Hypocrisy isn’t just for elected Republicans. It’s an important “family value” for the whole cult!
Read Mr. Blumenthal’s post here.
by Darryl — ,
by Darryl — ,
Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for another exciting evening of politics under the influence. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.
Our Seattle hosts are Nick Beaudrot of Electoral Math and HorsesAss contributer TheHim (also at Blog Reload and EFFin’ Unsound).
If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times at a chapter near you.
NOTE (from Goldy):
I’m filling in for Frank Shiers tonight from 9PM to 1AM on 710-KIRO, so while I’ll be stopping by early, I won’t be hanging out. FYI, my guests tonight will be former KIRO host Allan Prell at 9PM and KC Prosecutor candidate Bill Sherman at 10PM.
by Darryl — ,
The FEC reports for the second quarter (1 Apr–30 Jun) are in. The result: Darcy Burner has raised more money than Dave Reichert (R-WA-08). She has also spent less money, and has more cash on hand.
Here is how Real Clear Politics describes it:
The NRCC may be concerned about three of their incumbents who raised less than $200,000 for the quarter. Washington Congressman Dave Reichert (R-WA 08) raised $192,000, while his 2006 opponent, businesswoman Darcy Burner (D), raised $199,000. Burner held on to $185,000, while Reichert retains $162,000.
The reason the NRCC should be concerned is because of Reichert’s anemic performance. The 19 Republicans enrolled in the NRCC’s (erronously titled) Retain Our Majority Program for vulnerable incumbents raised an average of $316,000 with an average of $455,000 in hand. It seems that Reichert’s fundraising prowess and fiscal management are not quite up to snuff.
Burner not only out-fundraised Reichert, but her campaign spent only 38% of what Reichert’s campaign spent (Reichert: $140,000; Burner: $53,000).
The contribution profile differs between the two candidates. Darcy raised $183,500 from individual contributions compared to Reichert’s $99,600. Nearly half of Reichert’s contributions ($92,800) came from political action committees; whereas, Burner took in only $16,000 in PAC contributions.
Reichert’s anemic fundraising is likely a symptom of voter dissatisfaction with the continued military operations in Iraq. That is, Reichert’s 100% support for Bush on Iraq is causing him the same difficulties that Presidential hopeful John McCain has. As Goldy pointed out earlier, Daniel Kirkdorffer at On the Road to 2008 predicts a Reichert flip-flop on the Iraq issue this coming September, right after the Petraeus report.
That might help his fundraising a bit. On the other hand, a Reichert flip-flop will highlight Reichert’s blind loyalty to Bush for three years in which thousands of U.S. soldiers died and tens of thousands were wounded.
I suspect voters will be ready for a change.
by Darryl — ,
Bob Geiger reports on the…
…status of cosponsorship on the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, a bill by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) that would “…restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States.” At that point, the legislation had 23 cosponsors — 22 Democrats and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont — and I thought I would check back in today and see who has stepped up to show leadership on this issue since then.
The current list of sponsors includes Washington state’s junior Senator, Maria Cantwell. But, surprisingly, Sen. Patty Murray is absent from the list.
That means it is time for a letter….
Dear Sen. Murray,
One of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of America was the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that removed the right of habeas corpus from millions. There is now a bill introduced by Sen. Specter called the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 that will reverse this abomination.
This is an extremely important piece of legislation. It restores habeas corpus to non-citizens (including some 12 million permanent residents who, under the current law, can be held indefinitely and with no legal recourse), and allows them to challenge arbitrary detention in the U.S. court system.
I was surprised to see that you are not a cosponsor of this bill.
Please cosponsor this legislation, and do whatever it takes to enact it into law. Lets minimize this ugly blemish on American history.
Yours,
Darryl
HominidViews
Click here to send your own letter to Sen. Murray. Or call the toll-free number at the U.S. Capitol at (800) 862-5530, or Sen. Murray’s office directly at (202) 224-2621, or send a Fax to (202) 224-0238.
(Crossposted.)
by Darryl — ,
Naturally I was really busy on Thursday, on a news day replete with interesting Republican accomplishments. Here’s a recap….
First there was Bush’s report to Congress (and the nation) on “progress” in Iraq since the Surge™ began. Check out Fred Kaplin’s Slate piece on the “accomplishments” titled “You Call That Progress? The outrageous White House report on Iraq.” I sense skepticism.
President George W. Bush achieved something of his own “benchmark” when he tied Richard Nixon’s low mark in a recent Harris poll of presidential approval.
Florida Rep. Bob Allen (R-Men’s Room) shows that even Republicans can try earning $20 the good ol’ fashion way.
President George W. Bush creates more scandal by trying to fire someone.
Now 3600+ U.S. soldiers have given their life for Saddam’s WMD Saddam’s role in 9-11-2001 stopping the Iraqi humanitarian crisis ousting Saddam training…er…fighting them over there oil somethin’ or the other that is really, really worthwhile.
Daniel at On the Road to 2008 noticed that Rep. Dave Reichert’s web site has carefully documented Reichert’s “record of independence and bi-partisan leadership.” Mmmmmm….impressive!
Republicans show their fund raising prowess by finishing somewhere in the top five.
Wingnut Pundit Jack Burkman demonstrates his commitment to small businesses.
President George W. Bush finally takes credit for his administration’s accomplishments in the Valerie Wilson covert dissemination case.
You gotta give them wingnuts credit…they’re always accomplishing stuff….
by Darryl — ,
The media seems surprised that Fred Thompson used to be pro-choice. The LA Times broke the story on Saturday:
Fred D. Thompson, who is campaigning for president as an antiabortion Republican, accepted an assignment from a family-planning group to lobby the first Bush White House to ease a controversial abortion restriction, according to a 1991 document and several people familiar with the matter.
A spokesman for the former Tennessee senator denied that Thompson did the lobbying work. But the minutes of a 1991 board meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. say that the group hired Thompson that year.
His task was to urge the administration of President George H. W. Bush to withdraw or relax a rule that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money, according to the records and to people who worked on the matter.
But Fred Thompson is just another Republican whose views on abortion apparently change with the political winds. I’ve found a number of articles published in the 1990s that suggest Thompson used to be pro-choice.
The New Republic article, published on 10 Apr 1995 (pg. 15) and subtitled “Meet Fred Thompson (R-Hollywood),” pointed out (emphasis added):
On the current Republican hot-button topics, [Fred Thompson] evinces just the right degree of political honesty. He’s pro-choice and is one of the few Republicans willing to broach the subject of cuts in Social Security. But he swaddles his words in soothing balm about not wanting to hurt the “old folks.” Not bad for a beginner. Good enough, even, to make him a distant but conceivable vice presidential pick in 1996.
By 1997, Newsweek (3 Feb, U.S. edition, pg. 30) points out that (emphasis added):
Thompson is hard to pin down politically. He refuses to announce a clear position on abortion (though he consistently votes pro-life).
A few months later, The Economist (July 12, 1997, U.S. edition, pg. 32) writes (emphasis added):
Though he has been in the Senate less than three years, and though the extent of his ambition is uncertain, Mr Thompson is a natural presidential hope. He is six foot six; he has a folksy charm; he is frequently compared to Ronald Reagan. […]
Mr Thompson’s fight against corrupt politics is attractive, to be sure; his open support for abortion choice in a party of abortion foes is politically courageous.
Should he run for POTUS, Fred will have to make up some Romneyesque bullshit story like an epiphany caused by the “obvious” immorality of stem cell research that changed his stance on abortion.
For now, Fred Thompson is just spewing bullshit without the epiphany. Responding to the LA Times piece at the Young Republicans National Convention on Saturday, Thompson said:
“I’d just say the flies get bigger in the summertime. I guess the flies are buzzing,” said Thompson, who is considering running for president as a social conservative. He refused comment on whether he recalled doing the work.
Basically, Fred, like Mitt, has changed his position on abortion. The difference is that Mitt at least made the effort to concoct a bullshit excuse, whereas Fred is just spewing utter bullshit.
by Darryl — ,
Giuliani has a fascinating new ad (via Crooks and Liars):
By the way, if you enjoy political audio and video clips, check out Hominid Views every Saturday morning for a recap of the week’s best political media. That is…if you can break away from those cartoons.
by Darryl — ,
There will be some gnashing of teeth by the Washington State Republicans to this July 3rd press release from Governor Gregoire:
Governor Chris Gregoire today designated the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) as a voter registration assistance agency and directed the agency to appoint a voter registration assistance officer, efficiently help citizens register to vote and work with the Secretary of State’s office to ensure compliance with established voter registration procedures.
“It is one of the primary duties of government to make available to all citizens the opportunity to register to vote and, if needed, provide registration assistance,” said Governor Gregoire. “Our social service agency serves a diverse group of people every day and therefore is an ideal place to help more Washingtonians register to vote.”
Governor Gregoire also encouraged all state agencies to provide on their web sites a link to the Secretary of State’s voter registration page and to consider other ways in which they might support and promote voter registration.
[…]
This is the way government ought to work. It should take concrete steps to maximize opportunities for all eligible citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote. It is curious, then, that over the last decade the Republican Party has increasingly become the party of voter suppression and disenfranchisement. (Luke Esser looks prescient with his 20-year-old disenfranchisement satire.)
We saw the Republican vote suppression in action days before the 2005 election when Lori Sotelo (apparently inspired by a Karl Rove briefing, filed an error-prone series of voter challenges. Subsequently, the Washington State laws were changed to prevent such abuse.
Under the worst of circumstances, the Republican-sponsored disenfranchisement becomes operational through a Republican-controlled government…. In 2000, we saw a massive, and error prone disenfranchisement operation undertaken in Florida, under the supervision of Secretary of State Katherine Harris—an operation that almost certainly swung the presidential election by inappropriately purging thousands of African Americans from the voter rolls. A US Commission on Civil Rights report summarized it this way:
…poorly designed efforts to eliminate fraud, as well as sloppy and irresponsible implementation of those efforts, disenfranchise legitimate voters and can be a violation of the VRA. Florida’s overzealous efforts to purge voters from the rolls, conducted under the guise of an anti-fraud campaign, resulted in the inexcusable and patently unjust removal of disproportionate numbers of African American voters from Florida’s voter registration rolls for the November 2000 election.
[…]African American voters were placed on purge lists more often and more erroneously than Hispanic or white voters. For instance, in the state’s largest county, Miami-Dade, more than 65 percent of the names on the purge list were African Americans, who represented only 20.4 percent of the population. Hispanics were 57.4 percent of the population, but only 16.6 percent of the purge list; whites were 77.6 percent of the population but 17.6 percent of those purged.
Florida easily could have, and should have, done much more to protect the voting rights of African Americans and other Floridians.
(They also found other ways that African American voters were disproportionately disenfranchised in Florida in 2000.)
On the face of it, the Republican problem seems to be paranoia, with the biggest cheerleader of paranoia being Karl Rove. Don’t you believe it. If there is anything that Republican strategists learned from the 2000 election is that disenfranchising voters works for Republicans! Karl Rove almost certainly knows he is feeding the Republican masses a load of horseshit.
Republican voter fraud “paranoia” is really theatre in two acts, designed to disenfranchise subpopulations that vote Democratic.
The first act shakes the confidence of ordinary voters in the election system—that is, it spreads paranoia through unfounded fears of widespread (presumably Democratic) election fraud.
We certainly saw this fear-mongering played out in Washington State in 2004. During the election contest trial, Republican lawyers opened with a bold statement about how they would prove election fraud. The trial proceeded without any evidence of election fraud being offered. Judge Bridges Oral Decision stated:
There is no evidence that anybody associated with any of the candidates in the governor’s race had anything to do with causing the errors. There is no evidence that has been produced in this Court to suggest that the errors resulted from partisan bias. During the 2004 general election, the various polling sites across the State were populated by inspectors, judges, Accuvote judges, observers, attorneys and the media. No testimony has been placed before the Court to suggest fraud or intentional misconduct. Election officials attempted to perform their responsibilities in a fair and impartial manner. There is no evidence before the Court to question ballot security as to those ballots actually counted.
The second act in the G.O.P. theatre is to make registration and/or voting more difficult for “certain voters.” That would be the poor, people of color, and people living in urban environments. You know, various schemes to cancel registrations, laws to require photo IDs at the polls, that sort of thing. These gimmicks particularly hit poor people of color—people that some Republicans believe shouldn’t even have a right to vote.
That is why Gregoire’s memo will cause some political consternation and constipation among state Republicans. We all know who uses DSHS: the same people Republicans build gated communities to keep out.
by Darryl — ,
What is your idea of patriotism on this most extraordinary 4th of July?
Our friend Shaun, a true patriot of the Pacific Northwest, shares what Independence Day means to him.
by Darryl — ,
(Via Crooks and Liars.)
by Darryl — ,
Tonight there will be another fun-filled meeting of the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. I appeal to you to scooter on over and join us for an evening of politics under the influence. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Pardon the pun, but it’s an easy commute.
Drinking Liberally’s Seattle hosts are Nick Beaudrot of Electoral Math and HorsesAss contributer TheHim (also at Blog Reload and EFFin’ Unsound).
If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area, there is a Drinking Liberally for you—Jimmy will have the details.
The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 210 chapters in 44 states (plus DC). And if you don’t find a chapter near you…start one!
by Darryl — ,
Editor & Publisher summarizes today’s editorials slamming President Bush for commuting convicted felon Scooter Libby’s sentence.
Here are a couple of poignant ones:
From the [New York] Times’ Tuesday editorial: “Mr. Bush’s assertion that he respected the verdict but considered the sentence excessive only underscored the way this president is tough on crime when it’s committed by common folk …
“Within minutes of the Libby announcement, the same Republican commentators who fulminated when Paris Hilton got a few days knocked off her time in a county lockup were parroting Mr. Bush’s contention that a fine, probation and reputation damage were ‘harsh punishment’ enough for Mr. Libby.
“Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: “President Bush’s commutation of a pal’s prison sentence counts as a most shocking act of disrespect for the U.S. justice system. It’s the latest sign of the huge repairs to American concepts of the rule of law that await the next president.”
San Jose Mercury News: “Other presidents have doled out pardons and the like, usually on the way out of office. It’s never pretty. But few have placed themselves above the law as Bush, Cheney and friends repeatedly have done by trampling civil liberties and denying due process. Chalk up another point for freedom. Scooter’s, at least.”
Read the rest of ’em here.
(Story and photo via AmericaBlog.)
by Darryl — ,
Republican hypocrisy was on full display today. The supposedly “tough on crime” President George W. Bush commuted part of Scooter Libby’s sentence. Literally, Bush gave Scooter a “get out of jail free card.”
Tough on crime my ass.
Libby is still a convicted felon, will have to pay $250,000 and will be on probation should his appeal fail. (The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Libby’s request to remain free on bail while his appeal is under way, so the writing is on the wall as to the persuasiveness of his rather unorthodox legal arguments.)
Apparently obstructing justice, committing perjury, and making false statements is not really so bad if you are a Republican…at least, not bad enough to spend time in prison over.
The hypocrisy is overwhelming. While Governor of Texas, George W. Bush oversaw the execution of over 100 people, including three people who were borderline mentally retarded. Apparently, death is the right sentence for criminals who lack the mental capacity to fully understand their crimes. But Libby, a lawyer who rose to an important position in the White House, who knew full well he was obstructing a very serious criminal investigation, and who presumably has an IQ greater than 70…he walks. Maybe “selective on crime” is a better tag line.
(On the other hand, maybe Bush does not have the mental capacity to understand what he has done? I mean, really, has George W. Bush ever done anything that would peg his I.Q. at over 70?)
Here is how Dubya tried to justify his soft-on-crime decision:
Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.
I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.
Excessive? Umm…pardon my cynicism, but wasn’t Judge Reggie Walton appointed precisely because he had a no-nonsense, tough-on-crime attitude?
In the end, the hypocrisy should be overshadowed by the simple logic of what just went down. Libby took a bullet for Dick Cheney, who clearly orchestrated a smear campaign against Valerie Wilson. Libby is convicted (instead of Cheney). Bush takes the sting out of Libby’s sentence. Pure and shameless abuse of power. Mark my words…in the end, Bush will pardon Libby.
I mean, that’s just the way organized crime works.
by Darryl — ,
Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for another exciting evening of politics under the influence. Yeah…some call us the the “liberal elite,” but we’re all on equal punditry grounds after a couple of pints. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.
Drinking Liberally’s Seattle hosts are Nick Beaudrot of Electoral Math and HorsesAss contributer TheHim (also at Blog Reload and EFFin’ Unsound).
If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area, check out their Drinking Liberally; Jimmy will have the details.
The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 210 chapters in 44 states (plus DC). And if you don’t find a chapter near you…start one!
by Darryl — ,
The Supreme Court just saved Jesus from peer pressure to try drugs. Today the Court ruled 5 to 4 against a student displaying a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner at an off-grounds school event.
I suppose we can call this the “free-expression hits 4 Jesus” case.
The school principal thought the banner promoted drug use and, as a consequence, she confiscated the banner and suspended the student. The student, Joseph Frederick, simply thought the slogan was funny—and that it would attract the attention of TV crews covering the journey of the Olympic torch.
The majority opinion (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito) held that:
[t]he First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers.
“Danger” refers to the harm of illegal drug use—in this case, the harm of drug use by a vulnerable Jesus.
This goes to show that conservatives really are humor impaired. Further studies will be needed to determine if this humor impairment syndrome (HIS) has some genetic underpinnings, is caused by environmental toxins, or whether it reflects a deficient childhood nutritional environment—you know, like being nursed by hyenas to avoid exposing the child to its mother’s breasts. I’m betting on the hyena scenario.
Justices Stevens’ dissenting opinion held that:
…the school’s anti-drug policy “cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs.”
The majority, apparently, equates promoting drug use for Jesus—a man who was executed in the First World War on Terror some 2,000 years ago, isn’t a citizen of the U.S., would take bong hits in the privacy of his own kingdom which, in any case, is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.—might have the pernicious effect of inducing HIS-afflicted conservative students to take up drug use. (In other words, Jesus is just a gateway target.)
The same reasoning might prohibit “Bong Hits 4 Hitler,” since it could still provide pernicious inspiration for some HIS-positive conservatives.
Perhaps a safer slogan is “Bong Hits 4 Brontosaurus?” Oh…wait…among science-impaired HIS-positive conservatives, this is tantamount to promoting drug experimentation with family pets.