Score Three for Liberty

In the last few days the Supreme Court has issued a pair of decisions which - coupled with a third from 2002 - have been significant blows to BushCo.

In 2002 while Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was still on the Court, the SCOTUS ruled in Hamdi V Rumsfeld that the President does not have unlimited war powers.

We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation ’s citizens. Youngstown Sheet &Tube ,343 U.S.,at 587. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict,it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake. Mistretta v.United States, 488 U.S.361,380 (1989)(it was “the central judgment of the Framers of the Constitution that,within our political scheme,the separation of governmental powers into three coordinate Branches is essential to the preservation of liberty ”);Home Building &Loan Assn.v.Blaisdell,290 U.S.398,426 (1934)(The war power “is a power to wage war successfully,and thus it permits the harnessing of the entire energies of the people in a supreme cooperative effort to preserve the nation.But even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties ”). Likewise,we have made clear that,unless Congress acts to suspend it, the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance, serving as an important judicial check on the Executive ’s discretion in the realm of detentions.

This decision was one of the first major SCOTUS defeats by the Bush Administration, and many felt that with the retiring of Justice O'Connor and the appointment of Samuel Alito for her seat, things would begin to swing Bush's way -- but apparently not.

This week the Texas Gerrymandering by Tom Delay was found Unconstitutional. From Democratic Underground.

This case is significant, because it is one of the few instances in which the Voting Rights Act has been enforced in this country since W. took office. The Department of Justice under John Ashcroft and then Al Gonzales has chosen to pretend that the Voting Rights Act does not exist. Ashcroft did not prosecute Katherine Harris for using a felon's list in Florida which contained the names of tens of thousands of people entitles to vote (even though she was informed that the list was flawed in this way--a violation of the Act). He did not prosecute the thugs who crossed state lines to threaten and intimidate poll workers into stopping a lawful vote recount, even though that is clearly against the law. He did not step in when Diebold inserted an illegal patch called "rob.georgia.zip" into the softwear of of its voting machines in 2002, resulting in surprise upset victories over Democratic incumbents who had double digit leads in the polls.

It's not by coincidence that the House has recently chosen not to vote on reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. Voter Suppression is their bread and butter, and so is authoritarian brutality.

Today the SCOTUS ruled in Hamdan v Rumsfeld against the use of both Military Tribunals for detainees as well as upheld the requirements to uphold the Geneva Conventions as a addendem to U.S. Law. Frontpaged on Kos.

In a 5-3 decision this morning (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld), the United States Supreme Court ruled that neither Congress's post-9/11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), nor the inherent powers of the President gave the President the authority to establish military tribunals on Guantanamo Bay to try and convict alleged enemy combatants in the war on terror. The Court found the commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention.

Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, supported in its entirety by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter. In a separate opinion, Justice Kennedy joined enough of it to count. Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas all dissented, with the Chief Justice sitting out because he ruled in this case when it was previously heard by the D.C. Circuit.

The core of this decision indicates that before setting up his own private personal kingdom of terror on Cuba, the President would have to first gain the approval of Congress. He can't just make shit up on the fly.

From Scotusblog

As I predicted below, the Court held that Congress had, by statute, required that the commissions comply with the laws of war -- and held further that these commissions do not (for various reasons).

More importantly, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"--including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes). If I'm right about this, it's enormously significant.

The downside is that further suits of this nature are unlikely to further clarify exactly what should be done with the estimated 400 detainees at Guantanemo who the government has shown no intention of charging with a crime (Not to mention the unknown number of "Ghost Detainees" still unaccounted for). The Levin-Graham Amendment of the McCain "anti-torture" ban included a prohibition for detainees - like Hamdi and Hamdan - to sue in civil courts over over their status or even if they were tortured.

Does this recent SCOTUS decision make that ridiculous amendment a moot point? We'll have to wait and see.

In addition to Levin-Graham the Justice Dept has previously claimed that the McCain doesn't even apply to Gitmo. From the Washington Post:

U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban
McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison

By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 3, 2006; A04

Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.

In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."

Government lawyers have argued that another portion of that same law, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, removes general access to U.S. courts for all Guantanamo Bay captives. Therefore, they said, Mohammed Bawazir, a Yemeni national held since May 2002, cannot claim protection under the anti-torture provisions.

If the McCain bill wasn't trying to prevent torture at Gitmo - where was it supposed to prevent torture, Scranton New Jersey? Will they now then claim that the SCOTUS doesn't apply to Gitmo either, even though this decision was specifically about Gitmo?

The one shining light in this tunnel is the fact that a increasing number of legal scholars are finding umbrage with BushCo in general, and their use of Signing Statments in particular.

In a hearing today, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on presidential signing statements, which Ranking Member Leahy called "a grave threat to our constitutional system of checks and balances." Recent reports have highlighted how Bush has issued these orders in record numbers and exercised unprecedented overreach by giving himself the authority to ignore certain parts of the laws he signs.

Because of the extralegal nature of the signing statements, there is nothing for Congress or the Supreme Court to actually overrule. Nevertheless, the statements are binding for policy implementation.

Bruce Fein, attorney and renowned legal scholar, told the committee that Bush has essentially given himself a line item veto power by declaring portions of new laws unconstitutional and offering his own revisions.

The Supreme Court has previously struck down the Actual Line-Item Veto power that was granted under President Clinton as extra-constitutional. There is little likelyhood that the Bush Administration could survive a direct challenge to his use of this authority before the SCOTUS, even with the presence of Samuel Alito on the court. If such a decision falls along lines similar to this one - it would still by 5-4 against the President.

His only hope of maintaining the power he has grabbed, is for Bush to push for a Line-Item Veto Amendment - which he's been doing vigorously. But since his re-election Bush hasn't been able to get a single one of his agenda items pushed through, other than the confirmation of Alito, and that was brutal dogfight. His chances of having a Line-Item Veto passed are somewhere south of slim and nil.

I'm sure the Bill O's of the world will claim that the "Far Left" and Activist Courts are undermining the Presidents ability to fight the War on Terror (tm)- and that we'll 'lose" if they had their way. I would argue that if we blithely toss aside who we are, if we ignore the true promise that this nation holds by shredding our own Constitution (particularly the 8th Amendment which clearly bans "Cruel and Unusual Treatment"), if we have to start using Saddam's Tactics -- even if we defeat the terrorist, we've still lost the war. We will have become them, which is exactly what they've been accusing us of being all along.

I think we need to take a more noble and principled path. Yes, it may be more difficult, but it will be well worth it.

As far as Bush goes it's going to take a common citizen or citizens group to look at some of the 750 signing statements the President has made and directly challenge them in court. Make him justify his attempts to circumvent the law and the Constitution, because the truth is - he can't, but he'll go down in flames trying just like he has on Hamdi and Hamdan.

I plan to bring marshmellows.

Vyan

Update: Oh, and by the way -- if the AUMF didn't authorize Gitmo, torture or Military Tribunals, it didn't authorize the NSA Spying program either! Tee hee.

Update 2 Glenn Greenwald strongly agrees that this decision effectively demolishes BushCo justifications for the NSA Programs as being authorized by the AUMF, but points out that all it would take is for Congress to Change the Law to allow this type of action to continue. To invalidate Geneva, they would have to void the treaty - which is less likely, but we are talking about the "Rubber Stamp Congress" here. Just abot any wingbat bullshit is possible for them to try after Gay Marriage and Flag Burning - decertifying Geneva could be next before they get their asses handed to them in November.

William Jefferson Whiplash

Ok, just what the bloody hell is going on around the Capitol?

Last week, just last week, we had Alberto Gonzales threatening to ignore the First Amendment and take the unprecedented steps of prosecuting journalists. We had the DOJ claiming they didn't have the security clearances to investigate the NSA Spying issue. We had the SEC unable to move forward on tracking the money flow involved in the NSA due to actions taken by John Negroponte. We had the FCC, who wouldn't lift a finger. We had allegations of warrantless physical searches, indications that AT&T had provided access to our email and Rep James Sensenbrenner was starting to talk about allowing ISPs to track our website visits, meanwhile Alberto Gonzales is already doing it, law or no law.

This week, James Sensenbrenner says that the raid on William Jeffersons office has created a Constitutional Crisis and in response Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Meuller have both threated to resign if the papers taken from Jefferson's Office - in a bribery case - are returned? What!!?

Jane at Firedoglake is completely flabberghasted on this one.

To say I do not understand WTF is going on between the Justice Department, the OVP, the White House and Congressional Republicans in the William Jefferson affair would be an understatement. I doubt right now if many can claim to know what this weird dance is all about.

Abu Gonzales has never found a position so base he could not justify at Dubya's request -- from torture to illegal wiretapping to threatening journalists and rubber stamping all manner of unlimited executive overreach -- but he's finally drawing a line in the sand over returning documents seized in a bribery scandal?

Dennis Hastert has gleefully played marionette to perhaps the biggest crook in the House, Tom DeLay, and has happily facilitated the White House's efforts to hack off limbs of Congressional authority, but now he's ready to force a constitutional crisis defending a member of the Black Congressional Caucus?

Georgia10 thinks is all about self-preservation.

I think Georgia is right, and then some. But what I wonder just what does this very sudden about face on privacy and Constitutional issues do to the Republican Congresses previous position that pretty much anything the NSA and FBI wanted to do to snoop and spy on the American people was just honky dory.

"If you've done nothing wrong - you have nothing to worry about!"

Hmm... look who'se looking mighty worried now.

What this really portrays isn't really a sudden concern for the sanctity of the Fourth Amendment, the only sanctity they're trying to preserve is that of Congress within the confines of the Capitol. If the FBI can raid William Jefferson's office - even with a subpeona and search warrant - then they can raid Dennis Hastert's Office, or James Sensenbrenners or Bill (I'm still being investigated by the SEC) Frist's office.

I think this is a far nastier situation than we'd really recognized so far.

Bush aides were also worried about a war with the Republican House if the president did not act.

"If you tell the House to stick it where the sun don't shine, you're talking about a fundamentally corrosive relationship between two branches of government," the senior administration official said. "They could zero out funding; they could say, 'Okay, you can do subpoenas, so can we.' "

As a matter of fact, the House can do subpeonas - hell, they should have been doing subpeonas for the last three years. Imagine if you will, the prospect of a retaliatory subpeona raid on the White House for things like the still missing Jack Abramoff entry records, or the classified executive orders that granted the NSA authority to setup their secret rooms at AT&T?

This is of course why the President has decided to create a 45-Day cooling off period, by holding the documents under seal for that time. The last thing he wants is to truly piss-off the House which has been covering his ass for the last five years. And the last thing the House wants is for the Federal Election Commission to start really looking into all the lobbying money that has flowed from Saucy Jack Abramoff to Hammerin' Tom Delay and through the pockets of all but Three House Republicans. Tom may be gone, but his money trail lingers.

Just keep remembering, that these guys are so scared - they forgot that they were defending a Democrat. Considering the type of low-ball dirty pool bullshit they've been pulling over the last decade (and more) against Democrats -- they have to be piss-stain afriad of something being discovered either in Jefferson's papers (where did the money come from, who else received bribes!) or in their own papers if additional raids are likely to be authorized.

And I wonder, just how does all of this play in the "Heartland"?

Well over at Redstate - this is what they have to say.

Courtesy of Speaker Dennis Hastert who had a staffer write wrote this editorial regarding the seizure of documents from Rep. Jefferson's office. The editorial is so opaque, so utterly and completely devoid of any meaningful information that one wonders why the Speaker went through the trouble of actually writing it. Perhaps it is better or more accurate to say that the Speaker non-wrote the editorial, since a writing with so much fluff and so little substance practically negates itself.

Ouch! Not going over too well it would seem.

Vyan

Tom Delay (hearts) Stephen Colbert. No, really!

As pointed out by Thinkprogress, the Tom Delay defense fund has sent out a mass mailing criticizing the new Robert Greenwald film "The Big Buy: Tom DeLay's Stolen Congress". Greenwald appeared on Stephen Colbert for a mock grilling, and the Delay camp - not recognizing satire even when it's dripping on their shoes - have posted the video of the entire interview on the Official Defend Delay website claiming that Colbert "nailed" Greenwald during the interview.

How fucking dense can you get?

First, Texas lost the Dixie Chicks - now this? What's next?

From the Mass Mailing (emphasis mine, for comedic effect)...

Hollywood Liberal and Micheal Moore wannabe Robert Greenwald (known his attacks on Wal-mart and Fox News) crashed and burned on Comedy Central's The Colbert Report (watch it at http://www.defenddelay.com) when promoting his new attack on Tom Delay. He even admits their reason for producing the movie (and clearly Ronnie Earle's for participating) - to keep Republicans from gaining power in Congressional seats across the country. Tom Delay was successful in bringing legal and constitutional redistricting to Texas, and since Democrats couldn't win at the legislature or at the ballot box they used the only resources they had left - liberal Hollywood and a nutty, partisan DA knowledge of the facts and the law. The producers of this political mockumentary claim they are trying to put together a fair and balanced peice, yet what they put out is a peice of leftist propoganda with the cooperation of District Attorney Ronnie Earle.

When Stephen Colbert first question to Greenwald is "Who hates America more - you or Michael Moore?", the Delay camp actually think it's a serious question. Greenwald makes no pretense that his films aren't partisan. His documentary on Fox News (Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism) was partially funded by MoveOn.org. Far from being a "Hollywood Insider" Greenwald as about as much of an independant film-maker as you're ever likely to find. The Website Site for his film Wal-Mart: The High Price of Low Cost states the following:

While would-be Hollywood blockbusters book thousands of theaters months ahead of time jockeying for the best opening weekend, we're looking to book thousands of churches, family businesses, schools, living rooms, community centers, and parking lots. And we need your help to do it.

The only cost to you is $12.95 to purchase a DVD or VHS, and whatever you choose to spend on the screening/party yourself.

That's not exactly how MGM does it I think.

No Red Carpet. No appearance by Brangelina or the latest starlett of this quarter hour. And No appearance by D-lister Kathy Griffin making fun of them while Joan Rivers bitches them out for their tacky wardrobe. Nope. Nada. Zip.

Nearly all of Greenwald's films have been Direct to DVD releases, not screening at the Cinerama Dome opposite Cruisazy's MI:III!! And they've nearly all been partisan, particularly his film "Trilogy" Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election, Unconstitutional: The War on our Civil Liberties and Uncovered: The War In Iraq

The reaction from the right to Greenwald's film is quite like the reaction to the Al Gore film "An Inconvenient Truth" . When asked if he would be watching it President Bush responded with "...Doubt it".

Right, the President shouldn't be informed or anything.

But let's not forget that Right-wing has plenty of stars to make intriuging movies. I mean, c'mon they've got Jessica Simpson. Yeah...uh ok. And they can expect plenty of nuanced political analysis from the next movies by Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis and Ah-nald. (just as soon as his ass gets kicked out of office) Y'know - political views like "Me Punch - you Fall Down!".

Nice, wholesome, balanced films.

In it's constant state of paranoia, the right sees every film or even every statement that doesn't support their worldview as an attack.

In his diary yesterday on the Anatomy of an Annoying Conservative codemorse hit the nail on the head when he pointed out:

Reason #2: Conservatives are always the embattled, underdog minority.

The conservatives are underrepresented in film! They don't control Hollywood the way that they control Washington! Something must be done!

There were at least four "liberal" films released last year and we were forced at gunpoint to see and discuss them! They must be destroyed!

Does that sound ridiculous to anyone else?

So embattled are they, that now they believe Stephen Colbert and his Comedy Show on Comedy Central is a legitmate ally?

If this is what the former "Hammer" has sunk to, latching on to imaginary supporters, I think things just might start to look up in DC-ville.

For more information about Robert Greenwald and his films and tv work (which includes the ACLU Freedom Files), visit http://www.robertgreenwald.org

Vyan

One Consistent Meme for Victory in November

There are practically an avalanche of issues which the Bush Administration and Congress have created which should be all rights send them packing this year - but many of us felt that way in 2004 and look what happened?

Since then things have clearly grown worse. We have the various NSA scandals (which Bush supporters still consider a strength), we've had the Katrina disaster followed by the FEMA disaster. We've had the Terri Schiavo debacle. Scooter Libby's been indicted. Tom Delay has been indicted and left the Congress. Jack Abramoff indicted and convicted. Duke Cunningham indicted and convicted. David Safavian indicted and convicted. President Bush's polls have bottomed out at 29%, while Congress has been as low as 23% in recent months.

But it's still not enough, not nearly.

What do the polls say?

The American People are not happy with George W. Bush.

Newsweek: "Since George W. Bush was reelected to a second term in 2004, has your opinion of his performance in office gotten better, worse, or stayed about the same?" - Worse 48%- Same 47% - Better 4%

USA Gallup: "Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think it applies or doesn't apply to George W. Bush. How about [see below]?"

"Picks good people for key leadership positions" - Applies 41% -Doesn't Apply 56%

"Is honest and trustworthy" - Applies 41% - Doesn't Apply %56

CNN : "Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think it applies or doesn't apply to George W. Bush. How about [see below]?"

"Competent" - Applies 47% - Doesn't Apply 47%

"Strong and decisive leader" - Applies 46% - Doesn't Apply 51%

"Honest and Trustworthy" - Applies 40% - Doesn't Apply 55%

But apparently not so unhappy that they yet want to see him removed from office (at least not according to Fox)

Fox News: "Regardless of how you plan to vote, if the Democrats win this year's congressional elections do you think it would be right for them to try to impeach President Bush over the Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction, or not?" - Not RIght 62% - Right 30%.

This would seem to indicate that making the November elections a referendum on impeachment, is not exactly the best path to follow. It might be possible after some intense investigation of what the bloody same hill has been going on in the White House the last fives years, but not yet. So far - thanks the the stonewalling, the case hasn't been made.

We have to realize that the ultimate solution to the lawlessness of George W. Bush will probably come from the courts, not from Congress. Particularly not from a Republican congress.

But what about Congress itself?

CNN: "Do you think the Republicans in Congress are more financially corrupt, or are the Democrats in Congress more financially corrupt?" - Republicans 40% - Democrats 15%

Newsweek: "Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?" - Satisfied 23% - Dissatisfied 71% -

ABC : "Overall, which party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years? - Democrats 50% - Republicans 36% -

This dissatisfaction doesn't seem to be pointed at any one particular issue, but instead is an overall indictment of how Congress has performed, particularly in reining in the President. They may not want him impeached, but neither do they want him to run-amok.

The one thing that Democrats need to drive home is the fact that this Republican Congress and President can not be trusted with control of our government.

Repeat it with me...

People Who Don't Believe In Government, can not be trusted to RUN it properly, except into the ground!

Democrats need to burn this into their forehead - they need to mention it in dairy after diary, blog after blog. Each and every Democratic Leader who goes on TV has to chant this like a mantra. "A Government can't be effectively run by people who hate Government". "Government is not the Problem, Believe that it is - is the problem". A prime tenet of post-Reagan Conservatism has been the idea that "Government is the Problem". Government is your enemy. Government must be stopped. Well, they've succeeded i stopping the government from being able to effectively prosecute the war on terrorism. We haven't caught Osama. We're losing control in both Afghanistan and Iraq. They stopped the government from doing what it could to protect the people of the gulf coast.

We have to recognize that we aren't just fighting George Bush, we aren't even just fighting the Republicans in congress - we're fighting the Doctrine that causes the government to breakdown in it's duty to serve the will and needs of the people..

Governement is by no means the solution to all problems, far from it. It is merely a tool - one that can be used wisely, that can heal and protect or one that can be used only as a weapon for destruction, fear-mongering and pain.

The latter is what the Conservatives who hold a strangehold on power have wrought. There are no two-ways about it, they control the Executive, Legislative and most of the Judicial Branches. Democrats and democratic ideals have had little to nothing to do with the results we've seen so far, and can only expect to get worse.

Democrats believe in a government that is effective, but not expensive or intrusive. It was only under Democratically passed budget of 1994 that the deficit finally began to be addressed and eventually led to a record surplus. It was only under a Democratic leadership that the total size of the Federal Government shrank by 10% while the rate of crime dropped by 15% and abortions by an even greater amount.

Are Democrats patriots? Do they not wish to fight terrorism with every (legal) means at our disposal? Of course they do.

Do they have an answer to every possible question and a response to every possible situation that might arrise? Of course not, anyone who thinks they have all the answers before even being asked the question is a fool or worse - a liar.

But one thing is for certain - they certainly can't make things any worse.

Vyan

The Plague of Conservatism must be Eradicated

As I've stated before, Conservatism is a complete and total failure, but we have to realize that it's more than just bumbling and incompetent... it's dangerous.

Today's revelations that the Federal Government has been spying on Journalists (noted here and here) in a effort to capture leakers and whistle-blowers (most of whom are in fact revealing various illegal and frankly immoral activities of the Bush Administration) should not come as a surprise to most who've been paying attention as scandal after scandal comes tumbling down both ends of Pennsylvania Ave.

But is this enough to truly make people realize the depth of Conservative Malfeasance, or do we still need something even worse to happen before we finally wake up as a nation and reject this poisonous pathological affliction?

We have a goverment that started a War on false pretenses and to this very day continues to lie about it. The President still says that "Saddam refused to disclose and disarm" when he'd already done exactly that, meanwhile we have pathetically desperate Freepers claiming that their really were "Mobile Laboratories". Yeah, really.

WE. LET. AN. AMERICAN. CITY. DROWN.

And yet in mixed company you will still meet people who make excuses for this President's failure to act, and instead attempt to blame Louisiana for being hit by a Hurricane.

It's become high-time we realized that George W. Bush is not the problem - he's just a symptom of the disease. He's not the Decider, he's The Enabler. He's the guy that let Alberto Gonzales justify, and Don Rumsfeld get away with War Crimes. He's the guy that allowed Porter Goss to conduct a witchhunt through the halls of the CIA. He's the guy that let's Dick Cheney and his staff out a Covert CIA operative just to cover up their lies about Iraq's Nuclear ambitions. He's the guy that let Michael Chertoff eviscerate FEMA, not to mention the slow atrophy that's choked off the effectiveness of the FDA, EPA, SEC and every other Federal regulatory agency. He's the guy that allows his minions to try and pervert the very meaning of science in our classrooms, while teaching our children that "condoms are bad", but anal and oral sex are "ok" since it won't lead to an abortion (Never mind STD's, those are for dirty people only).

He's the Enabler who permits these conservative crazies to implement their strategy to remake America into their warped Ozzy and Harriet/Father Knows Best fantasies by unilaterially rejecting 750 Congressional passed Bills even as he signs them into Law. Piece by peice, recreating a world that never really existed. A world where domestic violence was not just common, it was expected if a Woman didn't know her "proper place". Where segregation backed by violent retribution and lynchings were the rule, not the exception. Where daring to be Gay was practically a death sentence. Where an unclean woman who died as the result of an abortion, was getting what she deserved for being a slut. A world where White People need to start having more babies, so they won't be outnumbered by the teaming brown masses assaulting our borders.

During the last six years a tide of opinion has slowly grown that George Bush needs to go. He's polling numbers have sunk to a sub-artic 29%. Senator Russ Feingold has callef ro this Censure. Congressman John Conyers has proposed investigations which may lead to impeachment proceedings. But that doesn't go nearly far enough.

Even without George Bush there still literally millions of staunch Conservatives who are more than willing to throw him under the Bus by proclaiming that his many failures where the result of his squishy "Liberalism" then continue their efforts to implement the True Conservatism of their radical and dangerously militarist, neo-facist, theocratic agenda.

Those sentiments should be truly chilling to anyone who genuinely beleives in the Bill of Rights.

It's not just about George Bush. We also have Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, "Duke" Cunningham, "Scooter" Libby, "Dusty" Foggo, James Gannon/Guckert and the conservative networking that has nurtured these people through the system for years.

No matter how satisyfing it may be to see each of these dominoes fall, no matter how much fun it might be to finally see Karl Rove frog marched out of the Whitehouse following his impendnig indictment, focusing on these people misses the point. What we have to battle is the Red-State of Mind.

Conservatism itself, as a viable ideology has to been stamped out. Pulled out by the roots, as both Marxism and Nazism were, totally discredited and destroyed. It's not something we can force, it has to happen on it's own. Just like the eventual destruction of Germany at the end of World War II, or the collapse of the Soviet Russian - it will only happen after a great catastrophe that can be likely directly to the policies and practices of that ideology.

Was that catastrophe 9/11? Was it Katrina? Will it be the impending collapse of the American dollar as our budget and trade deficits continues to explode out of control, or some unforeseen tragedy?

Some former Neo-cons such as Francis Fukuyama have already seen enough and turned a new leaf, but will most of Bush's current throng of followers catch a hint based on what has already occured?

I don't know.

As troubling as these many scandals from Fornigate to Traitorgate have been, they aren't enough to turn the tide. They aren't enough to make people let go of their pathological dependancy on party and ideological affiliation. It's not enough to break the fever, and end the plague. Not yet.

We can't argue and debate our way out of this. Logic, Common Sense, Facts, History, Evidence -- all of these have proven fruitless in arguing with the Conservative Faithful when it comes to the many errors of their ways. They are like addicts, who are unwilling to admit their problem and always quick to rationalize their continued actions.

Like an addict, they - and consequently we as a nation since they continue to control all branches of government - are going to need to completely bottom out before we begin to see the light.

"The first step to recover is reality that you (we) have a problem"

I pray that we reach that bottom soon, but also that we survive it as a nation mostly unscathed -- but I fear that hope may be in vain.

If Iraq isn't enough to turn us around - if Katrina isn't enough - that last final direction changing hit is going to hurt, badly.

God Save America, for it is most certainly in need of it.

[Update from Dkos Comments: I am not suggesting a great "Purge" ala McCarthyism - no, I'm talking about attacking the "isms" which plague us, not the "ists". It's the ideology itself that is the problem and will - must - be completely discredited in order to save this nation from itself]

Vyan

How Dems will Lose in 2006!

Sometimes I like to put on a virtual biochem hazmat suit and stroll over through sites like Free Republic and Red State just to see the depth of psychosis on the "other" side. (Not that we don't have our own psychos here, I'm just saying they're pretty easy to spot from a distance) While there I occasionally spot a post that pique my interest. That happened yesterday with the thread...

Why Republicans will Win in 2006

Seeing as I love fairy tales - I dove right in. Join me gentle readers ...

I haven't done this since I challenged a random Conservative blogger over the Legality of the NSA Spying Program which led to not one, but two follow up diarys. Neither of our positions changed, but I for one learned a great deal in the exchange.

In this case the Red-Stater in question laid out the essential issues that would take Republicans over the top in 2006. In a rare moment of nearly honest self-reflection he also presented the three largest vunerabilities for the Repubs. With each he supplied a solution - and I now, will provide my own (slightly snarky) rebuttal to each.

Illegal Immigration: Illegal Immigration needs to be addressed in terms of national security. Any democrat trying to take advantage of the Dubai ports deal, like my Senator Bob Menendez has, in attempts to act tough on national security will get crippled by not supporting a tough barrier between the US and Mexico. Nearly every poll I have seen says the same thing: 60-70% of Americans want some kind of barrier between the United States and Mexico, this is an issue that's nearly as pro-Republicans as gay marriage.

First off, Illegal Immigration is not a "National Security" issue. I've had this debate on FDL taking on both Jane and Christy over the link between Illegals and Terrorists.

THERE. IS. NONE.

When the Repubs are done bitching about the NSA revelations "letting the terrorists see our playbook", maybe they should take a look at their playbook once in a while. As most of us know from a basic 9-11 101 class, none of Mohommad Atta's team entered the country illegally - they didn't climb under a fence, crawl through a tunnel, or swim from Cuba - they all used the normal legal visa process. It's true that they falsified some of their entries on the form, and we need Homeland Security to focus and closely monitor the Visa process in order to prevent future attacks, but the point is in order to implement their plan they needed to get Legal drivers licenses and legal flight training. They had to have access to our vital resources in order to turn them against us. Someone undocumented whose just made the Desert March isn't really going to be useful for the kind of high profile attacks that are Al Qaeda's stock in trade.

Just rememeber, we didn't catch Moussaoui because of brilliant detective work and super-secret NSA Surveillence - it was because of his expired Visa, he didn't jump the wall, he walked in and stayed too long.

Sure, we might have another McVey or Eric Rudolf knuckle-head, but genuine Al Qaeda operatives simply aren't going to get a job at a chemical or nuclear plant where they can do some real damage without being clean as a whistle, period. Al Qaeda knows this, we should know it too.

Simply setting off a car bomb isn't enough for Bin Laden, he's got to take out 12 Planes or 4 Embassies all at the same time. A total grand-stander. Right now, that dramatic and grandiose trait of his is our best protection. It's going to be years before he has all his players in position again.

The fact that people are afraid of immigrants (documented or not) having a huge impact on the American Economy and way of life is true - but it's clear that bills such as Sensenbrener's and Tancredos have done nothing so much as Galvanize what could be Millions of votes against the Republicans. Democrats had best stay out of the way, or even better yet - finally defuse the situation by insisting that the State Dept abolish the Visa quota system it currently uses to unreasonably punish people from Central and South America who actually want to abide by the law, but can't because the process itself is discriminatory, illegal and Unconstitutional.

We don't need to create a "Guest Worker Program", an H-1 or H-2 Visa already does exactly that - (allow someone from another nation to work here temporarily as was recently diaried concerning Arnold Schwarznegger's H-2 Visa) - the problem is again, the Quota System that only allows for one hundreth the number of Legal Visas per month from Mexico and Central America (975) as it does from Europe (11,225) or Africa (16,950). And - Gee Whiz - aren't many of the Terrorists are from- gasp - Africa?!. (You better bet that Al Qaeda knew this when they decided to recruit the highjackers from Saudi Arabian and the UAE. They didn't try and get people from Porta Villarta, ok?)

Fix that, grant or deny the Visa based on the merit and qualifications of the person instead of their nation of origin - y'know the way the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act require us to do - and most of your "illegal" problem will go away. People will follow the law if the law itself is fair. Yes, that might mean more immigrants from El Savador and less from Qatar - boohoo. The problem of fear has to be solved by facing that fear, not running away from it.

Democrats are probably not going to do what needs to be done here, but neither are Republicans. Most likely Repubs are going to blow it with fear-mongering that will alienate the next several generations of immigrants and their Voting Children.

Back to Red-ville...

Gas Prices: Every Republican challenger in 2006 needs to adopt the position of pro-drilling in ANWAR. Never before has the public been so pro-drilling than now. Gas prices are going to remain high til November and the sticker shock has just begun as drivers go on vacations during the summer. Gas prices has generally been seen as a pro-Democrats issue for some reason, but the fact is, Democrats have no short-term solution. We do, and its in drilling in Alaska.

I think we can all agree that there isn't a short-term solution to this. But neither is ANWAR a short, mid or long-term solution. It's no solution. A stop-gap at best. There are still questions about how much Oil we'll find there, and even if there is vast amounts of Oil we certainly won't see any of it for ten years even we started drilling today. This is a typical Republican band-aid solution - let's just completely fuck-up one our last and greatest unspoiled natural wildlife refuges on the hope and prayer that it might create some temporary jobs, and some temporary relief from our foreign Oil addiction. That's right, we'll get off the junk by getting a new supplier. Yeah, Right.

Oddly enough, I think the President is saying the right words when it comes to this issue. But Republicans trying to come to Environmental Table this late in the game just aren't credible. We just can't trust him to follow through on it with his ties to Big Oil and Big Energy - and that's where Dems have an advantage. Dems need to lobby for a Marshall Plan on Energy Independance. Rep Rahm Emmanuel, head of the DCCC, has come out hard on this issue supporting R&D Tax Credits for building more Hybrid Vehicles, the development of energy efficient vehicles and more.

Band-aids aren't going to stop the bleeding.

Taxes: Making the tax cuts permanent should be a rallying call within all Republicans because the rhetoric "Do you feel you have too much money?" is more convincing than any "We need to kill the deficit" rhetoric. Republicans need to articulate that our economy is strong, and its because of the Bush tax cuts that our economy is growing. I think slowly but surely, the myth that our economy is weak for some reason is being killed.

As was shown by both the Reagan and Bush Senior Administrations - irresponsible Tax Cuts always lead to huge Tax Increases in order to shore up the defecit. It's not a matter of "If", only "When". G.H.W. Bush going back on his "No New Taxes" pledge effectively ended his reelection bid. Eventually this binge is going to lead to a big fat purge, the only question is - will Republicans have the stomach for it (not likely) and will they be able to do it in a way that not only doesn't cripple the economy but allows it to grow at record paces the way that it did under Bill Clinton's Budget Plan?

Hell - freaking - No!.

Dems need to counter this lunacy with fiscal sanity. The Bush tax cuts need to be ended, but not simply repealed. They need to be rolled-over into Tax Credit Plans like Emmanuel's above. John Kerry had a similar Tax Credit Plan for employers who hire American Workers rather than sending jobs overseas. We need more this in order to counter the charge that the "Dems just want to Raise Your Taxes. There are literally hundreds of oppurtunities where Private Money can be Spent on the Public Good which should be rewarded in this way, so much so that it could even completely offset the Bush cuts. (Ok, maybe not - but I'm an optimist!) If framed properly this idea can even capture some anti-tax Republicans because it follows their own logic that Private individuals and organizations know how to spend their money better than the government does. (At least sometimes) We should say -"Ok - put your money where your rhetoric is". Go spend private funds on helping Rebuild The Gulf Coast and get a Tax-Credit for what you accomplish. Make it work, if you can. GO FOR IT. Every private dollar that eliminates the need for the government to spend - should be rewarded IMO.

The theory is that if people and good corporate citizens step up to the challenge, government spending will automatically go down and so will taxes. It's a total Win/win.

Now let's talk about the Downside for Republicans (most of which I think we're quite familiar)

Iraq: Iraq is hurting Republicans [V. Ya think!], and it's not going to get any better by November (or at least it doesn't look like it will). However, Iraq will not be the defining issue of 2006, especially since there is no clear consensus from either Republicans or Democrats on what to do with it. However, on the bright side, those who called for immediate pullouts are still radicals, and those who called for the 6 month pullout plan can still be debated and labelled as radicals.

I think the "radical" argument is a losing gambit. It didn't work for Jean Schmidt when she tried to Swiftboat John Murtha and it won't work in November. The publics patience has more than run out on Iraq and the consensus that a tight concise goal driven exit strategy such as John Kerry's are gradually gaining favor. The Prez continues with his Happy Talk that "we're making progress" while General after General comes forward to blast Rumsfeld for his incompetence on handling the War and it's aftermath.

The simply truth is this: If we have genuinely trained over 250,000 Iraqi troops - why aren't they standing up so that we can stand down in some type of phrased gradual redeployment? What's the hold-up?

The more we have revelations like those by Tyler Drumheller and the White House Memos that Bush was well informed that Iraq did not possess WMD's and simply ignored the evidence while using his authority to leak lies and several members of his administration conspired to out a Covert Agent in order to hide the truth - the worse it gets. With the still very real likelyhood that Karl Rove could be indicted for either his role in the leak or his efforts to cover it up, it's clear that Republicans who rally around the President on failure after failure, and crime after crime are going to feel the brunt of this rising tide in November.

Just remember, the Bush forecast is 32% and still falling.

The Deficit: While I do not like the deficit, it is not adversely affecting our economy. Our economy is growing, and when push comes to shove, nobody is going to buy that their taxes need to be raised in the name of the deficit. The call for fiscal responsibility is very ineffective when the economy is as strong as it is...

Sure, the Deficit is no big deal unless you notice that Medicaid is going bankrupt, while we're spending $10 Billion a month in Iraq. Yes, the economy is doing ok right now, but it's the weakest economic recovery we've seen in decades while we have a projected Budget Deficit of $337 Billion this year and it's clear that almost half of that is from Iraq Alone. Could you imagine what the economy could do if we didn't have the weight of $billions worth of interest payments on it's back? Look, New Orleans is still largely uninhabitable even 9-months after Katrina - does anyone think this will get better in November after yet another record Hurricane Season? Meanwhile, Bush still hasn't found a replacement for Heckuvajob Brownie yet and the Republican Congress doen't say a peep, they just keep their rubber stamp inked and ready to go.

If Dems link the Deficit directly to Bush and Repub Congress poor stewardship of the nation across the board - they have a winner of an arguement.

And lastly...

Corruption: Complaining won't get the job done. The so-called "Culture of Corruption" will not be able to win out over people struggling with gas prices and worries over national security. Corruption simply isn't a primary issue, it's a secondary issue. And its especially ineffective in a mid-term election year when those who are percieved as corrupt aren't even on the ballot. Look for this talking point to be very ineffective in 2006. Even if Democrats take a strong Lobbyist reform stance, this issue just doesn't hit home like the first three do.

Ok, on this one I think he's just trying to talk himself into believing this B.S.

Yes, It's true that Former White House procurement Officer David Safavian isn't running for anything, he's in jail for accepting bribes.

It's true that Former White House Adviser Claude Allen isn't running - he's in jail, (or possibly out on bail by now) pending his shoplifting trial.

It's true that "Duke" Cunningham isn't running in November - he's in jail too.

Former House Majority Tom Delay isn't running either - because he's probably going to jail in Texas.

But Rep Bob Ney, who is heavily linked to Abramoff and Scanlon is running. Bill Frist is being investigated for Securities fraud, and he's running .

Meanwhile, the number of current Democratic Leaders who are already in jail or on the verge of going to jail because of a current criminal or Grand Jury Investigations : ZERO!

Speaking of those who are running - all but three Republican members of Congress (Tom Osborn-NE, Chris Shays-CT & Mark Kirk-IL) have direct financial ties to Tom Delay, who has been charged with Money Laundering in connection with Texas Campaign Finance Laws. And also let's not forget the continuing allegations of Delay's and Abramoff's involvement in the Saipan Sweat-Shops, Sex Trade and Forced Abortions - all with the complicity of the Republian Congress - one good high profile story in this should keep lots of the Rapture Right home this Novemeber.

IMO it simply won't be so easy to completely disavowed the corrupt and partisan nature of the K-Street Project and how this had led directly to the passage of the Bankruptcy Bill and Medicaid Part-(De)form.

I feel that True Campaign Reform requires an entirely new tact. Simply addressing the supply by tightening the screws and attempting to chase the money via McCain/Feingold simply isn't enough. We need completly public funding of political campaigns to take away the demand for those contributions, illicit or not. Connecticut has already passed legislation in this area for Statewide offices, but I think that we need to go a step further nationally. We need to provide free and equal airtime to all candidates to public office, the cost of which can be offset via a Tax Credit for all participating broadcasters. The idea is that the money won't have to come directly from the campaigns - and officers holders won't have to spend 70% of their time chasing donations, they might actually have time to govern. Maybe they could even take time read a bill before they vote on it. Politicians could still accept contributions, they just won't need as much and Broadcasters who currently depend on campaign advertising money will instead have it credited against their corporate taxes so they won't lose any actual revenue as long as they air all competeting ads equally. Again, a Win/Win proposal that Democrats are just inches away from (See Rahm and Kerry) while Republicans aren't even in the building.

Dems have the ideas - we just need to be bold with them.

Even if we aren't I think our chances look great in November except for three things that our Red-Stater didn't mention.

DIEBOLD. ES&S. and SEQUOIA.

Whether you're a tin-foil hatter or not, detailed works like Mark Crispin Miller's Fooled Again, make it quite clear that the greatest danger to Dems losing in November aren't any of these issues -- it's fraud in the election process itself.

Yes, Dems need to do more than simply bitch and complain - they can't afford to be complacent with the fate and soul of our Nation at stake - they need to put forth bold proposals such as the Real Security Plan, but neither can they expect that they're going to automatically get a fair shake behind the ballot box either. E-voting Whistle-blower after Whistle-blower have come forward, while we fight them in the courts.

Dems need to do everthing they can to fight for fair and accurate elections in each and every race in each and every state - or else suffer the fate of inaction.

2006 isn't their election to win, it's ours to lose.

Vyan

I used to have Republican Friends...

Once upon a time, back in those halcyon days when I used to be a devout Centrist, I had Republican Friends. I had Liberal Friends too, and we would debate vigorously the issues of the day and the time. I loved a good politlcal debate with opposing views. I remember, way back in the 90's, when one Republican Friend became so upset with Bill Clinton over the "Gays in the Military" thing -- not because he tried to change the discrimination that was (and is) in place, but because he didn't talk about it during the campaign. I pointed out that he did talk about it, in fact he made up his mind to do it on tv - during the MTV News "Choose or Lose" Townhall meeting. My Friend responded - "MTV Has News?"

Yeah, it used to. Ah, those were the days...

And that time is long gone.

I can't count the number of Republicans who I used to call friends, even close ones, and aquintances that I simply don't associate with anymore. It's not just a divide over policy, I've begun to realize that it's a divide in thinking processes.

Although President Bush's current approval have finally reached the sub-artic level of 32%, and that only four states currently have him at 50% of better approval. There still remains the phenomenon, as shown in other polls, that among Republicans President Bush's approval remains at approx 66% -- well over twice the national average, how is that possible?

Even though Democrats and Independants see this Presidency as a near total disaster his approval among rank and file Republicans, not just the wing-bats, neo-cons and Kool-aid afficionados, remains high.

This obviously pathological state of denial is why I can't talk to these people anymore.

Regardless of each and every new revelation from Tyler Drumheller and the White House Memos which show that the WMD evidence was thin and grossly exaggerated - these people insist that we went into Iraq for other reasons, and that it's still a "Noble Cause". Never mind that none of those reasons seem to be included in the Iraq Force Resolution.

I vividly remember challenging one ex-friend about a year and a half ago about the WMD's. My position - Saddam simply didn't have them anymore and our invasion was unjustified. His position - well, where'd they go? Me - "I don't know. But we've had plenty of time to search and they aren't in Iraq." Him - "Maybe they went to Syria" Me - "There's no evidence of that, but they aren't in Iraq - you think we should chase them into Syria without any evidence?". Him - "Sure, why not - take 'em all out."

It was like debating with a 2-year-old.

Hello - McFly - No weapons here, no weapons there - time to put the Abram's Tank back in the barn.

Another one, just a couple months ago actually tried to defend the Smear Boat Veterans to me, arguing that John Kerry "admitted to having committed and witnessing atrocities in Vietnam", his point being that it was his responsibility to report these to his superior officer. Me - "What makes you think he didn't - and What makes you think that officer listened to him?" He also tried to argue that flying a plane (In the Texas Air National Guard?) was more difficult and complicated than piloting a boat (in the Mekong Delta!) and therefore George Bush was smarter and more prepared to be the Military's Commander-in-Chief than a Decorated War Vet/Hero like John Kerry.

I pretty much hit the roof when he told me Kerry still hadn't released his Military Records (he had) and that the best place to find all of Bush's service information was at Free Republic!!!

Even after sending him email proof supporting each and every one of my points - he was still arguing with me.

Can you see why I can't talk to these people? It's maddening.

I eventually realized that this is just a political cognitive disfunction, this skip-logic and arrogant ignorance was part of their state of being. They desperately needed to believe this shit.

For many people it's just one issue. Either it's taxes or it's abortion. They don't seem to notice that Bush's version of tax cut is probably never going to do them any good in the short term, and that in the long term is simply going to force the kind of record-breaking tax hike that both Ronald Reagan and G.H.W. Bush implemented in their time. With the rising deficits it creates, it's merely a tax shift, a loan with interest, not a tax cut.

They don't seem to notice that these abortions under Bush are on the rise, and that puritanical abstinence-only sex ed plans don't work, and that 88% of the kids who take these pledges to abstain from premarital sex - break the pledge within 18 months. No only do they have premarital sex, they're having PORN STAR sex, oral and anal without condoms, because they're been made so deathly afriad of pregnancy and haven't been properly educated on STD transmission on contraceptive use.

But the worst, are the armchair militarists - like my two ex-friends above - who haven't served in the military for a single minute their entire lives, but think - thanks to SOCOM II - that they know everything there is to know about warfare. Y'know the type, you're basic blowhard meatbrain bully hiding behind the beedy eyes of a spindly techno-geek.

They probably both figure it's high-time to simply turn Iran into one big shining sheet of glass with a few Nukes.

Maybe there are people who can, but I can't abide this lunacy and remain calm and civil.

Not after months of ignoring all the warnings about Al Qaeda.
Not after 7 Minutes of My Pet Goat!
Not after Abu Graib.
Not after revelations about NSA Domestic Spying and Our Foreign Gulags.
Not after the use of White-Phosphorus in Fallujah on civilians.
Not after the deliberate outing of Valerie Plame-Wilson's cover to perpetuate a lie.
Not after Amnesty International. Called for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to be investigated, arrested and tried for International War Crimes.
Not after $10 Billion a Month in Iraq.
Not after the incompetence that led to the Flu Vaccine Shortage.
Not after the indictments of Tom Delay, Michael Scanlon, David Safavian, "Duke" Cunningham and Jack Abramoff.
Not after Hurrican Katrina and it's sad ongoing aftermath of callous cronyism.
Not after Cheney -Popped A Cap in some Dudes Dome!
Not after the latest Bin Laden Tape - yeah, that's right MR-Dead-Or-Alive speaks yet again, still very Alive and very Free.
Not after $4 a Gallon - Again!

I can't abide it, and I can't abide the endless denials and excuses for it.

There is no excuse for this bullshit.

We have to realize that Bush himself isn't the real problem here, he's merely a symptom of an American sickness, a deep pathological psychosis, that has been there for a long time. Rooted in Cold-war facism it's grown and spread - linked itself with the Radical Neo-Con Warhawks and Rapturist Fundamentalism. (It's not a coincidence that the "Left Behind" series is runaway a best seller - many people want to "Believe")

If we Dems fixate ourselves on Bush, we'll ignore all these people, these 66% of Republicans who despite all the clear and obvious evidence of the incompetency and malice of this administration who continue to support it with every breath, we'll completely miss the big picture. We aren't fighting with Bush - we're fighting over the heart and soul of this nation with Them.

We on this site and many others are fighting to protect "All men are created equal", "Equal Protection of the Laws", "Cruel and Unusual Punishment", "Seperation of Church and State", and of course accountability and the True Seperation of Powers. All of these tenets are merely inconvenient platitudes to them. We can't afford to forget that we are on the right and correct side of history here, they are not.

These are the same people who bought everything Ken Starr had to say about Bill Clinton. They believed everything they heard about Vince Foster being murdered, about Clinton running a drug smuggling ring out of Arkansas while bedding three hookers and raping two others every other night.

All of it - total crap.

Many of these people are very smart, and very inteliigent.

But that only means they're even more dangerous, not more reasonable.

Forewarned is forearmed. Let the battle rage on.

Vyan

The Red-State of Mind

Crossposted on Dailykos

Yesterday I called up the Senate to support the motion to Centure President Bush. I was actually happy to find that I couldn't get through to Senator Feinstein, Kerry or Feingold as their lines were too busy. I did speak with the staffer with Senator Graham (who has publically doubted the legallity of the NSA program) and finally Senator Reid's Office.

After making my point, as ask him just what kind of calls they had been receiving and whether the all volume was exceedingly high or not (compared to say the Alito Confirmation Calls). His reponse was that the call volume was about equal to Alito, but that they were receiving a variety of responses.

1) Support for Senator Feingold's Censure Resolution.

2) Opposition to Censure because it would hinder the War on Terror and let Al Qaeda communicate freely within the U.S.

I have to ask myself, who put forth position 2? Who the hell are these people who are trapped in this Red-State of Mind?

I admit that I laughed out loud at his second answer, because it's such a gross distortion of the facts and the truth. Asking the President to abide by the Law and the Constitution by getting a WARRANT FIRST does not help al Qaeda, it protects all of us. That Republicans can routinely make claims of Treason against someone like Feingold yet block Democratic attempts to genuines improve our Port Security, is clearly no laughing matter.

The results of informal my question are clearly mirrored by the results of the First Poll on Censure. (46% Support, 44% Opposition).

Even though the Nation rose up and spoke with nearly one voice on the Dubai Ports Deal (80% Opposition), it has yet to do this in the NSA Wiretaping. This despite the reports that the FBI have designated Pacifists (Not to mention Quakers and Vegans) as subjects of International Terrorism Surveillance. ACLU Attorney Ben Wizner hit the nail on the head on yestesday's Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

WIZNER: You know, we have to look at the broader picture here also. I mean, we have released other documents, this is not the first one, where the FBI has labeled the Catholic Worker group as advocating a communist-like redistribution of resources, that talk about vegans, that talk about Quakers.

And when the administration says, with respect to the NSA spying that you led with, that we don`t have to worry about it, this is a terrorist surveillance program, and therefore we don`t need permission of courts, we don`t need oversight from Congress, whose definition of terrorism are they using? Are they using this one?

If they`re using this one, then the program may be a lot more troubling than people even think. I mean, terrorism is defined here so broadly, as anyone really opposing the administration`s war policy, that I think it really highlights the need for both the courts and for Congress to play a little bit more of a role.

Ya think?

This seems quite obvious to many of us - but is far less than obvious to those who oppose our efforts to bring this Presidency and Congress under control.

I don't think it's because of Faux News. It's not Limbaugh's fault, it's not Hannity or O'Reilly.

The other day when Ann Coulter (on Hannity) was able to completely shut-down arguments about the legitmacy of the Iraq War, claiming that Democrats are weak on National Defense because John Kerry called for the inspections to continue, then completely bypassing the WMD issue by proclaiming we did it to end the "Rape Rooms".

Colmes and the nominal Faux-macrat guest had nothing to say in response, but the comeback is easy... The Iraq War Resolution as written by the Bush Administration required that the President Wait until all Diplomatic Options were Exhuasted to have Saddam abide by the UN Resolutions to disarm his WMD's (which he had already done, and the Inspectors Knew it) -- but it didn't say anything about "Rape Rooms"!.

The simply fact is that this President violated the terms of his own resolution by not letting the inspectors complete their job before HE declared war (Something Kerry has been saying for years), and the result is that where in the middle of an endless, intractable and increasing violent Civil War in Iraq.

It's just common sense - but that simply isn't good enough to cute the Red-State of Mind. The people we are fighting with continue to not know this fact because it's not what they want to believe. They want to believe Coulter because it's comforting.

When the President says...

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

They want to believe it. So Feingold puts forth his measure to Censure the President for this blatant lie (amongst others) their response is...

Never ceases to amaze me By: Shaggy Dog

No matter how bad things get for the Bush admin from time to time, we can always count on the Dems to squander it. Looks like they're about to come through once again.

A little advice to Feingold & Co.- if you ever want to win elections again, you might want to try at some point to convince the country that you are even 1% as interested in defeating Al Qaeda as you are in defeating President Bush. This "Censure" motion is not the way to accomplish that.

President violating the Constution and the Law? It simply doesn't matter to them. When Democrats claim that this Administration and Congress drowning in a Sea of Corruption they ignore it... even when you put it right in front of their face.

List of Recently Arrested and Indicted GOP Officials

I Lewis "Scooter" Libby - Vice-President Cheney's Cheif of Staff, Indicted and Arrested for Purjery and Obstrution of Justice in CIA Leak Case
Claude Allen - Bush's Top Domestic Policy Advisor, Arrested for Theft
David Safavian - Bush's Top Procurement Official, Arrested for Lying about his Business Ties to Jack Abramoff
Mike Scanlon - Lobbyist and Former Delay Spokesman charged with a Conspiracy and Bribery of Government Officials
Jack Abramoff - Lobbyist Conspiracy and Wirefraud
Randy "Duke" Cunningham - GOP Congressman arrested for Accepting $2.4 Million in Bribes from Defense Contractors
Tom Delay - Former GOP House Majority Leader indicted for Money Laundering

Other GOPers still in the cross-hairs.

Bob Ney - GOP Congressman who set up Jack Abramoff's Defense Fund, is himself under investigation for Connections to Abramoff
Bill Frist - GOP Senate Majority Leader under SEC Investigation for Stock Fraud
Karl Rove - White House Deputy Chief of Staff under investigation for his connections to CIA Leak Scandal

When they read this stuff, their mind immediately looks for the excuses.

"It's just a coincidence. It's just Democrat Prosecutors trying to get payback for the Clinton Impeachment."

Never mind the fact that prosecutors like Patrick Fitzgerald are Republican. They refuse to recognize that the problem here is a pathology of entitlement. It's unbridled greed, selfishness and self-aggrandizement of Neo-Con/Artists deeply embedded within the Republican Party.

People who simply don't believe in Government can not be trust to Run the Government, unless the target is to run it miles into the ground. Take the money, get the contracts, get the cushy lobbying jobs and run like hell.

That's today's GOP.

That's what these people calling the Senate and telling them to support warrantless wiretaping, torture and death squads in Iraq are saying - meanwhile they're claiming that it's all because we eliminated the "Rape Rooms". No we didn't, we simply changed the personel in charge of the Rape Rooms.

Most signs point to a probably Landslide Democratic Victory in November, but we can not afford to become complacent.

The GOP is as powerful as they are not because Democrats are weak and ineffectual (although they often are), they are who they are because there are literally Millions of hard core wing-nuts out there who jump as high as the GOP wants whenever they push a hot-button cultural issue like Abortion or Gay-rights. The hate, intolerance, self-righteousness and greed of these people is real. It's palpable. When Mike Scanlon said...

"Simply put," Scanlon wrote, "we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them. The wackos get their information from the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the Internet and telephone trees."

He was dead right.

Make no mistake, this upcoming November we will be in the fight for the soul of this nation. Do we allow the kind of corruption and gross negligent disgregard that left thousands of American stranded after Katrina to go on... or do we go a different path. Do we start fighting the Terrorist Smart - rather than Hard? Do we start abiding the by Constitution, and rejoin the International Community on issues such as Human Rights and War Crimes? Do we get those people who are currently sitting on the sidelines and letting the game whiz-by them - to Stand Up and get involved?

Or do we continue on this long slow slide into debt and criminal decadence that began as soon as George W. Bush was (s)elected in 2000?

This isn't about George Bush. Bush is simply an enabler for PNAC Neo-Con ("F-ning Crazies") like Cheney, Rumseld, Bolton and hundreds upon hundreds of theocrats who have an agenda to rape and pillage our national treasury, then escape all scrutiny or accountability.

Saying these guys are "Gangsters" is an insult to the Mob.

Call your Senator toll free at (888) 355-3588 and let them know what you think.

Vyan

Abramoff Spills to Vanity Fair

Raw Story has the scoop.

Vanity Fair is set to publish a tell-all interview with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, noting that his plea-bargain sentence can be "substantially reduced" by co-operating with investigators.

The piece makes much of many prominent Republicans' denials of having worked with Abramoff. Abramoff reminisces about jokes President Bush, who now claims not to remember him, made about his weight training program. Abramoff also recalls discussing the Bible, opera, and golf with Tom DeLay.

The author of the Vanity Fair article also spoke with Sam Seder on the Randi Rhodes Show Yesterday and dished a few details on his upcoming peice on Abramoff.

In the RS article...

Abramoff also alleges that RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman provided Abramoff political favors--including aiding in the removal of a State Department official.

Abramoff also claims to have funneled $50,000 donated by clients to a charity he set up to pay for a golf trip for himself, Ohio Republican Bob Ney, and former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed (currently seeking the office of Lt. Governor for the state of Georgia). Reed also once served as Abramoff's projects director.

Abramoff with Reagan and Norquist

From Sam Seder's interview, the Vanity Fair reporter stated that the thing that galls Abramoff the most is the attempt to "scrub his existence from the record" by his former friends and collegues. And the person that most annoys him in this regard, is Newt Gingrich. He found the attempts by the White House to erase all trace of his existence "completely overboard". Abramoff stated that most of his lobbying work was with Congress and had little to do with the White House - so there was little need to go to such extreme lengths of denial.

Other than the fact that that's IMO, their standard modis operandi - Deny Everything.

He further stated that "Abramoff is a right-wing ideologue", a Reagan-era Republican who believes devoutly, religiously in the righteousness of his cause. And that this is exactly what drove him to use any and all mean, neccesary and unneccsary to further his goals. He's an "Ends justifies the means type of guy".

Yeah, no kidding. But also what was most apparent to the VF interviewer is that Abramoff has absolutely no remorse, in fact he hardly feels that he did anything wrong at all - only played the game a little "better" than some others may have.

I think his eventual sentencing for bribery might change that view.

So let's review - those on the chopping block of extreme exposure from links to Abramoff appear to be Delay, Reed, Mehlman, Ney and Gringrich.

Guess what - not a single Democrat in the bunch, eh? Imagine that.

Having corruption allegations hanging around the necks of these people - particular Mehlman, whose a new player in this - leading into the 2006 elections should do a great deal to keep the Republican Parties heels dragging come November.

Gingrich's 2008 Presidential bid might also be on the back-burner - for good. It took him almost 8 years to live down his last scandal (an affair with one of his House assistants), which forced him to step down as House Speaker. Seeya in 2012 Newt.

Vyan

The Neo-Con Artist Crashdown

I've been waiting a long time for this day.

From me personally, November 4th 2004 was where I painfully asked "What's it gonna take?"). Since then I've been waiting for the time when America would finally start to wake up and smell the decay, and it looks like that time just might have arrived and the neo-con/artist who've been in driving this country into a ditch for the last five years are finally bailing out just before the car begins to flip over.

After not getting any real traction on the Jack Abramoff Scandal and the NSA Spying (that even Grover Norquist has denounced) we have the following... (detail over the flip)

Survey USA Map of Bush Approval

President Bush's approval rating has hit yet another all time low of 34% (at least until it drops to the next all time low).

Over half (53%) of Americans now say the administration "deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."

Only Only 23 percent of our Troops want to stay in Iraq until the "Mission is Accomplished"...again.

72 percent of the public opposes the Dubai Deal and 62% percent feel that Congress should block it.

54% Percent feel the government hasn't done enough to help New Orleans recover from Katrina, and and 57% percent disapprove of how Bush has handling things.

Approval for how George Bush has handled the War on Terrorism has dropped to 43% and Congressional Democrats are polling two points higher than Bush on National Security.

Vice-President Cheney busted a cap in some old dudes dome just last week!

And let's not forget Congress, where Bill Frist is being investigated for securities fraud, Tom Delay is under indictment and "Duke" Cunningham has plead guilty to accepting bribes -- this situation is light-years beyond the House Checking Kiting Scandal of the 90's.

There's blood in the water and not just for Bush - the entire neo-con agenda is rapidally crumbling everywhere you look. William F. Buckley has come out against the war, and now you have one of the founders of the movement claiming Neo-Conversatism has failed on Keith Olberman.

From Crooks and Liars - Fukuyama: Neo-Con Failure

Francis Fukuyama, the author of "AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS," joined Nora O'Donnell on Countdown last night and discussed the failures of the neo-conservative movement.

Keith: It is just three months now since congressman and decorated vet Jack Murtha was denounced on the floor of the House of Representatives as a, quote, "coward" for having even suggested we make a quick exit from Iraq. Our fourth story on the COUNTDOWN, now William F. Buckley is saying we should get out, and fast.

Video-WMP Video-QT (hat tip Lynne)

I believe this is a watershed moment. Just a few weeks ago most Americans were willing to turn a blind-eye to Bush's illegal wiretapping and simply "trust him" -- but not anymore.

Conservative water-boys such as Charles Krathhammer have gotten great milage out of the idea that Bush's opponents and critics are somehow deranged. But now I think it's becoming plain that they should have been looking more closely at themselves, it's now painfully obvious that those sad 30-odd percenters who continue to support this President and Administration no matter how badly they perform on every level are suffering from a pathological addiction to bullshit.

They believe -- just like a junkie or a hard-core gambler -- that just around the corner is the next score that'll set them up for life. This Administration has done nothing but bow and fetch according to the whims of imperialist corporate aristocrats, while hordes of syncophantic wanna-bes who continue to deludedly dream that they too will one day be invited to sit at the grown-up economic table, continue to prop Boy King George up on their shoulders. Bush believes that if he just keeps the bribes tax cuts coming the red-state peasants won't drop him on his head.

But eventually, the luster of the lie has to wear off. Eventually, like any addict - they have to bottom out. That time is rapidly approaching. It's only after you reach the bottom will you finally realize that you have to change direction and start climbing out of the hole you've dug yourself into.

Right about now the syncophants and suckers who've bought into the neo-cons reverse Robin Hood jingoistic bullshit are starting to realize they've been had on the bankruptcy bill. Their parents have been had with Medicare Deform. Their children have been had both on "No Child Behind Left" and the Birth Tax. The Troops have been had on armor and benefits. Right now the neo-con artist Marie Antoinettes like Fukuyama are starting to book a flight to some other ideological shores. Somewhere, anywhere but aligned with being a neo-con. They haven't hit bottom yet, the term neo-con hasn't yet become an epithet, but it will - they can see it getting closer as the price tag for Bush's Iraq boondoogle begins to round $100 Brillion, or is it $200 Brillion?

The neo-cons know the truth in their heart of hearts. They know that the "crackpots and crazies" they've been feeding on to support their agenda and line their pockets with the contents of our Federal Treasury are just over the hill with their torches and pitchforks. That glow isn't the lights from the "shining city on the hill", it's the approach of the angry mob. Things are about to get ugly.

But there's no where to run. Nowhere to hide. Their bullshit is long, deep, well documented and is just about to turn into quicksand around their ankles.

I know we can't afford to become complacent. Those Conservatives who never fully bought into their nutttiness or have willfully rejoined the reality-based community such as Paul O'Neill, Christine Todd Whitman have already done so. As their numbers dwindle, the remaining neo-con clinger-ons will no doubt fight back and lash out, holding on with a death-grip to their intellectually and factually bankrupt ideology. There's nothing more dangerous than a cornered rat-fucker. They are certain to blame War Critics (none of whom had any power what-so-ever) for their failures in Iraq and the Gulf Coast. ("Yeah, If you weren't always telling us we're fucking up, maybe we wouldn't have!") We'll have to fight back, hard.

But I for one, will glad applaud as they sink and eventually succumb the truthiness of their situation. No, not because I hate them or am obsessed with Bush - because it's the only way to begin to heal the wounds they've gouged into this country and much of the world. All this pain and suffering has been unfortunate, but neccesary. The neo-cons had everything under their control, they had every opportunity to finally implement all the nitwit theories they've been harbouring in thinktank cesspolls since the Nixon era -- and they've failed. Completely. Utterly. Totally.

30 years of planning went into this - we've been infected with it for even longer - and it only took 5 years for it come crashing down.

It's about damn time.

Vyan