The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[Gatito Grande]

As Dubya fills all his Cabinet vacancies w/ Loyal Sycophants.



GG The entire GOP is clearly in utterly shameless, "We Can Do Whatever the Hell We Want, because our 50-55% 'mandate' proves that Our Sh*t Don't Stink" mode Out



Including "loyalty oathes' for civil servants (CIA, Homeland Security now, soon all the rest?); meanwhile, someone we actually depend on in the "War on Terror," an undercover Arab informant, is treated so badly that he torches himself in front of the White House . . .



See Kakastocracy: "Government by the Absolute Worst People in a society"!

[Kieli]

*blinks rapidly* Erm, honest, I really didn't expect GG to spontaneously combust, but I can see her point. Those who voted Bush into office are now going to sit back with a self-satisfied smirk while their civil liberties are going to be undercut and their so-called moral code undermined (as apparently is evidenced by the Republicans changing the rules to accommodate a criminal, white-collar or no) and just totally miss the point.....this is not good, not by any stretch. This kind of thing sends the message that, as long as someone votes you into office, you could be a criminal and still be untouchable. The law won't pertain to you. I hope the hell that at least SOME Republican gets off their ass to challenge this.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[darkmagicwillow]

Actually having a slim margin of control is better than bipartisan support to the Republicans. This passage from Lou Dubose and Jan Reid’s new book on Tom DeLay is helpful in shedding a bit of light on the Republicans' 50%+1 strategy in Congress:

DeLay prefers a polarized House in which the adversarial relationship between Republicans and Democrats is institutionalized. “A number of times the Republican majority could pass a bill by 300 votes,” said a veteran House staffer who has worked for the Democratic leadership. “A bill that has that type of potential. Then they yank it to the conservative side so it passes 220-210 . . . There’s a mentality in the Republican leadership that if a significant number of Democrats support a bill somehow it’s tainted.



“Part of it goes back to the K Street thing, where they want to be able to say to their funders that the only people who can deliver anything for you are Republicans.” If House Republicans can make their Democratic counterparts irrelevant to the process of passing the nation’s laws, they can make them irrelevant to big political contributors.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Kieli]

And I reiterate, it STILL doesn't look good for anyone who's not Republican. That little tidbit didn't make me feel better DMW..

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[maudmac]

Heh, no, didn't make me feel better, either. Bleh.



Politics is such bullshit.



Y'all see the shrub kissin' on Condi? They look mighty cozy, those two. I bet he never kissed Colin Powell like this.







And, of course, it cannot fail my notice that the current Yahoo! News Most Emailed picture is of a plague of locusts!



Dear God: Not funny, mister! Not. Fucking. Funny!

---

make some room now dig what you see

[Kieli]

Looks like Putin is taking a page right out of Shrub's book...sounds well meaning but throwing that whole "cutting down on terrorism at home" line. Could he be anymore obvious as to his real intent?



Russia's Putin Defends Political Reforms

Quote:

---

Russia's Putin Defends Political Reforms



Thu Nov 18, 1:07 PM ET World - Reuters



By Tom Miles



MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) said Thursday he had no plans to grab more power or change the constitution when reforming Russia's government structure, dismissing fears in the West he is watering down democracy.



"These proposals are totally unconnected with any attempt by the head of state to obtain some kind of additional ... power over the regional authorities," he said in a rare television interview.



The reform package unveiled in September includes replacing elected governors with Kremlin nominees and scrapping direct elections to parliament in favor of party lists.



It drew sharp criticism from Washington and Brussels, which worried about a reversal in Russia's democratic development, and from political commentators, who speculated Putin was angling to keep power after his second and final term ends in 2008.



But Putin said the introduction of a party-list system was linked to the need to elect people for their ideas rather than their personalities.



"One of the problems we encounter is a lack of development of civil society and a multiparty system," he said. "Until there is one, elections will just be between people -- some nice, some less nice -- but not between ideas and political standpoints."



Only an effective and balanced system of government, reflecting both national and regional interests, could deal with complex problems such as terrorism, he said.



Putin's rare interview with television journalists may have been engineered by the Kremlin to improve the president's image and banish accusations of authoritarianism, analysts said.



"I wouldn't call it worrying, but the Kremlin has to do damage-control from time to time," said Masha Lipman, political analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.



"There is a perceived opinion that Putin is authoritarian -- this is the sort of image flaw that the Kremlin is seeking to correct."



Criticisms of a lack of press freedom in Russia have dogged Putin, including during elections this year where he was accused of ensuring media gave strong coverage of his favored party.



"The interview itself is quite something -- it is his first real TV interview," said Lipman. "He could do it more often. He has enough control over television for him not to have to worry about difficult questions."





ALARM OVER CLANS



Putin expressed concern at the increasing influence of "economic clans" in Russia's regions.



"I have observed with alarm the growing influence of economic groups and various economic clans ... at the level of regional government," he said.



One administration in particular, Karachayevo-Cherkessia in the Caucasus, has been in crisis in recent weeks after the murder of seven men at the villa of the governor's son-in-law.



"Right now we are keeping a very close eye on Karachayevo-Cherkessia," Putin said.



He talked of the need to stamp out corruption, a perennial problem in Russia's armed forces and police. Both services had improved greatly since the late 1990s, when they were "in a state of paralysis," he said.



Putin said it was not clear whether people were more scared of the police or the criminals. It was time for law enforcement to do what the name suggested: enforce the law.



"There's less need to interfere in the economy, either at the bottom -- hanging around the market stuffing your pockets with petty cash and liquor -- or the top, where the bills run into the hundreds or thousands or millions." (Additional reporting by Sonia Oxley)

---

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[russ]

Bob Levin's column from this week's Maclean's.

Quote:

---

November 15, 2004



BUSH WON. THE WORLD LOST.



So did reason, the poor, gun control, the belief that the truth will out



BOB LEVIN



This, too, shall pass.



The United States will muddle through, as it's muddled through before, because the idea of America, and the system that sustains it, is bigger and braver and more enduring than any single subpar president or collective brain cramp of the populace.



But it's so damn sad anyway. Once again, as Franklin Roosevelt put it, the only thing to fear was fear itself, only this time fear won. Bombast won, the Big Lie won. And of course George W. Bush won, with his staunch certainties in a scary world and his skilled retailing of "moral values" to an increasingly conservative base. Because this is what happened in the U.S. election: with jobs disappearing, deficits running rampant, their kids being killed in Iraq saving the world from nonexistent weapons, Americans rushed to the polls to keep gays from marrying and women from having abortions. The culture war somehow trumped the Iraq war -- evidence of an America not only fiercely divided but in deep denial.



The world, by the way, lost. So did reason, the poor, African-Americans, stem-cell research, the air and water, gun control, the cause of basic competence, the belief that the truth will out.



I thought John Kerry would win and I was wrong. I thought so because the majority of Americans told pollsters they didn't like where the nation was headed. The ship of state was steaming straight for an iceberg, the captain too stubborn to change course -- but in the end the people were too frightened or too distracted to change captains.



This, too, shall pass. Eventually, with who-knows-what consequences.



Yes, these are very sour grapes. This is a sour day, and whoever won was bound to unleash as much wrath as rejoicing. It's time now for Americans to unite and yet it won't be easy behind this president, who divided to conquer. His isn't the America I grew up in, whose values I was weaned on. That America wasn't run for the rich, the corporate, the Christian. It didn't attack other countries without egregious cause, didn't torture foreign prisoners. It was a beacon, not a bully. Of course, that was the idealized America of history textbooks, of John JFK's Camelot and Ronald Reagan's "shining city on a hill." I was in Europe in the early '70s, during Vietnam and Watergate, and locals fulminated against the imperialists and baby-killers; Americans stuck Canadian flags on their backpacks. We've been pariahs before and lived to shine another day.



So this, too, shall pass. Maybe Bush, for all his stay-the-course rhetoric, will discover moderation in his second term. Maybe this man, so unreflective, unrepentant, captive of the neo-cons, blind to what anyone else thinks or the price anyone else pays -- maybe the president who never admits mistakes will, in the post-campaign calm, acknowledge he made some whoppers and try to put things right.



Maybe. We can hope. But then we've hoped before. When the Supreme Court installed Bush in the White House in 2000, many Democrats consoled themselves that at least he'd recognize he had no mandate, that he'd govern modestly from the centre until they could evict him four years later. Sept. 11 changed everything, including Bush. He was right in Afghanistan, calamitously wrong in Iraq: thousands killed for phantom reasons, a by-then toothless dictatorship converted into a made-in-America gift to terrorist recruitment. And all along Bush pushed massive tax cuts for the rich, as if no wartime sacrifice were required.



Change now? After such a stunning validation of the Bush way? Hard to imagine.



Not that Kerry could have fixed Iraq either. It's unfixable, like many a colossal blunder. If he'd stepped up the assault he'd have been in the excruciatingly ironic position of living his own Vietnam-era question: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" If he'd pulled out he'd have been the president who lost Iraq and the Republicans would never have let anyone forget it. This is the party, after all, that succeeded in tarring a bona fide war hero as too wussy for terrorist times. Day after day they twisted his words and record into strange shapes, like a clown turning a balloon into a dachshund. They made Kerry into a French poodle and, seemingly stunned, he was too slow to bite back, too equivocal on Iraq. He won three debates but never quite made the sale.



Now the Democrats will tear each other apart, the anti-war wing wrestling moderates for control of the party. And Bush will be left to slop through an Iraq morass of his own making. Thousands more Iraqis, Americans and others will be slain as the country slides inexorably into chaos. Big U.S. companies will keep scoring contracts to rebuild it. Opposing the war will be deemed unpatriotic. But life will go on. The two political camps, struggling for the soul of America, will go at it again, the titanic battle of 2004 -- at least for Democrats -- a tormented memory.



This, too, shall pass. It's a comfort, however cold.



bob.levin@macleans.rogers.com

---

Maclean's.

Russ



When we love and give it everything we've got, no matter what the consequences, we are doing what we were put here to do -- Geneen Roth

Edited by: russ at: 11/19/04 4:38 pm

[robotguru]

This came from a friends blog site, i aint gonna link it so you'll just have to trust that i wouldn't spend however long making something like this up.



***

Quote:

---

My Fellow Liberals....



I think we've been had!



My ex-husband who resides in both Kentucky and Ohio, just informed me that he may have some money coming.



Me: Why, some of your properties?



Ex: Because of the farm in Kentucky.



Me: Really?



Ex:Yeah! didn't the kids tell you its a tobacco farm.



Me: No. All they tell me about is the wildlife and the 4-wheeling fun they have we they go down there.



Ex: Well Bush just signed into law a 10 Billion dollar buyout for all tobacco farms and tobacco bed farms.



Me: You grow tobacco?



Ex: No, I lease some of the acres to Tobacco Farmers



me: Get out!



Well I did some internet research and found out he is right. What's more, according to the Washington Post , in May 2004, those in the red states told Bush, who was reluctant to sign the Tobacco Quota Bill, that if he didn't, many of the republicans would sit home on Election day. The Tobacco Quota Bill was signed into law on October 22, 2004.



And the rest, shall we say, is history.



By the way, some of the major and minor tobacco producing states are:



Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Maryland, Pennyslvania, Missouri, West Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin and Alabama.



and all this time we thought it was about Moral Values!

---

------------------



There can be no rainbow without rain, you cannot know true happiness until you know sadness first.

Edited by: robotguru at: 11/21/04 4:27 am

[sam7777]

Foundation shaky in show on Log Cabin Republicans

Quote:

---

The seeming dichotomy of joining a political body in which a large contingent of its members vehemently oppose your existence is the focus of the absorbing hourlong documentary ``Gay Republicans,'' airing tonight at 8 on TRIO.



Says one member succinctly, ``I'm treated more poorly by fellow Republicans because I'm gay than I am by the gay community because I'm Republican.''

---

In other news, the sky is still blue.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

[skittles]

Maybe this should be in the Holidays thread, or maybe in the Humor thread, but since this is ... well, more political in nature, I am putting this here...



Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays, Kittens!!



From The Detroit Free Press Editorial Page

Quote:

---

U.S. stockings were hung ...



December 25, 2004



'Twas the night before Christmas but for half of the nation

'Twas the end of a year of enormous frustration.

They had thought since the start of two thousand and four

This year they would show George W. the door.



Oh, but that Texan had proven them wrong

As he started out shaky but finished up strong.

No court fights, no chads, no controversy

For this time he had won a majority.



So safe in the White House until two thousand eight

On this Christmas Eve he was staying up late

When out in the Rose Garden he heard such a din

He was fretful the noise would wake up the twins.



(Then he recalled that they were out for the night,

and since both were adults, well, that was their right.)

Bush thought for a moment to call 9-1-1

Or go into the Oval and get Saddam's gun.



Instead to the window he moved in a flash,

To pull back the curtains and throw up the sash.

And what to his west Texas eyes should appear

But a well-armored sled and eight helmeted reindeer.



"Ho ho, Mr. President," said the driver, so merry,

"I'm running behind, so I really can't tarry.

"But I thought you should know that I'm on my way back

"From a special delivery for the troops in Iraq.



"Their biggest wish was for fighting to cease.

"They sure would sleep better with heavenly peace.

"Now, the Iraqis are eager to go to the polls

"To put some new leaders in post-Saddam roles.



"But with lives still in danger, they're making a plea

"Can everyone stay home and just vote absentee?

"And as I left there for Europe, I could hear people holler.

"They wanted to thank you for the decline of the dollar.



"Now on my way here, I passed states red and blue

"With people lined up to get shots for the flu.

"The parents all asked me with gifts to be kind

"And to make sure that no child would be left behind."



At first, George was awed by the sled in the sky

And the chubby red driver with the gleam in his eye.

But after a moment, he came to his senses

To say, "How'd you get by our missile defenses?"



"Now you only visit for one day each year

"And you deliver your gifts and expect all good cheer.

"But after your rounds, you should come back to stay

"And see how this world looks on a non-Christmas Day.



"We face poverty and AIDS, big problems to solve

"And terrorists who try to test our resolve.

"We've got the Guard and Reserves in full mobilization

"To do what it takes to protect this great nation.



"Yes, in Iraq, it's been worse than expected,

"But sometime next year, we'll have that corrected.

"The economy, it's growing, not quite fast enough

"In places like Michigan, where things are still rough.



"And some countries don't like us, they think we're too zealous.

"But the neocons tell me that they're all just jealous.

"We've charted a course, and we shall pursue it

"The voters decided that we should stick to it.



"So don't come flying in here and giving me grief

"When I won the votes to be commander in chief.

"But there is one big gift you can deliver to me --

"How about the money to fix Social Security?"



Well, Santa decided he'd heard quite enough.

And compared to this guy, his job was not tough.

So he cracked his long whip and the reindeer took flight,

Heading into the west by the dawn's early light.



But as Santa soared higher, he just couldn't go

Without a last word for the land down below.

"To red states and blue states, to all a good night

"My wish for this Christmas is that you reunite!"



By Ron Dzwonkowski, editorial page editor

---

skittles



Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more… He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew.. and it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us! And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God bless Us, Every One!

[cattwoman98111]

Nice post Skittles.



Here is to hoping that at some point in our lifetime we will achieve unity.

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

[sheila wt]

NY Times

Quote:

---

Op-Ed Columnist: An American in Paris

January 20, 2005

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

PARIS



Watching George Bush's second inaugural from a bistro in

Paris is like watching the Red Sox win the World Series

from a sports bar in New York City. Odds are that someone

around you is celebrating - I mean, someone, somewhere in

Europe must be happy about this - but it's not obvious.



Why are Europeans so blue over George Bush's re-election?

Because Europe is the world's biggest "blue state." This

whole region is a rhapsody in blue. These days, even the

small group of anti-anti-Americans in the European Union is

uncomfortable being associated with Mr. Bush. There are

Euro-conservatives, but, aside from, maybe, the ruling

party in Italy, there is nothing here that quite

corresponds to the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-tax,

anti-national-health-care, anti-Kyoto, openly religious,

pro-Iraq-war Bush Republican Party.



If you took all three major parties in Britain - Labor,

Liberals and Conservatives - "their views on God, guns,

gays, the death penalty, national health care and the

environment would all fit somewhere inside the Democratic

Party," said James Rubin, the Clinton State Department

spokesman, who works in London. "That's why I get along

with all three parties here. They're all Democrats!"



While officially every European government is welcoming the

inauguration of President Bush, the prevailing mood on the

continent (if I may engage in a ridiculously sweeping

generalization!) still seems to be one of shock and awe

that Americans actually re-elected this man.



Before Mr. Bush's re-election, the prevailing attitude in

Europe was definitely: "We're not anti-American. We're

anti-Bush." But now that the American people have voted to

re-elect Mr. Bush, Europe has a problem maintaining this

distinction. The logic of the Europeans' position is that

they should now be anti-American, not just anti-Bush, but

most Europeans don't seem to want to go there. They know

America is more complex. So there is a vague hope in the

air that when Mr. Bush visits Europe next month, he'll come

bearing an olive branch that will enable both sides to at

least pretend to hold this loveless marriage together for

the sake of the kids.



"Europeans were convinced that Kerry had won on election

night and were telling themselves that they knew all along

that Americans were not all that bad - and then suddenly,

as the truth emerged, there was a feeling of slow

resignation: 'Oh well, we've been dreaming,' " said

Dominique Moisi, one of France's top foreign policy

analysts. "In fact, real America is moving away from us. We

don't share the same values. ... In France it was a very

emotional issue. It was as if Americans were voting for the

president of France as much as for president of the United

States."



That sense that America is now so powerful that it

influences everyone else's politics more than their own

governments - so everyone wants to vote in our elections -

is something you hear more and more these days.



Elizabeth Angell, a 23-year-old American studying at

Oxford, told me that a Pakistani friend at school had asked

her if he could just watch her fill out her absentee ballot

for the U.S. election. "He said to me, 'It's the closest

thing I am going to get to voting. ... I wish I could vote

in your election because your government affects my daily

life more than my own.' "



The one concrete result of the U.S. election will probably

be to reinforce Europe's focus on its own efforts to build

a United States of Europe, and to further play down the

trans-Atlantic alliance. "When it comes to emotions, the

re-election of Bush has reinforced the feeling of

alienation between Europe and the U.S.," Mr. Moisi said.

"It is not that we are so much against America, it is that

we cannot understand the evolution of that country. ...

This election has weakened the concept of 'the West.' "



Funnily enough, the one country on this side of the ocean

that would have elected Mr. Bush is not in Europe, but the

Middle East: it's Iran, where many young people apparently

hunger for Mr. Bush to remove their despotic leaders, the

way he did in Iraq.



An Oxford student who had just returned from research in

Iran told me that young Iranians were "loving anything

their government hates," such as Mr. Bush, "and hating

anything their government loves." Tehran is festooned in

"Down With America" graffiti, the student said, but when he

tried to take pictures of it, the Iranian students he was

with urged him not to. They said it was just put there by

their government and was not how most Iranians felt.



Iran, he said, is the ultimate "red state." Go figure.

---

------------------------------

Sheila

Edited by: sheila wt at: 1/21/05 10:59 am

[demelzie]

that is so true!

unfortunately here in the UK people seem to be more and more anti-american. i think everyone really was expecting americans (as bad as their reputation already was) to be sensible and vote for kerry. i think the reelection of bush just confirmed their ideas that americans are heavily influenced by the media and have no logical ideas in them. people seem to be very pi$$ed off at how much influence mr bush has over like, everything!

we're just waiting for the invasion of Iran now...this time im sure there'll be nuclear weapons involved...



i dont mean to offend anyone btw - i was trying to give a general picture of UK's feelings for america. i do fully appreciate that there are some wonderful americans



well while you're stuck with bush, we're stuck with blair...as interesting as a blank sheet of paper...what will happen over the next 4 years? raised taxes, higher interest rates, failed plans for slight modifications of public health and transport plans. fantastic

[justin]

There is a lot of speculation that the next general election will be held on May 5th, coinciding with the local elections. All the three main parties are starting to gear up their election campaigns.



Though all we know for now is that it will be held some time before June 2006. If the election is to held in May/June then it probably won't be comfirmed till March.



Which is all quite different from what happened in America. Where the build up to the election lasted for years (or at least that's how it seemed)



you can read all about it here

--

Homer Simpson: When will people learn, democracy just doesn't work.

[sam7777]

Blair Announces May 5 as the Date for New Elections

Quote:

---

Many political analysts in Britain have argued that Mr. Blair is virtually assured of victory because it would take an enormous swing toward the Conservatives to wipe out his commanding majority of around 160 seats in the 646-seat Parliament.

---

I would like to see Blair go because of his "of turning Labor into 'a lap dog to George Bush's right-wing Republican administration.'" ss Mr Wilkinson says. However, the best way to stop Bush's right-wing Republican administration was to vote him out here in the US. That we (Americians) failed to do.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 4/5/05 11:23 am

[justin]

So he finally announces the date, with all of a month to go.



I really don't want Blair to be re-elected. Not only because of the way he's become Bush's lackey, but also because he doesn't seem to have any respect for the country's constitution.



Unfortunately the one person I want to win less than Blair, is Michael Howard.



So I'll be voting Liberal Democrat, and hoping that Labour win.

--

Homer Simpson: When will people learn, democracy just doesn't work.



www.writingcircle.co.uk

[TemperedCynic]

The right have declared war on the Constitution's separation of powers - this from the New York Times - you need to register, but it's free. Here's the article:



April 8, 2005

DeLay Says Federal Judiciary Has 'Run Amok,' Adding Congress Is Partly to Blame

By CARL HULSE and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK



ASHINGTON, April 7 - Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, escalated his talk of a battle between the legislative and judicial branches of government on Thursday, saying federal courts had "run amok," in large part because of the failure of Congress to confront them.



"Judicial independence does not equal judicial supremacy," Mr. DeLay said in a videotaped speech delivered to a conservative conference in Washington entitled "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith."



Mr. DeLay faulted courts for what he said was their invention of rights to abortion and prohibitions on school prayer, saying courts had ignored the intent of Congress and improperly cited international standards and precedents. "These are not examples of a mature society," he said, "but of a judiciary run amok."



"The failure is to a great degree Congress's," Mr. DeLay said. "The response of the legislative branch has mostly been to complain. There is another way, ladies and gentlemen, and that is to reassert our constitutional authority over the courts."



Mr. DeLay's comments are the latest evidence of his determination to follow through on his vows to hold federal judges accountable in the aftermath of the failure of the federal courts to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube as Congressional conservatives intended.



He spoke against the backdrop of a looming confrontation in the Senate over potential changes to the chamber's rules that would end the power of the Democratic minority to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees. But Mr. DeLay's confrontational tone differed starkly from that of Senator Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader, who says he seeks only to preserve the current independence of the courts and hopes a compromise can avoid a fight to change the rules.



Judges, including Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and one member of the federal appeals court who heard the Schiavo case, have already been sharply critical of Congressional efforts to interfere with their authority as a violation of the Constitution's separation of powers. In a recent report, Chief Justice Rehnquist called one such measure "unwarranted and ill-considered" and said "a judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment."



Democrats and other critics are accusing Republicans of seeking to undermine the courts just because they do not like their decisions.



"The first lesson we teach children when they enter competitive sports is to respect the referee, even if we think he might have made the wrong call," Senator James M. Jeffords, independent of Vermont, said Thursday in a Senate speech. "If our children can understand this, why can't our political leaders? We shouldn't be throwing rhetorical hand grenades."



Mr. DeLay criticized Congress as failing to act vigorously enough. "I believe the judiciary branch of our government has overstepped its authority on countless occasions, overturning and in some cases just ignoring the legitimate will of the people," he said. "Legislatures for too long have in effect washed our hands on controversial issues from abortion to religious expression to racial prejudice, leaving them to judges who we then excoriate for legislating from the bench. This era of constitutional cowardice must end."



Mr. DeLay alluded to Congressional authority to "set the parameters" of courts' jurisdictions and its obligation "to make sure the judges administer their responsibilities."



The organizers of the conference and Congressional staff members who spoke there called for several specific steps: impeaching judges deemed to have ignored the will of Congress or to have followed foreign laws; passing bills to remove court jurisdiction from certain social issues or the place of God in public life; changing Senate rules that allow the Democratic minority to filibuster Mr. Bush's appeals court nominees; and using Congress's authority over court budgets to punish judges whom it considers to have overstepped their authority.



"I am in favor of impeachment," Michael Schwartz, chief of staff to Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said in a panel discussion on abortion, suggesting "mass impeachment" might be needed.



In an interview, Jeff Lungren, a spokesman for Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the panel was likely in some way to take up the issue of how the federal judges handled Ms. Schiavo's case.



But Mr. Lungren said Mr. DeLay had not requested a hearing and the committee had not decided on a course of action. "There does seem to be this misunderstanding out there that our system was created with a completely independent judiciary," he said.



Dr. Rick Scarborough, chief organizer of the conference, called on Congress "to protect us from an overactive judiciary," saying: "Right now they are ruling as an oligarchy. They are the kings of the land."



Mr. DeLay, who was previously criticized by some Democrats who said his open-ended remarks about holding judges accountable might incite violence, took care to warn the few dozen attendees at the conference to keep their emotions in check.



"As passionately as we all feel, especially about issues of life and death, the fact is that constitutional rule of law is a matter for serious and rational discussion," he said. "People on all sides of this debate need to approach the issue for what it is: a legitimate debate by people of good will trying to clarify the proper constitutional role of courts."



Democratic organizations have been sniping at each other for years now - well, its time we grew up and started to act. Petitions are good, but I've never met a wingnut whose ever read one or cared about their contents. These beasts need to be hounded for these words, their supporters boycotted and their money cut off. If the Republicans get their way on this, they can be elected as often as they want - what's to prevent them? The courts? They're too scared right now, and soon they, too, will be controlled by the wingnuts. Am I over-reacting? Think back before 9/11 and then ask yourself if these actions would be tolerated. I'll hazard a guess and say "no".



It must stop soon, or there won't be much left worth saving.

---

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. Woody Allen (1935 - )

[TemperedCynic]

Read this on AMERICAblog.com:

GOP radio host Michael Savage says government should arrest ACLU, MoveOn
by John in DC - 4/25/2005 02:31:00 PM

"We already this man was a bigot and a pig. But for conservatives to be hawking a book calling for the prosecution of the ACLU and MoveOn is just too much. From an email I just received from Newsmax:

The ACLU, National Lawyers Guild, and MoveOn.org: "I believe it's time for the heads of left-wing agitation groups who are using the courts to impose their will on the 'sheeple' to be prosecuted under the federal RICO statutes."
He also had this to say on Islam:
Iraq's Future: "Iraq cannot become a melting pot as long as it insists on a national religion - especially when that religion is Islam which has zero tolerance for those with nonconforming views."
I do always love it when conservatives attack others for their own failings.

This would be laughable if it weren't a sign of what we're up against. This is what the Microsoft battle is about. This is what the filibuster battle, and creationism, and Terri Schiavo and all the rest. It's about a rabid wing of the Republican party that has taken control and simply doesn't believe in our democracy or our system of government. They're angry, authoritarian thugs who claim they're beleaguered, even though they now control just about everything.

It's high time our thugs got angry and put this to a stop. "



I'm attending a MoveOn vigil tomorrow in downtown Minneapolis to protest the judicial "nuclear option." If MoveOn and ACLU members are being vilified by the Neocons, I want to be front and center to enjoy the show. I do so hope there will be protests by the right - they won't know what hit 'em. Blessed with size, speaking voice and presence, I hope to make some small impact at my first protest. Wish me luck!

[J uk]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE APRIL 26, 2005 14:20:17 ET XXXXX

BUSH ASKS ABOUT 'SPLASH DAY'

President Bush raised eyebrows on Tuesday when he asked locals in Galveston, Texas: "Do you still have Splash Day?"

"Splash Day" is the annual "adult oriented enormous beach party" celebration on the Gulf Coast.

BUSH: Do you still have Splash Day?

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: You have to be a baby boomer to know what I'm talking about.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: I'm not saying whether I came or not on Splash Day. I'm just saying, Do you have Splash Day?

(LAUGHTER)

Bush was unaware "Splash Day" is now a fully gay and lesbian event on the beaches.

Developing..

[xita]

I love that. What a moron!

[Gatito Grande]

BUSH'S MAN-DATE!!!



GG This would be funnier, if I hadn't seen a Texas paper (via CNN) wherein that picture (of Dubya hand-in-hand w/ his Saudi boyfriend) was right next to a story about the Texas legislature banning gay marriage Out

[urnofosiris]

And he is not saying whether or not he came on Splash day, if he did not then surely stand up comedians everywhere must be over such a great gift.

[justin]

One worrying thing about the general election is there seems to be a growing level of nationalism. At least the number of nationalist parties is on the rise. Now as well as the British National Partie we have

The UK Indepence Party - the party whose raison d'etre is political indepence from Europe (though they don't say anything about independence from America.) The most puzzling thing about this party is that whilst they want to increase our political indepence, they're policies will make us less financially independent.

Veritas - Robert Kilroy Silks fork of UKIP.

English Democrats - A party based round the idea that since Scotland and Wales have devolved governments, England should have one too.

These parties probably won't do much in the election but the increase in parties who are basing their campaign on nationalism is worrying.

[sam7777]

One argument that is often used against progressives/liberals is that they are not "tolerant" of other's views. Yet when the right wing does the same, they have the "courage" of their convictions. We are supposed to turn the other cheek when so called "christian' fundamentalists don't and heap hate and scorn on us. There really can't be civilized discourse unless both sides play by the rules. The supposed degradation of discourse comes IMHO with liberals finally fed up with the hate and unreason of the other side and giving them some of their own back.

On a another note, what in frilly heck will it take to prove that the Iraq war was wrong. It's been confirmed that WMDs (the purported reason for the war) were not present in Iraq:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1586792,00.html
Inspectors give up on hunt for WMD

And that the British Attorney General had "serious reservations" on the Iraq war:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15120187%255E2703,00.html
Report questions war credibility

Yet Bush go reelected, Blair will prolly get reelected also and Berlusconi is still in power. Most of the people in their countries (US, UK, Italy) acknowledge now that the war was a mistake and yet there is no significant political fallout.

The shrub has not kept us safe from terrorism (another purported reason for the war) as a recent report that the Stat Department tried to suppress shows:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/27/AR2005042702096.html
Global Terrorism Statistics Released
Clearinghouse Data Show Sharp Rise

I certainly don't feel safe in the US. Forget terrorists. There are plenty of other folks around trying to destroy people like me with anti-gay laws, hatred and intolerance. The US now is only for those who believe as the shrub does. The rest of us can just go to hell.

[aceivan]

The problem we have in the UK is that the only serious opposition to Blair is Michael Howard, a man who was as eager to go to war as Blair and who introduced Clause 28 outlawing the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools when he was part of Thatcher's government.

http://www.sundayherald.com/49127

"Now, we are told, Howard has moderated. But his liberalism is only skin deep. The Conservative party under Howard is more right-wing than ever before and the British National Party website has been complaining that the Tories (Conservatives) have stolen their immigration policies."

Although I won't be voting for him I'd rather have Blair as Prime Minister. I just hope he's planning to resign soon after the election.

Len

[Gatito Grande]

Um, aceivan: you can vote for the hands-clean-of-Iraqi-blood Liberal Democrats?

(And w/ a Parliamentary system, you don't have the "a vote for the person I want
is a vote for the person I want LEAST " problem!)

GG Just my Yank opinion Out

[aceivan]

I wish I could. Where I live the Speaker of the House of Commons (a Labour MP) is standing for re-election and traditionally the major parties do not oppose him, meaning there will be no Libdem or Conservative candidates. There are candidates from smaller parties standing and one of them will be getting my vote (as gay friendly and anti-war as I can find) but it doesn't change the fact that Labour or Conservative will win. Blair or Howard will be PM.

I usually vote for the Libdems or the Green Party and I am really pissed off that I can't vote for either of them.

Len

[justin]

GG, The problem is that while there are lot's of parties running there are only two with any chance of winning. Also while in America it was a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils here it's more a case of being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Or maybe that should be "better the devil you know than the devil you don't"

Anyway judging from the campaing posters I've been seeing I think the Lib Dems are at least going to win in Chesterfield. Even though I'm sure they won't win, I'm hoping they'll take over from the Conservatives as the main opposition party.

Well I can dream.

ETA: The BBC News Poll Tracker is showing the polls for all the parties as being

Labour: 36-40%
Conservative: 30-35%
Lib Dem: 18-24%
Other: 7-9%

Putting the avergaes into the Seat Calculator gives

Labour: 394
Cons: 173
Lib Dem: 55
Other: 24

Which gives Labour an overall majority of 142

Of course that may all be rubbish

[sam7777]

Tony Blair and Labour will win in the short term and gain a third term but they will lose in the long term IMHO. Blair is damaged goods. The recent revelations about the Iraq war has certainly caused epople to doubt his integrity. Right now Labour is poised to lose a significant part of their lead in parliament while this will leave them with a comfortable lead, it does not bode well for the future of the party especilally if Blair's controversies continue.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-05-03-voa24.cfm
Blair Campaigns Against Voter Apathy

The latest polling has mixed results for Mr. Blair, who is trying to become the first Labor Party prime minister to win three straight elections.

The polls point to a Blair victory, with a plurality of likely voters saying they prefer Labor over the main opposition Conservative Party, and the left-of-center Liberal Democrats.

But a survey in the Financial Times newspaper also finds that more than a third of those likely to vote say they could change their minds, with only one day of campaigning left.

Labor currently holds a 161-seat majority in parliament, but some opinion polls have suggested that advantage could be cut in half by the election. Even that result would leave Mr. Blair with a comfortable margin of victory.

But the prime minister is crisscrossing the country at a frantic pace, warning Labor voters against complacency and apathy.

And Mr. Blair's most controversial decision, to go to war in Iraq, continues to command attention in the campaign.

The Iraq war is definging Blair's premiership and I doubt that he will watch that stench off any time soon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/economicdispatch/story/0,12498,1475557,00.html
In the nick of time

Many if not most of the reporters and commentators covering the British election campaign have described it as boring.

Personally I disagree, for two reasons. One is that, despite all the efforts of Tony Blair and his colleagues to sideline the issue, the subject of the Iraq war has refused to go away.

Blair, in his defence, has highlighted the issue of leadership and most people I have encountered tend to see this election as a referendum on Blair's leadership, no matter how strongly the chancellor, Gordon Brown, supports him - to the point, sadly, of losing some of his own support by saying that he too would have acted as Blair did over Iraq.

Since the electoral system is biased hugely in Labour's favour (it was not always thus: I recall a different kind of bias in the 1950s and 1960s), and Labour is way ahead in the polls, the inclination to give Blair a bloody nose has increased. It is therefore possible that the Labour majority may fall dramatically. One thing we know for certain is that Blair would regard another large majority as vindication.

The second development during the campaign is that the economic news and prospects have, day by day, got steadily worse. So, while Labour boasts about stability, high employment, low inflation and rapid growth, all the signs are that they have called the election in the nick of time, and that rough waters lie ahead.

In the US we also face a weakening economy. It may only be real economic hardship that causes enough people to vote out Blair and Berlusconi and their Bush-like ilk. As if the suffering from war and poverty were not enough.

[justin]

Recent surveys have shown that only 1 in 3 out of people who will be able to vote for the first time this election plan on doing so. Of the rest they're not going to vote either because they don't think they understand the issues well enough, or because they don't think that there vote will make a difference.

Like Bush Blaire is using fear to gain support. Though whereas Bush used the fear of terrorists, Blaire is using the Conservative party. In order to keep Labour supporters from defecting he's telling them that if just 1 in 10 do, then that will let the Tories in.

It will certainly be a good thing if Labour's majority is drasticully cut. If only so it'll be easier when the time comes to reexamine the new anti terror laws that were recently enacted.