Who said this?

The Senate, is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and it's got a number of checks and balances built into our government. The filibuster is one of those checks in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases. That's why there are things like filibusters, and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly.

Was it Harry Reid?  Al Gore?  Howard Dean?

Nope--It was the Family Research Council, the sponsors of Justice Sunday--where scores of fundamentalist wingnuts demanded the end of the filibuster as a way to stop votes on Presidential nominees.

What was the context?

FRC was defending Republican Senators' efforts to filibuster the nomination of a gay man, James Hormel, to be ambassador to Luxembourg.  OK you commenters, start defending the indefensible.

Update Tuesday May 3 3:00 PM:  Commenters remarked that

"If the Republicans of the past 34 years agreed that this example was ethical, then they would have done a LOT of endless filibustering of Clinton's nominees. The fact that they didn't diminished your example to practically worthless"

Well, of course they did, when the practice of Blue slipping failed.  Note that the Republicans wouldn't even give hearings to five dozen of Clinton's appointees.  Even the White House acknowledged that the problem came from the Republican's despicable practices in the 1990's, according to then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales:

We are trying to work through some of the logjams, but there is a lot of bitterness," Gonzales told CNN. "This is a bit of a payback. I can't argue with some of their [the Democrats'] perceptions."

Gonzales noted that some Republican senators placed "holds" on Clinton judicial nominees, denying them a Judiciary Committee hearing or a floor vote for as long as four years.

 "That was wrong," he said. "That's not right. Part of this is based on the conduct of the Republican senators in the past. We had nothing to do with this problem. But it does affect us."

Republicans have also used the filibuster recently against judicial nominees:  Read, for example, the words of Sen. Smith of N.H. as he filbustered a 9th Circuit appointee, Richard Paez:

"But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying." (March 7, 2000)

According to Republicans, the right to an up-or down vote for judicial nominees extends only to Republican presidents.  Plain and simple, a power grab.

Jesse over Pandagon provides us with an analysis of the Bush Energy Policy that manages to be both incredibly insightful and absolutely hilarious at the same time:

"Hey, Bob, we're going through ink cartridges like they're water."

"Why don't we start up an arm of the company that makes ink cartridges, then we can buy them at cost?"

"Why don't we just buy this $50 program that would let us send interoffice memos through the network, which would cut down on printing by 40%?"

"Well, once we get the ink cartridge situation under control, we can do that."

"But...what about conservation of ink now?"

"We'll have our in-house ink supply firm work on a 90% more efficient cartridge. It should be done in, oh, 15 years."

"You know, I was wondering why we had ice swans made of refiltered Evian at our Boxing Day party. And why we had a Boxing Day party. I think I know why now."

Looks like the new Iraqi government is following the Bush administration example of taking controversial yet politically connected operators and giving them positions overseeing things they have no experience dealing with.  For example: Who is the new interim minister overseeing the Oil Ministry?  That's right, Chalabi.  Not only does he have no experience with the petroleum industry, but millions of dollars seem to mysteriously disappear from just about every enterprise he's been involved with.  The man has no shame but he seems to make a pretty good living off of it.

Thomas Sowell on the economic inequities between whites and blacks today:

For most of the history of this country, differences between the black and the white population--whether in income, IQ, crime rates, or whatever--have been attributed to either race or racism. For much of the first half of the 20th century, these differences were attributed to race--that is, to an assumption that blacks just did not have it in their genes to do as well as white people. The tide began to turn in the second half of the 20th century, when the assumption developed that black-white differences were due to racism on the part of whites.

So far, so good:

What is not nearly as widely known is that there were also very large disparities within the white population of the pre-Civil War South and the white population of the Northern states. Although Southern whites were only about one-third of the white population of the U.S., an absolute majority of all the illiterate whites in the country were in the South.

I'm with you, Thomas:

Slavery also cannot explain the difference between American blacks and West Indian blacks living in the United States because the ancestors of both were enslaved. When race, racism, and slavery all fail the empirical test, what is left?

Culture is left.

OK, getting a bit sketchy here.  Depends on what you mean.

The culture of the people who were called "rednecks" and "crackers" before they ever got on the boats to cross the Atlantic was a culture that produced far lower levels of intellectual and economic achievement, as well as far higher levels of violence and sexual promiscuity.

Ahh, Southern culture as a whole is a problem--I can't really argue against that.

While a third of the white population of the U.S. lived within the redneck culture, more than 90% of the black population did.

So the African-Americans were victims of a British-based redneck culture--intriguing.  But why are Whites now in a better socio-economic position?

It eroded away much faster in Britain than in the U.S. and somewhat faster among Southern whites than among Southern blacks, who had fewer opportunities for education or for the rewards that came with escape from that counterproductive culture.

But why was it slower to disappear amongst Blacks?  Oops, the article ended--no explanation.  Why would African American's continue to be trapped in a culture imposed on it?  Why did they have fewer opportunities for education or for the rewards that came with escape from that counterproductive culture?  What is left?

Racism is left. 

Sowell, who is African-American himself, constructs a perfectly sound theory of why African Americans continue to, on average, to be stuck in lower socio-economic strata, yet willfully blinds himself to the basic reason why they continue to be stuck there.  There is no doubt that in the Jim Crow South and in America in general, racism limited economic and educational opportunities for for African-Americans.  Indeed, it is not surprising that an ethnic group that had such a culture imposed on it, and that was prohibited from even learning to read for the first two hundred and fifty-years of its existence on the continent, would lag behind in recovering from such a blow.  That legacy has disappeared only slowly--and Jim Crow's "separate but equal" played a large role in assuring that African-American recovery would be slow. 

Finally it must also be said that Sowell paints the American traditions of his race with a terribly broad brush.  There are many strong communal traditions which have served the African Americans well, through these difficult times.  Furthermore, their manner of speaking is relatively irrelevant to success, as long as they can function in the greater society.  Instead of focusing on elements of Southern culture that have done a disservice to Blacks, Sowell portrays the culture as all of one piece, chains that must be broken and discarded before African-Americans can take their rightful place in American Society.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  As citizens, African Americans are fully entitled to all of the rights given other races--culture notwithstanding.  Mainstream American culture can and must adapt as much to the African American culture as the other way around.

Sowell stood one step away from getting a grip on the problem and shrank from the obvious conclusion.  Let's hope he gets it soon.

The new resolve in the Democratic Party is showing results.  The ruinous and indefensible changes to the House ethics rules that would allow one party to essentially shut down ethics violations will be rescinded by the House Republicans. 

On Social Security, Bush's ill-conceived plan to gut Social Security and replace it with private accounts in a desperate attempt to erase his legacy of spending has hit a brick wall.

On filibusters, a Washington Post poll shows that only 26 percent of Americans support giving the Republicans an easier time of moving their judicial candidates by ending the minority party's ability to filibuster nominations.

These events demonstrate that the only thing needed to defeat the Bush agenda is a strong, unified caucus willing to fight for what is right.  Keep it up, boys and girls.

I. The Enterprise
"At times material to this indictment there existed a criminal organization which is referred to hereafter as "the Chicago Outfit." The Chicago Outfit was known to its members and associates as "the Outfit" and was also known to the public as "organized crime," the "Chicago Syndicate" and the "Chicago Mob."  The Chicago Outfit was an "enterprise" as that term is used in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4)."

Peter Fitzgerald takes down the entire leadership of the Chicago Mob from Marcello on down.

Great coverage at the Chicago Tribune.  (Reg. Req.)

The limits of the Bush Doctrine seem more and more evident when one actually pays attention to the paucity of the adminstration's international economic policies.  Last week it was " he of the perpetual 'deer in the headlights' expression" Treasury Secretary John Snow begging the Chinese to revalue the renminbi and today it is the President begging Bush family friend Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to pump a little more oil before the summer!  Although the Bush administration has gotten a lot of mileage out of wishful think and redefining the terms of engagement, begging others to fall in line behind our fiscal trainwreck is ultimately not a viable international economic policy nor should we fool ourselves into believing that because we are the world's largest economy that everyone else is eventually going to come around and bail us out. 

Who knew that being the world's only remaining Super Power meant not only not having to say you're sorry all the time but that you'd also be reduced to seeking hand-outs like a bum!

Attention America:  The Chicago White Sox are on fire with a 15-4 record and a seven-game winning streak. 

Its called fighting for what we believe--and it is worth it.  What is the Democratic Party if it doesn't fight for what it believes in?  And the results?  Excellent.

The country's leading business lobbying associations, close GOP allies in recent legislative efforts and political campaigns, have told senior Republicans that they would not back the Frist initiative to force votes on President Bush's judicial nominees.

Fundamentalists think that the fact that they voted for a man who won only 51% of the vote is enough to give them near-total control of every branch of government.  Democrats have to show them that we will continue to fight for the values of tolerance and personal freedom we believe this country should stand for.  We have nothing to lose but our chains.

For years, critics on the right have decried the "culture of victimhood" in this country.  However, as the views of social conservatives have been marginalized by the liberalizing trends of the last sixty years, the political right has now recognized victimhood as a very potent form of energizing the base.  Even Tom DeLay, usually the predator, not the prey, has now begun to rely on the shroud of martyrdom as a method of defense.

Of late, one of the most egregious examples of this trend has been the expansion of the term anti-semitic to refer to any person questioning the policies of the current Likud government of Israel.  Daniel Okrent, the New York Times Public Editor has provided the most eloquent skewering of this trend in his latest column on the Times' covearage of the Middle East.

the charge that The Times is anti-Semitic. Even if you stipulate that The Times's reporters and editors favor the Palestinian cause (something I am not remotely prepared to do), this is an astonishing debasement. If reporting that is sympathetic to Palestinians, or antipathetic to Israelis, is anti-Semitism, what is real anti-Semitism? What word do you have left for conscious discrimination, or open hatred, or acts of intentional, ethnically motivated violence?

The Times may be - is - imperfect. It is not anti-Semitic. Calling it that defames the accuser far more than it does the accused. (Note:  Registration is required to access this content).

Accusations of this sort are designed to do one thing: limit the discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.  They represent the worst of the worst, exploitation of the memories of actual anti-semitism for entirely different reasons.  They debase the suffering of millions in the past and water down the public's tolerance for actual anti-semitism.  There is only one thing to be done--calls like this should stop.

Tyler Cowen thinks Shaq is the greatest NBA player of all-time.  According to him some of the reasons Shaq is better is that Coach Jackson played a role in Michael Jordan's sucess:

4. The first time MJ left Chicago, the remaining Bulls still made the Eastern Finals and were one referee call away from winning them.

5. Phil Jackson should get the credit for much of MJ's supposed locker room presence in motivating players.  It didn't do the Washington Wizards any good.

See any logical flaws in that argument?

Schwarzenegger Sorry for Border Comment.

I bet he is. 

There has been much back and forth in the comments about the separation of church and state in American life.  Some of those in favor of more church interference in schools focus on the fact that local school districts should be able to impose religious elements in the curriculum where one religion is in the majority in the local area.  This formula guarantees Christian imposition throughout the U.S.  However, I wonder what some of our commenters feel about the problems at the U.S. Air Force Academy, where evangelical Christians at the top are apparently at the root of a series of disturbing incidents involving religious discrimination at the school.

Less than two years after it was plunged into a rape scandal, the Air Force Academy is scrambling to address complaints that evangelical Christians wield so much influence at the school that anti-Semitism and other forms of religious harassment have become pervasive.

There have been 55 complaints of religious discrimination at the academy in the past four years, including cases in which a Jewish cadet was told the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus and another was called a Christ killer by a fellow cadet.

The 4,300-student school recently started requiring staff members and cadets to take a 50-minute religious-tolerance class. . . .

 ''They are deliberately trivializing the problem so that we don't have another situation the magnitude of the sex assault scandal. It is inextricably intertwined in every aspect of the academy,'' said Mikey Weinstein of Albuquerque, N.M., a 1977 graduate who has sent two sons to the school. He said the younger, Curtis, has been called a ''filthy Jew'' many times.  .

--The official academy newspaper runs a Christmas ad every year praising Jesus and declaring him the only savior. Some 200 academy staff members, including some department heads, signed it. Whittington noted the ad was not published last December. . .

--The academy commandant, Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida, a born-again Christian, said in a statement to cadets in June 2003 that their first responsibility is to their God. He also strongly endorsed National Prayer Day that year. School spokesman Johnny Whitaker said Weida now runs his messages by several other commanders.

Those who follow the Iron Mouth know that many of our editors believe that church and state should be separated by a wide gulf, and that the Churches are doing just fine by themselves, thank you, and do not need a boost from taxpayer dollars or the government's bully pulpit.  This is a national school, run on national dollars, and designed to provide the country with its pilots.  There is no place there for the religion of some citizens to be imposed on others, or preferences to be handed out to only those of a certain religion.  If ever there was a case for separation of church and state in a school setting, this is it.

From the state that brought us "Ruff's Liquor and Guns," an establishment that sells booze, guns, tobacco, and porn:

The Arizona Legislature has approved a bill that permits patrons to take guns into bars and restaurants that do not conspicuously post notices prohibiting firearms.  The bill (SB1363) provides that the rootin' tootin' gun-totin' customers can't drink alcohol - a compromise the State Senate reached.  So now bartenders across Arizona will have to ask their patrons, "What'll be, and are you packing heat?" 

Arizona law already permits its citizens to carry concealed firearms.

Earlier this month Loren Wade, a talented but troubled running back for the Arizona State University football team, was indicted for first degree murder for shooting to death a former teammate outside a nightclub.  The Legislature's response, of course, is to encourage more drunks to carry guns.  Lawmakers are concerned that gun owners heretofore have been forced to leave their weapons inside their cars.

As the self-proclaimed pro-gun member of the Iron Mouth editorial board, I have to applaud the Arizona Legislature for its wisdom.  At last I can sit down at a classy restaurant knowing that if they screw up my order, I can do more than leave a lousy tip.  There's nothing like a loaded Glock to cure a soggy chimichanga.

Update, 4/26/05 (RW): Governor Janet Napolitano vetoes the bill.

 

The Iron Mouth seeks to be original--only rarely do we link directly and quote whole the writings of another.  Tonight is one of those nights.  I quote below from Chris Nelson, author of the Nelson Report, as printed on Steve Clemons' the Washington Note.  Its a must read.

BOLTON BATTLE...the real fight

If the fight over John Bolton's UN nomination were just about John Bolton, he'd be history already. But this isn't about Bolton, it's about the exercise of power. Same thing with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

If this was even 5 years ago, hed be toast.

We are at the point now where the Republican Leadership refuses to allow the possibility of a loss on anything, regardless of the merits. This renders "debate" meaningless, since nothing said actually matters, so truth is irrelevant.

"Science" depends on faith; everything is a test of power. Oppose something the President wants, and you aren't just wrong, you are betraying the Party. The underlying message is that you are also offending a very particular definition of God.

The sad, sorry Bolton/DeLay spectacles are about total war, the kill-the-prisoners exercise of power that national US politics has become since the 2000 election. If it were merely about power, it wouldn't be so terrifying. Washington is used to that. . .it's what we exist for. But the fear, the self-loathing, the pathetic, cowardly, sniveling, excuse-making drivel from such "leaders" as Lugar, Hagel, Chafee, the entire House Republican Leadership under DeLay. . .and the ever-so-very carefully expressed angst of the Democrats. . .is about something far more dangerous to the Republic than mere political power.

What we are seeing is a fight for the political soul of the nation. We've had these before, in the existential sense. . .in my political lifetime, the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, the women’s rights versus, to a certain extent, the right to life movement. But this time it's totally and completely a fight about God. . .specifically, whether God is going to rule in the United States.

The Constitution says that would be illegal, and any serious expert can tell you that not only were the Founders liberal in their interpretation of the Deity, but they intentionally enshrined a purely secular civic government, including the courts. They didn't think that Jesus had an official plan for us, much less did they think that politicians who defined their duties in secular terms were defying the word of God.

Tom Delay manifestly believes this, and it sounds like any number of Senate Republicans either agree, or lack the imagination or moral courage to disagree. . .why else would some endorse threats against Republican-appointed judges who dare to interpret the law in secular terms? This is what the Bolton fight is really about: you can't dump him, because that lets the Democrats win on both the facts and principle. . .fatal notions to a desire to pack the courts with religious and secular policy extremists.

Why else would there be the constant drumbeat of attacks on the "liberal media", except to undermine public trust in the Constitutionally provided mediator between the politicians and the people?

The Founders knew how to protect what they intended; this crowd has figured out how to undermine the very rule of law in the United States. Listen to what DeLay is arguing...that his excesses have nothing to do with his "persecution", interesting choice of word, by the Democrats and their "liberal press allies". If a majority of Congressional Republicans don't, in their hearts, see the hypocrisy of all this, the Republic is doomed.

The real story behind Bolton and DeLay is obvious, to anyone not already seduced by the dark side.

I can't emphasize the importance of this.

Connect the dots. There's still time

Ted Nugent--the Motor City Madman--He's got a new brand of justice he wants to unload on America.  Thing is--I'm not sure he wouldn't be a subject of that justice.  In a meeting of NRA supporters, the washed-up rocker went on a rant of his own:

With an assault weapon in each hand, rocker and gun rights advocate Ted Nugent urged National Rifle Association members to be "hardcore, radical extremists demanding the right to self defense."

"Remember the Alamo! Shoot 'em!" he screamed to applause. "To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em."

But its unclear whether or not the Motor City Madman would survive his own brand of justice.  Take, for example, the lyrics to his 1975 hit Stranglehold:

Like a dog in heat
Tell it's me by the clamor now baby
I like to tear up the street,
And I been smokin for so long,
Ya know im here to stay
Got you in a stranglehold baby
You best get outta the way

Road I cruise is a bitch now baby
But no you cant turn me round
And if a house gets in my way baby
Ya know I'm tearing it down
You ran the night that you left me
You put me in my place
I got you in a stranglehold baby
You gonna cross your face

Apparently Mr. Nugent believes its OK to put a women in a stranglehold and scare them enough to cause them to make the Sign of the Cross.  Sounds like he's one of the "bad guys" he wants dead.

Speculation on which Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee centered on Lincon Chafee of New Hampshire, one of the most liberal GOP senators.  However, it appears that GOP Senate powerhouse Chuck Hagel may deliver the final blow:

"At this point, I will ... but I have been troubled with more and more allegations, revelations, coming about his style, his method of operation," said Hagel, the committee's No. 2 Republican.

"We need a uniter," he told CNN's "Late Edition." "We need a builder. We need someone who will reach out to our friends and our allies at the United Nations."

Don't count out Chafee yet, either.

abortion: Competing with new-comer "Persistent Vegetative State" in the hearts of single-issue voters.

bankruptcy reform:  What happens when "usury" loses all negative connotations.  Credit Card Company Protection Act of 2005.

Christians:  Far more diverse a group than seen on TV.

culture of life:  Not taken seriously after birth.  Still open to interpretation, especially among its adherents.

death penalty:  Better to err on the side of vengence.  (See culture of life)

Democrats:  Far too legalistic for "a nation of laws, not men."

ethics committee:  Almost as irrelevant as the House Un-American Committee in the early 70's.

federal judiciary:  Out of step.  Clearly the cause of everything wrong with America today. 

.50 caliber sniper rifle:  Designed for the battlefield but there to give you that little extra punch when engaging a deer at more than two miles.

I-Pods:  Hallmark of the everyman.... after all the President has one!

John Bolton:  Not to be approached if encountered in a dark alley or any public space.  Has spent much of his career redefining the word "diplomatic."

nuclear option:  Death of conservatism, writ large.

pandering:  Propelled to new heights in the current political environment.  Question: Has the death of the Pope always coincided with lowering "Old Glory" to half-staff?

Pope John Paul II:  Still deceased.  Evidently the prime mover behind all major international changes over the last twenty-five years.

separation of powers:  Should never get in the way of the will of the majority.

Tom Delay:  Martyr.  At least Boss Tweed was aware of his own fallibility.

 

Well, they have a special kind of logic down there in Texas, don't they?  Read the story of Merry Stephens, Basketball Coach--Lesbian. 

I had nothing against her as a person," Hale said, but if he stood up for "one lesbian" that would mean he was "for them adopting kids, and my morals and the Bible doesn't allow that.

Stephens said that she was blamed when one of her former players, now in college, revealed she was a lesbian. That player's parents insisted that the superintendent, Jerry Hendrick, fire Stephens because she had "converted their daughter,"  

This is exactly why anti-discrimination laws need to apply to gays and lesbians. 

"What companies that you know of would be interested in tort reform in Texas with asbestos problems that might support TRMPAC?"  

How about this company?

Brings $1 billion. Polls 83 percent in favor.

Oh Tommy, we hardly knew ye.

Move over Harry Potter.  Tyndale is at it again.  The highly profitable publisher of evangelical Christian vitriol and gore has just printed another installment of its "Left Behind: The Kids Series" propaganda novels.  Tyndale claims that they've sold more than 10 million copies of the books that are "great for kids 10-14."  One enthusiastic reader exclaims, "I absolutly [sic] love your books! These books are the best I've ever read, seriously. I've read all the kids books. The first time I picked up a Left Behind book I couldn't put it down. After reading those books I thought How can anyone read that and not believe in Jesus? Thanks for publishing these great books for everyone to read!"

The books depict the wacky adventures of a group of evangelical teenagers who join forces to convert Jews during Armageddon, lest they be annihilated and cast into hell for all eternity because they haven't embraced Jesus.  When they're not busy proselytizing, the kids are battling swarthy devils who hail from places like Romania.

Kudos to Tyndale for grabbing a hefty slice of the pie while competing with the steady stream of necrophiliac propaganda from Fox News and CNN.  The highly competitive market of calling evangelical Christians to arms against judges, abortion providers, evolution teachers, and Democratic politicians is saturated.  Yet Tyndale thrives.  Their Left Behind series of books has sold more 60 million copies, and two movies starring Kirk Cameron based on the novels are available on DVD at Amazon.  

Thank you, Tyndale.  With millions of youth being so indoctrinated, it won't be long before we return to the days of pogroms, autos da fe, Holocausts and Great Purges.

 

Terri Schiavo's death has spurred right-wing nuts to call for the murder (er, impeachment) of judges.  This is an excerpt from yesterday's Washington Post:

Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.

Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."

Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."

Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.

The column's author Dana Milbank perhaps was giving too much credit to Vieira.  Presumably, people who quote Stalin do not do so with the best of intentions.  And indeed, these are scary times for judges.  Milbank's column continues:

A judge in Atlanta and the husband and mother of a judge in Chicago were murdered in recent weeks. After federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."

"The people who have been speaking out on this, like Tom DeLay and Senator Cornyn, need to be backed up," Schlafly said to applause yesterday. One worker at the event wore a sticker declaring "Hooray for DeLay."

The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral.

The Schlafly session's moderator, Richard Lessner of the American Conservative Union, opened the discussion by decrying a "radical secularist relativist judiciary." It turned more harsh from there.

Schlafly called for passage of a quartet of bills in Congress that would remove courts' power to review religious displays, the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex marriage and the Boy Scouts. Her speech brought a subtle change in the argument against the courts from emphasizing "activist" judges -- it was, after all, inaction by federal judges that doomed Schiavo -- to "supremacist" judges. "The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is," Schlafly asserted.

Former representative William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.) followed Schlafly, saying the country's "principal problem" is not Iraq or the federal budget but whether "we as a people acknowledge that God exists."

Farris then told the crowd he is "sick and tired of having to lobby people I helped get elected."

The last quote is vintage sour grapes.  When the evangelical Christian maniacs were anointed by the media for delivering the election to Bush, they naturally expected more in return than 30 pieces of silver.  Now they want blood.

Dear Hindrocket, Trunk and Deacon.  Please, Please, Please keep talking about that memo.  Make sure you go over every single detail again and again and all of the statements by all of the players.  The more time you spend arguing what "Republican Leaders" and "Republican Senators" are or parsing out what it truly means for a noun to be in the plural the better. 

Its really important, because otherwise, you won't be discredited or bring shame on Republicans for their behavior in circulating the memo.

That's right, Arnold's approval rating plummeted 16 points in three months.  Only 43% of Californians approve of the job he's doing.  With Bush hovering at 45%, its a race to the bottom.  Pretty hard to be a tough guy when a bunch of nurses beat your ass up.

Over at In the Agora, Josh Claybourne was one of the first to speculate that the "Schiavo Memo" was a fake, based on GOP staffers who accused a "renegade aide" to Sen. Harry Reid.  After getting slammed by Michelle Malkin (who knew?) and others, Claybourne "retracted," stating: "I now have reason to believe that in unraveling a hoax I was hoaxed myself."   Of course, the obvious conclusion, that the memo was real, would have caused Claybourne's head to explode from cognitive dissonance.

Lo and behold, it came out on Wednesday that the memo was real.  So how does Josh take it?  Badly. Again he decides to believe every word out of the mouths of Martinez and the rest of the GOP caucus and then takes issue with the reporting on the subject because it wasn't "Republican Leaders" who distributed the memo and that it never circulated "amongst GOP Senators."  I guess a sitting Republican U.S. Senator isn't a "Republican Leader" anymore.  Still don't understand how something that "never circulated" amongst GOP Senators came out of a GOP Senator's pocket.  Large sections of the comments are devoted to the nature of a plural noun.

So I thought I'd post a comment for Josh and his buddies to read:

Please pay attention closely--
(1) Republicans say they have nothing to do with the memo.  You believe it.
(2) Martinez spokesperson denies having anything to do with the memo despite the fact that parts of it are lifted directly from his website.  You believe it.
(3) The Powerline boys, without any factual basis whatsoever, declare the memo a Democratic "dirty trick."  You believe it.
(4) Martinez then admits that the memo came from his staff and that he got it "unbeknownst to me" and personally pulled it out of his jacket pocket, never ever having read it, and then hands it over to one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate.  You believe it.
(6) The Powerline boys declare that the memo wasn't distributed by Republican leaders or Senators, despite the fact that a Republican Senator admitted to handing it over to Harkin.  You believe it.
(7) Martinez did this four or five times during the Republican Senate Primary and the general election.  Martinez would be tied to slimy hit-politics and then some "rouge staffer" or an ad company guy or someone else would be "responsible."  Its called lying, ladies and gentlemen.  You believe it.
(8) You still think it wasn't a crass attempt to capitalize on a family's suffering.  I don't believe it.

Yesterday, I wondered aloud about comments made in the Washington Times regarding the "Schiavo Memo."  Seems that I was right to look closely at the statements made by Robert Traynham,  spokesman for Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.  I noted that his denial involved a very interesting parsing of the levels of staff who were not involved.

Turns out that a senior staffer for Senator Mel Martinez, an attorney no less, drafted the "Schiavo Memo" and that Mel himself "unbeknownst to me" had handed it out to Tom Harkin, Democratic senator from Iowa.

Predictably, the Powerline boys are spinning it just as my post yesterday anticipated they would.  See, it was a low level renegade staffer not Mel "Unbeknownst to Me" Martinez who was responsible.  Their new angle?  Why its all the fault of the "MSM" for misreporting the story as "Republican Leaders" distributing the memo.  But boys, a "Republican Senator" did distribute the memo.  Not only that, but Powerline's entire theory is based on the idea that everything coming out of Mel "Unbeknownst to Me" Martinez regarding the memo is the truth.  Yesterday, however, Mel denied being the source of the memo:

"Senator Martinez has never seen the memo and condemns its sentiments," spokeswoman Kerry Feehery said. "No one in our office has seen it, nor had anything to do with its creation.

Powerline's argument thus rests on very thin spring Minnesota ice.

I think a more likely reconstruction of the story is this:  Over the weekend, the sourcing of the memo was traced to Martinez's office.  The Republican Senate leadership, helped along by our favorite wingnut bloggers around Blogistan planted the "Is the Memo A Fake" story at the Washington Times to begin the job of damage control, based on the idea that "no Republican would ever do this."   Helps make the "unbeknownst to me" story go down easier. 

At the end, what do we have?  Two weeks of lies, Powerline boys desparately spinning "Crass Political Memo" into "MSM Misreported the Story" and Mel "Unbeknownst to Me" Martinez with a new nickname.

Interesting denial on the origin of the "Schiavo Memo" in the Senate from  Robert Traynham, spokesman for Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

In a nutshell, I can just simply tell you that no, we have nothing to do with that memo; no we have not seen that memo; we have nothing to do with circulating that memo. . . Senator Santorum had nothing to do with it. Neither did any member of his staff at the personal level or the leadership level.

Lots of detail about those levels there, hmmm.....  Of course, the Washington Times thinks that just because all Republican's deny giving out the memo, it must be a Republican Plant, despite the fact that passages were lifted from the website of Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida.  Under that set of logic, Nixon didn't do a damn thing.  Imagine that, Watergate with the Washington Times around.  Would have been different, I must say.

Front Page:  Washington Post: DeLay's 1997 Travel Questioned

Front Page:  New York Times: Political Groups Paid Two Relatives Of House Leader

Oh, Bugman, come out and plaaaaaaaay!

The mission of the District Attorney's Office is to see that justice is done by providing the highest quality legal representation for the public . . . A state-funded division of the office investigates and prosecutes crimes related to the operation of state government . . .

 

Go slow, Ronnie, go slow.

April 4, 2005

Hon. John Cornyn
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

     Re: Comments on Senate Floor, April 4, 2005

By Fax and Mail

Dear Senator Cornyn:

It is with great disappointment that I read in news accounts this evening that you, on the floor of the United States Senate, have suggested that a recent spate of courtroom violence is the result of justifiable public anger at judicial decisions.  Your statement implied that the murderers of a state judge in Atlanta and the family of federal judge in Chicago were somehow justified in their actions.  Such remarks can serve only to undermine the respect for justice which is essential to a nation of laws and show a profound lack of respect for the victims of these senseless tragedies.  I ask that you retract your words on the floor of the United States Senate, and in a televised press conference so that the damage you have wrought may be undone.  I also respectfully suggest that a public apology to the families harmed by the recent violence is in order.

A close look at the words you spoke on the floor of the United States Senate this evening makes clear that the remarks were wholly inappropriate:

I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence.  Certainly without any justification but a concern that I have that I wanted to share.

This statement implies that the murderers of Judge Rowland Barnes in Atlanta, Georgia and the family of U.S. District Court Judge Joan Lefkow in Chicago were somehow justified in assaulting officers of the court because they were rightly angry about decisions made by those jurists.  Although you sought to qualify your remark, the meaning of the first two sentences is clear—the current spate of judicial violence is the result of citizens’ justifiable anger at decisions made by judges. 

This statement implies that the murderers of Judge Rowland Barnes in Atlanta, Georgia and the family of U.S. District Court Judge Joan Lefkow in Chicago were somehow justified in assaulting officers of the court because they were rightly angry about decisions made by those jurists.  Although you sought to qualify your remark, the meaning of the first two sentences is clear—the current spate of judicial violence may be the result of citizens’ justifiable anger at decisions made by judges. 

The speculative nature of your statement does not excuse the error.  The mere suggestion that these acts of cold-blooded murder were the result of anything other than evil intent on the part of the killers gravely undermines the respect for law and order which is this country’s strength and demeans the memory of the jurists who gave their lives in the service of the community.

It is my understanding that these statements were made in the midst of a political debate about the use of filibusters during votes on federal judicial nominees.  While I understand that you are personally opposed to the practice, no political gain is worth the damage done to the institution of the judiciary and the families of those who have lost loved ones at the hands of these killers.

I therefore ask that you publicly retract your statements, not only on the floor of the United States Senate, but also in a televised press conference, where the effect of your retraction will work to undo some of the harm that they have done.  I also respectfully suggest that a public apology to the families of those brutally murdered in these tragedies is in order.

                                      Sincerely yours,

                                      RW

cc:    Hon. Willam Frist
        Pres. George W. Bush
        file

From one of J. Scott Barnard's Comments below:

Bush didn't put a big 'ol footprint in the middle of Iraq because of WMD, haven't you folks realized this by now? It was simply ONE of the excuses he used among many for intervention.

You heard it right: WMD was one of the "excuses" Bush used.  Sounds like our 43rd President wasn't being honest with the people of the United States of America, and made up an "excuse" for invading Iraq.  Remember, he started talking about regime change and it polled horribly.  So out came the WMD story, which caught on like wildfire with a good chunk of the folks at home.

I think it is a President's duty to be honest with people for the reasons behind his policy decisions, especially decisions as momentous as going forth to war against another nation.  Bush failed to be honest with us.  His failure to be honest then is exactly the reason he has continued to fall in the eyes of ordinary Americans.

Not surprisingly his fall has accelerated because he continues to fail to tell the truth today.  Remember the beginnings of the Social Security debate?  Bush started out talking about a Social Security "crisis."  When sober, non-partisan analyses from both the OMB and the Social Security Trustees showed the benefit crunch in conservative scenarios coming decades in the future, the White House backed off from that claim.  Bush's people also dropped their claim that the accounts would solve the now non-existent "crisis" when called on that one as well.

Bush wants to get rid of Social Security for one reason and one reason only: he has turned a record surplus into a deficit which drags down our economy and binds each and every young person in America to pay off his debts to Asian central banks--and the Social Security Trust fund.  By getting rid of Social Security a large proportion of IOU's lent by the Trust Fund can be written off--in other words, he wants us to pay for his folly.

Trust me Scott, us folks "realized" Bush wasn't invading Iraq because of WMD the minute he started talking about it.  We also "realize" that he cares not a whit for the solvency of Social Security.

More of J. Scott Barnard at Burton Terrace.