto would be a watershed moment in Bush's presidency because it would be his first veto, and it would come on such a controversial bill. Today Bush even called the legislation in the House "morally troubling" and that we should the right thing to do is protect human life. Before I move on, please note the obvious hypocrisy in this quote as pointed out by Joe over at AMERICAblog. What I don't understand is the two seemingly contradictory positions coming out of the GOP and the White House. They love life so much that they wanted the federal government to intervene in a tragic family disagreement about a woman's right to life. Yet now they oppose stem cell reasearch would could save thousands, if not millions, of American lives someday. You would think this is something that the GOP would want to stand from the top of the Capitol shouting--"We are fighting hard to save American lives through scientific achievement." It seems though that this is just another policy issue commandeered by the radical right and their agenda to bring God deep into government. The White House and right wing advocacy groups seem to only have one point of opposition to this research: "every life is a priceless gift of matchless value" (as President Bush said today). However, the logic behind their position appears flawed to me. It seems to say that increasing federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells because if we do that we will cause an increase in abortions or the discarding of human life. Nevermind the philosophical debate on when life begins (true science has already made clear when life begins and ends), they want to protect lives, even though they would veto a bill that could end up saving thousands of lives. These embryos aren't human life. These embryos come from fertility clinics where they will most likely never be used. The ones that are usable have most likely been used to create a precious human life that will grow up just like any other normal person. Moreover, the bill makes it expressly clear that the embryos used in these new lines for research must be expressly donated by the couples who control the embryos, and the money cannot be used to create new embryos for research nor destroy them for research. Moderate Republicans in Congress are some of the most ardent supporters of the Castle-DeGette bill that is now being debated in the House. Most Democrats are in favor of the bill as well. However, people like House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX-22) and other GOP-ers controlled by the radical right are opposed simply on the life issue. The facts though are simple. These embryos, in almost all circumstances, will not be used to create human life. They will simply be abandoned or discarded. If the GOP and all Republicans really cared about protecting life in all circumstances, they would support this bill whole-heartedly. But they're not. So, they have upon their hands a "life crisis." They're going to try to protect it only when its good for them.|W|P|111697120688374515|W|P|The GOP's life crisis|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"So I walk in the door and turn on the TV to check out the "all-nighter" session the Senate declared and to see if Bill Frist was wearing the Spongebob pajamas James Dobson bought him and instead get the most fearsome of images in the form of Joe Lieberman trying to smile. I apparently already missed the speeches from Mike DeWine explaining that his name was Mike DeWine and he was actually a United States Senator, and Robert Byrd telling a story about how he knew Ben Franklin."Go read the rest of it NOW!|W|P|111696507701906873|W|P|Best deal post EVAR|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- Robert Byrd (West Virginia)
- Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)
- Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)
- Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut)
- Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
- Mark Pryor (Arkansas)
- Ken Salazar (Colorado)
- Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island)
- Susan Collins (Maine)
- Mike DeWine (Ohio), go to Contact Information and select email form
- Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
- John McCain (Arizona)
- John Warner (Virginia)
- Olympia Snowe (Maine)
"Since the signing of the Public Broadcasting Act more than 35 years ago, Americans have relied on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR), and other public broadcasting outlets to provide quality programs and independent journalism free from political or commercial pressure. According to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the public believes that PBS programming is free from political tilt: A survey reveals that "the majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased." Unfortunately, that is not sufficient for some -- like CPB chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who wants public broadcasting to reflect his conservative political beliefs."Sounds like they've got a good mission to work from: protect the CPB from becoming an outlet of the Right and from becoming state-run propaganda.|W|P|111695955896720890|W|P|Hands Off!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
|W|P|Oh good, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed that while watching C-SPAN. I was starting to worry about myself when I take note of Senators' ties."A Modest Victory for Bush, but Challenging Tests Lie Ahead"It is a news analysis, so I'm not that worried. It does, though, show me that Richard W. Stevenson (a good Times writer) has decided to look at politics through the lens of the White House or the Bush Regime, so I'll keep that in mind when reading future stories. Oh, and Carl Hulse is definitely working for McClellan as well. Just read his ridiculous stories and the cheap shots against the Dems that he adds in his writing. The other example is from the Washington Times. Anyone who thinks that they still aren't conservative after reading this headline can kiss my big white ass:
"7 Republicans abandon GOP on filibuster"And it comes from everyone's favorite conservative politics writer Charles Hurt! What a goddamn tool. These have been your media bias examples for the day. We now take you back to regularly scheduled programming.|W|P|111695859836366239|W|P|Media bias examples|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
To: Bill Frist, US Senate. From: Mitch Berg, Schmuck Citizen and pissed-off former GOP contributor Re: Your Infinite Cretinism Senator Frist, Mitch Berg here. You probably don't know who I am; I'm a typical schmuck. I write a blog, and I try to pitch in on GOP activities around Minnesota. And on behalf of the entire GOP, I'm having a hard time seeing an upside to this deal right now. At first - and second, and tenth - glance, it looks like you've sold out your party. No, not just the party; not just the assembly of suits and climbers and hangers-on that no doubt surrounds you at work every day. No, I'm talking about all of us who busted our asses overcoming a full-court media press (and continue to do so), and gave of our time and money until it hurt - hurt our wallets, our families, our relationships, our equilibrium. We gave them all with enthusiasm because we knew what was at stake; a whole generation of Supreme Court decisions. So we gave. And you took. And today, you looked us all in the face, and spat. Reading Michelle and John and Ed, I'm about as depressed as I can be. We won you a majority, pinhead. What the hell good is it? You think the Democrats are going to abide by your little gentleman's agreement? You got conned. You entered into an agreement with a Klansman, a drunk machine hack and a party bag man. You are the Neville Chamberlain of my generation. I don't believe in Karma, but I believe what goes around comes around. And I guess you demonstrate it, Frist. The Democrats elect a pinhead doctor to lead their party - I guess it's only fair we did, too. Thank God for Tom Delay. The least you could do is make it hard for the Dems to neutralize you, rather than walking off the cliff into the kool-aid vat on your own. Captain Ed is right. Not one more dime. You have made me ashamed to be a Republican. Oh, I'll bounce back. We all will - most of us, anyway. We'll have to. Because you showed us today - the grass roots have got to do it for themselves; we'll get no help from hamsters like you. Sincerely - go back to medicine. Mitch Berg Saint Paul|W|P|111695812162098143|W|P|The Righties are still crying|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"If a state law called for shoving a red-hot poker up the defendant’s rectum immediately after indictment, Thomas (George Bush’s ideal Justice) would point out that the precedent of Richard II showed that such a practice was not “unusual,” and that in any case it wasn’t covered by the Eighth Amendment because it was pre-conviction and therefore not “punishment,” which by definition comes after conviction and sentence. That’s just the sort of guy he is."Wow.|W|P|111695739284079246|W|P|Quote of the Day|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|An interesting notion after the reason SC ruling on the legality of keeping a defendant being sentenced to death in shackles. The decision was 5-2, Thomas and Scalia dissenting, and Thomas argues that common law's precedence on the issue was largely because of the physical pain the chains caused. The majority says that shackles imply guilt and cause a mental strain on the client which violates their rights to proper council. Interesting, you know, for me at least."The explicit language of the agreement reached tonight by a group of senators rejects the nuclear option, preserves the filibuster and ensures that both political parties will have a say in who is appointed to our highest courts. The agreement embodies the very principle of consultation and consensus that the filibuster encourages. This is good news for the American people. Saving the Senate's constitutional advice and consent role, and the checks and balances that protect judicial independence, is especially important with multiple vacancies expected on the Supreme Court. The agreement assures that the filibuster will be available, as it has been throughout our history, if the President ignores the spirit of this agreement and nominates an ideologue to the Supreme Court. "The unprincipled nuclear option has been averted. This is a major defeat for the radical right. Senators from both parties have rejected demands by the White House, radical right groups, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that the filibuster be eliminated on nominees. It is a rejection of White House demands for virtually unlimited power to undermine the independence of the courts. "Nonetheless, we cannot endorse every aspect of the deal that was announced today. We are deeply concerned that it could lead to confirmation of appeals court judges who would undermine Americans' rights and freedoms. We will urge Senators to vote against confirmation of nominees who have not demonstrated a commitment to upholding individual liberties and the legal and social justice accomplishments of the past 70 years. "The bipartisan rejection of the nuclear option provides President Bush with a clear path out of the divisive impasse that has been caused by his obstinate refusal to engage in bipartisan consultation and compromise on judicial nominations. "It is time for President Bush to recognize what the senators who negotiated this agreement know -- that the Senate is the President's constitutional partner in appointing federal judges. It is time for the White House to abandon its confrontational strategy on judges, and to work with senators from both parties to find some consensus nominees, especially in the case of expected Supreme Court vacancies."|W|P|111690870926078742|W|P|The Aftermath: PFAW responds|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Jason|W|P|An interesting development: found via Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/), "Kevin Drum notes (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006361.php): UPDATE: In comments (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006361.php#600837), NSF reports that Lindsey Graham claims that of the three who will get votes (Brown, Owen, and Pryor), one will end up getting defeated on a bipartisan basis. A secret codicil? Hmmm....." Chris Woods|W|P|Yeah, I had heard the same musings from a couple other places as well. And to tell you the truth, I think Sen. Graham is telling the truth, because he was a staunch supporter of the Nuclear Option up until the last minute when he realized how much of a higher ground the position of compromise would be. He said tonight that he doesn't bend to majority or White House orders, so I've got a bit more respect for the guy, even if he's wrong on the Nuclear Option, Social Security, and a lot of other things."This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush’s nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals. We are grateful to Majority Leader Frist for courageously fighting to defend the vital principle of basic fairness. That principle has now gone down to defeat. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust."Loser.|W|P|111690307097507145|W|P|The Aftermath: Dobson responds|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Tony W|W|P|The Filibuster is good for all!"This is not a good deal for the U.S. Senate or for the American people. Democrats should have stood together firmly against the bullying tactics of the Republican leadership abusing their power as they control both houses of Congress and the White House. Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions. I value the many traditions of the Senate, including the tradition of bipartisanship to forge consensus. I do not, however, value threatening to disregard an important Senate tradition, like occasional unlimited debate, when necessary. I respect all my colleagues very much who thought to end this playground squabble over judges, but I am disappointed in this deal."So, I guess the moral of the story is this: If you're a liberal and mad, Russ Feingold agrees with you, so you're not alone among the politicos.|W|P|111690271171711150|W|P|The Aftermath: Feingold doesn't like the deal either|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|Feingold seems more disappointed that it had to come to the compromise in the first place. That the GOP "leadership" was so lacking in leadership that they resorted to guerilla tactics to get their way.I'm not exactly jumping for joy, but such is the nature of compromise...if either side is really, really happy over it then it's not a true compromise, it's a concession from the other side.
I do agree that it's fucked up that it had to come to needing a dozen or so Senators (who seem to be the real "leaders" in the chamber) doing what Frist was too immature to do...work together to get over an obstacle. The GOP forced a showdown, and from what I saw the Democrats were willing to compromise so long as the option to filibuster remained. Those who deal in absolutes (i.e., Frist) are the losers (he could take a lesson from Obi-Wan on that one).
As I was reflecting on my blog, the big fish are the nominees for the Supreme Court...and the big victory in this for Dems is retaining the ability to block extremists there. We can't block all nominees, even though we may not like 'em (and no surprise, Bush is going to nominate righties), but keeping the ability to keep out the really extreme ones (or the "litmus test" ones) is important. Frankly, I'd have bent on all of these small-fish judges in light of what is at stake in the high court.
The really, really screwed up thing is that Bush forced this, in a way...he stubbornly re-nominated rejected judges. And the compromise, while allowing some of them through, sends a message that he still does not have carte blanche to nominate just anyone. That is a victory, too.
On the flip side, Democrats have to pick their battles a bit more carefully...abuse of the filibuster could bring the nuclear option back up (and Frist will just be itching to interpret any filibuster as a break of the compromise by the Dems).
'yeti|W|P|I think this is an intersting example of the difference between left-blogthink and right-blogthink. Take a look at Michelle Malkin, for instance - http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002540.htm - all the big Republican blogs are smashing the deal with all they've got, and even refusing to give money to the RNC if it goes through. They all link to each other and end up spewing the same thing. We on the left, meanwhile, have a pretty wide degree of opinion about this, and because we don't automatically trust the big boys to make our opinions for us, our reaction isn't going to come back to bite us in the ass in the morning... LQ|W|P|I too had the same thought.UPDATE: It doesn't look like the right-wing blogosphere likes the deal at all. Maybe this'll put some Democrats' points of view in perspective. Here's an interesting comment from someone over at RedState.org and here's the take on over at Power Line (they don't like it either). Michelle Malkin doesn't like it either. Boo-fuckin'-hoo.
Already the left-wing blogosphere is up in arms over the deal reached tonight. Some are calling it a sell-out (from TalkLeft):
"The worst, the compromise is in. Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor are in. Total capitulation by Democrats. Total victory for Frist. Let them spin it how they want, it's a loss for the Democrats. Henry Saad of Michigan is the fall guy. He won't get a vote. No one cared about him anyway. That's tossing the Dems a chicken bone."Chris Bowers over at MyDD has an initial reaction of defeat, though he does say we might've prevailed on a few things. Jeff Dubner over at TAPPED isn't that thrilled either. I, on the other hand, am pretty happy with this deal. We had 49 votes for sure, and we could have won. Sure, the best picture would be Democrats marching down the aisles of the Senate celebrating our victory of the Nuclear Option's procedural vote. Had we lost that vote however, we really would've ushered in the theocracy that the folks over at Talk Left are complaining about. I agree with what Markos has said.
"Now, some wanted to roll the dice, but had we lost, Dobson would've chosen the next Supreme Court justice. I wasn't willing to make that bet, and I'm glad we didn't have to. On top of everything, Frist looks weak. He's failed his crazies. He's finished. Things may change, but so far, this is the second-best option. Beating Frist on the procedural vote may've been the best option. But the worst option was too horrible to contemplate."Honestly, this really is the best thing for us. Washington Republicans and the theocrats and the extremists get a few judges. We get the 2006 mid-term elections. We get to watch Bill Frist lose momentum on his run for President in 2008. The radical right and the rest of the wingnuts are going to place the blame heavily on him if any of these judges don't pass. And still, Henry Saad will be blocked, so will Myers and others. We reserve the right to filibuster judicial nominees in extraordinary circumstances. In retrospect, this is really going to be a good thing for Democrats, especially in preserving the Senate as an institution. We want to keep things hospitable in the chamber. This victory helps seal the deal. That's all I've got for now, I'll probably post more later, especially if my opinion changes or if I find some good reactions to quote from.|W|P|111689588494685703|W|P|The Aftermath: Reflections on the deal|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress. This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee. We have agreed to the following: Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit). B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit). Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist. B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII. We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration. Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate. We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold."|W|P|111689596851672372|W|P|Full text of the compromise|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Priscilla Owen - Gets in William Prior - Get in Janice Rogers Brown - Gets in Michigan Judges - 2 of 3 get in (Henry Saad does not) Willian Myers - Does not get inNow that Republicans have gotten their up or down votes on Owen, Prior, and Rogers Brown, they'll basically be shoe-ins--unless somehow Washington Republicans decide to vote conscience and realize how bad these people are.|W|P|111689407028994953|W|P|The Aftermath: Who's in and who's out|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Unadulterated Underdog|W|P|THANK GOD! We needed a compromise. I had my doubts but now, I am relieved and thank God for that!- Group of 14 senators
- 7 Democratss, 7 Republicans
- Byrd (D) and Warner (R) were senior leaders
- Janice Rogers Brown, Pryor, and Priscilla Owen will face up or down votes (the 14 Senators here will vote to end debate with the cloture votes)
- future nominations will only be filibusters under extraordinary circumstances
- do everything in power to prevent filibusters in the future
- McCain (R-AZ) spoke first, then Ben Nelson (D-NE), then Mark Pryor (D-AR), then Robert Byrd (D-WV), then John Warner (R-VA), then Mike DeWine (R-OH), then Joe Lieberman (D-CT), then Olympia Snowe (R-ME), then Mary Landrieu (D-LA), then Susan Collins (R-ME), then Lindsey Graham (R-SC), then Ken Salazar (D-CO) (two who signed and aren't there are Inoyue (D-HI) and Chafee (R-RI).
- Based particularly on "good faith"
- Byrd: "We have kept the Republic."
- These are most definitely the institutionalists of the United States Senate
- Lieberman: "Band of Brothers and Sisters. We did the unexpected."
- McCain: "The Senate won and the people won."
"We are going to lose. This does not mean, in any way, that we should stop fighting and not take the actions listed above. In fact, that we are going to lose makes taking them all the more important. If nothing else, this at least needs to turn into a good story for Democrats, even if it will result in bad policy But we are going to lose. Walter Shapiro notes:That is quite pessimistic. But rightfully so. Unless there is a compromise, things don't look so good. However, when Chris writes that he hopes we can win it in terms of politics, it is because of what Sen. Reid said in a press release about a month ago in April. Sen. Reid said:The Republicans will probably win 51-49 or 50-50 with Dick Cheney breaking the tie when the Senate votes Tuesday on a rule change eliminating judicial filibusters. What leaves me baffled is why the Democrats don't take any deal that they can get from the handful of Republicans who remain rightly fearful about detonating this nuclear option. Blocking two or three right-wing appeals court judges and preserving the glimmer of a chance to filibuster if Bush nominates, say, Ann Coulter to the Supreme Court may, alas, be the best outcome liberals can hope for in difficult times.We are going to lose this one in terms of policy. Hopefully we can win it in terms of politics."
"As a matter of comity, the Minority in the Senate traditionally defers to the Majority in the setting of the agenda. If Bill Frist pulls the nuclear trigger, Democrats will show deference no longer.Invoking a little-known Senate procedure called Rule XIV, last week Democrats put nine bills on the Senate calendar that seek to help America fulfill its promise.
If Republican's break the rules Democrats will use the rule to bring to the Senate floor an agenda that meets the needs of average Americans, such as lowering gas prices, reducing the cost of health care and helping veterans.
"Across the country, people are worried about things that matter to their families - the health of their loved ones, their child's performance in schools, and those sky high gas prices," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "But what is the number one priority for Senate Republicans? Doing away with the last check on one-party rule in Washington to allow President Bush, Senator Frist and Tom Delay to stack the courts with radical judges. If Republicans proceed to pull the trigger on the nuclear option, Democrats will respond by employing existing Senate rules to push forward our agenda for America."
Democrats have introduced bills that address America's real challenges. (Details attached)
1. Women's Health Care (S. 844). "The Prevention First Act of 2005" will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions by increasing funding for family planning and ending health insurance discrimination against women.
2. Veterans' Benefits (S. 845). "The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2005" will assist disabled veterans who, under current law, must choose to either receive their retirement pay or disability compensation.
3. Fiscal Responsibility (S. 851). Democrats will move to restore fiscal discipline to government spending and extend the pay-as-you-go requirement.
4. Relief at the Pump (S. 847). Democrats plan to halt the diversion of oil from the markets to the strategic petroleum reserve. By releasing oil from the reserve through a swap program, the plan will bring down prices at the pump.
5. Education (S. 848). Democrats have a bill that will: strengthen head start and child care programs, improve elementary and secondary education, provide a roadmap for first generation and low-income college students, provide college tuition relief for students and their families, address the need for math, science and special education teachers, and make college affordable for all students.
6. Jobs (S. 846). Democrats will work in support of legislation that guarantees overtime pay for workers and sets a fair minimum wage.
7. Energy Markets (S. 870). Democrats work to prevent Enron-style market manipulation of electricity.
8. Corporate Taxation (S. 872). Democrats make sure companies pay their fair share of taxes to the U.S. government instead of keeping profits overseas.
9. Standing with our troops (S. 11). Democrats believe that putting America's security first means standing up for our troops and their families
"Abusing power is not what the American people sent us to Washington to do. We need to address real priorities instead -- fight for relief at the gas pump, stronger schools and lower health care costs for America's families," said Senator Reid."
That settles it. We can win on this politically. It may not happen right away. But by forcing Washington Republicans to vote against these things makes great campaign material to reclaim the Senate in 2006.
I know this is a long and complicated post, but there is light at the end of the tunnel, even if we lose. But let's not lose this--let's win it!
|W|P|111688893629181702|W|P|Nuclear Option: Chris Bowers is Mr. Pessimism|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com Unadulterated Underdog|W|P|It's hypocritical what the Right is doing. They are complaining that judges are activist and using it to gain support for their nuclear option. But what IS the nuclear option? It is where Republicans replace "activist" judges with right-wing fringe judges. So you replace an activist with an activist? Smart. Except that the current judges aren't activists, they are just trying to do what is right. There is a difference. The Right is so full of hypocrites that it's surprising they all have breathing room. Chris Woods|W|P|Exactly. That's the message that Democrats are working hard to get out, but the media just isn't covering this whole debate in the most illustrious way. They're framing it as simply another obstruction by Democrats who are upset because Republicans want to change the rules to make the Senate run better and get stuff done. That's just plain wrong, but our 'liberal' media just isn't pointing this out.However, even if we lose this vote, we can win overall by bringing our own legislation to the floor quickly and making Republicans vote against it. When they have to vote against progressive and effective legislation like this, we'll make them look so bad in 2006 that Democrats will have to reclaim Congress.
Senator Grassley's Des Moines Office 721 Federal Building 210 Walnut Street Des Moines, IA 50309It is time to get busy folks.|W|P|111688567341688880|W|P|Nuclear Option: Citizen filibusters|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Unfortunately, some Senate Republicans are trying to give President Bush power no president has ever had -- the ability to personally hand out lifetime jobs to judges -- including the Supreme Court, without consensus from the other party. This abuse of power is not what our founders intended. It's wrong for one political party -- be it Republicans today or Democrats tomorrow -- to have total control over who sits on our high courts and rules on our most basic rights."
Via Taegan Goddard's "Political Wire:"
""In an unusual move, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will appear tonight in a 90-second television ad calling on Republicans to stand down on their threat to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees," Roll Call reports. The ad will be shown nationally on CNN, CNN Headline News and Fox News Channel and in the Washington, D.C., area on local television between 7:50 and 8 p.m. tonight."I'm sure Crooks and Liars will get the video as soon as they can tonight, but everyone pay attention and watch this ad. Talk about Democrats getting organized, getting mad, and getting active! This is amazing work from the Senate Democrats.|W|P|111687351885969813|W|P|Nuclear Option: Reid to do TV ad tonight|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Arlen Specter: (Pennsylvania) DC Office: 202-224-4254|W|P|111687817472676210|W|P|Nuclear Option: PA, VA, OH, and NE make calls now!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comPhiladelphia Office: 215-597-7200
Pittsburgh Office: 412-644-3400
John Warner: (Virginia) DC Office: (202) 224-2023
Richmond Office: (804) 739-0247
Norfolk Office: (757) 441-3079
Mike Dewine: (Ohio) DC Office: (202) 224-2315
Cleveland office: (216) 522-7272
Columbus office: (614) 469-5186
Chuck Hagel: (Nebraska) DC Office: (202) 224-4224
Omaha Office: (402) 758-8981
"James Dobson: Who does he think he is, questioning my conservative credentials?" Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said in an interview. Dobson, head of the conservative group Focus on the Family, criticized Lott for his efforts to forge a compromise in the fight over the judges. Lott is still angry. "Some of his language and conduct is quite un-Christian, and I don't appreciate it," the senator said."It's the racist vs. the bigots' pal! The GOP is crumbling already. From USA Today.|W|P|111687904263934481|W|P|Nuclear Option: Catfight!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Priscilla Owens was just rated “poor” by the Houston Bar Association by almost half of the respondents. She had the lowest rating on the Texas Supreme Court of any justice."All the more reason for Democrats to fight hard and win this battle. Remember, call these Senators!|W|P|111687329662525620|W|P|Nuclear Option: Owen rated 'poor' by Houston Bar Assoc.|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"I am an Internet activist, having launched my own personal political weblog in August of 2004 with the intent of moving others to get politically involved and to offer my opinion to those who wished to hear it. Over the years, I've increasingly relied on the Internet for political news and analysis. It is by far the best resource out there for like-minded politicos like myself. The communities that have emerged at different websites and weblogs cross party lines and offer grassroots (or online we call it netroots) support for local political candidates, as well as national candidates. The Internet has become a substantial and critical part of American politics. However, what justifies the restriction of this clearly personal communication on the public policy issues of the day? Online blog communities like Daily Kos and Redstate.org provide outlets for communication for people across the country. And the talk is just like folks at work talking around the water cooler. If we restrict Internet speech then we will have to restrict speech around the water cooler as well. The Internet greatly increases the ability of Americans to come across party lines and work together on the public policy issues that affect all Americans. The discourse that emerges is a healthy one not obstructed by race, gender, or class differences, mainly thanks to the anonymity that online communication can provide. I respectfully urge you not to restrict this important speech outlet of all Americans."Make sure that you sign the email with your full name and postal address, otherwise they will not consider your comments. Remember, check with Daily Kos for the full details.|W|P|111687306772154251|W|P|Action Alert: FEC threat to online activism|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- Susan Collins (ME): (202)224-2523
- Chuck Hagel (NE): (202)224-4224
- Arlen Specter (PA): (202)224-4254
- John Warner (VA): (202)224-2023
- Mike DeWine (OH): (202)224-2315
- Lisa Murkowski (AK): (202)224-6665
- John Sununu (NH): (202)224-2841
"Hello. I'm a citizen concerned about the Republican leadership's attempt to change Senate rules, and I would like to urge Senator [name here] to oppose the 'nuclear option' to eliminate the right to filibuster judicial nominations. I believe in fair judges, and checks and balances. Thank you very much."Sens. Chafee (R-RI), McCain (R-AZ), and Snowe (R-ME) have already sided with the Democrats. With Independent Jim Jeffords, that makes 48 votes. All it takes is three Republicans--your calls could make the difference. And by the way, my Republican Senator Chuck Grassley sucks at speaking before the Senate. Someone needs to shut him up.|W|P|111686606373085429|W|P|Nuclear Option: Calling is imperative!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"A clear Democratic willingness to be reasonable on judges will not only defuse this contrived crisis, but will also force Republicans to either live up to their responsibilities as a governing party or expose the power of extremists in their ranks."We've been reasonable all along--that's why we've got a 95% confirmation rate. Instead, you want us to negate our principles and give up on face that way we can simply give in to the moderate GOP Washington Republicans. Bob's right, your third way is simply the Republican way. |W|P|111686492206445069|W|P|Nuclear Option: The DLC is useless|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The burden of stopping this is on those folks. If you know the nuclear option is wrong, you should vote against it. That's really all there is to it. Democrats shouldn't need to sweeten the pot in order to get Republican moderates to do what they perfectly well know is the right thing to do. People who can't figure that out on their own aren't worth compromising with."Yep.|W|P|111682334311674063|W|P|Nuclear Option: It is just plain wrong|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
|W|P|Elliot's book is a huge disappointment. Don't bother. Read "One Car Caravan" for a much better campaign memoir. Franks is also kinda useless. Basically, it's a whole lot of color, history, and info on Kansas used to flesh out an article-length into a book. Unless, like my girlfriend, you went to the same high school he did and grew up in the same town, it's not terrible interesting. It's actually surprisingly contentless for the number of pages it uses. That he couldn't have thought up more solutions save vague populism is pretty disappointing. And there's really no data backing the cultural backlash theory up, it's more a hunch of his. More psychological analysis of why folks trade their well-being for moral superiority would've been nice, particularly because there's much to say (and much written) on the subject.
--Ezra
Chris Woods|W|P|Thanks for the advice. I thought of another one earlier today that I desperately want to read: Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. All I've heard is good stuff about it, so it is now on my summer reading list as well. Chris Woods|W|P|Sounds like a plan to me. It'll foster real discourse, and not just be a postive publicity campaign.Instead of sending Mr. McClellan out to flog Newsweek, President Bush should have said: "Let me say first to all Muslims that desecrating anyone's holy book is utterly wrong. These allegations will be investigated, and any such behavior will be punished. That is how we Americans intend to look in the mirror. But we think the Arab-Muslim world must also look in the mirror when it comes to how it has been behaving toward an even worse crime than the desecration of God's words, and that is the desecration of God's creations. In reaction to an unsubstantiated Newsweek story, Muslims killed 16 other Muslims in Afghanistan in rioting, and no one has raised a peep - as if it were a totally logical reaction. That is wrong.Agree or disagree with the man, I still believe he comes up with some of the most innovative and well-argued ideas in foreign relations today. Read the whole thing.|W|P|111680135524005716|W|P|Friedman on Newsweek|W|P|chase.nordengren@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|He's right on this point. It is definitely what should've happened. Instead, Scott McClellan offers up the typical White House pressure on reporters and the media, thus they try to spin this as the only thing that has tarnished American's image. If only they listened to the things Friedman has to say, sometimes. Chase Nordengren|W|P|McClellan just isn't a good press secretary. He cannot handle that room, and it shows in questions like, "Who made you editor of Newsweek?" Thus he becomes the story, not the responses of Rice or POTUS."Key lawmakers on Sunday said it was still possible a deal could be reached to avert "the nuclear option," a Republican threat in the U.S. Senate to end the ability of Democrats to block President Bush's conservative judicial nominees. But these lawmakers, among a dozen largely moderate senators in search of a bipartisan compromise, acknowledged time was running out."No compromise? Then let's get to work Democrats. If we win, hooray. If we lose, let's slow everything to a grinding halt. Oh, and the Reuters article confirms that an all-night debate session has been scheduled for Monday night into Tuesday, before the cloture vote.|W|P|111679488378242472|W|P|Nuclear Option: Will the Gang of 12 succeed?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The filibuster war in the U.S. Senate has opened a front in the Iowa caucuses. A powerful group of leading state Republicans and social conservatives sent a letter last week to "potential presidential candidates" telling them, in effect, that any GOP senator with presidential aspirations who doesn't support ending judicial filibusters will face consequences in the 2008 caucuses. The letter puts Senators John McCain of Arizona and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska on notice. The document was signed by Steve Scheffler, director of the Christian Coalition of Iowa; Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center; Edward D. Failor Sr., president of Iowans for Tax Relief; and Maxine K. Sieleman, host of KWKY radio's "Update Today" program, which is popular with religious conservatives. Also signing the letter were Marlys Popma, a respected former executive director of the Iowa GOP; David M. Stanley, chairman of the Tax Education Foundation; and Kim Lehman, executive director of the Iowa Right to Life Committee. The group thanked Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Senators George Allen of Virginia, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania "for their courage" on the issue."Yepsen tackles the article from the point of view of the Nuclear Option's effect on the two Senators thinking about Presidential runs in 2008. But, seriously folks, this is all about the extremist groups manipulating Washington Republicans who are in the pursuit of the Presidency in 2008. These groups aren't mainstreme, they're extreme. They aren't American either. They are twisting American values, morals and rules and trying to force them upon us. They, in fact, are Pharisees.|W|P|111679128184981572|W|P|Nuclear Option: If you had any doubts...|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|The great truth about the Iowa caucuses is that power here comes from the money you know outside of political circles. Conservative Christian groups (especially local ones) do not have the political might [I don't think] to wield this kind of threat. Then again, Mullah Dobson issued a threat to any Republicans in DC who tried to compromise, and the gang of 12 doesn't seem to be quitting just yet.Hagel and McCain still have very strong advantages in this state because the former represents Midwesternism well (and is a very strong fiscal conservative) and the latter is personally admired and likable. You can't buy that kind of political capital.
Chris Woods|W|P|You're right about the local wingnut groups, Iowans are too independent to take part in them. However, when the big boys (like Dobson) come to town, the ones who are affiliated with them come out in force (or the followers from out of state make a trip with him).When it comes to Hagel and McCain, they have enormous political capital in this state. The problem is, we don't get the final say when it comes to candidates (at least within the GOP). The wingnut extremist groups will be the deciding factors in 2008 (thus giving us Frist or Allen).
"Howard Dean’s on Press the Meat with Tubby Tim. He just smacked him down after Tubby threw up a Pew survey saying that Dean supporters were more secular and liberal than most Democrats. Howard said the methodology was in question, because it was an internet survey. And then he started swinging: “I’m a committed Christian, and I’m not going to have other people tell me how I should or shouldn’t be a Christian. That’s my personal business, and I’m not going to have these Pharisees tell me what to do.” (He also referred to those who were pointing out the mote in his eye instead of taking it out of their own.)"Thanks, Chairman Dean. Keep up the good work!|W|P|111678433039440551|W|P|Dean on Christianity|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"That's how absurdly over-the-top the assault on Newsweek has been. The administration has been so successful at bullying the news media in order to cover up its own fictions and failings in Iraq that it now believes it can get away with pinning some 17 deaths on an errant single sentence in a 10-sentence Periscope item that few noticed until days after its publication. Coming just as the latest CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll finds that only 41 percent of Americans think the war in Iraq is "worth fighting" and only 42 percent think it's going well, this smells like desperation. In its war on the press, this hubristic administration may finally have crossed a bridge too far. Let's stipulate flatly that Newsweek made a serious error. For the sake of argument, let's even posit that the many other similar accounts of Koran desecration (with and without toilets) by American interrogators over the past two years are fantasy - even though they've been given credence by the International Committee of the Red Cross and have turned up repeatedly in legal depositions by torture victims and in newspapers as various as The Denver Post and The Financial Times. Let's also ignore the May 1 New York Times report that a former American interrogator at Guantánamo has corroborated a detainee's account of guards tossing Korans into a pile and stepping on them, thereby prompting a hunger strike. Why don't we just go all the way and erase those photographs of female guards sexually humiliating Muslims (among other heinous crimes) at Abu Ghraib? . . . Given this context, the administration's attempt to pass the entire buck to Newsweek for our ill odor among Muslims, including those Muslims who abhor jihadists committing murder, is laughable. Yet there's something weirdly self-incriminating about the language it uses to do it. Richard Boucher, the State Department spokesman whose previous boss, Colin Powell, delivered a fictional recitation of Saddam Hussein's weapon capabilities before the United Nations Security Council, said it's "shocking" that Newsweek used "facts that have not been substantiated." Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, attacked Newsweek for hiding "behind anonymous sources," yet it was an anonymous source, an Iraqi defector known as Curveball, who fed the fictions that Mr. Powell spouted to gin up America for war. Psychological displacement of this magnitude might give even Freud pause. The only thing more ridiculous is the spectacle of the White House's various knee-jerk flacks on cable news shoutfests and in the blogosphere characterizing Newsweek as representative of a supposedly anti-American, military-hating "mainstream media." It wasn't long ago that the magazine and the co-author of the Periscope item, Michael Isikoff, were being cheered by the same crowd for their pursuit of Monica Lewinsky and Kathleen Willey."It is what we've come to expect from Frank Rich: hard-hitting and blunt. But it is the truth. And the Bush Regime needs to learn it. We've brought this upon ourselves. It really isn't Newsweek's fault at all. Sure, they may have worsened the riots, but it was our essential abandonment of Afghanistan and its deteriorating political status that has led to the riots we're seeing daily now. And then the pressure on the media now by the Bush Regime to publish things so clearly partisan has pushed people over the edge. Are we really beginning to see an era of propaganda? (Most clearly begun by everyone's favorite network--Faux News). That is what the second Times article discusses. It clearly discusses the results of recent polls that show almost half of the public doesn't believe what the see on the news or read in the newspaper anymore. No wonder its taken so long for Americans to realize how bad things are in Iraq--they just didn't believe the papers and the news, thanks to clearly partisan interventions and pressures from the White House and other organizations. Rich notices the same thing:
"Just since the election, we've witnessed the unmasking of Armstrong Williams and Jeff Gannon. We've learned - thanks to Newsweek's parent publication, The Washington Post - that the Pentagon went so far as to deliberately hide the circumstances of Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death from his own family for weeks, lest the truth mar the P.R. advantages to be reaped from his memorial service. Even as Scott McClellan instructs Newsweek on just what stories it should write to atone for its sins, a professional propagandist sits as chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting: Kenneth Tomlinson, who also runs the board supervising Voice of America and other government-run media outlets. He's been hard at work meddling in the journalism on NPR and PBS. This steady drip of subterfuge and news manipulation increasingly tells a more compelling story than the old news that Newsweek so egregiously botched."It seems that the Times explains why media credibility is at such a low in two separate articles written in completely different sections of the paper. If we really had the independent media so many Americans desired, things would ultimately be different. Instead we're stuck with partisans, press releases turned to news stories, and networks that won't simply admit their obvious biases. Even PBS, the long-independent outlet, is now at the control of the head of state. It is essentially being turned into state-run television thanks to Tomlinson. And finally, we can see that editors from different sections don't meet together enough to correct things like this passage from the second article:
"Almost like clockwork, each new month seems to usher in a new controversy over journalistic competence or integrity - the latest being the retracted May 9 article in Newsweek, about a report that American interrogators flushed a Koran down the toilet, that has been linked by the White House to at least 17 deaths during anti-American protests that followed."One Newsweek article doesn't cause riots like that. Your paper has reported that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs even said the riots weren't likely caused by the article. Correct yourself their, fellow. And earn back your credibility from the partisans and the White House.|W|P|111673642993739831|W|P|On media credibility|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
FOX NEWS SUNDAY, 9 a.m.: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and former NFL quarterback Boomer Esiason . THIS WEEK (ABC), 9 a.m.: Sens. George Allen (R-Va.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.); Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.); retired Navy Capt. Rosemary Mariner; Dana Reeve, widow of actor Christopher Reeve; and Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of the Rev. Billy Graham. FACE THE NATION (CBS), 10:30 a.m.: Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). MEET THE PRESS (NBC), 10:30 a.m.: Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. LATE EDITION (CNN), noon: Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.); Afghan President Hamid Karzai; Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Mohammed Sabah; Barham Salih, Iraq's minister of planning and development; Terje Roed-Larsen, U.N. Middle East envoy; former assistant defense secretary Richard N. Perle; and retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, former NATO supreme allied commander.Looks to be a lot of interesting conversation. NBC gets to hear about Dean's first 100 days and his plan for the 2006 midterms. ABC gets two of the Gang of 12 negotiators to discuss the Nuclear Option from a compromise perspective, so does CNN for a while. CBS gets the Majority and Minority Whips to talk up the party line on the Nuclear Option (and since Durbin and McConnel don't really get along, this could be quite an interesting discussion). Then CNN still gets to talk about the Afghanistan riots and the political situation in Afghanistan with President Karzai; plus they get to find out what Wesley Clark's plans for 2008 are.|W|P|111673440426841292|W|P|The Talk Shows|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Originally, after Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 1994 elections and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch assumed control of the Judiciary Committee, the rule regarding judicial nominees was this: If a single senator from a nominee's home state objected to (or "blue-slipped") a nomination, it was dead. This rule made it easy for Republicans to obstruct Clinton's nominees. But in 2001, when a Republican became president, Hatch suddenly reversed course and decided that it should take objections from both home-state senators to block a nominee. That made it harder for Democrats to obstruct George W. Bush's nominees. In early 2003 Hatch went even further: Senatorial objections were merely advisory, he said. Even if both senators objected to a nomination, it could still go to the floor for a vote. Finally, a few weeks later, yet another barrier was torn down: Hatch did away with "Rule IV," which states that at least one member of the minority has to agree in order to end discussion about a nomination and move it out of committee."So, they brought this upon themselves. In his January op-ed in The Washington Post, Drum offered a simple compromise that he is (and I agree) sure Senate Democrats would agree to: Restore the old rules and the filibuster wouldn't be used. Why hasn't any one besides some bloggers and a few op-ed writers pointed this out? I wasn't even aware of this until now. So much for our "liberal media." They would've been pointing this out in a heartbeat. . .|W|P|111671762650056022|W|P|Nuclear Option: Changing the rules a few years ago|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"I want to say this once and I want to say it clearly: Our. Country. Tortures. We don't have a few loose cannons wielding bull whips and tasers, we have a government whose official policy is the encouragement of extraordinary rendition, which is to say shipping our captured off to other countries for torture."Read the full post. He examines the report Sweden just released detailing the treatment of and arresting of Swedish citizens on their soil by Americans. We really do torture people. As much as our government tries to deny it and say that it isn't an official policy, the numerous reports of violence and death of prisoners in all areas where active fighting is occurring, we're doing it.|W|P|111671587257948415|W|P|Of torture and other renditions|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"On Friday, reports spread among social conservative groups that have pushed hardest for the rule change that Republican aides were preparing them for a possible deal, officials of three groups said. "I immediately contacted Frist's office," said Paul Weyrich, founder of the Free Congress Foundation, who said he heard the reports from others. "They said flat-out it is just not true, period." Mr. Weyrich added, "I don't know if they have got the votes or not, but they are not involved in any compromise.""Like I've been saying all along, this is all about power consolidation and Presidential hopes for 2008. The Republican Party and Washington Republicans like Bill Frist (and the 7 freshman Republican Senators who aren't institutionalists) have tasted power and blood, and now they're trying to move in for the kill and to lock up their power. Many of them haven't been in the minority before. Of the 7 Republicans elected for their first term in the Senate in 2004, at least 4 of them previously came from the House of Representatives, where Republicans have held the majority since 1994. They've never felt the position of not being in power. This is just one more step to consolidate their power, just like they had to do when the GOP pushed a huge redistricting scam nationwide to secure more safe seats. These people owe their seats and fundraising to right-wing extremist groups. There allegiance lies with them, not their constituents. Bill Frist, on the other hand, didn't use to cave into interest group pressures. Then he decided a few years ago that he was going to run for President in 2008. His accension to Majority Leader helped him on that path and now he knows that if he wants the evangelical vote and right-wing extremist vote, he's got to get the interest groups what they want. He's working hard to do that now. Democrats then are forced to play moderators or road blocks then. The separation of powers doctrine has essentially disappeared thanks to the joint efforts of the Majority Leader's office and the White House to determine a cohesive policy agenda to ram through Congress. Of our three branches of government, the Washington Republicans control two of them. Now they want our judiciary. Our independent judiciary! Democrats will not and cannot let that happen. If the majority really isn't interested in compromise, then don't do it. Let Frist try and pull the trigger. We'll see what happens. Moderate institutionalist Republicans and Democrats will prevail.|W|P|111671697314530777|W|P|Nuclear Option: Frist manipulated by right-wing extremist interest groups|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"It is time, this weekend, for these Senators to meet with each other, in their homes and away from the threats and the phone calls, and decide amongst themselves whether to stand together. Diverting this "nuclear" crisis will gain them outrage among the deepest of the far-right partisans, but it will also reestablish their leadership positions among the far larger group of Americans that wants nothing to do with a one-party judicial state or government by fundamentalist threat. Put a large pot of coffee on (or a full case of scotch), and determine among yourselves, then, whether conscience trumps arm-twisting, whether constituent opinion trumps lobbyist influence, and whether the integrity of the American process trumps momentary party gain. It really shouldn't be a tough choice. If your party thinks it is, your party has lost its way."He's absolutely right. It also sounds a lot like the plan Sen. Arlen Specter keeps giving. Its ideological, not in the political sense, but it seeks for the highest ideals of compromise and independence. It also doesn't seem highly likely. Senators, prove me wrong.|W|P|111662748305631341|W|P|Nuclear Option: A conscience vote|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Arne|W|P|The problem is the lack of comments, but the lack of political action! 'yeti|W|P|It's because if they allowed comments, this would be happening far too often and poor assrocket's three-sizes-too-small heart might give way:http://minnpolitics.blogspot.com/2005/02/jd-guckert-and-powerline.html
"I'm not sure that Democrats are missing out on as many beneficial compromises as Matt suggests. The main one that he describes -- that enough Republicans commit to voting against, say, Janice Rogers Brown to defeat her -- seems entirely unrealistic. Getting six Republicans to vote against a nominee is even less likely than getting six Republicans into an agreement binding enough to retain the filibuster for an exceptionally bad Supreme Court nominee. Call it the Voinovich Rule: Republican senators will bow to the obvious and talk sense when doing so has no implication on George W. Bush's desires, but they will never do so in a way that publicly defeats one of his initiatives. Breaking the Senate's rules to achieve something that cannot otherwise be achieved, on the other hand, is not an automatic proposition. Harry Reid may be able to rally the tiny reality-based GOP faction to take a stand against cheating, but not against President Bush. (It doesn't hurt, too, that the nuclear option is led by Bill Frist rather than the White House.) As to fixing all the rules, that's absolutely necessary -- but it'll never happen as long as senators like John Cornyn and Orrin Hatch hold enough power to effectively veto or override a deal. If they're disingenuous enough to argue that the treatment of Bill Clinton's nominees set a precedent under which Bush's nominees must be confirmed (Cornyn's speech this morning was even more nauseating than Wednesday's), they'll never consent to a system that's fair rather than favorable. In a fantasy world, a Bill Frist failure would lead to a somewhat sensible majority leader, who would allow Arlen Specter to determine a genuinely fair interpretation of "advise and consent" together with Patrick Leahy. In reality, of course, we'll get Mitch McConnell or Rick Santorum."I think Jeff's right. Though I do have to say that this battle is being led by the White House, tho it is via Bill Frist. He's the right-wing puppet Congressional leader, just like Bush is the puppet executive leader. Oh, and on the issue of Santorum, he should resign.|W|P|111661643659161608|W|P|Nuclear Option: More on compromise|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Republicans are starting to find themselves in the same kind of political environment that Democrats faced in the summer of 1993 — the year before the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Reverse the party labels and the circumstances are strikingly similar. Now, as then with the other party, Republicans' ethics are under assault. Their opposition denounces their vicelike control as "arrogant." Their ambitious agenda risks overreach and public backlash. Their popularity is sinking. A unified opposition party is holding off until closer to the next election before offering its own agenda — thus withholding any good target for counterattack."While it seems similar, I'm wondering if Democrats will have humongous gains in the 2006 midterms, compared to the success Republicans had in 1994. Things look good for Democrats, but not that good. This is mainly because of all the nasty redistricting that the GOP took part in. And Taegan Goddard reports that a new National Journal Insiders Poll shows that most Washington Republicans think they will maintain control over Congress, and 3/4 of Democrats agree. I guess we'll see who is right in about a year and a half.|W|P|111661396414281662|W|P|Eerie similarities?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"What I don't understand is the logic of the deal that some of the senate moderates seem to have been and perhaps still are considering. The proposal floated yesterday would allow the two most extreme nominees, Owen and Brown, to go through, in addition to three others. On top of that the senate Dems, if I understand this right, would agree, in essence, seldom if ever to join filibusters in exchange for a promise from their counterparts on the other side not to vote to outlaw filibusters. . . .What we're seeing, however, is the degree of pressure the president, the religious right and Sen. Frist -- who is in hock to the religious right because he wants to be president -- are putting them under. If the filibuster is 'saved' today at the cost of letting the most constitutionally noxious nominees go through, do we really imagine that the pressure will be any less when we get into a Supreme Court battle? The question answers itself. If they can't withstand the pressure now, they certainly won't be able to withstand it then. So such a deal, as near as I can figure it, would 'save' the filibuster in an entirely meaningless way, a right the minority would continue to hold so long as they agree never to use it. The situation would be different if the deal did not allow through at least the two most extreme nominees, Owen and Brown. On one level it would be different simply because those two judges' records make them the most important to defeat. On another level, though, it would represent a telling sign. If these Republican moderates were to agree to a deal that nixed these two nominations, that would tell me that they really are willing to hand their leadership (and the Dobsonites) a significant defeat and that they recognize that the power of the filibuster remains intact -- otherwise, why nix the two nominees both sides see as most important."Look, if compromise is possible, I'm with Josh Marshall. So is Armando over at Daily Kos. But like Josh pointed out, and as I have before as well, Bill Frist and Washington Republicans are having the shots called by outside, right-wing extremist groups--as well as the White House (right there destroying the notion of three separate branches of government). Dobsonites and others are driving a lot of pressure behind Frist. And so that he can run for President in 2008, he is caving into them. Sen. Harry Reid said No to post issues of compromise in no uncertain terms. For the Democratic members of the Gang of 12, keep in mind what Josh Marshall and others have said.|W|P|111661293631192328|W|P|Nuclear Option: Is there an acceptable compromise?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
""I tend to be a traditionalist, and the right of unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since its inception. Without question, though, I am strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations." Since Tuesday, when Frist forced Warner to choose between those two principles by setting in motion a showdown over the filibuster, speculation on which sentence carries more weight for the senator has been the subject of intense debate. His vote, after all, could be decisive: While Arlen Specter and Maine's two senators are predictably unpredictable, Warner is cut from a different cloth. He's not dogmatically conservative (for instance, voting consistently with the Democrats on gun control issues), but he's fairly reliable; last year, he earned a rating of 72 from the American Conservative Union, bringing his lifetime score to 81. Not bad. . . . As Warner goes, so may Ohio's Mike DeWine, or New Hampshire's John Sununu, and other reliably conservative senators who share Warner's concerns for the damage that eliminating the filibuster could do to the institution of the Senate. "For Warner, this is about the Senate's role in government," one Senate aide told me. "He is having issues with Frist and the nuclear option because it dilutes the power of the Senate." [However], to the extent that Warner considers the filibuster showdown a referendum on Frist's capacity as a majority leader, he may be inclined to support the good doctor. Further, if, in the darkest reaches of Warner's mind, he thinks that a Frist filibuster fizzle may help his fellow Virginian Senator George Allen's presidential aspirations, he may yet decide that desperate measures must be invoked to prevent "Allen in '08." According to one source close to Warner, the sagacious septuagenarian sees Allen for the nitwit that he is. So Warner may conclude that if his vote to undermine the Senate rules of procedure boosts Frist's chances at the nomination (thereby forestalling an endless series of football metaphors in the 2008 general election), then that unhappy bargain must be struck. . . . So in the following days, as Warner deliberates his stance on the nuclear option, he'll likely juggle in his mind what's best for the institution of the Senate, what's best for his GOP, and what's worst for George Allen -- and not necessarily in that order."I'm really not sure how much of a role that Warner will play. But I will give him this much--he doesn't cave to right-wing fundamentalist groups. While he's a predictable conservative, he does it with grace and class (for the most part). If you think he'll play a big role, drop him an email.|W|P|111660154085278700|W|P|Nuclear Option: Is Senator Warner the key?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 - emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. Like a narrative counterpart to the digital images from Abu Ghraib, the Bagram file depicts young, poorly trained soldiers in repeated incidents of abuse. The harsh treatment, which has resulted in criminal charges against seven soldiers, went well beyond the two deaths."And Newsweek is to blame for tarnishing America's image? Fuck you, Scott McClellan. Here's something quite disturbing:
"Some of the same M.P.'s took a particular interest in an emotionally disturbed Afghan detainee who was known to eat his feces and mutilate himself with concertina wire. The soldiers kneed the man repeatedly in the legs and, at one point, chained him with his arms straight up in the air, Specialist Callaway told investigators. They also nicknamed him "Timmy," after a disabled child in the animated television series "South Park." One of the guards who beat the prisoner also taught him to screech like the cartoon character, Specialist Callaway said."*Shudders* So much for being proud to be an American. Right now, I'm simply ashamed. Read the full 6,000 word article--if you can stomach it. Hat-tip to AMERICAblog.|W|P|111656681419865581|W|P|Wanna know who caused the riots?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
|W|P|Don't act so shocked, this has been going on throughout the history of the country. Albeit it is horrible, but ordinary Americans have nothing to be ashamed of. It's simply army torture procedure gotten out of control, and every country does this during wartime. And yes, Newsweek is to blame for tarnishing the United State's reputation. They are a reputtable news source that broke some major journalism ethics codes, and ought to bite the bullet and cave into the White House's demands. You can't deny the fact that what they did is wrong, and they should be held fully accountable. Actually, the people in the Middle East who were rioting deserve the blame for this, but since we can't blame them for not having a peaceful society, Newsweek has to take it.Hope you are having a great start to your summer. I think you have an excellent blog.
-Eric
What do you think?
If you want it for your site, feel free to use it.
Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania disgraced himself and all of his fellow Washington Republicans with the remarks he had on the Senate floor today. His metaphor was out of line and entirely inappropriate for the civilized (for the most part) discussion that was occurring over the issue of judicial nomination filibusters. While indeed a controversial issue, the number three ranking Republican in the Senate should be more careful and respectful with the comments he makes. That is why today I am asking Senator Rick Santorum to step down from his position inside the Republican caucus of the United States Senate. His leadership position requires dignity, respect, and esteem. Today, and at other times, he ignored the duties of his leadership position and is therefore, I feel, unfit for that position. Not only is he disrespectful, he is also a hypocrite. Leaders should not be hypocrites, even if they are Washington Republicans. United States Senators should have dignity and respect for the position they are in. They shouldn't be sanctimonious assholes. Step down, Rick Santorum. Swing State Project details the outrage at Sen. Santorum, and the hypocrisy of his statements.|W|P|111656424320147665|W|P|Nuclear Option: Santorum should step down from his leadership position|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
|W|P|But if Santorum steps down, who will be Savage Love's new whipping boy?! |W|P|By the way, if you don't get the reference, Savage Love named a sexual position after Santorum after one of his homosexual rants. If you don't know what Savage Love is, you need to read the Onion AV Club."Mr. President, last week, on Wednesday, we evacuated the Capitol. At the instruction of the Capitol Police, more than a few Senators and staff actually ran from this building and the surrounding offices in the very real fear that a plane was carrying a bomb to attack this building, the center of our democracy. Sadly, Wednesday was not the first time. And Wednesday will likely not be the last time, that we guard against threats to our democracy by plane and bomb. But there are other threats to our democracy and our freedoms, just as menacing, equally as dangerous. Abraham Lincoln said: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Former Librarian of Congress Daniel Boorstin said: “It is not slogans or bullets, but only institutions, that can make, and keep, people free.” And Baron Montesquieu wrote in The Spirit of the Laws: “There is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and the executive.” … Mr. President, in ancient Rome, when the Senate lost its power, and the emperor became a tyrant, it was not because the emperor abolished the Senate. In ancient Rome, when the Senate lost its power, it continued to exist, at least in name. But in ancient Rome, when the Senate lost its power, in the words of the Senate’s historian, Senator Robert Byrd, the Senate became “little more than a name.” In ancient Rome, when the Senate lost its power, the Roman Senate was complicit in the transfer. The emperor did not have to seize all the honors and powers. The Roman Senate, one after another, conferred greater powers on Caesar. It was not the abolition of the Senate that made the emperor powerful. It was the Senate’s complete deference. Like the Roman Senate before us, we risk bringing our diminution upon ourselves. We risk bringing upon ourselves a hollow Senate, a mere shadow of its past self. And we risk bringing upon ourselves a loss of the checks and balances that ensure our American democracy. … Mr. President: This is the way democracy ends; This is the way democracy ends; This is the way democracy ends; Not with a bomb, but a gavel."So powerful. Please pass it on.|W|P|111656346310137820|W|P|Nuclear Option: "This is the way democracy ends"|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|George Lucas made an interesting parallel in Star Wars Episode III. I'll not spoil it for you too much, but as Chancellor Palpatine (who is, as we all know, the Sith Lord) is manipulating the Republic Senate to give him more power and reorganize into an Empire (to the thunderous applause of the Senate), Senator Amidala (Natalie Portman) remarks to Senator Organa (Jimmy Smits) "So this is how democracy ends...in a thunder of applause."How telling of our times. There were more examples that I can't help but think Lucas chose to make a statement to the current regime.
Rob|W|P|The Emperor: [to the Senate] We shall change into the first Galactic Empire for a safe and secure society.[Senate fills with enormous applause]
Senator Amidala: [to Bail] This is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause.
I was a bit off, but the thought is what counts :)
Chris Woods|W|P|Don't worry, you didn't spoil anything. I'm the typical geek and saw a midnight showing of Episode III. It was really good--I wasn't expecting much and got blown away.And you're right on with the quotes. George Lucas was never one for dialogue, and while these lines may be cheesy, they work.
Justen|W|P|Alright, we are still going strong at 54.5 hours...and we are going to move past third longest to second longest on monday afternoon. We are going to keep this going hopefully til tuesday. You should come up and bring some of the other Drake Dems.- John McCain (R-AZ)
- John Warner (R-VA)
- Mike DeWine (R-OH)
- Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
- Susan Collins (R-ME)
- Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
- Ben Nelson (D-NE)
- Mark Pryor (D-AR)
- Robert Byrd (D-WV)
- Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
- Ken Salazar (D-CO)
- Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
""The interest groups are cracking the whip on this," said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University."Indeed. The New York Times takes a different approach and looks at the partisan interests that now shape the Senate, and particularly the debate over judicial nominees. The first story is about aides of Bill Frist who are essentially mapping out every possible plan of action that could be taken in moot court style so that Frist is prepared for any action Democrats may take. Democrats are also engaged in this battle as well, hiring special media strategists and researchers to counteract a lot of the mumbo-jumbo coming out of the Washington Republicans' mouths. The second article deals with the overall increase in Senate partisanship in the last few terms. It is really a fascinating article and can help explain why even more of the business of the Senate is being stalled, as this New York Times article discusses. Read all of the articles, they're definitely worth your time.|W|P|111656235916191265|W|P|Nuclear Option: The dual pressure of compromise and partisanship|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"I’m especially looking forward to meeting Karl Rove,” Carey added. “Smart men like him are so sexy. I know that he’s against gay marriage, but I think I can convince him that a little girl-on-girl action now and then isn’t so bad!"Wow. This is seriously no joke either. Everybody's favorite recall gubernatorial candidate Mary Carey will be eating with Bush. /snark Here's a pic if you needed one:
|W|P|111654246472843657|W|P|Bush to dine with porn star|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com 'yeti|W|P|Don't you just love it how Americablog has to put "(so not kidding!)" in so many of their headlines just so we won't confuse it for satire?Sometimes I feel like the entire world is just a big joke.
Chris Woods|W|P|It really does seem like it, especially with the way the right-wing fundamentalist interest groups are beginning to control modern American politics. Its like a really scary dream."A bid to end the Senate standoff over President Bush's judicial picks would let five nominees advance to a final vote while preserving the right of a minority of senators to block two others. A draft of the deal, which CNN obtained Thursday, would allow up-or-down confirmation votes on five of the seven nominees whom Democrats have blocked -- including Priscilla Owen, whose nomination to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals faces debate in the Senate this week. The document, dated at 3:30 p.m. Wednesday, is not the most current, but "it's close," a senior congressional source said. Six Democrats would vote to end debate on those nominees. In exchange, six Republicans would vote against the "nuclear option" to limit judicial filibusters, leaving the GOP a vote shy of a majority on that step. Under the compromise, nominees William Myers, a pick for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Henry Saad, for the 6th Circuit, would remain blocked. The deal would preserve the use of the filibuster, through which a minority of 41 senators can keep debate open indefinitely -- but call for its use only in "extraordinary circumstances." It also calls on Bush to consult with home-state senators and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee from both parties before sending up a nominee."So, we'll see if this goes anywhere. It doesn't seem like anything will actually avert the showdown--the debate will keep raging on until a cloture vote occurs. Bill Frist just took the floor and said that unless their is an up or down vote agreed upon tomorrow, he'll file a cloture motion tomorrow. That means the actual Nuclear Option will be set to take place sometime on Tuesday. I'll write more on this later tonight.|W|P|111654130237094479|W|P|Nuclear Option: Compromise reached?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"TO STAND UP AND SAY, HOW DARE YOU BREAK THIS RULE. IT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF ADOLF HITLER IN 1942 "I'M IN PARIS. HOW DARE YOU INVADE ME. HOW DARE YOU BOMB MY CITY? IT'S MINE.""RAW Story has the info and video here.|W|P|111653917630153069|W|P|Nuclear Option: Sen. Santorum is an asshole|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
From a MoveOn.org press release:
"Washington, DC – As “Revenge of the Sith” opens in theaters, the 3 million member grassroots organization will begin its own “Save the Republic” campaign, including a political ad and grassroots campaign that parodies themes and ideas from the new Star Wars sequel. To view the ad, which depicts Senator Frist as a hooded villain who seeks absolute power over our courts, visit www.MoveOnPAC.org. Members will also hand out “Save the Republic” themed flyers outside theaters across the country to generate phone calls to U.S. Senators asking them to stop the “nuclear option.” The flyer describes Senator Frist’s efforts to end the filibuster and seize total control over our courts. “The Star Wars story is a timely illustration of the very real danger to democracy when one person or party seeks absolute power,” said Ben Brandzel, Advocacy Director of MoveOn Pac. “For 200 years we’ve had checks and balances to ensure that no one party has complete control over our government,” Brandzel, continued. “Radical Republicans want to break the rules to pander to their corporate donors and radical right religious fundamentalists by ramming through extreme judges who will threaten basic protections, like clean water, the minimum wage, even the 40-hour work week, and intrude on life and death family decisions.” MoveOn Pac members will take part in emergency 24-hour citizen filibusters outside Senate offices, and courthouses when the nuclear trigger is pulled."If you want to take part in or help organize an emergency 24-hour citizen filibuster, go to MoveOn.org and see how you can help!|W|P|111653738315192259|W|P|Nuclear Option: Save the Republic, we must!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Fuckin' Faux News.|W|P|111653603481288414|W|P|Nuclear Option: Facing delays|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.commmiranda@att.netFrom Markos. Spread the word.|W|P|111645422320240203|W|P|Nuclear Option: Email Manny Miranda and tell him he's a hack|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Chairman of coalition aimed at killing filibuster pirated Dem, GOP memos on judicial nominees The chairman of a massive coalition of groups working to kill the filibuster was forced to resign from the Senate Judiciary Committee last year after admitting to raiding thousands of private Democratic and GOP strategy memos relating to judicial nominees without permission—a fact that continues to go unnoticed in media reports, RAW STORY has found. Chairman of the National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters Manuel Miranda admitted to accessing thousands of private Democratic and Republican memos without permission in 2004, which he likened to “to finding documents left on his desk.” He was a formerly counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) on judicial nominations. A probe in early 2004 concluded “that more than 4,500 files of committee Democrats were accessed by former Hatch aides Manuel Miranda and Jason Lundell.” His tapping of strategy memos on judicial nominees went on for months; their contents appeared in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times."Go to RAW Story for more information.|W|P|111644975054202934|W|P|Nuclear Option: Washington Republican thuggery|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Senator Susan Collins (ME) Phone: (202) 224-2523 Senator Olympia Snowe (ME) Phone: (202) 224-5344 Senator Chuck Hagel (NE) Phone: (202) 224-4224 Senator Arlen Specter (PA) Phone: (202) 224-4254 Senator John W. Warner (VA) Phone: (202) 224-2023And don't forget to call the others under the Nuclear Option Rapid Response as well!|W|P|111644739622518020|W|P|Nuclear Option: Call your Senators!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Fifty years ago this Spring, a US Senator in the majority party wrote that "Fanatics and extremists are always disappointed at the failure of their government to rush to implement all their principles." But that the job of leaders is to follow the "course of their conscience." Those were the words of John F. Kennedy in "Profiles in Courage." Now comes a time of testing for our own time. In the coming days, we will see who our nation's leaders of courage are today. I ask Republicans who believe in liberty and limited government to join us in taking a stand against this abuse of power. Its time that the Republican leaders in Congress stopped silencing people's voices and began hearing the voices of Americans who are calling on us to live up to our nation's promise."The full remarks can be found here at Daily Kos. Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will be on Inside Politics in just a minute to talk about the issue. Tune it.|W|P|111644639642716991|W|P|Nuclear Option: Republicans must find Courage|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"MR. McCLELLAN: I think it would have consequences for the Democratic leadership in the United States Senate if they continue to hold up progress on the important priorities for the American people. The American people elected us to get things done. The American people want to see us work together on important priorities. The President has reached out across partisan lines in order to find solutions to our pressing priorities. Senate Democrats have been standing in the way of progress on some of those important priorities. And that's the President's -- that's the President's view."Threats aren't gonna be taken kindly, Scotty. The Senate is in recess now until 3:45 PM (Central time) upon which they'll resume the debate over Judge Owen.|W|P|111644582980136723|W|P|Nuclear Option: Nelson still optimistic|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"This is about power; and, to them, the rules quite simply mean nothing."Indeed.|W|P|111644484586462118|W|P|Nuclear Option: Its all about power|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- Democrats' filibuster of Bush nominees is "unprecedented"
- Bush's filibustered nominees have all been rated well-qualified by the ABA; blocking such highly rated nominees is unprecedented
- Democratic obstructionism has led to far more judicial vacancies during Republican administrations than Democratic administrations
- "Nuclear Option" is a Democratic term
- Democrats oppose Bush nominees because of their faith, race, ethnicity, gender, stance on abortion, stance on parental notification ...
- Public opinion polling shows clear opposition to judicial filibusters, support for "nuclear option"
- Filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional
- Clinton's appellate confirmation rate was far better than Bush's rate
- Sen. Byrd's alterations to filibuster rules set precedent for "nuclear option"
- Democrats have opposed "all" or "most" of Bush's judicial nominees
"Through blue slips and holds, seventy of President Clinton’s nominees were blocked. When it became clear that the Republican-controlled Senate would not allow the nominations to move forward, President Clinton withdrew 12 of those nominations and chose not to renominate 16."Hat-tip: Think Progress And now, Pete Sessions is calling Alberto Gonzales a liar. . .oh boy, this guy is on the verge of mental problems (if he's not already there).|W|P|111643949876583709|W|P|Nuclear Option: Jeff Sessions is a moron|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- John McCain
- Olympia Snowe--olympia@snowe.senate.gov
- Susan Collins
- Chuck Hagel
- John Sununu
- Lincoln Chafee
- Robert Byrd
- Kent Conrad
- Ben Nelson
- Bill Nelson
- Jeff Bingaman--senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov
SEN. SCHUMER: Isn’t it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?Go to Think Progress and read the whole thing.|W|P|111643548759202165|W|P|Nuclear Option: D-2, R-0|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Let us put aside for now the puerile arguments over whether judicial filibusters are unprecedented: They clearly, flatly, are not. Instead, let’s look at the means used to achieve the goal of altering Senate procedures to block filibusters on judicial nominations. Without getting into the parliamentary minutiae--the options are dizzying, including whether points of order are “nested”--one reality is clear. To get to a point where the Senate decides by majority that judicial filibusters are dilatory and/or unconstitutional, the Senate will have to do something it has never done before. Richard Beth of the Congressional Research Service, in a detailed report on the options for changing Senate procedures, refers to it with typical understatement as “an extraordinary proceeding at variance with established procedure.” To make this happen, the Senate will have to get around the clear rules and precedents, set and regularly reaffirmed over 200 years, that allow debate on questions of constitutional interpretation--debate which itself can be filibustered. It will have to do this in a peremptory fashion, ignoring or overruling the Parliamentarian. And it will establish, beyond question, a new precedent. Namely, that whatever the Senate rules say--regardless of the view held since the Senate’s beginnings that it is a continuing body with continuing rules and precedents--they can be ignored or reversed at any given moment on the whim of the current majority. There have been times in the past when Senate leaders and presidents have been frustrated by inaction in the Senate and have contemplated action like this. Each time, the leaders and presidents drew back from the precipice. They knew that the short-term gain of breaking minority obstruction would come at the price of enormous long-term damage--turning a deliberative process into something akin to government by the Queen of Hearts in “Alice in Wonderland.” Rule XXII is clear about extended debate and cloture requirements, both for changing Senate rules (two-thirds required) and any other action by the Senate, nominations or legislation (60 Senators required). Ignored in this argument has been Senate Rule XXXI, which makes clear that there is neither guarantee nor expectation that nominations made by the president get an up-or-down vote, or indeed any action at all. It reads: “Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President.” By invoking their self-described nuclear option without changing the rules, a Senate majority will effectively erase them. A new precedent will be in order--one making it easy and tempting to erase future filibusters on executive nominations and bills. Make no mistake about that."Tomorrow, more or less, is the moment of truth. In the words of Hunter over at DailyKos:
"The rules of the Senate will be purposefully and deliberately broken, because ninety-five percent compliance with the President, and with the allied James Dobsons of the world, is not good enough. Frist requires Democrats to countenance any action the President wishes; in a choice between the institutions of this country and the wishes of his President, Frist has already made his choice. We shall see who follows."Indeed. To catch up on today's events and what looks likely to happen tomorrow and in the coming days, check out the Post's front-page coverage of the Nuclear Option, and the Times' lackluster article. The Post even goes the extra mile, writing a script for what is likely to happen in the next few days and how things will play themselves out.
"At 9:30 a.m. today, the Senate will begin debating Bush's nomination of Priscilla R. Owen, an abortion opponent on the Texas Supreme Court who was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans. On Thursday or Friday, Frist and other Republican senators are likely to file a motion seeking cloture, or an end to debate. One session day must pass before a vote to end debate, so a vote would be held and Republicans would expect to get fewer than 60 votes to confirm Owen. Frist aides say he has not decided exactly what would occur next. But the scenario most widely expected among senators in both parties is that he would seek a ruling from the chair -- Vice President Cheney, if it looked as if the vote was going to be close -- that filibustering judicial nominations is out of order. Assuming the chair agreed, Reid would then object and ask that the ruling of the chair be tabled. Most Republicans would then vote against the Democratic motion, upholding the ruling. Then the Senate would move to a vote on Owen, and a precedent will have been set that it takes 51 votes, not 60, to cut off debate on a judicial nomination."The nomination will be brought tomorrow, setting the stage for detonation sometime next week. To the battle lines!|W|P|111638785512838977|W|P|Nuclear Option: Queen of Hearts|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The Senate will next convene at 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday. The Senate will be in a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes with the first 30 minutes under the control of the Democratic Leader or his designee and the final 30 minutes under the control the Majority Leader or his designee. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R.3, the Highway Bill. Following the final 30 minutes for closing remarks, the Senate will proceed to a series of stacked roll called votes in relation to the remaining pending amendments. The Senate will then proceed immediately to a vote on passage of the bill. Therefore, Senators should expect multiple roll call votes beginning at approximately 11:30 a.m., culminating in passage of the Highway Bill. The Senate will stand in recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conferences to meet."So, does that mean a Nuclear launch sometime this afternoon? Keep your eyes and ears glued to C-SPAN 2 and The Political Forecast--we'll keep you up to date.|W|P|111633941632948409|W|P|Nuclear Option: Senate Schedule for 5/17|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Hear me: an unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions and be skeptical. And just as a democracy can die of too many lies, that kind of orthodoxy can kill us, too."*shivers*|W|P|111633892835892566|W|P|Why Bill Moyers deserves a new TV show|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Whenever I hear Scott McClellan talking about ‘media credibility,’ I strain to remember who it was who admitted Jeff Gannon to the White House press room and called on him all those times. Whenever I hear this White House talking about ‘doing to damage to our image abroad’ and how ‘people have lost lives,’ I strain to remember who it was who went traipsing into Iraq looking for WMD that will apparently turn up just after the Holy Grail will - and at what human cost."Ouch, that's a stinger. The whole post is definitely worth a read, and it reminds me how lucky we are to still have people like Keith Olbermann out there on the network news channels. He recognizes the idiocy and hypocrisy in reporting, and does a lot of work at pointing it out (still not as much as Jon Stewart, though). Josh Marshall talks about the issue as well, which was mentioned in a New York Times article set for this morning's issue. Now, hopefully I can sleep for 6 hours before I wake up to watch C-SPAN.|W|P|111631288891610319|W|P|Scott McClellan should resign; White House hypocrisy|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The New York Times Co. on Monday said that, starting in September, access to Op-Ed and certain of its top news columnists on the paper's NYTimes.com Web site will only be available through a fee of $49.95 a year. The service, known as TimesSelect, will also allow access to The Times's online archives, early access to select articles on the site, and other features. Home-delivery subscribers will automatically receive the service, the NYT said."Argh!|W|P|111626454289897049|W|P|Ridiculous|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Despite ongoing efforts to avert what some lawmakers call a constitutional crisis, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said there was no political talk over a dinner of duck al'orange at Frist's home."The showdown is coming round the mountain. . .|W|P|111626090847988637|W|P|Nuclear Option: No political talk at dinner|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Newsweek has, in other words, confirmed that the source did read a US government account of the desecration of the Koran."They just aren't sure where it was read and if it was in the particular government report that this source said it was in. Here is what Newsweek actually said in their 'report' last week:
"May 9 - Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash."Not much of a report, right? Evidently, just this little blurb alone led to riots and deaths in Afghanistan, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan and Indonesia. But that doesn't make sense. One little news magazine paragraph shouldn't have that kind of effect. The real problem is this: THAT MUSLIMS ACROSS THE WORLD ACTUALLY THINK AND BELIEVE AMERICANS WOULD TAKE PART IN AN ACT AS SANCTIMONIOUS AND SACRELIGIOUS AS THIS. It is part of our already damaged imaged abroad, particularly with Muslims. It isn't, as Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita thinks, because of that one simple report:
"Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita blamed Newsweek's report for the unrest in Muslim countries. "People are dying. They are burning American flags. Our forces are in danger."" (CNN)It is the fact that we are holding people in Cuba and violating their rights there, and compounded even more by the horrific acts that took place at Abu Ghraib prison. Add that to the unilateral invasion of a country not connected to the War on Terror and you'll piss off a lot of Muslims. Now, the White House is spinning the talking point very quickly that Newsweek should retract the entire story for causing these massive worldwide riots and creating more death and destruction based on unsubstantiated information. Via Reuters:
"The White House said on Monday that a Newsweek report based on an anonymous source had damaged the U.S. image overseas by alleging that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay.The May 9 report triggered several days of rioting in Afghanistan and other countries in which at least 16 people were killed.
Newsweek's editor, Mark Whitaker, apologized to the victims on Sunday and said the magazine inaccurately reported that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet.
"It's puzzling that while Newsweek now acknowledges that they got the facts wrong, they refused to retract the story," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "I think there's a certain journalistic standard that should be met and in this instance it was not.""
The fact that Reuters is playing the GOP-talking point that one paragraph triggered global religious riots is insane. Leave that for the Drudge Report.
What is even more interesting is the major coverage this story is getting. The media is all over investigating and reporting how one incorrect piece of information led to this much anger and death and violence.
WHY AREN'T YOU GIVING THIS KIND OF COVERAGE TO THE BUILD-UP TO INVADING IRAQ? THE DOWNING STREET MEMO PROVES THAT THEY (UK AND US) CREATED THE SITUATION IN IRAQ BASED ON FAULTY INTELLIGENCE. NOW TENS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQI CIVILIANS ARE DEAD AND SO ARE OVER 1500 AMERICAN SOLIDERS. WHERE IS THE MEDIA COVERAGE AND WHITE HOUSE OUTRAGE ABOUT THIS?!?!?!
That is the end of my rant for now. Remember what Avedon told us over at Eschaton:
"Again, we don't know if the story was accurate, and Newsweek only said that their source suddenly backed down on confirming that the information came from a particular document (but now claims to have misremembered it from seeing it in some other documents). Note also that Kurtz takes for granted that the riots were caused by the Newsweek story. It is certainly probable that the story inflamed demonstrators, but without the problems with resources, it is doubtful the riots would have occurred at all.
Pay attention, wingers: This is a distraction from the fact that things in Afghanistan are a mess, and they're a mess because somebody thought haring off to Iraq was more important than finishing what we started in Afghanistan."
(11:37 AM) Weird. . .Andrew Sullivan and I agree, at least on one issue.
"Maybe we will have some sort of resolution of this soon, but I doubt it. I reiterate what I wrote Saturday: "Even if this incident turns out to be false, our previous policies have made it perfectly plausible." That's the deeper issue here."Very scary.|W|P|111625974353474644|W|P|Is Newsweek really to blame? NO!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Potomac Brief|W|P|Interrogators are taught cultural awareness and how it will and can apply to an interrogation. Religious disrespect should not be practiced in an interrogation because it will shut the source/detainee down. Hatred toward us from our enemy already exists, it is not in an interrogator's best interest to confirm a detainee's hatred by desecrating the Quran or any other religious item he might possess, especially if the detainee is devout or even fanatical.Flushing the Quran down the toilet will confirm to our enemy that we are monsters and he will do all he can to resist the interrogation. A skilled interrogator does not have to flush a Quran down the toilet to gain intelligence. This is why I doubted the Newsweek story when it first came out.
"There has been notably little U.S. coverage of the "Downing Street memo" - actually the minutes of a British prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, during which officials reported on talks with the Bush administration about Iraq. But the memo, which was leaked to The Times of London during the British election campaign, confirms what apologists for the war have always denied: the Bush administration cooked up a case for a war it wanted."Yep, he's got it right. The full memo can be read here. Krugman's full column is also worth the read as well, so you better check it out. Here's the little tid-bit that will probably make some people unhappy, since the Times' economics columnist is getting bogged down in the politics issue again, but I think he's right to use his position to do so:
"The people who sold us this war continue to insist that success is just around the corner, and that things would be fine if the media would just stop reporting bad news. But the administration has declared victory in Iraq at least four times. January's election, it seems, was yet another turning point that wasn't."So, the less the media reports the bad news, the more victories we can declare? Excellent, better pass that memo on to the RNC and the rest of the Washington Republicans.|W|P|111621547968565846|W|P|Krugman brings Downing Street Memo to national attention|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|Maybe they can come out holding hands like Bush and Abdullah.Chase
Chris Woods|W|P|Oh, please don't say that. I'd be so disheartened."Some Republicans in the Senate want to eliminate the ability of Democrats to use the filibuster, or extended debate, to block the Senate from voting on some of President Bush's judicial nominees. Do you think the Republicans should or should not be able to eliminate the filibuster in this case?" Should: 28% Should Not: 59% Unsure: 14%So with a lack of public support and united Democratic opposition (with a few GOP carry-overs) it is looking pretty bad for the Bush Regime and the rest of the Washington Republicans. Keep up the good fight, Democrats.|W|P|111619343688628835|W|P|Nuclear Option: Time poll shows little support for end of fillibusters|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- Pat Roberts (R-Kansas): probable aye
- Susan Collins (R-Maine): possible nay
- Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska): probable aye
- Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania): possible nay
- John Warner (R-Virginia): possible nay
- Mike DeWine (R-Ohio): probable aye
- Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): possible nay
- John Sununu (R-New Hampshire): probable aye
"From the early 1900s to the 1970s, some 65,000 men and women were sterilized in this country, many without their knowledge, as part of a government eugenics program to keep so-called undesirables from reproducing."Good God. Lord help us.|W|P|111619055652679467|W|P|US government mass-sterilized American citizens|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
FOX NEWS SUNDAY, 8 a.m.: Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley. THIS WEEK (ABC), 8 a.m.: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) and Democratic strategist Paul Begala. FACE THE NATION (CBS), 9:30 a.m.: Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass). MEET THE PRESS (NBC), 9 a.m.: Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif. LATE EDITION (CNN), 11:00 a.m.: Sens. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Joseph R. Biden Jr . (D-Del.), Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, former CIA director Stansfield Turner, former acting CIA director John E. McLaughlin and Hadley.Fox News gets both the Majority and Minority whips, most likely discussing the Nuclear Option while Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer gets Lugar and Biden of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, undoubtedly talking about the Bolton nomination. Sounds like a good Sunday morning of talk. Comment on the atrocities.|W|P|111613744025153628|W|P|Sunday talk|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Frist, R-Tenn., has 45 of the Senate's 55 Republicans on his side."Follow this link for the whole ABC News story. Here is contact information for the 7 Republican Senators who are non-committal. If they're your Senator, give them a call next Monday and tell them how you feel (all numbers are DC offices).
- Susan Collins (R-Maine): (202) 224-2523
- Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska): (202) 224-4224
- Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania): (202) 224-4254
- John Warner (R-Virginia): (202) 224-2023
- Mike DeWine (R-Ohio): (202) 224-2315
- Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): (202) 224-6665
- John Sununu (R-New Hampshire): (202) 224-2841
"Today's judge-bashing firebrands often say that it isn't homosexuality per se that riles them, only the potential legalization of same-sex marriage by the courts. That's a sham. These people have been attacking gay people since well before Massachusetts judges took up the issue of marriage, Vermont legalized civil unions or Gavin Newsom was in grade school. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, characterizes the religious right's anti-gay campaign as a 30-year war, dating back to the late 1970's, when the Miss America runner-up Anita Bryant championed the overturning of an anti-discrimination law protecting gay men and lesbians in Dade County, Fla., and the Rev. Jerry Falwell's newly formed Moral Majority issued a "Declaration of War" against homosexuality. A quarter-century later these views remained so unreconstructed that Mr. Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson would go so far as to pin the 9/11 attacks in part on gay men and lesbians - a charge they later withdrew but that Mr. Robertson repositioned just two weeks ago. In response to a question from George Stephanopoulos, he said he now believes that activist judges are a more serious threat than Al Qaeda."God, I love Frank Rich. His column needs to be more than just Sundays.|W|P|111611184291251196|W|P|Just how gay is the right?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The proposed change in Senate rules has been called the "nuclear option" by members of both parties."Close enough, I guess. Just remember that Trent Lott started it.|W|P|111608432353630584|W|P|Nuclear showdown is coming|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
In other news, the Nuclear Option Rapid Response will be coming soon. Blogger had some extended scheduled downtime that prevented me from updating the layout. Stay tuned for its launch!|W|P|111602193224191169|W|P|Social Security news|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Setting the stage for a much-anticipated showdown, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced Friday he will seek confirmation beginning next week for two of President Bush's conservative judicial nominees long blocked by Democrats. "It is time for 100 senators to decide the issue of fair up-or-down votes for judicial nominees after over two years of unprecedented obstructionism," Frist's office said in a statement. The focus will be on two women, Priscilla Owen, first nominated in 2001 to serve as a judge for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Janice Rogers Brown, whom Bush named in 2003 to serve on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Frist's announcement cleared the way for a momentous showdown that blends constitutional and political issues - the powers of the legislative branch to advise and consent in a president's nominees and the ability of a political minority to influence the outcome."Next week is going to be a massively busy week. West Wing marathon all day on Bravo, with C-SPAN 2 playing on the computer or other TV. Email writing directions and contact information for the United States Senate will be posted on the sidebar soon. Consider it the 'Nuclear Option' Rapid Response. First up, the official Frist announcement can be found here.|W|P|111601732226700101|W|P|Game on|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."|W|P|111599449436467008|W|P|Rob's Blog: Ike knows the right way|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The explosion enveloped the armored vehicle in flames, sending orange balls of fire bubbling above the trees along the Euphrates River near the Syrian border. Marines in surrounding vehicles threw open their hatches and took off running across the plowed fields, toward the already blackening metal of the destroyed vehicle. Shouting, they pulled to safety those they could, as the flames ignited the bullets, mortar rounds, flares and grenades inside, rocketing them into the sky and across pastures. Gunnery Sgt. Chuck Hurley emerged from the smoke and turmoil around the vehicle, circling toward the spot where helicopters would later land to pick up casualties. As he passed one group of Marines, he uttered one sentence: "That was the same squad." Among the four Marines killed and 10 wounded when an explosive device erupted under their Amtrac on Wednesday were the last battle-ready members of a squad that four days earlier had battled foreign fighters holed up in a house in the town of Ubaydi. In that fight, two squad members were killed and five were wounded. In 96 hours of fighting and ambushes in far western Iraq, the squad had ceased to be. Every member of the squad -- one of three that make up the 1st Platoon of Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 25th Regiment -- had been killed or wounded, Marines here said. All told, the 1st Platoon -- which Hurley commands -- had sustained 60 percent casualties, demolishing it as a fighting force."I hope the media decides to start covering this soon. I know ABC News might have trouble with it, considering how hard it is to actually try reporting difficult and challenging things.|W|P|111599369984074448|W|P|Entire Marine squad wiped out in Iraq|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"A federal judge Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, saying the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements. The constitutional amendment, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, passed overwhelmingly in November 2000. U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gays "and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process." Bataillon said the ban beyond "goes far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman.""Let's see how long until they change the amendment or just pass some kind of absurd state law. Damn homophobes.|W|P|111593375506094199|W|P|Judge rules Nebraska gay marriage ban unconstitutional|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
P-BS-Watcher|W|P|Is Judge Bataillon so stupid as to believe that anyone would buy his argument, or is he so stupid as to believe it himself? See Laws Are IllegalSenator Tom Harkin DC Office: (202) 224-3254 Des Moines Office: (515) 284-4574 Senator Charles Grassley DC Office: (202) 224-3744 Des Moines Office: (515) 288-1145|W|P|111592679948710664|W|P|Bolton nomination sent to the Senate floor|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Simply put, the filibuster is a decidedly undemocratic--and oftentimes illiberal--institution. As such, there might be a basis for considering the Senate Republicans' recent calls for the filibuster's abolition--the so-called "nuclear option"--a welcome development. But, unfortunately, the rationale for Senate Republicans' newfound contempt for the filibuster is not, in fact, some high-minded concern for democratic process but rather a very practical desire to confirm President Bush's most controversial judicial nominees--something they are unable to do as long as Democrats can filibuster against their nominations coming to a vote."I've studied politics a lot (not as much as the editors, I'm sure, but a lot) and through all of my studies, I've heard lots of good and bad things about the filibuster. However, ending it is not the right mentality. Democrats and Republicans alike have called for the end of the filibuster when they've both been in the majority. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) called for it in 1992 or 1993, right before the Republican Revolution. Now the Washington Republicans are seeking to do the same thing. It isn't right. The filibuster has undoubtedly been one of the most illiberal functions in the Senate, but so have many other things, such as closed meetings and anonymous holds in Committees. Look, our legislature has lots of problems. But so far they've lasted 200+ years. Its time that we simply get over these problems and run the nation. If compromise can't be reached, then move on. Grow up Washington Republicans.|W|P|111591867559909857|W|P|The New Republic editors get dumb|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|Yeah, I think you're being too generous to him...:)
"John Bolton is the poster child for what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be."Like Steve Clemons said, someone should let David "Bobo the Ignorant" Brooks know that the tide turned again.
UPDATE (11:11 AM) One bit of bad news, maybe, for anti-Bolton-ers like myself. This from the comments section of The Washington Note:
"As I posted on another thread a few days ago, Frist won't bring it to the floor if votes aren't there, Bolton will be recess appointed over Memorial Day break. Repubs will cite precedent of Bill Lan Lee, who served almost four years as head of DOJ Civil rights division with no confirmation by Senate."Can anyone confirm that this happened previously? I'm working on it. It definitely seems like something the Bush Regime would do. And I know it is possible, recess appointments have been used quite frequently throughout history.|W|P|111591356981095439|W|P|Turning the tide against Bolton|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com