Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Democrats Unable to "Hold the Line" in the Senate

The cloture vote yesterday to prevent the filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito resulted in a Mexican standoff in the Senate. The ultime goal, of course, was to block his nomination. The combatants were the progressive Democrats, "movement Republicans," and the moderates from both parties. Instead of a stalemate, the gutless moderate Democrats blinked first and gave the reactionary Republicans bragging rights and the Supreme Court another member in good standing of the ultra-conservative Federalist Society.

Moreover, the moderate Democrats will give Bush a huge win the day he delivers the State of the Union address. Because many of these Senate mods are from red states they appear to care more about their political careers than the values of both the national Democratic Party and the Democratic citizens that elected them.

The Democrats were only able to secure 25 of the 41 needed votes in order to pull off the filibuster parliamentary procedure. In fact, many Democrats voted to end the filibuster even though they will vote against Alito today. The fictional General Maximus, in the film Gladiator, screamed to his troops in the thick of the Germania campaign, "Hold the line," however, it's apparent Democrats were not ready to do battle, not when it counts.

To be sure, "movement conservatives" were definitely able to hold the line and were ready for combat when Bush nominated Harriet Myers a few months ago. They are not timid about using every political arsenal available to them, including intimidating George W. Bush. Another good example of aggressive Republicans is how Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was able to pull off his redistricting scam in Texas and, consequently, was able to gain a few more Republican seats in the Lone Star State. He was merciless in his approach and it was unprecedented.

Yes, it's true that the filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee has never been used against a nominee supported by a Senate majority and some argue that the filibuster of Alito would set a dangerous precedent. So what? These days are difficult political times, and, as in the redistricting plan in Texas, Republicans are setting new precedents all the time. Another good example of setting inventive precedents is how Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist campaigned against then Democratic Minority Leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota in 2004, an unheard of move in a Senate long known for its collegiality and folkways.

Steve Clemmons with the New America Foundation notes about the Democratic Alito confirmation strategy in general:
No one "owned" this battle in the progressive community, and those who rallied troops at the end were encouraged by the cynical electioneering stances of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and others. I believe Ted Kennedy's opposition was real, as was Pat Leahy's -- but the machine against Alito should have been launched day one.
The reason I fear Samuel Alito's confirmation is not the abortion issue (read Susan Estrich analysis in the Mercury News). Like Clemmons I fear Alito because the egregious abuses from the executive branch witnessed during the Nixon years should be behind us, but with Bush in The White House, and Alito in the Court, I fear we may be revisiting history due to the potential widening of executive power. Many judicial analysts have made the case that Alito very often backs executive power and the "unitary executive" theory will soon be tested in the Supreme Court.

Clemons adds:
Alito will contribute to a vast expansion of Executive Power, and this will seriously harm our democracy...Dems will rue the day that they let Alito pass; so will moderate Republicans; and so will independent-minded Americans who value our system of checks and balances. I think that there have been some real heroes doing their best against Alito -- but the Democratic establishment is still inchoate and without the backbone to fight consistently against the White House.
Democrats should not be timid in using every legal and ethical option available to them. Hard line Republicans certainly are not afraid; witness the Harriet Meyers nomination. Republican operatives forced Bush to pull the nomination and placed in her stead a far right wing, more than likely, "movement conservative." Why should Democrats not use the established parliamentary procedure in the Senate known as the filibuster? To refuse to do so is foolish because time and time again Republicans have taken a "no prisoners" strategy towards the Democrats and others who they disagree with; ask Republican Harriet Meyers. As Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said, "[Meyers was] a good woman treated so poorly, and the people who destroyed her are being rewarded by the Alito nomination."

I say, shame, shame, shame on the Democratic Senators, who have not learned to hold the line and fight. That's why they were elected to the office in the first place: to fight for the values of the people who elected them to office.


To read Susan Estrich's op-ed piece about Alito and the abortion issue Click Here.

To read the New York Times article that reviews how the Republicans have learned to fight Click Here.

Monday, January 30, 2006

State of the Union: Should Democratic Lawmakers Walk Out on Bush?

Recently a few well known Democratic political activists have been making the case that Democratic lawmakers in Congress should walk out when President Bush enters the Capitol House chamber to give his State of the Union address on Tuesday. As readers of the Splinters Team Blog know, I'm a rabid Democratic partisan and activist. To be sure, we are in a metaphorical war with our antagonists the Republican "movement conservatives," but I disagree with this far-fetched suggestion.

This is the argument espoused recently by William Rivers Pitt:

I have a wild and crazy idea. George W. Bush's delivery of the State of the Union address will take place on Tuesday, January 31, a little more than a week from now. It is my strong belief that every single Democrat present in the House chamber for the speech should, at a predetermined moment, stand up and walk out. No yelling. No heated words. Every Democrat should simply stand silently and leave.
Americans of all political stripes—Democrats, Republican, Greens, independents, and others—should respect the Office of the Presidency, although not necessarily the person holding that office. Moreover, in the Constitution of the Unites States, it does quite unequivocally state that the president shall "from time to time give Congress Information of the State of the Union." So, it is the duty of Democratic lawmakers to participate in a function mandated in the Constitution.

Also, the move would probably backfire as Republican operatives, acting as spinmeisters after the speech, would claim that Democrats have no respect for the presidential office, and make moderate Republicans and independents who have turned on Bush (hence his low popularity ratings) go back into the anyone but a Democrat tent. There is certain amount of decorum that Americans should follow no matter who holds the executive office. Showing up during the address is that certain amount of decorum. In short, the gesture will be seen as a "cheap political stunt."

Besides how can we get "every single Democrat" to walk out. I'm not even sure we can carry out an Alito filibuster in the Senate right now. Democrats, even more than Republicans, tend be "political entrepreneurs" rather than hard-core party loyalists. This is true because in America we have a weak party system unlike, let's say, in Britain where the political Parties help their candidates every step of the way in getting elected. In America, it’s often catch-as-catch-can.

However, having said that, I do think Democratic lawmakers should dramatically curtail and limit much of the standing, cheering, and applause that always follow after certain comments are made by presidents during their address. And, if Bush says something idiotic (one never knows), like defending in his address the clearly illegal wiretappings done by the National Security Agency as legal because Congress gave him the necessary authority force to protect the American people, this Democrat would not mind Democratic lawmakers yelling in unison, much like they do in Britain’s parliament, "Shame, shame, shame."

Where we Democrats will get the law-breaking Bush is in the Courts (the ACLU has filed a law suit over the clearly illegal wiretappings) and in Congressional hearings. In fact, Sen. Arlen Specter (R- Pennsylvania), the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has convened for a February 6th hearing; thank God for the Republican moderates who follow their conscience and follow the law and are not beholding to a radical national political party—Sen. Specter is clearly not a "movement conservative."

That's where we'll get Bush and just in time because, as the leader of his party, it will certainly hurt Republican lawmakers running for office in the mid-term elections coming up in November. I bet my lunch money that many Republicans will distance themselves from Bush in the upcoming elections and, as such, it becomes problematic for Bush to advance his political agenda. I say Bush is a lame duck president with three years to go.

Yes, I’m looking forward to tuning in on Tuesday and see how many lies and obfuscations Bush will deliver. The speech will be great fodder for progressive bloggers like the Splinters Team Blog.

Let’s get him, progressives.

For information about the ACLU suit click here.

For information about the additional clients in the NSA SPY-PROGRAM ACLU suit click here.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Lying Weasels

I know I said my next post was slated for Monday, but, I could not help myself after hearing a "load of bull" from the lying mouth of press secretary Scott McClellan.

The issue: Sen. John Kerry calling for a Senatorial filibuster regarding the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination.

Background: Where was Senator Kerry when he made his statement to the press? According to the Los Angeles Times, Kerry was at the World Economic Forum, along with many Republican Senators, at Davos, Switzerland.

So what did that lying Bush weasel McClellan flack say to the press about Senator's Kerry's statement?
This was the first time ever that a senator has called for a filibuster from the slopes of Davos, Switzerland. I think even for a senator, it takes some pretty serious yodeling to call for a filibuster from a five-star ski resort in the Swiss Alps.
When I first heard the story on CNN the reporters never bothered to inform the viewers why Senator Kerry was in Switzerland. After all CNN should air the story with some kind of coherent context.

I just don't know how the media, by and large, believes anything that comes out of Bush spin machine operatives like McClellan. Yet, the press buys off the mendacity fed by the Bushies time and time again. Journalists, print and broadcast, should do a little fact finding before they report anything said by the White House lackeys found in the Bush Administration.

Conclusion: Not only is CNN's coverage poor journalism, but, again, I ask, as I always do: What liberal freakin' media? Amazing!

Note: Comparing Bush's rascals to the energetic weasel is truly unfair to the "weasel" Musteliade family.

Friday, January 27, 2006

We Recommend a Blog

Team Splinters will be taking the week-end off. I'll be back on Monday with a piece about the upcoming State of the Union address.

In the mean time Team Splinters member Lawrence DiStasi recommends Seth Abramson, a fellow blogger. Seth Abramson has been covering the completely illegal wiretappings with gusto.

We refer you here: Seth Abramson.

This is especially a good piece: read here.

In Unity.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Joe Bageant, essayist

Guest Blogger: Diane Altadena, Southern Calif.

This is an amazing piece, worth every second of reading. It's refreshing and heartbreaking at the same time to identify so much of Bageant's description of modern American culture and its decline. I especially agree with Bageant's take on consumerism and the loss of creative thinking in our children (and adults)... most of the images in their heads are placed there...for them. We throw the concept of "freedom" around so loosely, but one wonders if we really know what it means anymore.

See: The Simulacran Republic.

Also, I include a website to read an interview with Joe Bageant... an old hippie, to be sure, but a cogent, wise philosopher, at best.

See: Interview with Joe Bageant (2004).

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Osama, Bush and the Thrust for Power

Part Two of Two

Guest Blogger: Dave Amos, Arcadia, Calif.

Why did Bush invade? Get familiar with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-con think tank based in Washington DC, and it all comes together. One of the sub silentio aims of PNAC is to dominate the world oil market by gaining political control of the Middle East.

The purpose of the Iraq War, in my view, is as follows:

(1) Maintain American ability to remain the world’s #1 economic and military power (the two are co-dependent), and

(2) Allow Western Oil Interests (especially American oil interests) to become the dominant economic force in the world and thus further enrich the establishment even further.

But beyond this quasi-ideological reason for invading, there was another reason: to promote the idea that Bush’s war on terrorism was a real “shooting” war, and that thus, Bush is a “War President.” This is important, for this provides the pretext for Bush to expand the powers of the executive branch of our government and to offset the built-in system of checks and balances provided in our Constitution. Thus, we see the promotion of the odiferous concept of the “unitary executive” president.

Get this straight, folks, Bush invaded for reasons of American domestic eco/politics, and not because of his fancied “war on terror.”

But Bush was able to sell the American people (but not most of the rest of the world) on the Iraq War was part of the war on terror. The American people are slowly becoming aware that Bush’s war on terror is built on a house of cards comprised of a fabric of lies.

As readers of history are well aware, it is a standard ploy, used over and over again by political and/or military leaders who strive for more and more power, to get what they want on the domestic scene by scaring the wits out of their citizens by promoting the idea of an outside threat to the very existence of their country.

Sometimes the threat is made up of whole cloth, sometimes the threat is greatly exaggerated, and sometimes the threat is very real. Mostly, however, the threat is greatly exaggerated, and so it has been with the threat of terror. Was 9-11 horrible? Yes. Is Osama bin Laden a danger to the citizenry of the United States (and other nations)? Yes. Is Osama bin Laden and his ilk a danger to the very existence of the United States? Not even close.

Did Iraq under Saddam do horrible things, such as his invasion of Kuwait? Yes, of course. However, the Gulf War and the international sanctions that followed made Saddam/Iraq become a small threat to anyone outside the borders of Iraq.

Was the threat of in 2002 a danger to the US citizenry? No.

Was the threat of in 2002 a danger to the very existence of the US? No.

Was Iraq a logical place to massively undertake a war on terrorism? By no means.

Did Bush and his cohorts (including the willing media) promote the idea that Osama bin Laden is a threat the citizens of the USA very existence of America? Yes.

Did the Bush Administration promote the idea that Saddam/Iraq posed a threat to the citizens of the USA? Yes.

Did Bush and his cohorts promote the idea that Saddam/Iraq posed a threat to the very existence of world peace? Yes.

Does the Bush Administration still promote such ideas, even after they have been proven to have, in my view, bankrupt policies? Yes.

Has the invasion of Iraq proven to be a terrible mistake? Yes, although an alarming number of American people do not understand the ramifications of this terrible mistake. That is, Americans, trust an American president, who has demonstrated an ability to kill, on a large scale, to achieve his goals and still believe that we had to eliminate Saddam because he was a nasty man.

But Osama has never been captured. He remains the symbol of terrorism, a symbol so invaluable to George W. Bush and his Administration.

George W. Bush is not about fighting terrorism. George W. Bush is not about protecting America. George W. Bush is about George W. Bush, who’s goal, while president, is to be in a position to use (and abuse) absolute power.

What domestically has happened due to the concentration of the Bush Administration's desire for more and more power, and the GOP’s concentration of absolute legislative power? The answer: A culture of corruption, built on the notion that the "ends justify the means."

This year may be our last chance to meaningfully begin to change, that is, to take the steps necessary to return to the workable notion that in the United States, power must be shared to be effective as our Founding Fathers envisioned.

Or has the Rubicon already been crossed?

Tune in next November.

Monday, January 23, 2006

A Political Drawing



A super political commentary via a cartoonist on a Monday.

I do urge you to read Dave Amos' essay posted yesterday. It's a good read.

And, stay tuned for part two on Tuesday.

In Unity----

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Osama, Bush and the Thrust for Power

Part One of Two

Guest Blogger: Dave Amos, Arcadia, Calif.

Without 9-11 and Osama bin Laden, where would George W. Bush be? Back in Texas, that’s where. There is no question that without Osama bin Laden Bush would have clearly lost the 2004 presidential election to the lukewarm Sen. John Kerry, or for that matter, anyone the Democratic Party would have offered as their presidential candidate.

It is equally true that Osama needs a Bush type mentality in the American White House in order generate foolish responses by Islamic extremists. The majority of Arabs, and Muslims around the world, feel the United States and the western world are doing their best to oppress them. Bush’s invasion of Iraq confirmed that Osama bin Laden is right.

This effectively symbiotic relationship between Bush and Osama goes a long way to explain why Osama still runs free. It is not at all unreasonable, when one understands Bush’s and the GOP’s reliance on the continuing existence of Osama bin Laden, to suppose that Bush has no real intention of eliminating Osama – he needs him too much. In short, without Osama, Bush would no longer be in power.

Until 9-11, Bush’s approval rating was in the doldrums: well under 50%. He was a lackluster president who irritated the majority of American voters by betraying his pledge to be a “uniter” and making little attempt to form a consensus in the body politic and doggedly pushing a hard-line neo-conservative agenda that, in the main, most found offensive. With 9-11 Bush was able to promote himself as the “America’s Protector” (this, in spite of the fact that his Administration was totally asleep at the wheel when the 9-11 attack took place). Fear motivated many American voters to throw away their differences with the Bush Administration and accept the notion (carefully propagandized via the media) that Bush was a strong and decisive leader who would keep us safe from terrorists.

Bush (or, is it Karl Rove?) moved quickly and the tawdry Patriot Act was put before Congress for a vote (with little time allowed for congressmen and senators to actually read the bill, which few did) and any opposition to this blatant grabbing of executive power timidly shrank away due to fear of not being on the side of “Good Americans” in Bush’s self-declared “war on terror.” Very few brave souls (only the ones in very safe Congressional districts did) objected.

When it was seen how easy it was to bulldoze the opposition, Bush (again, was it Karl Rove?) continued to move at a record pace by gearing up for an “invasion” of Afghanistan when the Taliban leaders refused to deliver Osama – in keeping with medieval Pathan concepts of honor – whose concepts, one should assume, were well known to intelligence consultants in the Bush Administration.

Having no real way to counter American air power in concert with the power of the northern warlords, the Taliban quickly collapsed. With this, Bush had a “victory” to bolster his standing with the American people. Osama, however, somehow managed to get away.

In the meantime, using the excuse of 9-11 (and grossly misleading the American public) Bush advocated a war with Iraq. This is spite of the fact that the foreign policy and military experts, both Republican and Democratic alike, advised against such a folly, making the case that Iraq has never been a unified country and the suggested invasion would result in a vast quagmire of competing forces--Shi'a, Sunni, Kurds, and secularists--that do not share the same goals. Professional foreign policy observers saw a huge internal political sandpit and an anchor around the neck of the American military. How prescient they were.

But Bush insisted that the invasion was necessary to continue his (and, now our) war on terrorism, and the American people, for the most part, believed him. Osama, in the mean time, was still, and continues to be free.

Everything about American involvement in Iraq is a lie; a lie generated by George W. Bush and his policy advisors. The imagined existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was a lie. And most of all, the relationship of the invasion to the war on terror was a lie; a lie that is repeated even today, over and over again by the Bush Administration. They cannot abandon that lie, for to do so is to admit the utter ruthlessness of the Bush team as they strive for absolute power.

Part Two on Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2006

Saturday, January 21, 2006

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

The House of Representatives Democrats held a forum with legal experts on Friday regarding the recent domestic surveillance performed without Court approval by the Bush Administration. In an exchange with Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-New York), one of the lions in the Democratic Party, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington Law School said:

"What the president ordered in this case was a crime. The federal law makes it clear that you cannot engage in this type of operation without committing a crime."
Read all about it here in the Baltimore Sun.

Moreover, Congressman Nadler asked if he, Turley, believed Bush’s actions met the "high crimes and misdemeanors" criteria mentioned in the Constitution. Turley said that he believed the Administration's actions were "high crimes and misdemeanors. "

Woo. It's going to be a "bumpy ride" the next few months.

Friday, January 20, 2006

A Letter from the Front

The following is a personal email that was forwarded to our Team Blogger leader, Mr. Giacoppe, via one of his West Point grad friends. There are no last names for the sake of privacy. This email, sent to a good friend, speaks volumes about the current events in Iraq.

Yes, we Dems support our troops, but, in the main, not the idiotic war which may bring harm to them for no good reason.

Guest Bloger: Charlie B.

Dan:

I don't see progress on the big picture front, with the Judge quitting, no one venturing outside the wire without being in a column of armored vehicles sporting 25 mm cannons, not hiring Iraqis for jobs, bombs continuing to go off on the roads as though nothing has changed by the elections.

Down at the grass roots level, the whole deal is turning it over to the Iraqi Army and Police units as they come on line. I see things going on this front based on things that are going on within our KBR (Kellogg, Brown and Root) realm, we being overlayed on all the facilities. Too early to talk about it - [because] I'd have to come back and kill ya.

Troops get a lot of support. A lot. Makes one wistful about it if one is a Vietnam Vet, as we all are.

What you can do to support the troops is through your vote and elected officials to hold the Administration's feet to the fire about the statements they have made - "When the Iraqi military and police can stand up, we will be coming home." We need to hold their feet to the fire about this without the weepy eyed bullshit that comes out of the mouths of misguided fools in the entertainment business. (The entertainment business - movies, tv, magazines, clubs and bars, stage shows, fiction writers, numerous congressmen and senators in elected positions, and, of course, news reporters.)

To the extent that George and DOD is still claiming Iraq is not militarily ready six months from now, you need to be getting way skeptical. The Iraq Army - or any other Army - is not going to operate at any where near our level. There is some idealism at play here that needs to be questioned.

You can also lobby against a psychopatic Department of Defense that encourages the constant flow of FNG Presidents to use the same sergeants and captains to go off to the combat zone every eighteen months, or less, because we don't have enough boots to do all these adventures.

Whew - Having said all that, and knowing that all one can do is take care of his little piece of the planet, I would say find a soldier serving here from within your universe - nephew, neice, kid next door, whatever - and send him e-mails, cards, DVD movies, and cigars with no expectation of an answer.

Charlie B.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Revising History. No way.

The following is a FORWARD (FW) that has been going around the internet and sent by “movement conservatives” (or possibly uninformed ditto heads) who seem to want to take the law into their own hands (international assassinations), do not mind the president is above the law, prefer a unitary presidency, and like to revisit and revise American history.

Note: I have added my own comments in brackets and in italics to demonstrably show how supercilious this attempt at revisionist history has been drafted.

The scene: In 1987, Lt. Col. Oliver North, USMC, testifying at the Iran-Contra [constitutional and foreign policy scandal] hearings during the Reagan Administration: There was Ollie in front of God and country [the television cameras and under oath] getting the third degree [being asked probing, objective questions as the Senator was doing his job. It is an investigation after all.], but what he said was stunning. A senator was drilling him [asking a fair question]; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?" Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir." The senator continued, "Isn't that just a little excessive?" "No, sir," said Ollie. "No? And why not?" the senator asked. "Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir." "Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned. "By a terrorist, sir," Ollie answered. "Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?" "His name is Osama bin Laden, sir," Ollie replied.

“Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked. "Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of," Ollie answered. "And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator. "Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team [illegal since 1976] be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."

The senator disagreed with this approach [as it was against American foreign policy].

By the way, that senator was Al Gore [a human being who cannot read tea leaves].
So what can we make of this dribble? How interesting that these conservatives hail North a hero? How wonderful that Ollie, an officer and a representative of the Regan Administration, after he took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, took deliberate steps to perform clear unconstitutional acts by by-passing the wishes of Congress stated in the Boland Amendment, and in addition sold arms to a country not friendly to the United States (Iran) and at that time a sworn enemy. Besides during the 1980s America was providing arms and military intelligence to Iraq. In the process North and his cohorts (Poindexter, Mc Farlane, Weinberger, Cassey), almost brought down the Reagan Administration. Intelligence operatives no wonder coined the term “blowback” for potential repercussions against the US due to a super-muscular American foreign policy.

In the 1994 film Clear and Present Danger, with Harrison Ford, the location might have been in Colombia, but the overarching theme was the Iran-Contra scandal and how presidential administrations can and often do break the law. Examples include: the Warren Harding Administration (Teapot Dome scandal), the Nixon Administration (Watergate), the Johnson Administration (Gulf of Tonking incident), the Reagan Administration (Iran Contra), George W. Bush (wiretapping without a Court warrant as dictated in the 1978 FISA statute, and the build up of war with lies and misrepresentations), and even the venerable Abe Lincoln (suspending the writ of habeas corpus in Courts, which was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court).

And as for assassinating nefarious characters in the world 14 years before a possible dastardly act is performed against the United States is also against the law, if not cheap Monday morning quarterbacking. Presidents since Ford have signed executive orders prohibiting international assassinations; in Ford’s case it was E. O. 11905. These EO’s were signed in order to curtail the excesses of the Cold War in South America and elsewhere in the world and the quite stunning acts of the CIA (Chile, El Salvador, Iran, and elsewhere).

Also, if Ollie had information about Osama, well he should since he was a part of the intelligence community within the Reagan White House and was privy to such information and it says little about Gore. As recent events during the build up of the US-Iraq War show as an example Senators have little intelligence information. This is because they do not have the CIA, the NSA, and others working for them. In addition, they obtain information via oversight committees and briefings from the executive branch. Gore, I assume, was against assassinations be used because it was against existing US policy. Since this exchange took place 14 years before 9/11 how can anyone who appreciates intellectual honesty take this FW seriously?

According to Section V, Part G of E. O. 11905: Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.
Today, neo-cons and the Bush Administration want to reinstate assassinations and torture and repercussions will be felt here in the homeland and around the world.

See here: http:// www.heatherwokusch.com/columns/column45.html

Even Americans, in the main, know better. The so-called Christian extremist, Pat Robertson, got lambasted in every corner of the United States and in the media for advocating killing Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, to be sure an antagonist of the US. Talk about ignoring what Jesus Christ was said to have said in the Bible.

In short, this FORWARD being sent by Republicans only proves that Gore was stating American foreign policy at the time. It also proves that by looking at the whole Iran-Contra scandal in its entirety North acted as a nefarious character insofar he believes the president is above the law and can ignore the laws passed by Congress. We do not and should not have an imperial presidency. The Founding Fathers did not want that. Read the American constitution. Most of the powers in that document are given to Congress, the representatives of the people.

Is North a hero? Hardly. No way. Not to this American who believes in the separation-of powers.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

His Terminating Days Are Gone

Guest Blogger: Larry Caballero, La Palma, Calif.

What a difference a year makes! Last January the governor was unbeatable. He could walk on water. He was an intimidating figure. Yes, the terminator governor had it all--except common sense and good advisors.

Now, we hear Arnold in his State of the State speech admitting that he had been foolish. He now understands, he says. The voters have spoken.

He's learned his lesson, and now understands that the people of California want "to cut the warfare, cool the rhetoric, find common ground, and fix the problems together."

Now he wants to do what is right for the people of California, which means he has to work with the state legislature. You remember them; they were the "girlie men" of last year--now they've become his newest best friends. And what about those bad special interest folks? You know, the teachers, nurses, policemen and firemen? Well, they're okay now, too.

Are we to believe that he has had an extreme makeover since the special elections of last month? Are we to forgive him for wasting the goodwill that we had once showered upon him when he won the recall? We'll see how seriously he believes his own words.

He now wants to do all things for all of us. In fact, he proposed in his State of the State Address to find the funding to provide all kinds of projects to improve the education of our children, the safety of our streets, improve the health care of our elderly, and insure that California remains the fifth economy in the world.

"I say, build it!" the governor shouted several times, but what does he want to build? Is it truly our infrastructure, or is it his stature in the state? All of that without raising any taxes! If I didn't know better, I would have thought that it was he who parted the Red Sea and not Moses, and it was he who fed the people with only a fish and a loaf of bread.

He now wants to be the Collectinator instead of the Terminator Governor. He thinks the federal government will come to our aid and help to fund the projects he mentioned. Well, where have the feds been since Arnold took over the reigns of power in California? Why does he think the federal government will come forward to help us now?

It's obvious that cutting taxes for the wealthy and funding a war based on lies have depleted the government's treasury. And California being a blue state in the last few elections won't make Bush or a Republican led Congress any more sympathetic to our needs.

The problem, of course, is that Arnold no longer has any credibility with the people. His true colors were out there for all to see leading up to the special election. Is he saying these things now because he realizes that he needs to be the people's governor instead of the governor of corporations and big business, or is he only thinking about his re-election in November?

Does he care about rebuilding California, or only rebuilding his own image? Is he thinking about the people, or his legacy as governor?

Only time will tell. If he's sincere, then in January 2007, Californians will be cheering him as a true advocate for the people. If he's not, then we will be sending him back home to Hollywood.

There, he can always get a role in a low budget film portraying a governor. As they say, once an actor, always an actor, even if the governor was never really a very good one.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

VP Gore's Speech

Guest Blogger: Diane Ropp, Altadena, Calif.

The following is one of the best segments of Vice President Gore's speech yesterday.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.

We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.

I endorse the words of Bob Barr, when he said, "The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Response to a Subversive Operative

Recently what, to me, seems a subversive political operative, has posted responses to Brother Lawrence DiStasi's observations. His moniker is Blade Runner and she (or he) earlier noted that the president's nominee to the Supreme Court "has to be" approved by the Senate because the president won the election. That comment is too silly to respond to other that to state that the Senate has the duty to advice AND consent. No consent, no confirmation, find another candidate, please.

But on to the matter at hand, Blade Runner writes:

You claim the President can only refuse to enforce or obey a congressional statute if the Supreme Court has made a ruling that it is unconstitutional. It's a legitimate position to take in an argument but it is not the law.

What Blade Runner fails to notice is that DiStasi’s argument is nuanced and measured. By reading his text, DiStasi never mentions that the president has to, in toto, observe every decision passed by Congress. He specifically argues about the Congressional law known as FISA passed in 1978 and what would happen if Alito became a Supreme Court Justice. The essay was, after all, about Alito and not Supreme Court jurisprudence per se.

Today, for example, if the Republican controlled Congress passed a law that ordered the president to place so many Quakers in relocation camps because they have protested against the US-Iraq war and so on and so on, Bush would have an obligation, if not a duty, to ignore such a law because it runs contrary to the many rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Every case is different, and some are quite clear even to the non-initiated.

In 1978 Congress passed FISA, a statute that echoed Fourth Amendment protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, albeit with a lot of leeway (the three-day ruling to obtain a warrant after the fact of a wiretap is an example).

Only a power hungry president can claim to the new and obscure "unitary executive theory" and claim that he (or she, in the future) is not beholding to Congress' laws in time of war or at any time.

That’s what worries not only DiStasi but a score of Republicans like Congressman Chris Shays, former Congressman Amo Houghton and Bob Barr, Senator Chuck Hagel, Senator John McCain and others.

Blade Runner also brings up the case Meyers v. US (1926):

The US Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 1926 case of Myers v. US. There Democrat President Wilson refused to comply with what he felt was an unconstitutional law (barring him from removing postmasters). The Supreme Court upheld his authority to refuse to enforce unconstitutional acts.
Of course this case in a 6-3 ruling has nothing in common with FISA. The Myers case involved the Tenure of Office Act (1867), later modified, and passed during Andrew Johnson’s term in office. In fact, President Johnson was impeached by the Congress for his action to fire Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Johnson made it by the skin of his teeth. At first blush the Myers’s case made Wilson’s argument prudent. Yet the case was later modified in Humphrey’s Executor v. US (1935) where Justice Sutherland wrote that Congress COULD limit the president’s power of removal; the Court found that the Myers principle applied only to executive officers. Is a postmaster an executive officer? Is a postmaster "in any proper sense be characterized as an arm or an eye of the executive"? Not in my mind, so Wilson was wrong, in the long run.

Later, in the case Morrison v. Olson (1988) the Court upheld the Independent Counsel Act, again intruding on the executive. The executive is often wrong. Hello!

That’s why the imperial presidency is so worrisome even in times of war. Presidents should be prudent with the power they wield and purport to have and often do not. That’s why the Samuel Alito nomination is so worrisome for us combat Democrats. That’s what Lawrence DiStasi’s wrote about in his essay.

Moreover, in times of war, as Professor Buzan, the Constitutional Law scholar at Cal State Fullerton used to remind me, "In times of war, when the flag goes up, the Justices dive under the beach." In my mind, Alito would be the first to find a safe spot under that bench and agree with the president, just like the Court did in 1943 and upheld the placing of thousand of Japanese–American citizens in relocation camps. The team members of the Splinters Blog, in short, are civil libertarians.

Finally, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin philosophy in Walter Issacson’s book, "Compromise, may not make great heroes, but they make great democracies." The office of the presidency needs to compromise and work with the legislature instead of depending on Supreme Court Justices who agree with his politics and his ideology. The Alito nomination would bring in another ideologue and make him believe he is imperious with unfettered power, not as the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Finally , we don’t bemoan, we fight!

Read our bios. All of us are Democratic activists and we don’t hide by monikers.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Richard Rodriguez




One of California's most talented essayists has to be Richard Rodriguez. In this article he explains some of the cultural and economic difficulties facing California.

He begins:
The traditional task of the writer in California has been to write about what it means to be human in a place advertised as paradise. Disappointment has always been the theme. The literature to come will begin with a different expectation.
Read all about it here here. It's long but worth it.

Web Watch

If you are interested in keeping up with the governors race here in California check out this excellent web site and bookmark it for future reference.

See here.

I love it. According to the January 9th post the Reps are loosing sight of the "prize." Ha!

And, here's a funny: I met Hugh Hewitt a few years back at the Yorba Linda Richard M. Nixon Library (cool location) and after a bit of chit-chat I told him he and I saw politics completely different. His response: he refused to have his picture taken with me. What a puppy.

Even the other Republicans who I was chatting with thought he was a loser due to his behavior towards me.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Institutions

As a political scientist I've been trained to watch institutions and watch them closely as often they have been infected by "goal displacement."

The once honorable United Farm Workers (UFW) is a recent and good example.

Read all about it in the Los Angels Times.

As my abuelita used to tell me, "Keep your ojos on the pelota."

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Republicans in Troubled Waters

Finally, the Congress House Republicans are doing the right thing according to the Los Angeles Times as they collectively destroy Tom "Ratman" DeLay. Of course the move is politically motivated because the Republicans are seen as political rascals these days. And, rascals is a mild word considering what they have been up to. The Reps are "eating" one of their own because they know the days ahead will be troubling for their party and any elected Republican, especially in the non-safe districts.

Read all about it here.

As Democratic activist Bill Daly wrote in an earlier post this is an excellent time to pounce on Republicans due to their recent dastardly acts.

Yes, we need leadership and a unified voice both in Sacramento and Washington DC.

Let’s do it Democrats! We have to fight not only for our country but the future of our kids, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and good friends as well.

Friday, January 06, 2006

The Governator Does it Again

Sacramento Bee columnist, Dan Walters, writes it very well again after the governator's State of the State address last night.

Walters wrote, "Arnold Schwarzenegger, exuding equal measures of hubris and naiveté, has repeatedly set up himself and his governorship for failure - promising more than he could deliver, reneging when promises collided with fiscal and political reality, overhyping his modest accomplishments, and confusing Californians by abruptly changing his rhetorical tone."

Read all about it here.

I guess Gov. Arnold wants to be the Governor Pat Brown of the 21st century since Governor Brown is credited with massive infrastructure spending during the early 1960s that helped make California one of strongest economic "tiger" machines in the world the last 40 years. Can he convince the citizens of California that more, if not creative progressive revenue streams (read: taxes), will be needed to accomplish many of his goals?

I doubt it. I just don't think he has the political stones to do that. He's a typical Republican. The governator is not the esteemed Governor Pat Brown.

The Los Angeles Times also has a good article here.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Dancing With the Stars

A moment of frivolity . . . hey why not?

I'll be following the ABC television show Dancing With the Stars the next few weeks. My fav, I trust, will be Tatum O'Neal, best remembered in the film Paper Moon.

Ariel Sharon, Statesman


Funny how some politicians can surprise you. Israel prime minister Ariel Sharon is such a politician as he became a statesman during his time as Israel's top excutive politician.

In an op-ed I wrote for Cal State Fullerton's Daily Titan this what I thought of Sharon in 2002: see here. Not good.

Still, he became a statesman with his unilateral disengagement plan. Sharon broke from Likud, the political party he helped organize, to carry out a plan which removed all permanent Israeli presence in the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the northern West Bank.

Amazing.

To read Sharon's bio see here.

Another Regressive Tax

According to the Capitol Weekly, via the Los Angeles Times, the governator will introduce adding toll roads in California in his State of the State speech tonight. Oh great just what we need, another regressive tax.

Toll roads will be part of the governor's proposal to request voters to approve $25 billion in bonds over the next five years for state infrastructure needs. State Senate Leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) said, "The first of several rounds of borrowing proposals hammered out between lawmakers and the governor could appear before voters in June."

Read the LA Times story here.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Letterman v. O'Reilly




I did not see the show, darn it, but I heard via CNN that David Letterman kicked some major booty when he had that idiot Bill O'Reilly on his show a few days ago. Maybe CBS is must see teevee.

WAY TO GO DAVID! I'm never watching Jay Leno again.

Getting Nasty

The undocumented immigration issue is getting quite nasty in Southern California, especially in the City of Costa Mesa.

Read the Los Angeles Times here.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Assembly Speaker Fabian

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez is one of my heros these days and you can read all about it here.

Monday, January 02, 2006

Mission Impossible

Last week I read an excellent article in the Los Angeles Times that fully explains why the US-Iraq War has been such a terrible mistake. Of course I've been privy to the difficulties because in graduate school I read the seminal Clash of Civilizations by Harvard political science professor Samuel P. Huntington.

As Professor Huntington said, “[The] fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.”

Huntington adds, “The people of different civilizations have different views on the relations between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights as responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. These differences are a product of centuries.”

After absorbing Huntington’s thoughts I agree that to try to westernize an Islamic nation like Iraq is completely foolhardy. The stated goals will not work because there are forces in Iraq that are well beyond our control. The Iraqis are a part of a civilization that is very different than our western civilization; in terms of values, mores, religion, and such. In short, through the barrel of a gun we are trying to impose western values in a part of the world whose people want very little with what they, especially their religious elites, would term “infidel” values.

Besides Iraq should be three countries as the article points out and to try to bring a unified “nationalistic” identity will be unattainable. What a mission impossible the United States is on.

Read the Los Angeles Times article

Read about The Clash of Civilizations

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Ouch, the Truth Hurts

Note: the following is a candid responce to the Splinters Team New Year's email.

A note from a Fighting Irish:

Guest Blogger: Bill Daly, Chair, 72nd Assembly District Comm.

Dear Lou:

Thank you for your upbeat attitude and encouraging words for next year.

Realistically, however, where are our Democratic leaders across the country in this heyday of Republican chaos, dilemma, and incriminations? If the situation were reversed Karl Rove and every Republican representative would be going for the Democratic jugular.

Frankly, in my opinion, our Democratic leaders are not leading as forcefully as they should.

What is holding them back?

Many a Republican figurehead like Ralph Reed is in political jeopardy. Is any Democrat pouncing on that son of a bitch in Georgia, especially after he crucified our Democratic war hero to gain office?

Can you tell me who is activating across the country?

The wave of political tide is in our favor; when are we going to start to ride it?

Where is our Democratic counterpart to John McCain?

Again, I appreciate your positive attitude, but I'd prefer to see a substantive base of support from our leaders to warrant it.

I'd rather wish you a Successful Year than a Happy one.

Critically yours,
Bill Daly