Filibuster Is On The Table

Rumor has it that Senator Joe Lieberman has said that filibustering the Alito nomination is on the table.

Good!

We didn't need Robert Bork in the Supreme Court in 1988, and we don't need him now.

I gave Alito a fair chance. I read many of his opinions, and just did not like his judicial philosophies. He, is without question, very intelligent. But, he gives way too much power to the government over the rights of individuals. I have little doubt that he would have been in the majority on Kelo.

I do have questions about why he was a member of Concerned Alumni of Princeton (a racists and sexist organization). Why was it on his resume? I can understand that he may have half-heartedly joined it. I know that I am probably a member of some groups that I don't even know about because I signed a petition here or there. But, putting it on your resume is something completely different. It concerns me because of his rulings in discrimination cases. He so narrowly construes discrimination as to make it almost impossible to sue. His membership in CAP would be consistent with his rulings. There is a reason that Alito was the Reagan's administration favorite person to deal with on discrimination cases and it was not because he told great jokes.

I am not asserting that he is an overt racist or sexist. But his opinions lead me to believe that while he would not discriminate himself, he denies the existence of racism or sexism in the real world (similar to Bork).

He is also inconsistent on the questions he will answer. He refuses to say anything about Roe other than it is open game. He predicates this refusal on the fact that there would be future cases coming before the supreme court. Yet, he has said that one-man, one vote is settled law (even though he has also criticized this in the past) and there are currently 4 cases pending on the issue.

I don't think he is a bad person. I don't dislike him personally, but I don't think he has to be objective SC justice. I just have not seen it in his opinions.

Update: I forgot to add another reason I dislike Alito's deference to institutions over the rights of individuals. We need a SC justice who is firm on privacy rights due to things like this.

Pat's Got Company

Just in case you thought Pat Robertson was the only nut job out there...

Ministers Say They Blessed Seats Ahead of Alito Hearing

Founding Fathers and Freedom

This morning, I read the poll that claims 56% of Americans want the government to get a warrant before then can spy on American citizens. I liked to see that the majority of Americans believe this is a nation of laws, but still, a full 42% of Americans didn't find it necessary for the government to get warrants before spying on us. (Poll: Americans Want Warrants for Spying).

This poll made me think of a quote by James Madison, the father of the Bill of Rights:

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.

Of course, the split was sharpest along party lines. This made me wonder, what was the difference between liberals and conservatives on this matter? Why is it that liberals are more concerned with freedom and conservatives more concerned with security? Why is it that conservatives don't see the grandeur of freedom the same as the founding fathers did? And why liberals see a tangible danger to safety less important than fundamental freedom?

I remembered reading something over at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

I saw National Treasure this weekend with some family, and it had some interesting lines in it. At one point, he quite rightly said that by signing the Declaration of Independence, they were signing their own treason. They were doing what was right, for the safety and security of their own people, to pull away from a tyrannical government.

This is where the difference lies. Not only do conservatives make a fundamental misjudgment about the founding of our nation, they fail to see that they are fundamentally different than our founders.

First, the misjudgment. The founding fathers were not fighting for safety and security. This is an assertion I have seen over and over from conservative bloggers. Yes, we were separating ourselves from a tyrannical government. No, it was not for safety and security. The rule of King George was not like the rule of Saddam Hussein. King George did not have torture chambers set up across the colonies. King George was not gassing the Virginians. We fought not for safety, but for freedom.

In fact, the founders made a conscious decision to give up security for fundamental freedom. The founders decided the risk of death was less important than the acquisition of freedom. To them, the trade of was security for freedom, not freedom for security. The founders fought and gave their lives willingly to enshrine in a constitution certain freedoms that were more important than temporary security. Benjamin Franklin said it best:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

Second, conservatives fail to see that they are in fact they are the ones that were the loyalists, not the revolutionaries. The passage of two hundred years does not change the fact that the founding fathers were "barking moonbats," as conservatives like to call liberals now. The founders' ideas were bold and, without question, the most liberal the world had seen in over 2000 years. Shrugging off the yoke of thousands of years of hereditary rule for the liberalization of law, rights and freedom was not the work of conservatives. It was the work of men who were embarking on the greatest experiment the world had ever seen.

Conservatives of the day thought the revolutionaries were crazy. "Separate from our king? You can do that... he is our king." Is there any question who's side Rush Limbaugh would have been on? He would have been on his soap box, somewhere in colonial American yelling, "friends!... these revolutionaries!... these traitors to the crown want to destroy everything that makes these British colonies great! They call themselves patriots, but they want to depose the king, the god appointed sovereign."

I have often said, conservatives are just those who accept the ideas of liberals that came several generations before them. Every idea was new at some point.

This is not to say that all liberal ideas are good, nor will they all be accepted with the passage of time. But, some of the things we accept now as fundamental, were new liberal ideas in their day.

End to slavery, end to segregation, women's right to vote. All of these were moonbat ideas at their inception, but are embraced as fundamental by both conservatives and liberals now.

So, when thinking about what our founding fathers would hav thought about the current NSA warrantless spying, think of what our founding fathers really thought, not what you may want them to have thought.

Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it. - James Madison

Bremer Says He Was Ignored When Asking for More Troops

Bremer, who was the top civilian in Iraq, has come out with a new book, "My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope." In Bremer's new book, he claims that he asked Bush and Rummy for an increase in troop strenght and was ignored. So, that whole thing about Bush saying - if they ask for it, they will get it - was just another one of his lines. Kind of like - if anyone in this administration had anything to do with the CIA leaking of Valerie Plame, they will be fired.

Bremer Says He Sought Rise in U.S. Troop Strength in Iraq

By THOM SHANKER
Published: January 10, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 - The American who served as the senior civilian administrator in Iraq says he complained to President Bush and other officials that far too few troops were committed to the occupation in the first year after Saddam Hussein was ousted.

In a new book, the official, L. Paul Bremer III, wrote that he had voiced his concerns personally to Mr. Bush and other administration officials, even writing a formal message in May 2004 to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. The private note stated that "the deterioration of the security situation" made it clear that "we were trying to cover too many fronts with too few resources," Mr. Bremer wrote in the book.

"Even a year after liberation, the military still could not provide adequate protection for movements to and from Baghdad International Airport," Mr. Bremer recalled, and wrote that he had advised Mr. Rumsfeld to "consider whether the coalition could deploy one or two additional divisions for up to a year."

(Full Story)

The Washington Two Step that Turned Into a Shuffle

As the Republicans regroup after all the scandals that have broken over the past year, the GOP is looking for new leadership after Tom Delay has bowed to the inevitable and stepped aside. What still burns my hide somewhat, is the fact that it was only after Jack Abramoff plead guilty and agreed to name names is the GOP finally calling for any reform. Even though, we knew prior to this that Washington was rife with corruption, our elected politicians did not even start talking about reform until the other shoe hit the ground.

But even with DeLay on the leadership sideline, those eager to fill his shoes are not without their own tainted past. Blunt and DeLay were intertwined like Lenny Kravitz dreadlocks. (Blunt, Boehner Share Broad Network of Lobbyist Ties With DeLay)

Jan. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Representatives Roy Blunt of Missouri and John Boehner of Ohio have been among the key intermediaries between Republican lawmakers and lobbyists since their party took control of the U.S. Congress in 1995.

Now, with both men vying to succeed Representative Tom DeLay as House majority leader, those ties may loom as an issue.

Representative Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, said concerns that the two men are too close to Washington's K Street lobbying corridor may encourage a dark-horse candidate to run against them. ``We have three weeks until this election, and a lot can happen between now and then,'' Flake said...

Blunt, 55, and DeLay, 58, share a network of ties as extensive as any in Congress, including links to lobbyists.

And Boehner is so much a Washington insider, only he and Jack Nicholson are allowed into the V-V-V-VIP lounge. (Boehner in line to be House majority leader).

Washington- John Boehner is an insider's insider. He not only knows how to pass laws and win allies in Congress, he also knows how to slip quietly out of the Capitol for a smoke and some schmoozing with reporters, and how to make friends among CEOs, work a golf course and throw one magnificent party.

Normally that's how one rises to the vaunted post of House majority leader, a position Boehner, from West Chester in southwest Ohio, wants now that Tom DeLay is bowing out of leadership under an ethics cloud.

But the quest by Boehner (pronounced BAY-ner) to win the No. 2 post in the House, giving him sway in leading the Republican majority, presents a dilemma. If Congress is to renounce its cozy relationships with lobbyists - the intense chase for campaign money and deal-making that's prompting outrage - Boehner may not represent a sweeping change.

Republican, Jeff Flake comments on his parties woes (In Congress, 'we simply have too much power')

"We simply have too much power," says Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., speaking of lawmakers' ability to target tax dollars for particular projects, contractors or campaign donors. "We Republicans have abused that power badly over the past several years."

And many Americans see it the same way. In a new Gallup poll, 58% of Americans think that corruption is wide spread in DC and goes way beyond the Abramoff scandal and the majority of Americans think that the Republican Congress has led the country in the wrong direction. (Most consider lobbying scandal a big deal, poll shows - In Abramoff Case, Most See Evidence of Wider Problem).

But, there is still greater hope for us. Yesterday, 9 elected Republican judges refused to throw out the charges against DeLay. Even if DeLay is acquitted, it is now absolute that the charges are not baseless.

DeLay Drops Out

Well, this certainly sucks. DeLay has ended his bid to regain his spot at the top of the Republican congress. I was hopping that the "Hammer" would be more tenacious and insist that the Republicans continue to take election year hits for him. The longer he stuck around, trying to delay the GOP from holding new elections, the better it was for democrats.

DeLay Ends Bid To Regain Post As GOP Leader

Rep. Tom DeLay (Tex.), one of the most powerful and feared Republican leaders in Washington, abandoned his quest to regain his House majority leader post yesterday, bowing to pressure from fellow Republicans worried about the growing corruption and campaign finance scandals linked to his office.

DeLay's announcement in his home town of Sugar Land ends his decade-long tenure as a legislative juggernaut and conservative ideologue who revolutionized the relationship between power and money in Washington. It also cleared the way for a leadership contest that could further shake up the House GOP team going into an uncertain election year. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.) said Republicans will choose a new majority leader and other officers the week of Jan. 30, when members return for President Bush's State of the Union address.

On the up side, the front runner for the spot is Roy Blunt, who has quite a few money skeletons in his own closet. Many of Blunt's campaign coffers are tied directly to DeLay. It won't be as easy picking on him as it is DeLay, but the GOP will still retain the shroud of corruption with Blunt as its head.

The Wall Street Journal has an Op-Ed about the continuing problems that will continue to face the GOP if it does not reform itself post haste.

Incumbency Over Ideas

The real House GOP problem isn't about lobbyists so much as it is the atrophying of its principles. As their years in power have stretched on, House Republicans have become more passionate about retaining power than in using that power to change or limit the federal government. Gathering votes for serious policy is difficult and tends to divide a majority. Re-election unites them, however, so the leadership has gradually settled for raising money on K Street and satisfying Beltway interest groups to sustain their incumbency...

As House Republicans consider replacing Mr. DeLay, they need to choose someone who will reinvigorate their commitment to reforming Washington. And this may mean more change than they'd otherwise prefer entering an election year.

Blunt has been very lack luster in his performance as the interim leader thus far. He has been unable to control the House Republicans and has had to take several hits already. I wish him all the luck in being elected leader.

DeLay and the Abramoff Fallout

Busy day at work and not much time for blogging, but there were a couple of stories on the Abramoff scandal and the continuing fallout, especially for the former House Majority leader, Tom DeLay.

As Republicans fall overthemselves to return the money they received from Abramoff (Purging Capitol Hill's oldest profession), more and more republicans are coming to grips with the fact that the party cannot maintain a semblance of respectability and retain DeLay as their leader. (After Abramoff, a GOP Scramble). Today, 12 Republican congressmen called for new elections to be held (Republicans calling for elections to replace DeLay)

"We have commitments for about 25 signatures. The letter calls for a leadership election for a permanent majority leader," said Matthew Specht, a spokesman for Rep. Jeff Flake (news, bio, voting record), a conservative Arizona Republican.

Fifty House Republican signatures are needed to call elections, which would occur after the House reconvenes on January 31.

The Wall Street Journal write an interesting piece on how the GOP needs to do a wholesale house cleaning if it is to return to the party it claims to be. (Cleaning House).

Here's a better strategy: Banish the Abramoff crowd from polite Republican society, and start remembering why you were elected in the first place.

The scandal has also given the Texas prosecutor, Ronnie Earl, more ammunition ( Prosecutor Broadens DeLay Inquiry). With this new inquiry, it will continue to drag out the legal process, making the party continue without permanent leadership. With the Abramoff cooperation, Earl is now looking into DeLay's connections with the not-for-profit group, U.S. Family Network, which received large donations and other shady deals (Earle seeks money record)

The subpoenas seek documents and correspondence from the National Republican Congressional Committee in regard to the group's 1999 contribution to the U.S. Family Network. Subpoenas also were issued for Edwin Buckham, of Frederick, Md., a former DeLay chief of staff who set up the family network; and Christopher Geeslin, a Frederick, Md., pastor who served as the network's president.

The network was used to promote causes championed by DeLay, according to the Washington Post.

The group raised $2.5 million from three Abramoff clients, including $1 million from Russian businessmen, the Post reported. Abramoff worked with Buckham to organize a 1997 trip to Moscow by DeLay.

Buckham's lobbying firm, the Alexander Strategy Group, employed DeLay's wife, Christine, paying her $115,00 during three years. DeLay's lawyers have said she was paid to determine the favorite charities of members of Congress.

Earle also issued subpoenas to Americans for Economic Growth and the Americans for a Republican Majority PAC for records regarding the $500,000 contribution.

DeLay cannot blame the Abramoff problems on the MSM or an over zealous prosecutor. If you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Now, the only question is, who gave who the fleas?

Pat Robertson: Good Smite and Good Luck

Isn't it is so comforting to know that idiots like this get to speak to and be followed by 2 million Americans every single day...

Robertson: Sharon punished for dividing Israel

The Rev. Pat Robertson said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was punished by God for dividing the Land of Israel.

Speaking on the “700 Club” on Thursday, Robertson suggested that Sharon, who is currently in an induced coma following a massive stroke and cerebral hemorrhage, and former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, assassinated by an Israeli extremist in 1995, were being treated harshly by God for dividing Israel.

“He was dividing God’s land,” Robertson said. “And I would say, ‘Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations or the United States of America.’ God says, ‘This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone.’ ”

Video clip

Typical Bush

Ok... Please, if someone could explain to me. If Bush can claim unlimited powers to fight terrorism and eavesdrop on us and such regardless of the constitution, why do we even need the PATRIOT Act?

Isn't that kinda like passing a law making it legal to breath?

Bush, Cheney Defend Iraq War, Spying
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney tried a one-two punch Wednesday in defense of the Iraq war, a domestic spying program and the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act they want Congress to renew

...

Cheney, speaking at a conservative think tank in Washington, defended the domestic spying program, which he says does not violate Americans' civil liberties.

A presidential order, which is the subject of upcoming congressional hearings, gave the National Security Agency permission to eavesdrop without a warrant on communications between suspected terrorists overseas and people inside the United States.

...

Parts of the Patriot Act are set to expire on Feb. 3. Whether to renew them will dominate debate on Capitol Hill this month.

"We look forward to a renewal of the Patriot Act in 2006 because that law has done exactly what it was intended to do, and this country cannot afford to be without its protections," Cheney said.

The Abramoff Round Up

Well, it has been a big days of political writings on the Abramoff scandal. But first, I want to say that my heart goes out to the families of the 12 miners that did not make it out alive.

And now to the round up on Abramoff

WaPo has a story on the money trail left by Abramoff (The DeLay-Abramoff Money Trail) and the connection with Russian energy interests to Tom DeLay to influence his votes on an IMF matter as well as donations from sweat shops in the Pacific.

A story by Bloomberg (Bush's 2004 Campaign to Donate Abramoff-Linked Contributions to Charity)has Bush giving back some of the political donations from Abramoff. While Abramoff was one of Bush biggest fundraisers, the one thing that tells me that the White House had little or no direct involvement is that they are actually being open about it. I think this marks a first for the Bush administration.

USA Today reports on the indictments (Former lobbyist pleads guilty ) and so does the Boston Globe (Abramoff pleads guilty, agrees to aid probe into Congress).

Another WaPo story (Mr. Abramoff's Plea) talks about the 1# implicated Congressman, Republican Bob Ney of Ohio. Ney still maintains his innocence, but growing evidence is showing that he had much more knowledge that he admits to.

The Columbus Dispatch has more in-depth reporting on Ney's involvement (Lobbyist admits he gave Ney bribes) and delves into Ney's legal troubles. It is likely that Ney will be indicted and if so, Republican leaders plan to call on him to resign prior to the next election. If he does not step aside, it would be an easy target for his next election cycle, leaving Republicans in even more jeopardy of losing the congress in the future. The Dispatch also chronicles the allegations against Ney (Allegations Against Ney)

The Billings Gazette writes on the Abramoff connections with Republican Senator, Conrad Burns who might also find himself in hot water (Abramoff cops plea, to help in D.C. probe)

And if you didn't pick up on all of the connections between DeLay and Abramoff in the above stories, you weren't paying attention. But to save you from having to go back and read again, Roll Call (subscription only) goes into the deep links between the two buddies (Deal Brings Allegations to DeLay Staff). I think the writing is on the wall that DeLay is on his way out of public service.

Munich: Movie Review

I have been trying to catch up on what everyone has been saying over the last week while I was away. I have seen several reviews on the movie Munich. None of which seem to get the same thing out of the movie that I did. Most of the reviews believe that the movie blurs the lines between good and evil to much.

Perhaps Americans have grown to accustomed to Hollywood's idea of good and evil. I believe that Spielberg has portrayed, not only a very definitive line between good and evil, but one of the most realistic delineations in recent history.

The story is about an Israeli man who is recruited by the government to track down and kill the suspected masterminds behind the 1972 massacre of the Israeli Olympic team. The rationale is a mix of revenge and protection of the Jews from Palestinian terrorists.

Throughout the movie, the main character is conflicted in his task. He is sent to hunt down and kill. It is at this point, I think most of the movies nay sayers miss the point.

This moral equivalency thing has to stop now. Terrorists are not on the same moral plane as those who kill terrorists!!!! This movie tries to achieve this unholy equation by potraying the terrorists as complicated human beings who are no different from anyone else.

This first commenter seems to think that terrorist are somehow formed from an ethos. No mother, no father, they just sprang forth from the dirt with a shoulder fired rocket in their hands. They don't have wives and children. They don't eat and sleep. They are just robots in a room that are tasked to do one, and only one thing... Kill Jews. This, of course is not the case. We strive to believe that is true. It makes it easier to combat an enemy that is not, in all trappings, just like us. But there are, regardless of what you may want to think. They may be evil, but they do not live in a cave. Reality, no matter how much we want to believe otherwise, will often conflict with necessity and our own morals.

What a piece of crap. To attempt to show a moral equivalence between the terrorists who killed innocent Israelis and the Mossad agents that assasinated them is beyond one's comprehension.

Again, like the first commenter, this commenter missed the point. Spielberg does not make a moral equivalence. In fact, he does the exact opposite. And, this is where I think most Americans have been too conditioned from Hollywood. The difference between good and evil in reality is not like an old western or a Rambo movie. The good guys don't where white and the bad guys don't wear black. Evil, like good, does not exist in a vacume.

In Munich, Spielberg gives the Palestinian terrorists a face. But that does not create good out of an anonymous enemy. The difference that Spielberg creates between good and evil is more real and more true.

First, as the above commenter missed, the terrorist does give a rationale for his deeds. But, Hitler gave rationale for his deeds. Manson gave rationale for his deeds. Every monster in history can give rationale for causing evil. Measuring rationale against morals is completely different.

Second, the terrorist do not show confliction for their deeds.

This is how Spielberg does such a good job of delineating good from evil. The main Jewish characters show both remorse and confliction for what they are doing. This is the line between good and evil when evil is committed. Four men are sent to do a job. That job is an evil task. It was a justified task, but none-the-less, an evil one. Killing, no matter how justified or necessary, is never "good." An eye for an eye is a justification, not a furtherance of good.

An evil job is easily done by an evil person.

An evil job is never done easily by a good person.

Thus lies the difference between good and evil when the task at hand is evil itself. Even when the good are forced to commit justified evil, the good will question. The evil will just do. In the movie, the Palistinians justified their actions as a desire for a homeland, but the means are never questioned.

Spielberg even goes further into showing the difference between a "good society" and and "evil society." The fact that the Israeli government debated and questioned their own deeds. A good society is one that hesitates and asks questions of its deeds. It wants to balance its own morals against the needs of protection and revenge. Sometimes necessity will require evil acts, but the good should never enjoy it.

So, in conclusion, I think it is a must see movie. And if you go see it, remember that good and evil are more than black and white hats.

Update: this is a good article in the Jerusalem Post on the movie: Steven Spielberg's unforgivable 'sin'

H/T The Last Amazon

Jack Abramoff to Plead Guilty

Well, I am back. Can't say that I am all that happy to be once again behind my desk, but those student loans won't pay themselves.

But, at least things are not boring on my first day back. Jack Abramoff is expected to plead guilty soon to 3 felony charges and to start cooperating with prosecutors in the Washington corruption scandal. There will be many congressmen who are hit hard by Abramoff's cooperation, but the biggest two at this point seem to be Republican Bob Ney or Ohio, and Republican Tom DeLay of Texas.

Unless there is significant parity between the number of Democrats tied up with Abramoff, this is bad timing for the Republicans who are going into the mid term elections with the "culture of corruption" tags already hanging around their necks.

Abramoff Makes Plea Deal, Will Cooperate

Abramoff Expected to Plead Guilty to 3 Felony Charges