The Left Vs Democrats

From the Politico:

Liberal blogger targets 'Bush Dog' Dems

A leading liberal blogger has declared political war against centrist Democrats – the latest move in an intensifying show of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Congress by the once-friendly blogosphere.

Matt Stoller, who blogs at the well-trafficked OpenLeft.com, has compiled a list of 38

“Some of these members may need to face a primary challenge, and it's useful for potential primary challengers to know that there is criticism of these members,” wrote Stoller, who refers to the 38 Democrats as “Bush Dogs.” more House “Blue Dog” Democrats who have voted with Republicans on key legislation, and called on the activist community to put pressure on them – and perhaps challenge them in primaries – if they fail to shape up.

I'd find this both amusing and disturbing. Amusing because the netroots had failed to oust a single Senator so what makes any of them think that they can boot 38 (or even a single) congressmen?

Whats disturbing is that Stoller and others are trying to stifle dissent, debate, and effectively representative government using Rovian intimidation tactics to force others to tow their line.
They are now embracing the very strategies they decried for so long. In essence they have become their enemy.

Whats ironic is that the Blue Dogs haven't even been delivering on on their own promises of fiscal responsibility due to pressure from Pelosi.

From the WSJ

The blue dog Web site boasts that its mission is to "refocus Congress on balancing the budget and ridding taxpayers of the burden of debt." If a balanced budget is what they want, the best fiscal option would be to enact what is called a "continuing resolution" budget that would fund all programs at last year's level plus 1% or 2%. Along with rising tax revenues, this could cut the budget deficit roughly in half next year, to well under $100 billion. But Republicans can't do that on their own: they need the votes of these moderate Democrats.

Here's the rub: So far this year the blue dogs have been almost all bark when it comes to fiscal restraint and debt reduction. Thirty of the 48 have voted for every one of the non-defense spending bills their committee chairman have sent them. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is enforcing party discipline, and as a result 28 of the 48 blue dogs voted "no" on each of the 27 amendments that Republicans proposed to cut the costs of these bills. The 13 freshman Democrats who represent conservative districts--such as Heath Shuler (N.C.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Zack Space (Ohio), Nick Lampson (Texas)--have been a particular disappointment; back home these same blue dogs trumpet their "independent streak."

But to Stoller party comes before true representative democracy and therefore country. A sentiment he shares with both Karl Rove and Tom Delay. And should the Stollers of the DNC have their way the Dems will have a similiar fall from grace as the GOP and it would be as equally well deserved.

Rumsfeld Resigned Before Elections

From the WaPo:

Rumsfeld Resigned as Defense Secretary on Day Before Elections

CRAWFORD, Tex., Aug. 15 -- Donald H. Rumsfeld, who came to symbolize the Bush administration's problems in the war in Iraq, resigned as secretary of defense one day before last fall's elections, although President Bush did not announce the move until the day after the elections.

The White House confirmed on Wednesday that Rumsfeld's letter of resignation was dated Nov. 6, 2006, the day before voters -- many of them furious about the war in Iraq -- evicted Republicans from the leadership of the House and Senate.

Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino said that Bush received the letter and accepted Rumsfeld's resignation on Election Day. The president waited until the next day to announce that he was replacing Rumsfeld with former CIA chief Robert M. Gates.

Bush said that the decision to oust Rumsfeld had come after a series of conversations with the then-defense secretary. That revelation angered many Republicans who thought GOP electoral losses would have been reduced if Rumsfeld had been removed earlier.

"If Rumsfeld had been out, you bet it would have made a difference," Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said at the time. "I'd still be chairman of the Judiciary Committee."

Not only did Bush not telegraph his intention to replace Rumsfeld, but he also publicly stated in the days before the elections that he envisioned Rumsfeld serving in his administration for the foreseeable future.

More

Here's the moolah quote from the article:

"I know that one of the things that the president wanted to avoid was the appearance of trying to make this a political decision," she said. "And that was very important to him, and I think that the American people can appreciate not playing politics with such an important decision."

How is lying to the American people the day after an election about something that happened the day before the election not political? It paints the picture that W didn't want the administration and/or the party to appear either weak or unstable or wrong. And the simple fact of the matter is that he withheld the truth and then lied about it. Odds are if he had allowed Rummy to resign the GOP would have a few more seats in the senate and congress. Maybe pride doth goeth before a fall after all.

Rove to Resign

From the Wall Street Journal

Karl Rove to Resign At the End of August
Karl Rove, President Bush's longtime political adviser, is resigning as White House deputy chief of staff effective Aug. 31, and returning to Texas, marking a turning point for the Bush presidency.
(snip)
Mr. Rove, who has held senior posts in the White House since President Bush took office in January 2001, told Mr. Gigot he first floated the idea of leaving a year ago. But he delayed his departure as, first, Democrats took Congress, and then as the White House tackled debates on immigration and Iraq, he said. He said he decided to leave after White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten told senior aides that if they stayed past Labor Day they would be obliged to remain through the end of the president's term in January 2009.

"I just think it's time," Mr. Rove said in the interview. "There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family." Mr. Rove and his wife have a home in Ingram, Texas, and a son who attends college in nearby San Antonio.
(snip)
Mr. Rove, 56 years old, has been embroiled in many White House controversies in Mr. Bush's second term, and faced investigation -- but wasn't indicted -- in the White House leak case that ensnared I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. He also has become a target of intense scrutiny in Congress over the firings of a number of U.S. attorneys. Mr. Rove and his political operatives in the White House had some involvement with the decision, but the extent of their role isn't clear, because the White House has asserted executive privilege in refusing to comply with congressional demands for documents and interviews, including with Mr. Rove. Mr. Rove's departure is likely to lessen the intensity of that constitutional clash, if only slightly. full article

I can't say I'm sorry to see him go. However now that he's no longer tied up at the White House he's free to assist the next GOP Presidential nominee. That in turn could get him another cabinet position. Anyone know what the odds are in Vegas regarding that possibility are?

Romney Wins in Iowa Straw Poll

From The Atlantic Online

Gov Mitt Romney won the 2007 Ames straw poll, receiving 4516 votes, or 31%.

In a surprise, Gov. Mike Huckabee finished second with 2587 votes at 18.1%

11. John Cox with 41 votes.
10. John McCain with 101 votes.
9. Duncan Hunter with 174 votes.
8. Rudy Giuliani with 183 votes.
7. Fred Thomson with 203 votes.
6. Tommy Thompson, 1,039 votes, 7.3%
5. Ron Paul with 1305 votes, and 9.1%
4. Tom Tancredo with 1961 votes, 13.7%.
3. Sen. Sam Brownback with 2192 votes and 15.3%

Iowa state auditor David Vaudt unofficially certified the results.

14,203 ballots were cast.

Now here's the weird thing... If you combine Giuliani and McCain's total votes Ron Paul beat them by over a 4 to 1 margin. Whodathunkit?

h/t Memeorandum

Its All In the Timing

I guess one of the benefits of having the lowest approval ratings in decades is that W can threaten to veto increased funding for poor kids health care one day and then announce plans to lower corporate taxes the next. Decreasing entitlement programs and decreasing taxes has long been a part of the GOP platform. But one really has to wonder about the wisdom behind the timing of the two. If he keeps this up he'll supply the Dems with everything they need to completely solidify their hold on Congress and win the White House or force a minor congressional rebellion so that incumbent Republicans can stay in office.

h/t to Memeorandum

CA Electoral Votes to Be Split?

From The New Yorker:

Two weeks ago, one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento quietly filed a ballot initiative that would end the practice of granting all fifty-five of California’s electoral votes to the statewide winner. Instead, it would award two of them to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner in each congressional district. Nineteen of the fifty-three districts are represented by Republicans, but Bush carried twenty-two districts in 2004. The bottom line is that the initiative, if passed, would spot the Republican ticket something in the neighborhood of twenty electoral votes—votes that it wouldn’t get under the rules prevailing in every other sizable state in the Union.

The Tuesday after the first Monday in June is California’s traditional Primary Day. But it’s not the one that everybody will be paying attention to. Five months ago, the legislature hastily moved the Presidential part up to February 5th, joining a stampede of states hoping to claim a piece of the early-state action previously reserved for Iowa and New Hampshire. June 3rd will be an altogether sleepier, low-turnout affair. There may be a few scattered contests for legislative nominations, but the only statewide items on the ballot will be initiatives. More than two dozen have been filed so far, ranging from a proposal to start a state-run Internet poker site to pay for filling potholes to a redundant slew of anti-gay-marriage measures. Few will make it to the ballot. Many are not even intended to; they’re a feint in some byzantine negotiation, or just a cheap attempt to get a little attention—for a two-hundred-dollar fee, anyone can file one. (Actually getting one on the ballot requires more than four hundred thousand signatures, and the outfits that collect them usually charge a dollar or two per signature.) Initiative No. 07-0032—the Presidential Election Reform Act—is different. It’s serious. Its backers have access to serious money. And it could pass. full article

The article goes on to point out that due to CA's moving up it primary date there will be this year the big primary and a smaller primary for state (including ballot) issues in June. That means a fraction of the usual turnout in June. All the GOP has to do is turn out its base and get the talking heads ranting. Should this initiative pass then the Dem's have to find a way to swing the pendulum back in their favor or they are so totally screwed. Once they've restored the balance by unlocking another states electoral votes independent presidential candidates will have a much easier time running for election. Thats a winning proposition to many Americans that are tired of voting for lesser evils.

h/t to Donklephant

Partisanship by the Numbers

The WaPo crunched the numbers of the 110th Congress and discovered that the Dems vote along party lines 92.7% of the time compared to the Republican's measly 88.7%

Here's a lovely chart made by Nick Rivera of The Moderate Voice that gives you the top 20 most and least partisan voters. Notice the main difference between the two.

MOST PARTISAN
1-tie. Charles Norwood (R-GA) ……… 100% of 9 votes.
1-tie. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) …………… 100% of 81 votes.
3. Nita Lowey (D-NY) ………………….. 99.% of 700 votes.
4. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA) 99.4% of 169 votes.
5. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) …………… 99.1% of 695 votes.
6. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) ………………. 98.9% of 709 votes.
7. Diana DeGette (D-CO) ……………… 98.7% of 669 votes.
8-tie. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) ……….. 98.6% of 707 votes.
8-tie. Hilda Solis (D-CA) ……………… 98.6% of 721 votes.
8-tie. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) ………… 98.6% of 721 votes.
8-tie. Al Wynn (D-MD) ………………… 98.6% of 694 votes.
12-tie. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) …….. 98.5% of 710 votes.
12-tie. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) ………… 98.5% of 713 votes.
12-tie. Adam Schiff (D-CA) …………… 98.5% of 721 votes.
15. Timothy Bishop (D-NY) …………… 98.4% of 741 votes.
16-tie. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) …………. 98.3% of 715 votes.
16-tie. James Langevin (D-RI) ……….. 98.3% of 724 votes.
16-tie. Doris Matsui (D-CA) ………….. 98.3% of 719 votes.
16-tie. James McGovern (D-MA) ……. 98.3% of 714 votes.
16-tie. Richard Neal (D-MA) …………. 98.3% of 689 votes.
16-tie. David Price (D-NC) …………… 98.3% of 712 votes.
16-tie. John Sarbanes (D-MD) ………. 98.3% of 717 votes.

LEAST PARTISAN
1. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) …….. 68.4% of 673 votes.
2. Christopher Smith (R-NJ) ……. 74.9% of 718 votes.
3. Christopher Shays (R-CT) …… 75.0% of 673 votes.
4. Ron Paul (R-TX) ………………. 75.3% of 594 votes.
5. Tim Johnson (R-IL) …………… 76.3% of 671 votes.
6. Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) ……….. 76.7% of 690 votes.
7-tie. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) ….. 77.0% of 721 votes.
7-tie. Walter Jones (R-NC) …….. 77.0% of 700 votes.
9. Michael Castle (R-DE) ……….. 78.0% of 719 votes.
10. Mark Kirk (R-IL) …………….. 78.4% of 689 votes.
11. James Walsh (R-NY) ……….. 78.6% of 672 votes.
12. Steven LaTourette (R-OH) .. 78.7% of 714 votes.
13. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) …………. 78.8% of 706 votes.
14. Gene Taylor (D-MS) ………. 79.3% of 720 votes.
15-tie. Jim Ramstad (R-MN) …. 79.6% of 721 votes.
15-tie. John McHugh (R-NY) … 79.6% of 719 votes.
15-tie. Ray LaHood (R-IL) …… 79.6% of 642 votes.
18. Tim Murphy (R-PA) ……….. 80.1% of 713 votes.
19. John Barrow (D-GA) ………. 80.3% of 742 votes.
20-tie. David Reichert (R-WA) . 80.7% of 722 votes.
20-tie. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) .. 80.7% of 706 votes


That means that the Democrats get an A- in partisan block voting and the GOP gets a B+. But I'm grading them on a curve due to previous poor performance which means they both come within a point of getting A-. However, should they behave till the end of the session I'll let both of them work together on the Iraq equation for extra credit.

h/t to Memeorandum

W's Leniency Liberates Libby

While I'm not surprised that Scooter Libby is serving no hard time I am surprised that his sentence was commuted rather than him being given a full pardon.

From the WaPo:

President Bush commuted the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby yesterday, sparing Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff 2 1/2 years in prison after a federal appeals court had refused to let Libby remain free while he appeals his conviction for lying to federal investigators.

Bush, who for months had sidestepped calls from conservatives to grant Libby a reprieve, broke his silence early yesterday evening, touching off an immediate uproar from Democrats who accused the White House of circumventing the rule of law to protect one of its own.

The president announced his decision in a written statement that laid out the factors he had weighed. Bush said he decided to "respect" the jury's verdict that Libby was guilty of four felonies for lying about his role in the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity. But the president said Libby's "exceptional public service" and previous lack of a criminal record led him to conclude that the 30-month sentence handed down by a judge last month was "excessive." more

However I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone affiliated with the GOP paid off Scooter Libby's fines and he either lands a cushy lobbying job or ends up working for the GOP. Not to mention the fact that W can still slip in a parting presidential pardon.

Unsurprising Show of Bipartisanship

Why is it that the only time both sides of the aisle agree on anything it's this:
House lawmakers seek raise
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press

Despite low approval ratings and hard feelings from last year's elections, Democrats and Republicans in the House are reaching out for an approximately $4,400 pay raise that would increase their salaries to almost $170,000.

The cost-of-living raise endorsed Wednesday evening gets lawmakers back on track for automatic pay raises after a fight between the parties last year and again in January killed the pay increase due this year. That was the first interruption of the annual congressional pay boost in seven years.

The blowup came after Democrats last year fulfilled a campaign promise to deny themselves more pay until Congress raised the minimum wage. Delays in the minimum wage bill cost every lawmaker about $3,100 this year.

On a 244-181 vote Wednesday, Democrats and Republicans alike killed a bid by Reps. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Lee Terry, R-Neb., to get a direct vote to block the COLA, which is automatically awarded unless lawmakers vote to block it. The Senate has not indicated when it will deal with a similar measure. more

Is it me or does the fact that our elected representatives make almost 183% more than the average American family seem more than a little wrong?

Liberal Hawks and the Iran Debate

Ezra Klein over at The American Prospect recently wrote an article called "Let's Get Serious:
What do liberal hawks actually want to do regarding Iran?" that has stirred an interesting cross blog debate amongst moderates. Allow me to sort of abridge part of the debate in a Frankenpost before chiming in.

Mr Klein criticizes liberal hawks for being intentionally vague regarding how to deal with Iran "in their desire to avoid responsibility for their pro-war stance on Iraq and their enabling rhetoric towards a potential showdown with Iran." as Tutakai at Militant Moderates put it.

According to fellow Donklephant blogger Kevin Sullivan "Ironically, Klein seems to confront hawkish vagueness with vagueness. He insinuates that there's a cottage industry of "liberal hawk" scholars supporting the invasions of Iraq and Iran, however he only cites one example of such. If the "liberal hawk" has become such a common phenomenon, where are their think-tanks and periodicals? If they are in such lockstep over this issue, why only the one example? The truth is that the "liberal hawk" is more a theory than a person, and more accurately a tactic rather than a wing of the Democratic Party. "

and over at TMV MVDG contends: "As a more conservative blogger (hawk), I have to say that I agree with Kevin’s reasoning. The problem with the doves is that they oppose using military force, because it is military force. For us hawks, military force is a tool - a tool you will only use when all other tools fail on you, but a tool nonetheless.

I find it incredibly strange that there are people who want the US government, or individual candidates, to rule out (supporting) the use of force. If one rules it out completely, one can forget about getting one’s enemy to do what one wants / to compromise. Iran has to know that, if necessary, force will be used to prevent it from developing WMDs. If not, there will be less pressure on the Mullahs to stop ignoring the wishes of the international community."

I contend that "liberal hawks" are vague about military options in Iran because there is no preferable military solution. Should diplomacy and international pressures fail the military options left to us will only be a choice of evils. We can :

1. Bomb Iran's hardened nuclear sites.
2. Invade Iran
3. Let Israel fight a proxy war with Iran
4. Invade North Korea to show Iran how serious we are
   

Option one may only have limited success and will cause Iran to step up their research efforts resulting in a nuclear bomb in 5 years instead of 9. Additionally Israel will most likely be targeted in retaliation thereby potentially bringing option three into play as a side effect. If not then suddenly Iraq and Afghanistan become indirect wars with Iran potentially leading to a direct war with Iran.

Option two is worse. Provided we are finished in Iraq and Afghanistan (one way or the other) the goal would be achievable but at a hideous toll in Iranian lives. If you'll check out the history of the Iran/Iraq war you'll note that Iran used four million unarmed citizens (volunteers) as cannon fodder. Iraq's soldiers ran out of bullets before they ever engaged an armed soldier.

Additionally since we would have again preemptively invaded a country that didn't (directly) attack us and probably killed hundreds of thousands of unarmed citizens in the process our standing in the world drops to nothing. Additionally because we have invaded three Muslim countries in a row we radicalize even more people either the war on terror gets much harder, we fight a foreign insurgency in Iran, or both.

As for option three Israel fights Hammas, Hezbollah, and Iran at the same time and America enters if it appears Israel can't pull it off or should the war goes regional.

We have time right now and we absolutely must use it to exhaust every single diplomatic and international option before moving on to a military solution.

We can't take the use of force off of the table unless it is conditional based on Iran's actions (allowing UN Inspectors access to all sites etc etc etc). It would be folly to hamstring ourselves in such manner as much as it would be foolhardy to militarily escalate the situation before exhausting all other available options.

May common sense prevail.

Unity08 CEO Robert Bingham on KPBS TV

If you're tired of partisanship, corruption, and the same old same old in politics drop by Unity08's web site and see what is stirring the political waters.

Senate Gets Habeas Corpus Restoration Ball Rolling

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee passed an important bill to restore habeas corpus, the sacrosanct Constitutional right to challenge government detention in court, by a vote of eleven to eight.

Habeas corpus was revoked by last year's Military Commissions Act, which has been assailed as unconstitutional and un-American by leaders across the political spectrum. Today's habeas bill was backed by the Judiciary Committee's Democratic Chairman, Patrick Leahy, and its Republican Ranking Member, Arlen Specter. "The drive to restore this fundamental right has come from both sides of the aisle," said Sharon Bradford, an attorney at the bipartisan Constitution Project, in response to today's vote. "Restoring America's commitment to the rule of law is not a partisan cause; it is a patriotic one," she added.

Today's vote means the habeas bill can now be brought to the Senate floor at any time. One source with knowledge of the legislative plan said Majority Leader Harry Reid has committed to bringing the bill to a vote within the month. more

Now if the Dems can get this done they'll have accomplished something important. Should it get bogged down in the Armed Services Committee we may not see any action on it without some serious hardball being played by the Dems . Then all they have to do is avoid a veto. I wish them luck.

Lawmakers Want Body Armor Retested

This is based on NBC's report that Dragonskin body armor consistently outperforms current body armor.

I first heard of the armor on the show Future Weapons where Dragonskin was shown to stop NATO 7.62 armour piercing rounds and also protected covered areas when placed directly on top of a M-67 grenade. You can view some of those tests here.

There is of course the question as to whether or not the original testing lab or the interceptor body armor manufacturer is politically connected to someone. A second official test would lay that question to rest.

Bush Nominates Chiurgeon General

From ABC News:
Bush's Choice for Top Doc Compared Human Genitalia to Pipe Fittings and Said Homosexual Practices Can Cause Injury or Death

President Bush's nominee for surgeon general, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., wrote a paper in 1991 that purported to make the medical argument that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy. Doctors who reviewed the paper derided it as prioritizing political ideology over science, and Democratic aides on Capitol Hill say the paper will make his confirmation hearings problematic.

Holsinger, 68, presented "The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality" in January 1991 to a United Methodist Church's committee to study homosexuality. (Read the paper here.) The church was then considering changing its view that homosexuality violates Christian teaching, though it ultimately did not do so. Relying on footnotes from mainstream medical publications, Holsinger argued that homosexuality isn't natural or healthy.

Noting that Holsinger also belongs to a church that offers a ministry to "cure" gays of the sexual orientation, gay and lesbian rights advocates immediately protested Holsinger's nomination. "His writings suggest a scientific view rooted in anti-gay beliefs that are incompatible with the job of serving the medical health of all Americans," said the Human Rights Campaign in a statement. "It is essential that America's top doctor value sound science over anti-gay ideology."

(snip)

The cardiologist details many different diseases gay men can catch, and several sexual practices they may engage in, including "anal eroticism," which can lead to injuries and even death. "From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma." full article

On a positive note Dr. Holsinger's paper did note that most STDs can be cured through the proper application of leeches and hinted that high blood pressure can be cured by removing the excess blood from the circulatory system.

W didn't even try on this candidate. He could of at least nominated someone capable of presenting their opinion as fact by backing it up with faulty data and biased research studies.
Not to mention the fact that he had to have known this guy wouldn't get confirmed with the Democrats in the majority.

House urges China to press Sudan over Darfur

Reuters
Tuesday, June 5, 2007; 8:56 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives urged China on Tuesday to use its influence and economic leverage to stop what President George W. Bush has called the genocide in Sudan's Darfur region.

The lawmakers charged that China, which buys much of Sudan's oil, has stood in the way of halting bloodshed in the western Sudanese region, but stopped short of joining calls to boycott the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing made by some politicians, activists and celebrities.

"China should act consistently with the Olympic standard of preserving human dignity in Darfur, Sudan and around the world," said the resolution passed by the House on a vote of 410-0.

The resolution urged China to stop selling Sudan arms and suspend economic cooperation with Sudan until Sudan "stops its attacks on civilians" in Darfur and engages in negotiations with Darfur rebels to achieve a peace deal. more

To stay up to date on the crisis in Darfur please visit Sudan Watch

Jury Indicts Rep. Jefferson in Bribery Probe

By Jerry Markon and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 4, 2007; 2:40 PM

Rep. William J. Jefferson was indicted today in a longstanding FBI corruption probe centering on allegations that he took bribes to promote high-tech business ventures in Africa.

The Louisiana Democrat faces charges that include racketeering, money laundering, wire fraud and conspiracy to solicit bribes by a public official. The 16-count indictment was returned by a federal grand jury in Alexandria.

Federal officials have scheduled a 3:30 p.m. news conference to discuss the 94-page indictment, which could land Jefferson in prison for life if he is convicted on all counts. The charges cap a long and tumultuous investigation that was stalled for months because of a legal battle over the constitutionality of an FBI raid on Jefferson's office last May. The raid came after the FBI found $90,000 in the freezer of his Capitol Hill home.

A political and legal maelstrom followed the raid, prompting President Bush to intervene and seal the seized documents for 45 days. In July, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, who had signed the search warrant, ruled that the raid was constitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals has yet to rule on the matter.

Jefferson, 60, is a potential political embarrassment for Democrats, just months after they took over control of Congress. Democrats had campaigned last year on the theme that Republicans had created a culture of corruption. In July, the House officially expelled Jefferson from the prestigious Ways and Means Committee.

At the time, then House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the allegations against Jefferson were too egregious to wait for a legal resolution.

"This isn't about proof in the court or law; this is about an ethical standard," she said. more

My magic 8 ball states definitely when I ask it if he will be found guilty on the majority of indictments. This case also shows that no party is without stain. After all the Democrats just hid all of their spending earmarks after promising transparent ethical government. Not the way to win big in 2008.
The more things change the more things stay the same it seems.

Second Democratic Debate

I'm calling Hillary the winner in the traditional debating team sort of way. Obama comes in as first runner up.

Boiling it down from CNN:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, an early and outspoken opponent of the invasion who mounted an anti-war campaign in 2004, said the way to end the war was to cut off funding.

"The money's in the pipeline right now, enough to bring the troops home," he said. "Let's end the war, and let's make this a productive evening."

But Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, said opponents of the war need to realize Democrats do not have the 67 votes needed to override a veto and force an end to the war.

"As long as there is a single troop in Iraq that I know if I take action by funding them, I increase the prospect they will live or not be injured, I cannot and will not vote no to fund them," said Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who served in the Senate during the Vietnam War, said anyone who voted to authorize the invasion should not be president.

"We have killed more Americans than was done on the 11th of September," Gravel said. "More Americans died because of their decision. That disqualifies them for president."

The last question was from a local schoolteacher who asked what each candidate would make top priority in the first 100 days in office.

Clinton said she would end the war in Iraq. Obama echoed that goal, and added he would "get moving" on health care. Biden also topped his list with ending the Iraq war, and said he would defuse tensions with Iran and North Korea. Gravel said he would work to convince Democratic congressional leadership to end the war now.

Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said he would restore constitutional rights damaged by the Bush administration. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he would improve American education. Kucinich's top priority was to help "reshape the world for peace." And Edwards said he would travel the world to "re-establish America's moral authority." (Read full text of each candidate's response) full article

However since the New Hampshire Democratic Debate ran on the same night as the next to the last episode of the Soprano's everyone is a loser because almost no one watched the debate.

Durbin was right?

At least on the Nazi's having used the same torture techniques the administration has approved for detainees.

Courtesy of The Daily Dish:

"Freezing prisoners to near-death, repeated beatings, long forced-standing, waterboarding, cold showers in air-conditioned rooms, stress positions [Arrest mit Verschaerfung], withholding of medicine and leaving wounded or sick prisoners alone in cells for days on end - all these have occurred at US detention camps under the command of president George W. Bush. Over a hundred documented deaths have occurred in these interrogation sessions. The Pentagon itself has conceded homocide by torture in multiple cases."

Oddly enough they also used the same sort of logic about why they tortured them too:

"The victims, by the way, were not in uniform. And the Nazis tried to argue, just as John Yoo did, that this made torturing them legit. The victims were paramilitary Norwegians, operating as an insurgency, against an occupying force. And the torturers had also interrogated some prisoners humanely."

Such acts were found to be war crimes and the perpetrators were sentenced to death. Man, doesn't that just make you proud of your government?

I bet Durbin is still waiting for an apology from that WaPo reporter.



H/T to Damn Hippies

Bush Intensifies Pressure on Sudan

Bush Intensifies Pressure on Sudan

By Michael Abramowitz and Debbi Wilgoren
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 29, 2007; 12:10 PM

President Bush today announced broader sanctions on the government of Sudanese president Lt. Gen. Omar Hassam al-Bashir in an effort to halt violence in the troubled Darfur region, nearly three years after the White House described the conflict there as genocide.

In a brief address that included sharp criticism of Bashir, Bush said the Treasury Department will step up efforts to squeeze the Sudanese economy by targeting government-run ventures involved with its booming oil business, which does many of its transactions in U.S. dollars.

(snip)

The United States will also seek new U.N. Security Council sanctions against Khartoum, including a provision preventing the Sudanese government from conducting military flights in Darfur, Bush said. The United Nations has accused Sudan's government of bombing Darfur villages.

(snip)

Bush and his aides say Bashir and other senior Sudanese officials have thwarted efforts at cooperation even after Bush explicitly warned them of the consequences. The president said the Sudanese government bombed a rebel camp a day after Bush's speech at the Holocaust Museum. Sudanese officials have continued to give speeches rejecting the full complement of peacekeepers, U.S. officials say.

"For too long, the people of Darfur have suffered at the hands of a government that is complicit in the bombing, murder and rape of innocent civilians," Bush said.

" . . . President Bashir's actions over the past few weeks follow a long pattern of promising cooperation while finding new methods for obstruction."

The timing of today's announcement appears certain to anger U.N. diplomats, who have been reporting progress in negotiations with Bashir and have been aggressively lobbying U.S. officials to delay sanctions. Sudan's official news agency reported Saturday that Ban has agreed to travel to Khartoum to negotiate a deal on a United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force for Darfur. full article

This may be too little too late. If W is serious about ending this the best thing he could do is get China on board in ending the conflict. Somehow I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

Token Ethics Bill Passed in the House

Ethics Legislation Easily Passes House

By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 25, 2007; A01

Prodded by Democratic leaders and by freshmen elected partly on promises to clean up Washington, the House approved new ethics legislation yesterday that would penalize lawmakers who receive a wide range of favors from special interests, and would require lobbyists to disclose the campaign contributions they collect and deliver to lawmakers.

Party leaders and new lawmakers worked until the day before the vote to sway some longtime members who had balked at the proposals. It took weeks of persuasion by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other key lawmakers to convince recalcitrant Democrats -- among them some members of the speaker's inner circle.

The new proposals, which in the end passed overwhelmingly, would expand the information available about how business is done on Capitol Hill and make it available online. They would provide expanded, more frequent and Internet-accessible reporting of lobbyist-paid contributions and sponsorships, and would for the first time impose prison terms for criminal rule-breakers. They would also require strict new disclosure of "bundled" campaign contributions that lobbyists collect and pass on to lawmakers' campaigns. Yesterday's legislation passed 396 to 22. more

Its not much but when combined with the lobbying reform bill passed last year they almost make a decent reform attempt. I still think publicly financed campaigns are the best route for ensuring our elected officials are doing our will rather than their campaign contributors.