I ran across this right after I put up my last post talking about how far out of the mainstream conservatives are straying. They are crossing the Rubicon into absurdity and even plain old maliciousness of conscious.
Conservatives are now attacking the HPV (human papilloma virus) vaccination that is 100% effective and prevents cervical cancer. This vaccination would save the lives of thousands of American women each and every year, but the conservative are against it.
They believe that it will encourage promiscuity in teenagers. Forget that it may save the life of their daughters some day, they are more concerned about sex. Forget about the fact that you can still contract HPV after she is married if her husband has it.
Maybe we should remove seatbelts from cars because we might be more cautious on the roads.
Trust me. If HIV, pregnancy, and the whole host of other STDs does dissuade your daughter from having pre-marital sex, the fear of contracting HPV isn't going to do it either. Get a life people!... or should I say save a life people!
Debate rages on use of cervical cancer vaccine
While almost 100% effective, some contend use condones teen sex
Washington -- A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teen-agers could encourage sexual activity.
Although the vaccine will not become available until next year at the earliest, activists on both sides have begun maneuvering to influence how widely the immunizations will be employed.
Groups working to reduce the toll of the cancer are eagerly awaiting the vaccine and want it to become part of the standard roster of shots that children, especially girls, receive just before puberty.
Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage. Several leading groups that promote abstinence are meeting this week to formulate official policies on the vaccine.
The jockeying reflects the growing influence social conservatives, who had long felt overlooked by Washington, have gained on a broad spectrum of policy issues under the Bush administration. In this case, a former member of the conservative group Focus on the Family serves on the federal panel that is playing a pivotal role in deciding how the vaccine is used.
"What the Bush administration has done has taken this coterie of people and put them into very influential positions in Washington," said James Morone Jr., a professor of political science at Brown University. "And it's having an effect in debates like this."
(Full Story)
Update: Tommy legitimately asked in the comment section why vaccinations should be mandatory and not optional. Well, unfortunately, the answer is here - 5 Cases of Polio in Amish Group Raise New Fears - Vaccination is not only to protect your own children, but other children as well. Polio has almost been wiped off the face of the earth, but just a few people breaking the social contract can affect everyone.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
LINOs (Leaders In Name Only)
We have all seen the polls that put Bush's approval rating somewhere between New Coke and Michael Bolton Sings Your Favorite Childhood Songs CD. And we have all seen the polls where a majority of Americans feel the country would be better run by a democratic congress than Republican. The 15% lead Democrats have over Republicans is the largest since 1984. Democrats are recognized as the party who is concerned with real American issues 56% to 33%.
But what really struck me was these poll numbers: by 60% - 24% the American people feel that Democrats are more open to moderate ideas than Republicans are. This is what I have always believed, but I never would have thought that it would be such a wide difference. Perhaps I have spent too much time reading the conservative blogs that portray liberals as close minded "moonbats." But this poll really does hearten me, knowing that Democrats are recognized as a party that is more tolerant and moderate.
I have often said that the Republican attempt to squeeze out every idea and person who does not fall lock step into their talking points, was going to come back to haunt them. As much as the war in Iraq and corruption would tarnish their image, so would the constant partisan pandering to the farthest reaches of their base. Time and time again, when the Republicans get into trouble, they abandon the middle and run back to the fringe. This has created a party of out of the mainstream ideologues that have alienated the center of this country, which makes up the largest portion. We have seen this over and over again with Bush and top congressional leadership. Instead of trying to be leaders of the whole country, they choose to pick fights to divide us further. It has been been this perennial response to challenge that has made them be seen as less and less moderate. The traditional response of a hardcore Republican to me ever bring up that fact that their party's agenda may be out of the mainstream is to reply "well, we still control things, bitch, so we will do want we want." That is exactly the response that Americans are not looking for from the party in control.
While the Democrats may occasionally have fall outs with moderate Democrats like Lieberman, Democrats have not shown near the animosity that the GOP holds for the RINOs (Republicans in name only) as they call them, like Senator McCain.
I hope that the Republicans keep up their squeeze on moderates. Democrats may not win back control in 2006, but it certainly looks like they could hand us back control by 2008.
Poll: Issues Favor Dems in 2006 Elections
But what really struck me was these poll numbers: by 60% - 24% the American people feel that Democrats are more open to moderate ideas than Republicans are. This is what I have always believed, but I never would have thought that it would be such a wide difference. Perhaps I have spent too much time reading the conservative blogs that portray liberals as close minded "moonbats." But this poll really does hearten me, knowing that Democrats are recognized as a party that is more tolerant and moderate.
I have often said that the Republican attempt to squeeze out every idea and person who does not fall lock step into their talking points, was going to come back to haunt them. As much as the war in Iraq and corruption would tarnish their image, so would the constant partisan pandering to the farthest reaches of their base. Time and time again, when the Republicans get into trouble, they abandon the middle and run back to the fringe. This has created a party of out of the mainstream ideologues that have alienated the center of this country, which makes up the largest portion. We have seen this over and over again with Bush and top congressional leadership. Instead of trying to be leaders of the whole country, they choose to pick fights to divide us further. It has been been this perennial response to challenge that has made them be seen as less and less moderate. The traditional response of a hardcore Republican to me ever bring up that fact that their party's agenda may be out of the mainstream is to reply "well, we still control things, bitch, so we will do want we want." That is exactly the response that Americans are not looking for from the party in control.
While the Democrats may occasionally have fall outs with moderate Democrats like Lieberman, Democrats have not shown near the animosity that the GOP holds for the RINOs (Republicans in name only) as they call them, like Senator McCain.
I hope that the Republicans keep up their squeeze on moderates. Democrats may not win back control in 2006, but it certainly looks like they could hand us back control by 2008.
Poll: Issues Favor Dems in 2006 Elections
More GOP Crap
In Virginia's gubernatorial election being held today between Jerry Kilgore and Tim Kaine, as usual, the Republicans can't stop themselves from just being plain ol' cheats and liars. A PAC who ironically calls themselves Honest Leadership for Virginia decided to splice and paste the Democratic nominee, Kaine's, voice from several speeches, redo it and send it out over the telephone lines via robo-calls. There were two versions of the phone ad run. This one went to more liberal areas:
Another one making him sound like a liberal left of Chairman Mao went out to conservative areas. The "Honest" Leadership for Virginia, of course is a supporter of Kaine's opponent, Jerry Kilgore. This is from Honest Leaderships web-page:
Yeah, they are real freakin honest, aren't they. So much for truth in advertising.
If Bush was running again, this is the splice job that I would do on him. Now, mind you this all comes from the same speech, so I am only using his "own" words.
I really hope Kaine whoops Kilgores lying little ass, especially after Bush dropped by to endorse Kilgore yesterday. Bush is not a quick learner and needs every message possible that we just don't like how he is running this country. Kilgore was very reluctant to accept Bush's support, but he was trailing in the polls, so I guess he needed to pull some rabbits.
White House Gambles That Boosting Kilgore Will Pay Off for Bush
[Voice of Tim Kaine] I am running for Governor and I am not afraid to tell you where I stand.
I am conservative on issues of personal responsibility. As a former Christian missionary, faith is central to my life. I oppose gay marriage. I support restrictions on abortion: No public funding and parental consent. And I've worked to pass a state law banning partial birth abortion.
Paid for and authorized by Honest Leadership for Virginia PAC.
Registration number 05-034.
Another one making him sound like a liberal left of Chairman Mao went out to conservative areas. The "Honest" Leadership for Virginia, of course is a supporter of Kaine's opponent, Jerry Kilgore. This is from Honest Leaderships web-page:
Honest Leadership for Virginia supports the election of conservative Republican candidates in the state of Virginia, including 2005 gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore.
Yeah, they are real freakin honest, aren't they. So much for truth in advertising.
If Bush was running again, this is the splice job that I would do on him. Now, mind you this all comes from the same speech, so I am only using his "own" words.
I am running for President and I am not afraid to tell you where I stand.
I plan to build a better world for our enemies. It is a vital commitment to build the coalitions with al Qaeda terrorists. America must reward, not punish, the efforts and dreams of the terrorist Zarqawi.
I will send you a budget that holds the growth for low income earners and provided tax relief to every corporate criminal. Taxpayer dollars must be spent on wealthy retirees.
Our generation has been blessed because HIV/AIDS brings death to African American men and women.
I really hope Kaine whoops Kilgores lying little ass, especially after Bush dropped by to endorse Kilgore yesterday. Bush is not a quick learner and needs every message possible that we just don't like how he is running this country. Kilgore was very reluctant to accept Bush's support, but he was trailing in the polls, so I guess he needed to pull some rabbits.
White House Gambles That Boosting Kilgore Will Pay Off for Bush
...The perception of weakness was exacerbated last month when Kilgore did not attend a Bush speech in Norfolk on the terrorism fight. His campaign and the White House insisted there was no snub, because it was a policy speech, not a political event. But it escaped no one's attention that this was the same day that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice...
Monday, November 07, 2005
Darfur Update
Over the weekend, the group I have been working with to draft suggestions for Congress to deal with the crisis in Darfur was invited to speak at Dartmouth College about the issue. (Read the entire report here that was submitted back in April)
I was really impressed with the turn out. We had people of all ages, and from all around the North East attend the event. There were even High School students who had driven up from Massachusetts to hear the panel discussion. It was heartening to see that while Darfur has seemed to slip from the MSM coverage and President Bush's attention has waned on the issue, so many average Americans were still concerned about the tragedy.
There are currently many bills and resolutions in the Congress that have been stalled in conference since March of this year that would not only give Bush the authority to enact new economic sanctions on the Government of Sudan, but also give Bush the authority to deploy troops and/or use other military tactics to bring an end to the killing in Sudan.
Unfortunately, Bush has removed Sudan from the list of the worlds most heinous human rights abusers, and even given Sudan the right to hirer lobbyist in D.C. Sudan has just entered into a $500,000 contract with an American PR firm to represent the Sudanese government.
While many have used the argument that Saddam Hussein has murdered upwards of 300,000 people over his 20 year reign, close to 400,000 Sudanese have died in the Darfur area in the last 2 years with many many more expected to die not only from bullets and bombs, but from starvation as well. Over 2 million people have been forced from their homes by islamic militants into camps where not nearly enough food is being distributed.
Please take the time to contact your Congressmen to tell them that you want these bills to come out of conference and to be passed as soon as possible (S 495, S 1462, HR 1424, HR 1435, HR 3127)
This is a link to the Senate and House web sites where you can contact your elected representative. We need to keep the pressure on. Thanks to anyone who takes the time to do this.
US official heads to Sudan on Darfur peace mission
I was really impressed with the turn out. We had people of all ages, and from all around the North East attend the event. There were even High School students who had driven up from Massachusetts to hear the panel discussion. It was heartening to see that while Darfur has seemed to slip from the MSM coverage and President Bush's attention has waned on the issue, so many average Americans were still concerned about the tragedy.
There are currently many bills and resolutions in the Congress that have been stalled in conference since March of this year that would not only give Bush the authority to enact new economic sanctions on the Government of Sudan, but also give Bush the authority to deploy troops and/or use other military tactics to bring an end to the killing in Sudan.
Unfortunately, Bush has removed Sudan from the list of the worlds most heinous human rights abusers, and even given Sudan the right to hirer lobbyist in D.C. Sudan has just entered into a $500,000 contract with an American PR firm to represent the Sudanese government.
While many have used the argument that Saddam Hussein has murdered upwards of 300,000 people over his 20 year reign, close to 400,000 Sudanese have died in the Darfur area in the last 2 years with many many more expected to die not only from bullets and bombs, but from starvation as well. Over 2 million people have been forced from their homes by islamic militants into camps where not nearly enough food is being distributed.
Please take the time to contact your Congressmen to tell them that you want these bills to come out of conference and to be passed as soon as possible (S 495, S 1462, HR 1424, HR 1435, HR 3127)
This is a link to the Senate and House web sites where you can contact your elected representative. We need to keep the pressure on. Thanks to anyone who takes the time to do this.
US official heads to Sudan on Darfur peace mission
Friday, November 04, 2005
Enough is Enough
While I would love to revel in Bush's latest and lowest poll numbers to date, I have to resist my schadenfreude instincts to focus on the great picture... We are in trouble. With either a 37% or 35% approval rating (depending on which poll you use), Bush is getting dangerously close to loosing support from all Americans with the exception of the 25-30% of Americans who could watch him eat a baby on live TV and somehow still blame it on the Democrats.
A president that has a 60% disapproval rating is a serious hindrance to the greater good of this country. So many people disapproving of the president leaves him impotent, not only domestically, but internationally as well. No foreign leader is going to want to seriously deal with a president that cannot muster even a 50-50 split.
The president has continually tried to lead through division of the nation. It not only hurts us as a unified nation, but, in the end, hurts his ability to be an effective leader. Bush needs to take corrective action immediately to bring this nation back together and to improve his own standing with the American people. If this means he goes out of office being viewed favorably, so be it. But Bush needs to start governing from the center, not the right. He needs to sweep clean his administration of the actual and perceived unethical actors and bring in new blood. He needs to sweep clean his administration of the cronies and sycophants that he has placed in top positions and replace them with experienced and intelligent individuals capable of doing the job they are assigned.
This will take a fundamental change in Bush's character. He will have to forego his absolute loyalty to his friends. He will have to admit to mistakes and missteps. He will have to govern as if he was elected by both the right and left, and not just the right. He will have to reach out to the opposition party to find common ground, and not just battle ground.
If he is to do this, Democrats will need to put aside their partisan differences and visceral distaste for Bush and work with him and support him. If the president puts out his hand, the left will need to extend their own. The right, in return will need to support Bush in reaching out and stop claiming they hold all the power and all the cards in the U.S. They will have to accpet compromise instead of absolutism.
Anyone can lead with division. It takes real leadership to lead by inclusion. It is time Bush becomes a real leader. And if he does, it is time for the left to accept him as one.
Bush's Popularity Reaches New Low
Bush Public Support at Lowest Level Yet
A president that has a 60% disapproval rating is a serious hindrance to the greater good of this country. So many people disapproving of the president leaves him impotent, not only domestically, but internationally as well. No foreign leader is going to want to seriously deal with a president that cannot muster even a 50-50 split.
The president has continually tried to lead through division of the nation. It not only hurts us as a unified nation, but, in the end, hurts his ability to be an effective leader. Bush needs to take corrective action immediately to bring this nation back together and to improve his own standing with the American people. If this means he goes out of office being viewed favorably, so be it. But Bush needs to start governing from the center, not the right. He needs to sweep clean his administration of the actual and perceived unethical actors and bring in new blood. He needs to sweep clean his administration of the cronies and sycophants that he has placed in top positions and replace them with experienced and intelligent individuals capable of doing the job they are assigned.
This will take a fundamental change in Bush's character. He will have to forego his absolute loyalty to his friends. He will have to admit to mistakes and missteps. He will have to govern as if he was elected by both the right and left, and not just the right. He will have to reach out to the opposition party to find common ground, and not just battle ground.
If he is to do this, Democrats will need to put aside their partisan differences and visceral distaste for Bush and work with him and support him. If the president puts out his hand, the left will need to extend their own. The right, in return will need to support Bush in reaching out and stop claiming they hold all the power and all the cards in the U.S. They will have to accpet compromise instead of absolutism.
Anyone can lead with division. It takes real leadership to lead by inclusion. It is time Bush becomes a real leader. And if he does, it is time for the left to accept him as one.
Bush's Popularity Reaches New Low
Bush Public Support at Lowest Level Yet
Thursday, November 03, 2005
DBA - Dead Before Arrival
Not much has been said about Bush's White House panel on restructuring the tax system report. This is probably because it was dead before it even was finished printing and delivered to the president.
The plan was produced by a bunch of academics who still believe that trickle down economics actually works to the benefit of most Americans.
In order to pay for the elimination of capital gains tax and tax on other non-earned income, the panel suggested getting rid of deductions for home mortgages, health care costs, state and local taxes, and education.
This would give the uber rich the ability to pay no taxes on money they didn't work for in order to take benefits away from the middle class. This plan hits the middle class the hardest in many ways and shifts the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class.
First, most middle class wage earners don't pay enough in capital gains and non-earned income to off set the increase in taxes they would pay for the loss of traditional deductions. The majority of investment income is not taxed as it is for the middle class because it is sitting in 401k, IRA, and other retirement funds. These funds are not taxed until withdrawal (or not taxed at all for a Roth IRA) and then are usually taxed at a lower level. Additionally, in a time where Social Security is not secure for the future, the Bush plan would discourage contributions to retirement funds since they would no longer have tax advantages, thus putting us at an even greater vulnerability for not having saved enough to retire.
Second, it would raise your local and state taxes. One of the ways that state and local governments are able to function is through the sale of municipal bonds. These bonds are attractive to investors because the interest o them is tax free. If you scrap the tax on capital gains and other non-earned investment income, these municipal bonds loose their tax advantage luster. In order to compete in the investment market, municipalities would have to offer bonds with a higher yield. Since the investment yield on bonds is often funded by tax revenues and revenues for services (water, sewage, etc) these local government would have to increase tax revenue or raise service rates to pay for it. Since you would no longer be able to deduct state and local taxes, this would be a double whammy to the wage-earning citizen.
Third, Bush claims he wants to create an "ownership society," but scrapping the home mortgage deduction would have two effects. First would be to put the price of a home out of reach form many Americans. The second would be to deflate the house market. Many Americans have the majority of their assets in their home. Depending on the current APR, this would depress the value of a home from 9-18%. Since many American depend on the equity of their homes for loans and retirement, this again hits the middle class.
Fourth, getting rid of the health care deductions of both employers and individuals, you place the ever growing cost of health care squarely on the individual. The only way companies are able to provide health care is because it is deductible. Savings accounts, as the panel proposes is far out of reach for most Americans, and would dramatically hurt anyone with chronic health problems.
Fifth, by disallowing interest deductions for businesses, it places a substantial block for entrepreneurs and small businesses from entering the market or acquiring needed capital for start up and continuation costs.
Sixth, by disallowing interest deductions for businesses, it would put many family farms out of business since they are often run on a leveraged basis.
These are just a few of the many problems that the panel's proposal would cause. No one other than wealthy investors, investment banks and brokerage houses would benefit from the proposal. If Bush ever tries to push this as a bill to congress, expect a large reaction from almost every industry and citizens group for its defeat and quick burial.
Bush's Panel May Propose Version of Flat Tax in Final Report
The plan was produced by a bunch of academics who still believe that trickle down economics actually works to the benefit of most Americans.
In order to pay for the elimination of capital gains tax and tax on other non-earned income, the panel suggested getting rid of deductions for home mortgages, health care costs, state and local taxes, and education.
This would give the uber rich the ability to pay no taxes on money they didn't work for in order to take benefits away from the middle class. This plan hits the middle class the hardest in many ways and shifts the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class.
First, most middle class wage earners don't pay enough in capital gains and non-earned income to off set the increase in taxes they would pay for the loss of traditional deductions. The majority of investment income is not taxed as it is for the middle class because it is sitting in 401k, IRA, and other retirement funds. These funds are not taxed until withdrawal (or not taxed at all for a Roth IRA) and then are usually taxed at a lower level. Additionally, in a time where Social Security is not secure for the future, the Bush plan would discourage contributions to retirement funds since they would no longer have tax advantages, thus putting us at an even greater vulnerability for not having saved enough to retire.
Second, it would raise your local and state taxes. One of the ways that state and local governments are able to function is through the sale of municipal bonds. These bonds are attractive to investors because the interest o them is tax free. If you scrap the tax on capital gains and other non-earned investment income, these municipal bonds loose their tax advantage luster. In order to compete in the investment market, municipalities would have to offer bonds with a higher yield. Since the investment yield on bonds is often funded by tax revenues and revenues for services (water, sewage, etc) these local government would have to increase tax revenue or raise service rates to pay for it. Since you would no longer be able to deduct state and local taxes, this would be a double whammy to the wage-earning citizen.
Third, Bush claims he wants to create an "ownership society," but scrapping the home mortgage deduction would have two effects. First would be to put the price of a home out of reach form many Americans. The second would be to deflate the house market. Many Americans have the majority of their assets in their home. Depending on the current APR, this would depress the value of a home from 9-18%. Since many American depend on the equity of their homes for loans and retirement, this again hits the middle class.
Fourth, getting rid of the health care deductions of both employers and individuals, you place the ever growing cost of health care squarely on the individual. The only way companies are able to provide health care is because it is deductible. Savings accounts, as the panel proposes is far out of reach for most Americans, and would dramatically hurt anyone with chronic health problems.
Fifth, by disallowing interest deductions for businesses, it places a substantial block for entrepreneurs and small businesses from entering the market or acquiring needed capital for start up and continuation costs.
Sixth, by disallowing interest deductions for businesses, it would put many family farms out of business since they are often run on a leveraged basis.
These are just a few of the many problems that the panel's proposal would cause. No one other than wealthy investors, investment banks and brokerage houses would benefit from the proposal. If Bush ever tries to push this as a bill to congress, expect a large reaction from almost every industry and citizens group for its defeat and quick burial.
Bush's Panel May Propose Version of Flat Tax in Final Report
Karl Roves Future Uncertain
Inside the White House, people are questioning the future of Karl Rove. With Libby indicted, and proof that Karl Rove not only did have a role in leaking Plame's name, but also misleading the prosecutor, the president, the White House Press Secretary, and the American people, can Rove remain without causing more damage to Bush and his agenda.
Bush had previously vowed that he would remove anyone who had a role in leaking Plame's name to the press. Couple this with his 2000 campaign pledge not only to have an administration that acted lawfully, but ethically, and slipping poll number showing Americans find Bush less and less credible, is Rove doing more damage to Bush then good? So far, Bush is breaking his 2000 and 2004 pledges, along with making Scott McClellan look like a fool.
Bush is extremely loyal and likes to dance with the ones who brought him. But how long can he go without changing partners when they are stepping all over his feet?
Rove's Future Role Is Debated
By Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 3, 2005; Page A01
Top White House aides are privately discussing the future of Karl Rove, with some expressing doubt that President Bush can move beyond the damaging CIA leak case as long as his closest political strategist remains in the administration.
If Rove stays, which colleagues say remains his intention, he may at a minimum have to issue a formal apology for misleading colleagues and the public about his role in conversations that led to the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame, according to senior Republican sources familiar with White House deliberations.
While Rove faces doubts about his White House status, there are new indications that he remains in legal jeopardy from Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's criminal investigation of the Plame leak. The prosecutor spoke this week with an attorney for Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about his client's conversations with Rove before and after Plame's identity became publicly known because of anonymous disclosures by White House officials, according to two sources familiar with the conversation.
Fitzgerald is considering charging Rove with making false statements in the course of the 22-month probe, and sources close to Rove -- who holds the titles of senior adviser and White House deputy chief of staff -- said they expect to know within weeks whether the most powerful aide in the White House will be accused of a crime.
But some top Republicans said yesterday that Rove's problems may not end there. Bush's top advisers are considering whether it is tenable for Rove to remain on the staff, given that Fitzgerald has already documented something that Rove and White House official spokesmen once emphatically denied -- that he played a central role in discussions with journalists about Plame's role at the CIA and her marriage to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the Iraq war.
"Karl does not have any real enemies in the White House, but there are a lot of people in the White House wondering how they can put this behind them if the cloud remains over Karl," said a GOP strategist who has discussed the issue with top White House officials. "You can not have that [fresh] start as long as Karl is there."
(Full Story)
Bush had previously vowed that he would remove anyone who had a role in leaking Plame's name to the press. Couple this with his 2000 campaign pledge not only to have an administration that acted lawfully, but ethically, and slipping poll number showing Americans find Bush less and less credible, is Rove doing more damage to Bush then good? So far, Bush is breaking his 2000 and 2004 pledges, along with making Scott McClellan look like a fool.
Bush is extremely loyal and likes to dance with the ones who brought him. But how long can he go without changing partners when they are stepping all over his feet?
Rove's Future Role Is Debated
By Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 3, 2005; Page A01
Top White House aides are privately discussing the future of Karl Rove, with some expressing doubt that President Bush can move beyond the damaging CIA leak case as long as his closest political strategist remains in the administration.
If Rove stays, which colleagues say remains his intention, he may at a minimum have to issue a formal apology for misleading colleagues and the public about his role in conversations that led to the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame, according to senior Republican sources familiar with White House deliberations.
While Rove faces doubts about his White House status, there are new indications that he remains in legal jeopardy from Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's criminal investigation of the Plame leak. The prosecutor spoke this week with an attorney for Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about his client's conversations with Rove before and after Plame's identity became publicly known because of anonymous disclosures by White House officials, according to two sources familiar with the conversation.
Fitzgerald is considering charging Rove with making false statements in the course of the 22-month probe, and sources close to Rove -- who holds the titles of senior adviser and White House deputy chief of staff -- said they expect to know within weeks whether the most powerful aide in the White House will be accused of a crime.
But some top Republicans said yesterday that Rove's problems may not end there. Bush's top advisers are considering whether it is tenable for Rove to remain on the staff, given that Fitzgerald has already documented something that Rove and White House official spokesmen once emphatically denied -- that he played a central role in discussions with journalists about Plame's role at the CIA and her marriage to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the Iraq war.
"Karl does not have any real enemies in the White House, but there are a lot of people in the White House wondering how they can put this behind them if the cloud remains over Karl," said a GOP strategist who has discussed the issue with top White House officials. "You can not have that [fresh] start as long as Karl is there."
(Full Story)
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Alito's Lack of Deference
In relation to the post directly under this one, I found this article via Bump in the Beltway on Alito's lack of deference for congress. It is reposted in whole since Roll Call is subscription only.
By Norman Ornstein
Roll Call Contributing Writer
November 2, 2005
Let me start today by writing about the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. To borrow and adapt a phrase, I know John Roberts; John Roberts is a friend (all right, an acquaintance) of mine. And Sam Alito is no John Roberts.
What is the difference? Roberts respects Congress and its constitutional primacy; Alito shows serious signs that he does not. Some time ago, Jeffrey Rosen, a superb legal scholar, pointed out Alito’s dissent in a 1996 decision upholding the constitutionality of a law that banned the possession of machine guns. We are not talking handguns, rifles or even assault weapons. We’re talking machine guns.
Congress had passed the law in a reasonable and deliberate fashion. A genuine practitioner of judicial restraint would have allowed them a wide enough berth to do so. Alito’s colleagues did just that. But Alito used his own logic to call for its overturn, arguing that the possession of machine guns by private individuals had no economic activity associated with it, and that no real evidence existed that private possession of guns increased crime in a way that affected commerce — and thus Congress had no right to regulate it. That kind of judicial reasoning often is referred to as reflecting the “Constitution in Exile.” Whatever it is, it’s not judicial restraint.
Roberts is a very conservative guy, and a strict constructionist — one who means it. He understands that Congress is the branch the framers set up in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. It is not coincidence that Article 1 is twice as long as Article II, which created the executive branch, and almost four times as long as Article III, which established the judiciary. Judges should bend over doubly and triply backward before overturning a Congressional statute, especially if it is clear that Congress acted carefully and deliberatively.
Too many judges, including some of the brightest, talk a good game of judicial restraint, but somehow find that deference is due Congress only when it passes laws they like. The smart ones find some rationale for overturning laws they don’t like, preserving a patina of consistency, but not more than that. (A few, including Clarence Thomas, don’t even pay lip service to the principle when voting to overturn legislative acts.)
Many of these judges do give substantial deference to the executive branch, perhaps because they have served in the executive branch. That is true of Thomas and Antonin Scalia, as it was of William Rehnquist, and is true of Alito as well (he served as U.S. attorney in New Jersey). It is true, of course, of Roberts too, but he has at least demonstrated deference to Congress. This is one of the reasons I have advocated putting more people with legislative experience on the court. It is a shame that we are losing Sandra Day O’Connor, our only justice who was ever elected to office, and have only one remaining, Stephen Breyer, who has worked in Congress.
President Bush had alternatives — strong conservatives who understand the role of the courts and the role of Congress. Judge Michael McConnell is one. It is a shame that the president didn’t choose one of these men or women. Whatever else it does with Judge Alito at the confirmation hearings, the Senate needs to hold his feet to the fire on this larger issue of deference to the legislative branch
By Norman Ornstein
Roll Call Contributing Writer
November 2, 2005
Let me start today by writing about the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. To borrow and adapt a phrase, I know John Roberts; John Roberts is a friend (all right, an acquaintance) of mine. And Sam Alito is no John Roberts.
What is the difference? Roberts respects Congress and its constitutional primacy; Alito shows serious signs that he does not. Some time ago, Jeffrey Rosen, a superb legal scholar, pointed out Alito’s dissent in a 1996 decision upholding the constitutionality of a law that banned the possession of machine guns. We are not talking handguns, rifles or even assault weapons. We’re talking machine guns.
Congress had passed the law in a reasonable and deliberate fashion. A genuine practitioner of judicial restraint would have allowed them a wide enough berth to do so. Alito’s colleagues did just that. But Alito used his own logic to call for its overturn, arguing that the possession of machine guns by private individuals had no economic activity associated with it, and that no real evidence existed that private possession of guns increased crime in a way that affected commerce — and thus Congress had no right to regulate it. That kind of judicial reasoning often is referred to as reflecting the “Constitution in Exile.” Whatever it is, it’s not judicial restraint.
Roberts is a very conservative guy, and a strict constructionist — one who means it. He understands that Congress is the branch the framers set up in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. It is not coincidence that Article 1 is twice as long as Article II, which created the executive branch, and almost four times as long as Article III, which established the judiciary. Judges should bend over doubly and triply backward before overturning a Congressional statute, especially if it is clear that Congress acted carefully and deliberatively.
Too many judges, including some of the brightest, talk a good game of judicial restraint, but somehow find that deference is due Congress only when it passes laws they like. The smart ones find some rationale for overturning laws they don’t like, preserving a patina of consistency, but not more than that. (A few, including Clarence Thomas, don’t even pay lip service to the principle when voting to overturn legislative acts.)
Many of these judges do give substantial deference to the executive branch, perhaps because they have served in the executive branch. That is true of Thomas and Antonin Scalia, as it was of William Rehnquist, and is true of Alito as well (he served as U.S. attorney in New Jersey). It is true, of course, of Roberts too, but he has at least demonstrated deference to Congress. This is one of the reasons I have advocated putting more people with legislative experience on the court. It is a shame that we are losing Sandra Day O’Connor, our only justice who was ever elected to office, and have only one remaining, Stephen Breyer, who has worked in Congress.
President Bush had alternatives — strong conservatives who understand the role of the courts and the role of Congress. Judge Michael McConnell is one. It is a shame that the president didn’t choose one of these men or women. Whatever else it does with Judge Alito at the confirmation hearings, the Senate needs to hold his feet to the fire on this larger issue of deference to the legislative branch
Alito on Rybar
I have finally read the US v Rybar dissenting opinion that Alito penned in regarding congress's ability to regulate the sale of machine guns in interstate commerce. He bases his opinion on Lopez which holds that congress's use of the commerce clause is too extenuated from interstate commerce to allow congress to pass laws regarding guns in "school zones." I can see how one may be able to come to the conclusion that Congress went to far in regulating machine guns in using the commerce clause. I would disagree (as did the majority of the judges sitting on the panel), but I could see the argument.
It is not Alito's adversity to congress using the commerce clause. Many people believe that congress has gone to far in its use (i.e. Lopez). But what really disturbs me about Alito's decision is that he expects Congress to justify its legislation to him before passing it. This goes almost to the level of reverse advisory opinions. The legislature would not craft laws that are black and white, but colored by all types of justification which would so confuse the application of law as to render it impotent.
First of all, no court has ever held that Congress needs to justify their legislation prior to it enactment. In fact, it has always been the exact opposite. Courts, due to the separation of powers, do not expect this to be done. Justification is expected if, and only if, the law is ever challenged in court.
Not only does this step over the line of separation of powers, it also places the judge in the spot of "intention" police. If you really want to see activist judges, follow Alito's lead.
It is not Alito's adversity to congress using the commerce clause. Many people believe that congress has gone to far in its use (i.e. Lopez). But what really disturbs me about Alito's decision is that he expects Congress to justify its legislation to him before passing it. This goes almost to the level of reverse advisory opinions. The legislature would not craft laws that are black and white, but colored by all types of justification which would so confuse the application of law as to render it impotent.
And in passing both statutes, Congress made no
findings regarding the link between the intrastate activity
regulated by these laws and interstate commerce.
In addition, as I explain below, 18 U.S.C. section
922(o) might be sustainable in its current form if Congress made
findings that the purely intrastate possession of machine guns
has a substantial effect on interstate commerce or if Congress or
the Executive assembled empirical evidence documenting such a
link.
First of all, no court has ever held that Congress needs to justify their legislation prior to it enactment. In fact, it has always been the exact opposite. Courts, due to the separation of powers, do not expect this to be done. Justification is expected if, and only if, the law is ever challenged in court.
Not only does this step over the line of separation of powers, it also places the judge in the spot of "intention" police. If you really want to see activist judges, follow Alito's lead.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Alito and Rosa Parks
I don't know Alito's personal beliefs, and this is anything but an accusation that Alito is a racists, but the irony remains that Alito's first visit to the Hill included paying tribute to Rosa Parks when so many of Alito's court decisions would preclude Americans, like Rosa Parks, from suing their employers for discrimination. Rosa Parks sparked may of the laws that Judge Alito now votes against.
Alito Nomination Ignites Strong Reaction
Alito, accompanied by members of his family and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), visited the Capitol to pay tribute to the late Rosa Parks, an icon of the civil rights movement, as her body lay in honor in the Rotunda.
Alito Nomination Ignites Strong Reaction
Alito - Not So Good
If there is going to be a fight over Alito, count me in. He is no constructionist and I like my right not to be strip searched too much to support this guy.
In Doe v. Groody, As the lone dissenter, Alito tries to rewrite the 4th amendment, and finds it quite acceptable to strip search a mother and her 10 year old daughter even though a warrant issued by a judge was only for the search of a male suspect and his home. He felt that our fourth amendment rights are not violated as long as an officer thinks it may be prudent, regardless of probable cause. He states "[I]t is a sad fact that drug dealers sometimes use children to carry out their business and to avoid prosecution." It is also a sad fact that, according to Alito, that none of us have 4th amendment rights based on actions of criminals. For a judge to be so flippant on our constitutional rights be be secure in person and possesion tells me that he is anything but a constructionist.
In Nevada v. Hibbs, Alito struck down the Family Leave Act which affords us the right to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for maternity leave or to tend to a sick family member. His decision was overruled by the Supreme Court.
Bray v. Marriott Hotels, Alito, again the lone dissenter, felt that for a an employment discrimination case should not go forward unless the plaintiff can not only prove objectively that an employer was discriminating based on race, but the plaintiff must also prove the employer "believed" that they were discriminating. Proving the mental thoughts of someone else is nearly impossible to do, and would have basically voided the law.
Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, Alito's dissent wanted to place a burden so restrictive on proving disability discrimination that the result would to have basically voided the law entirely.
Sheridan V I.E. Dupont (100 F.2d 1061 1993) Judge Alito was the lone dissenter out of 13 judges. If Alito had his way, title VII, the sexual discrimination law, would have been vacated by shifting the burdon from the defendant to the plaintiff even after the plaintiff had proven a prima facia case. The Supreme Court states that if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant most likely discriminated due to gender, it becomes the defendants burden to prove they did not. Alito would have voided the Supreme Courts ruling (even if it is a higher court) and legislated from the bench by nullifying title VII.
In Doe v. Groody, As the lone dissenter, Alito tries to rewrite the 4th amendment, and finds it quite acceptable to strip search a mother and her 10 year old daughter even though a warrant issued by a judge was only for the search of a male suspect and his home. He felt that our fourth amendment rights are not violated as long as an officer thinks it may be prudent, regardless of probable cause. He states "[I]t is a sad fact that drug dealers sometimes use children to carry out their business and to avoid prosecution." It is also a sad fact that, according to Alito, that none of us have 4th amendment rights based on actions of criminals. For a judge to be so flippant on our constitutional rights be be secure in person and possesion tells me that he is anything but a constructionist.
In Nevada v. Hibbs, Alito struck down the Family Leave Act which affords us the right to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for maternity leave or to tend to a sick family member. His decision was overruled by the Supreme Court.
Bray v. Marriott Hotels, Alito, again the lone dissenter, felt that for a an employment discrimination case should not go forward unless the plaintiff can not only prove objectively that an employer was discriminating based on race, but the plaintiff must also prove the employer "believed" that they were discriminating. Proving the mental thoughts of someone else is nearly impossible to do, and would have basically voided the law.
Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, Alito's dissent wanted to place a burden so restrictive on proving disability discrimination that the result would to have basically voided the law entirely.
Sheridan V I.E. Dupont (100 F.2d 1061 1993) Judge Alito was the lone dissenter out of 13 judges. If Alito had his way, title VII, the sexual discrimination law, would have been vacated by shifting the burdon from the defendant to the plaintiff even after the plaintiff had proven a prima facia case. The Supreme Court states that if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant most likely discriminated due to gender, it becomes the defendants burden to prove they did not. Alito would have voided the Supreme Courts ruling (even if it is a higher court) and legislated from the bench by nullifying title VII.
Bush Never Misses an Opportunity...
to miss an opportunity to be a uniter. It is sad when a presidents entire agenda is based upon intentionally further dividing this nation. It is sad that the president does not consider himself to be my president and your president, but their president. It is sad that the president cannot be a leader by example to heal the rifts in this country, but can only be the epicenter of the growing schism.
President Bush had an opportunity to be a leader by example. He failed. President Bush had an opportunity to be bigger than both the fringes on the right and left, but he has once again shown that he is lesser. He did not stand up to the far right after they sank his last qualified nominee. Instead, he bowed to them.
Judge Samuel Alito is considered by many to be to the right of even Scalia. He is not an unknown judge. He is anti-choice. He is anti-affirmative action. He is anti-right to privacy. He is undoutfully very intelligent and is intellectually qualified to serve on the bench. But the message Bush sent out today is that he is not to be the peoples president, but the far rights president. Bush didn't even pretend to consult the Democrats this time. Once again, he has shown that he has no respect for opposing views. He has no desire for consensus. He has no need for uniting.
What really baffles me about Bush is how he can predicate his entire governance style on dividing this nation and yet he considers himself to be such a great leader of the American people. He may be a leader, but it is anything but the American people. He governs for himself and a small section of this country.
Bush Selects Alito for Supreme Court
President Bush had an opportunity to be a leader by example. He failed. President Bush had an opportunity to be bigger than both the fringes on the right and left, but he has once again shown that he is lesser. He did not stand up to the far right after they sank his last qualified nominee. Instead, he bowed to them.
Judge Samuel Alito is considered by many to be to the right of even Scalia. He is not an unknown judge. He is anti-choice. He is anti-affirmative action. He is anti-right to privacy. He is undoutfully very intelligent and is intellectually qualified to serve on the bench. But the message Bush sent out today is that he is not to be the peoples president, but the far rights president. Bush didn't even pretend to consult the Democrats this time. Once again, he has shown that he has no respect for opposing views. He has no desire for consensus. He has no need for uniting.
What really baffles me about Bush is how he can predicate his entire governance style on dividing this nation and yet he considers himself to be such a great leader of the American people. He may be a leader, but it is anything but the American people. He governs for himself and a small section of this country.
Bush Selects Alito for Supreme Court
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
