The Seventh Sense

Teabaggers Turn On GOP

Oh, my.  Look what they have created.

In Florida and Missouri and elsewhere, the tea baggers are attacking Republicans candidates for being "DC insiders".  Put another way, they are splitting the Republican party.

What does this mean for Democrats?  Well, the Democratic Party was never going to be the choice of teabaggers.  But the further the GOP moves to the right to accomodate the screeching minority, the more that centrists will gravitate to the Dems.

Put another way, Democrats will have some smooth sailing for the next election cycle -- and possibly more -- if this trend continues.

Who Opposes Victims Of Rape Getting Their Day In Court?

I don't expect Republicans to be in favor of all, or even most, of the things I support.

But really, this seems like a no-brainer:

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.”

Franken wasn't asking to punish Haillbuton/KBR for their past indiscretions.  He wasn't trying to screw them out of future contracts.  All he was saying was, "If you want a government contract, and if you gang-rape your employees, then you must allow them to sue you in court, rather than in private arbitration."

Now, honestly... who has a problem with that?

Fortunately, Franken's measure passed the Senate, 68 to 30.

But it is that thirty no votes that I find troubling.  30 Senate Republicans -- 75% of the entire Republican Senate caucus -- voted against this.

But why?  What possible rationale could three-fourths of the Republican Senate caucus have for voting against this?

Is it merely because the amendment was offered by a liberal Democrat?

Or do they actually have a substantive reason for not letting victims of sexual assualt sue their rapist-employer?

Bizarre.

UPDATE:  Female Republicans voted unanimously in favor of the amendment.  The 30 no-voters were all (white) male Republican senators.  You know, the "family values" crowd.

Bloody Sock To Replace Liberal Lion?

Just because he's got he had a decent split-finger fastball doesn't mean he'll be a good political leader:

Can a Republican fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts? Among the list of possible GOP candidates is Curt Schilling.

The former right-handed starting pitcher for the Boston Red Sox is not ruling out a possible run.

"I've got a lot on my plate," says Schilling. "Right now, I'm not even going to speculate on it."

But, Schilling admits he would need to make a decision pretty quickly.

"I think for the first time in a long time, it will take the right candidate," Schilling said of a Republican beating a Democrat for the Senate seat.

"I have been contacted," says Schilling about a possible Senate run.

Schilling, a registered independent and longtime Republican supporter, wrote on his blog that while his family and video game company, 38 Studios, are high priorities, "I do have some interest in the possibility."

A registered independent?  Uh, Curt, if you want to run as a Republican, you missed the deadline.

Silliest "Serious" Objection To The House Health Reform Bill

It still gets a lot of play, even among congresspersons:

"The health care reform bill is over 1,000 pages long!"

I'm not sure what that objection really means.

Are they suggesting that, because it's a huge bill, it must represent a massive government program?

If that's so, why don't they say it's a massve government program?

Or, are they complaining that the bill is so big, nobody can possibly read and understand it?  If that's so, then critics are merely exposing their ignorance or lack of education.

Let's make a comparison.  Atlas Shrugged is 1,200 pages.  People can read and understand that.

But here's the thing -- Atlas Shrugged is printed in small type-face, single spaced.

This is what a typical page from HR 3200 looks like.  This is a page from the actual bill:

You see that?  Double spaced, huge font, and margins that are actually wider than the text itself.

A typical bill contains about 160 words per page -- a typical book, like a Harry Potter, book -- twice as many.

In other words, the House Health Care reform bill is about half a Harry Potter book.  And a teen can knock that one out in half a day.

Yes, you may say, but that's still too big for a bill.

Is it?  A bill to reform health care?  That's pretty broad subject.  Half a Harry Potter book sounds about right, considering the subject matter.  You not only have to make the actual changes themselves -- to insurance practices, to administrative practices, to doctor-patient practices -- but you have to address private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security -- AND you have to set forth a way to monitor the reforms to make sure they actually are being implemented -- AND establish procedures about enforcement for violators of the new policy, etc.  It IS a lot of ground to cover.

Yes, you may say, but the language of the bill is far more convoluted than a Harry Potter book.

And that's true.  But this is legislation -- not quippy thirty second sound bites.  It's ALWAYS been written in legislative-ese. 

But it IS in English.  Don't understand what a particular term means?  There's an entire definition section (which occupies a few dozen pages of the bill). 

And a congressman with a paid staff of (one hopes) educated people can certainly figure this out.  After all, congressmen (through their paid staff) wrote it.

So the notion that the bill is really long and full of big words and doesn't have pictures is not only a specious criticism, but an embarassing one showing the ignorance or laziness of the person making the criticism.

Quote Of The Day

In discussing the need for a balanced budget and PAYGO legislation, Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) shockingly exclaimed:

"We're not going to cry 'emergency' every time we have a Katrina."

In other words, having a balance budget is of paramount importance, and we're not going to muck it up by spending money on emergency appropriations like we did when Katrina hit.

Here's here full quote and the video:

Let's agree that we're going to have PAYGO enforcement.  That we're not going to cry 'emergency' every time we have a Katrina, every time we have a Tsunami, every time we have a need for extra spending, that we don't go call for a special appropriation that allows us to circumvent the PAYGO rules.

One wonders if Blackburn now regrets her support of the "Emergency Appropriations" bill passed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (which took 1,436 lives).

Opposing A Marker Acknowledging Slave Labor

The United States Capital Building, its wonderful dome, and the Statue of Freedom that sits atop it, were built by slave labor.

Yeah, I know.  Bit of national shame and embarassment.

Tuesday evening, the U.S. House of Representatives sought to redress that grievance in some small way with a resolution acknowledging the role slaves played in the Capital's construction.  The purpose of the resolution, according to its text, was to direct "the Architect of the Capitol to place a marker in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center which acknowledges the role that slave labor played in the construction of the United States Capitol."

A casual observer of national politics might watch the 24 hour news or read blogs and come away thinking that everything that happens in the halls of Congress turns into a divided partisan bicker.  But in fact, Congress tends to agree a lot on a lot of things, especially relatively minor things like the slave labor resolution.

And indeed, the resolution passed 399-1.

Of course, one wonders what was in the mind of the sole congressman who voted against it.  His name is Rep. Steve King (R-IA).

So why did he do it?

Well, his first explanation was this (I'm paraphrasing): (1) Congress had already changed the name of the Great Hall in the Capital Visitor's Center to Emancipation Hall in honor of all them slaves -- ain't that enough???? and (2)  Congress has been reluctant to plaster "In God We Trust" on every portico, doorknob and urinal in the Capital building.  So his vote was to defend religion.  (His actual words were:

"The architect of the capitol has been for years trying to eradicate any sign of faith or Christianity from the capitol itself and from the historical documents that flow from it," King says. "...I'm out of patience with these kind of maneuverings.")

But in an interview with Radio Iowa yesterday, King, after he established his "I'm no racist no really I'm not" bonafides, offered a new explanation for his vote, complaining that the slave labor resolution wasn’t a “balanced depiction of history”:

KING: I would just add that there were about 645,000 slaves that were brought to the United States. And I’m with Martin Luther King, Jr. on this. His documents, his speeches – I’ve read most of them. And I agree with almost every word that came out of him. Slavery was abhorrent, but it was also a fact of life in those centuries where it existed.

And of the 645,000 Africans that were brought here to be forcibly put into slavery in the United States, there were over 600,000 people that gave their lives in the Civil War to put an end to slavery. And I don’t see the monument to that in the Congressional Visitor Center, and I think it’s important that we have a balanced depiction of history.

Riiiiight.  A balanced depiction of history.

How many monuments are there in Washington D.C. which acknowledge slavery? ZERO.

How many monuments are there in Washington D.C. which acknowledge the contributions of those who fought in the Civil War?  Enough to fill a book... including the Grant Memorial just outside the Capital Building itself.

But setting that aside, a marker noting that the Capital was actually built by slaves seems highly related to the, uh, Capital Visitor Center -- the place which provides visitor information for people who want to learn about the Capital Building.  On the other hand -- while the deaths of Civil War soldiers bears historical importance, I'm not quite sure what those deaths have to do with the Capital building itself.

And finally, King wants to honor the "over 600,000 people that gave their lives in the Civil War to end slavery".  Someone needs to tell him that about 360,000 of the 618,000 war casualties actually died to end slavery.  The other 258,000 or so died to preserve it.  Just sayin....

CIA Admits It Lied To Congress For Years

Dog Bites Man story:

WASHINGTON — The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, has told the House Intelligence Committee in closed-door testimony that the C.I.A. concealed “significant actions” from Congress from 2001 until late last month, seven Democratic committee members said.

In a June 26 letter to Mr. Panetta discussing his testimony, Democrats said that the agency had “misled members” of Congress for eight years about the classified matters, which the letter did not disclose. “This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods,” said the letter, made public late Wednesday by Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, one of the signers.

In an interview, Mr. Holt declined to reveal the nature of the C.I.A.’s alleged deceptions,. But he said, “We wouldn’t be doing this over a trivial matter.”

I think we can safely assume that it relates to "enhanced interrogation techniques", but we can't be sure.

Why, by the way, are only Democrats upset that Congress was lied to by the CIA?

Well, recall a few months ago.  Nancy Pelosi said the CIA misled her about waterboarding, and the Republicans were all "The CIA?  Lying to Congress?  No, you are lying Ms. Pelosi".  So they can't stand togather now and admit the CIA has lied to Congress -- it might hinder their efforts to attack Pelosi.

60

With Coleman's concession, Al Franken finally becomes Senator Al Franken, Democrat from Minnesota.

Finally.

First Read writes:

Most significantly, yesterday’s developments resulted in Democrats obtaining a filibuster-proof majority -- 60 votes -- in the Senate, and Dems want to have him seated by as early as Monday. Having 60 votes will shift the balance of power from the Republican Maine-iacs (Collins and Snowe) to the Joe Liebermans, Ben Nelsons, and Mary Landrieus, meaning that the upcoming fights over health care and energy will be on Democratic turf.

I largely agree with Franken on this.  The magic "60" doesn't necessarily mean anything.  No matter what the issue, there are always a few Democrats who vote with the majority of Republicans, and a few Republicans who vote with the majority of Democrats.  Obviously, Franken's presence makes getting to a filibuster-proof majority easier, but that's about it.

Besides, I think this notion of "60" being the magic number is borderline unconstitutional.  It has always been majority wins in the Senate, which means 50 was, and should be the magic number.  Parliamentary tricks should not be able to supercede constitutional requirements.

UPDATE:  Kevin Drum agrees:

The corruption of the filibuster into a routine requirement for 60 votes in the Senate (an arguably unconstitutional evolution, IMHO) combined with the continuing presence of half a dozen non-liberals in the Democratic caucus combined with an almost iron self-discipline within the Republican caucus — well, all that combined means that liberals now have the illusion of control of Congress but not the reality.  In a way, it's almost the worst of all possible worlds.  Dem vs. Dem is now practically the only narrative that anyone will pay attention to, and since unanimous agreement is the only way for that narrative to play out well, this means it's almost always going to play out badly.

Still, that's a glass-half-empty point of view.  So let's be more positive: one more vote is one more vote. 

Also, TPM has a must-read about the gasket collectively thrown by the Murdoch media empire over the Frenken victory.  Of particular note is the bogus Wall Street Journal editorial, which "accuse[s) the Franken campaign of committing supposedly dirty maneuvers, without mentioning that the Coleman side was participating in the exact same activities just as fervently or even more so."  I also love this from the same editorial, printed without the slightest bit of irony:

The unfortunate lesson is that you don't need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact.... If the GOP hopes to avoid repeats, it should learn from Minnesota that modern elections don't end when voters cast their ballots. They only end after the lawyers count them.

Um.... that "lesson" was learned in 2000, guys.  Too late to complain about it when it works against you.

Enough Is Enough

Six months after the November elections, we read this today:

This has to be a bit ironic: In the three-judge trial that Norm Coleman (R) asked for, it turns out that Al Franken's lead has grown, after the addition of some 350 absentee ballots to the count.

Coleman's camp, of course, wanted a larger number of absentee ballots to be considered than just those 350.

Here's the AP's write-up: "Democrat Al Franken's lead in Minnesota's U.S. Senate race has grown to 312 votes after hundreds of absentee ballots were added to the race. Franken led by 225 votes going into Tuesday's count of the absentees. He gained more from the 351 absentees that the judges allowed than Coleman did. Other issues are still pending in Coleman's lawsuit, and he has said he will appeal to the state Supreme Court if he loses."

Crafty lawyers can keep this "disputed" election tied up in courts for years.  But with every court challenge Coleman makes, he loses.  It's time that Minnesotans had representation in the Senate.  This silliness has gone on long enough.  Soon, a court is going to have to step in and put an end to this charade.

Why Many People Can't Take Congress Seriously

Exhibit A.

This is Representative John Shimkus, Republican from Illinois.  He serves on the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, a body which considers, among other things, global warming and climate change.

Below is a clip of Representative Shimkus speaking on March 25 in the Energy and Environment Subcommittee.  He is expressing his view that global warming is not happening because..... wait for it... the Bible says so. 

That's right.  God had declared in the Bible that He would not destroy the Earth again in a flood, therefore there was no threat of worldwide flood from global warming.

Look, I'm not knocking God or the Bible.  But I do think we run into serious trouble when biblical interpretation dictates environmental policy.... or any policy coming out of Washington, for that matter.

Shimkus also believe, contra scientific evidence, that limiting CO2 in the atmosphere is a bad thing because plant life thrives on CO2.  Therefore, he says, capping Co2 emissions will kill plants.  Nice theory, but not true.

Shimkus, by the way, was aware of the Mark Foley scandal (where House Representative Mark Foley was making advances to teenage male congressional pages) years before the story broke.  He knew of it, but didn't inform anyone of it.

UPDATE:  On Republican Senator James Inhofe gets the runner-up award, for saying today on the Senate floor that global warming can't exist because his home state of Oklahoma just got a snowstorm.

I loved how he prefaced his remarks about "not getting into the science".  Yeah.

President Bartlet, Toby Ziegler, and Josh Lymon To Go To Capital Hill Tomorrow

Yes, they are fictional, but they're still doing good work:

If there was ever any doubt that fictional President Jed Bartlet's administration was pro-labor, the answer is now clear.

Actors Martin Sheen, Bradley Whitford, and Richard Schiff — all of the fictional NBC presidential drama "The West Wing — will appear at an event in Congress on Tuesday seeking to bolster support for the Employee Free Choice Act ("card check").

Sheen (President Jed Bartlet), Whitford (Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman), and Schiff (Communications Director Toby Ziegler) will meet with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and other lawmakers in meetings on the Hill.

The event is being coordinated by organized labor groups, including American Rights at Work, AFL-CIO, and Change to Win.

Fun With The GOP Budget

Like me (see post below), everyone else is laughing at the GOP budget, and their helpful graphs. 

Yes, it's spoof time.

Nate Silver has some fun:

 

 

 

And others join in:

 

 

 

I Love Michelle Bachman

This is why.  She presses Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on the Constitiutional authority for the Treasury to give out TARP money, apparently not understanding that Congress, of which she is a member, passed a bill which provided not only the TARP money, but the authority of the Treasury to dole it out.

In an interview with after the hearing, Bachmann said, “My intent to the line of questioning is legitimate because I have a number of constituents that ask me ‘Can they do this?’”

Geithner is understandably confused at the stupidness of the question.  It's kind of like asking "Where in the Constitution does it say we have to sit on chairs?" 

Still Geithner answered the question, saying "the laws of the land, of course", which is technically correct.  Article I, Section I grants Congress the right to legislate, and the TARP funds were legislated to give authority to the Treasury.  Article I, Section 8 would have been a good answer, too.

Bachmann also asked if the United States was giving up the dollar. “I’m wondering would you categorically renounce the United States moving away from the dollar and going to a global currency as suggested this morning by China and also by Russia, Mr. Secretary?”

Of course, China and Russia were not advocating a "global currency".  They were merely suggesting that the international community use something other than the dollar as its reserve currency.

Gillabrand Takes Clinton's Old Seat

Who?

I still don't know why Carolina dropped out.  And the first thing I heard about Kirsten Gillabrand was that she was endorsed by the NRA.

That doesn't bode well.

Dumb Analogy Department: Caroline v. Sarah

I'm reading this sentiment a lot these past few days:

In fact, Sarah Palin was more qualified to be vice-president than Caroline Kennedy is to be a Senator.

Well, duh!  Seriously, the only qualification to being vice-president is to have a pulse.  (The stickier issue, and one that dogged Sarah Palin, is that the vice-president could conceivably become president, and for that, Sarah Palin was less qualified than me).

But the notion that Ms. Palin is even in the same league as Ms. Kennedy is a joke.  Just do a thought experiment.  Put the two of them onstage side-by-side discussing matters of policy.  On any political subject; your choice.  You know Sarah would do?  Winky-winky and talk all folksy about how they do things in Wasilla, you betcha. 

Kennedy, on the other hand, would actually speak to the issues.  She's intelligent and coherent.  What's more, I think Kennedy would (unlike Palin) be able to articulate the specific things she wants to do in public office.

Is Kennedy inexperienced as an elected representative?  Sure.  But so was her Uncle Bobby and Hillary Clinton, both of whom occupied that same Senate seat.

Minnesota Senate Seat Still Ridiculously Close

Norm Coleman's lead over Al Franken melted away during the Board of Canvassers' deliberations on Coleman-challenged ballots yesterday. According to the Star Tribune, it is down to five votes. According to the AP, it is down to two.

UPDATE:  Now we're hearing that Franken is, for the first time, ahead.  The Minnesota Star-Ledger has a real-time running (re)count.  As of 11:38 a.m., Franken is up by 166 votes.

About this data	Coleman	Franken	Other/rejected
Challenged ballots awarded by board	262	616	230
Current vote count including awarded ballots	1,209,197	1,209,363

UPDATE:  Oh, look, a real-time widget:

Caroline Or Change?

Several A-list liberal bloggers are quite unhappy with the prospect of Caroline Kennedy taking over Clinton's Senate seat:

• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "It seems Caroline Kennedy has decided she'd rather have a US Senate seat than a pony for Christmas. [...] It appears Ms. Kennedy thinks that US Senate seats are something to lobbied for amongst political elites when one decides one wants them, and that the public should be happy to simply fall in line. The fact that one has a family political machine currently in the process of steamrolling David Paterson and a famous last name should be enough for the little people. I thought at least she'd get out before the cameras and start making her case to the public before she announced her intentions, because simply lobbying your well-connected buddies just oozes an outrageous sense of entitlement and insufferable pomposity."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Frankly, I consider [Kennedy] to be undeserving of the seat, given that she has never won an election and that basically her only qualification would be her family name. Further, at a time when Democrats are suffering from a major corruption scandal over Senate appointments, appointing a dynasty candidate would only add fuel to that fire. Republicans will run in 2010 on an argument that one-party rule leads to waste and corruption, so nepotism like this would be a bad idea."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Rich and famous people already have a huge leg up when it comes to winning political office, but at least they still have to run and win. Appointing them instead so they can avoid the whole messy business of engaging in a campaign is just a little too Habsburgian for my taste. Needless to say, I've got nothing against Kennedy. But appointing her to the Senate just isn't the right thing to do."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "When you're rich and come from a political family, and are heir to American royalty, you can apparently dispense with dealing with pesky voters by simply ringing up the governor. [...] Kennedy might very well be a favorite of Democratic primary voters in a contested race (and current polls suggest that), but that would require her to run, and elections can expose candidate weaknesses not readily apparent before the harsh glare of the spotlight is trained on them. In 2002, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend lost her bid for the governorship of heavily Democratic Maryland despite entering the race with a 27-point lead in the polls. In 2004, Sen. Jean Carnahan lost the special election to the seat she was appointed to in 2002 after her husband was tragically killed in an airplane accident. But running for office is an icky process. It's hard work. Much harder, of course, than merely picking up the phone and calling the governor."

I respectfully dissent.  I think she would be an excellent choice.

Sure, she's a Kennedy, but I don't think that makes her less qualified than otherwise.  She's certainly been around politics her whole life; there's no learning curve there.  And it's not like she's going to be a Kennedy in the womanizing and getting-drunk sense.

Furthremore, she's a Columbia Law graduate and co-author of two books: In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action and The Right to Privacy.  Having a senator cognizant of the Constitution is a good thing.  She will also be a champion for education and funding for the arts.  She's served on several prominent boards, including Obama's transition team.  And her "celebrity" status might bring some light to key progressive bills and legislation that might not otherwise be there.

Yes, it's true that she could have decided to be a politician decades ago.  And yes, she chose other paths, never having run for elected office.  But again, how does that make her a less able senator than someone who has been a career politician?  It's worth noting the seat she is seeking was held by both her Uncle Bobby and Hillary, neither of whom ran for political office before becoming a senator either.

RELATED:  In an article at Politico, discussing the "nepotism" of the Democratic Party (e.g., Caroline taking Hillary's seat; Jesse Jackson Jr. taking Obama's seat; Beau Biden taking Biden's seat), we find this quote:

“Democrats seem to lack a common man who can just win a good, old-fashioned election,” said Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “They’ve got seat-warmers, seat-sellers and the making of pillows for the seats of royalty. No wonder the public wonders what’s going on in Washington.”

Excuse me?  Who is currently the president, and what was his father's prior occupation???

Blago Arrest

I guess everyone knows about the arrest this morning of Illinois governor Rod R. Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff, John Harris -- on corruption charges.

What surprises me was how blatant his corruption was.  I mean, the governor of Illinois gets to choose who fills Obama's now-empty Senate seat, so he literally auctioned it off.

Or as the governor himself said (according to wiretaps): "I've got this thing and it's [expletive] golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for [expletive] nothing. I'm not gonna do it."

And noting that he was under political fire for suspected corruption, he thought maybe the Senate seat would serve as an escape hatch for himself: "And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there."

Don't think that's gonna happen, now, governor.

Kennedy Dynasty Lives On

Caroline -- the normally quiet, non-spotlight-seeking daughter of JFK and Jackie, sister to the now-dead JFK Jr., may take Hillary's seat in the Senate -- the same seat once held by her Uncle Bobby.

I like it.  I like it a lot.

Alaska Senate Race: It Ain't Over, Folks

Maybe the convicted felon didn't win after all.

Right now, Stevens is up 106,351 votes to Begich's 102,998.  That's a gap of only 3,353 votes.

However, according to the Alaska Division of Elections, there are over 81,000 absentee, early vote, and questionable ballots to be counted.  (63,000 votes if you ignore all the questionable ballots).

Nate Silver chunked the data and determined that, of the early votes counted so far, Begich got 61% of them.  Looking at the districts where early votes and absentee ballots come from, and assuming voting patterns are the same, Silver predicts that Begich picks up a net 6,450 votes, which would make him the winner -- assuming there is no cheating.

Democrats picked up a 57th Senator with the squeaker win in Oregon.

If Begich wins Alaska, that would make 58.

If Al Franken wins Minnesota on the recount, that would make 59.

And if Martin somehow upsets Chambliss in the Georgia run-off (because neither candidate got over 50%), which is possible, but a slight uphill battle, that would make 60.

I predicted 58 before the elections.  I still stand by that.

Senator Stevens (R-AK) Who Immortalized "The Internet Is A Series Of Tubes" Is Convicted

As the Wall Street Journal notes, this has some historical significance.  Sen. Stevens is a sitting senator, one of only five in all of history to be convicted of a crime, and the first since 1981.

Stevens is 84 years old -- soon to be 85 on Nov. 15 -- and is the longest-serving Republican with almost 40 years in the Senate representing Alaska.

He's been running for re-election this year, despite the trial.  His Democratic challenger has been edging ahead by 1 or 2 points in the polls, but Stevens' conviction will, I'm guessing, lock it up for the Democrat.  This means Democrats are one seat closer to the ideal 60 seats.

Here's Stevens from this past summer, pallin' around with a friend of his, who once served as director of the 527 group Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.

Jesse Helms -- Leader Against HIV?

What is Elizabeth Dole smoking?  From the Congressional Record dated July 14, 2008:

SA 5074. Mrs. DOLE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 2731, to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 1, line 5, strike ‘’and Henry J. Hyde’’ and insert ‘’, Henry J. Hyde, and Jesse Helms‘’.

That's right.  Elizabeth Dole wants to change the name of the

"Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008"

to the

"Tom Lantos, Henry J. Hyde and Jesse Helms United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008"

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Jesse Helms probably would like his name attached to a bill that seeks to rid tuberculosis and malaria.  But HIV/AIDs?  Jesse is rolling in his grave (as are, I suspect, thousands of victims of HIV/AIDs).  Jesse was no fan of AIDS prevention, as Joe My God notes:

Jesse Helms, the man who in 1987 described AIDS prevention literature as "so obscene, so revolting, I may throw up."

Jesse Helms, the man who in 1988 vigorously opposed the Kennedy-Hatch AIDS research bill, saying, "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy."

Jesse Helms, the man who in 1995 said (in opposition to refunding the Ryan White Act) that the government should spend less on people with AIDS because they got sick due to their "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct."

Jesse Helms, the man who in 2002 announced that he'd changed his mind about AIDS funding for Africa, but not for American gays, because homosexuality "is the primary cause of the doubling and redoubling of AIDS cases in the United States."

This last bit is true.  Helms did come around (after two decades) to think we should fight AIDS in foreign children who aren't, you know, teh gay.  Some moral epiphany, huh?

On the other hand, one could argue that putting Helms' name on an AIDS prevention bill has a ring of justice to it -- kind of a posthumous "fuck you" to a man who is too dead to complain. 

What's next?  The George Wallace Civil Rights Act?

War Powers

I know the Constitution is, in places, ambiguous, but this language seems pretty straightforward:

The Congress shall have power... to declare war...

That's Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution.  It's the "War Powers Clause".

The dirty little secret is that Congress, in all its history, has only declared war five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), the Spanish-American War (1898), World War I, and World War II.

That's right.  Congress never made a declaration of war for the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War ("Desert Storm"), or our current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In some situations, Congress merely authorized military action, without a formal declaration of war.  This was the case with Vietnam, as well as our current situation.

On other occasions, the President merely committed armed forces on his own initiative.  Truman, for example, committed U.S. troops into the Korean War, citing the fact that we were bound by United Nations obligations.  But here's the rub -- this has happened on at least 125 occasions throughout American history.  Remember the invasion of Grenada under Reagan?

So what does the War Powers Clause mean when a President can commit troops to conflict without a formal congressional declaration of war -- or indeed, even absent a mere "authorization" by Congress?

This problem was taken up by Congress following the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam in 1972.  Congress passed what is known as the "War Powers Resolution".  It stated that the President of The United States of America can send troops into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States of America is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Act requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and forbids troops from remaining for more than 60 days without an authorization of force or a declaration of war.

That was all well and good, and the War Powers Resolution has generally been followed since its inception.  The problem, unfortunately, is that it arguably contradicts the Constitution's War Powers Clause.  Or severely renders that clause virtually meaningless.

No court has passed judgment on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.  It remains controversial.  Supporters of the law seem to bog themselves in silly semantics (e.g., "Well, we're not really at war with al Qaeda, because the word 'war' means we're fighting a recognized country, and AQ isn't a country").

In my view, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional.  It is certainly not what the Framers envisioned.  Even though the Constitution says that the president is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the Framers clearly did not want one man to decide when to commit our nation's troops to combat.

Granted, the Constitution's War Powers clause is antiquated.  If, for example, nuclear missiles are literally flying over the ocean toward our cities, we simply don't have time to convene Congress and have them pass a vote that military action on our part is required.  Congress itself would be vaporized before such a vote could take place.  Clearly, the Framers did not envision such a scenario, being only familiar with wars waged with muskets and bayonets.  So, in a sense, the War Powers Clause of the Constitution must be modified (or interpreted) to allow for such real-world realities.

But the War Powers Resolution of 1973 simply went too far.  It allowed for the President to commit troops to conflicts anywhere, anytime in the world, and then get after-the-fact approval from Congress.  Even when there is no imminent threat.

Enter James Baker III (Secretary of State under Bush 41) and Warren Christopher (Secretary of State under Clinton), who headed up a bipartisan committee to look at the War Powers Resolution of 1973, following the somewhat disastrous process of several years ago which resulted in the Iraq War quagmire we now find ourselves.  In today's New York Times, they pen an op-ed detailing the conclusions and recommendations of that committee.  The headline: "Put War Powers Back Where They Belong"

Their findings?  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is "ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst".  Well, yes.  No duh.

They continue:

The statute has other problems as well: it too narrowly defines the president’s war powers to exclude the power to respond to sudden attacks on Americans abroad; it empowers Congress to terminate an armed conflict by simply doing nothing; and it fails to identify which of the 535 members of Congress the president should consult before going to war.

As a consequence, the 1973 statute has been regularly ignored — a situation that undermines the rule of law, the centerpiece of American democracy.

Rather than tweak the 1973 Resolution, Baker and Christopher recommend scrapping it in favor of what they call "The War Powers Consultation Act of 2009".  The general thrust?  The President and Congress should consult each other before committing troops to combat.

As usual, the devil is in the details, but already, I don't see this as a vast improvement over the 1973 Resolution.  For one thing (as Baker and Christopher acknowledge), it still is probably unconstitutional, as it runs afoul of the War Powers Clause.

But let's get into the details:

Our proposed statute would provide that the president must consult with Congress before ordering a “significant armed conflict” — defined as combat operations that last or are expected to last more than a week. To provide more clarity than the 1973 War Powers Resolution, our statute also defines what types of hostilities would not be considered significant armed conflicts — for example, training exercises, covert operations or missions to protect and rescue Americans abroad. If secrecy or other circumstances precluded prior consultation, then consultation — not just notification — would need to be undertaken within three days.

I don't think they get it.  Their proposal is still too "executive-focused".  The President must consult with Congress before ordering an armed conflict?  How about the President ask Congress?  After all, as the Constitution clearly says, Congress shall make that determination.  Congress, not the president, holds the rubber stamp.

Baker and Christopher address this criticism:

Some may argue that Congress should have the dominant role in war powers debates. But it hasn’t played that role under the 1973 resolution. Rather than endorse any absolutist position, our statute would give Congress access to intelligence, a full-time staff for studying national security issues and a well-defined mechanism for consulting and voting on significant armed conflicts.

Yeah, "Some may argue that Congress should have the dominant role in war powers debate".  That "some" would include Madison, Jefferson, and all the other Founding Fathers.  Oh, and the American people, too: according to a Gallup Poll, 79% of us want the president to get Congress's approval before sending our troops overseas.

So apparently, while their essay is entitled "Put War Powers Back Where They Belong" -- apparently, Baker and Christopher, contra the Framers, believe that war powers "belong" primarily with the President.

No, no, no.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Baker and Christopher's proposal is no better than the War Powers Resolution of 1973.  In fact, it's arguably worse, because it takes the "bug" of the 1973 Resolution and turns it into a feature.  As the op-ed argues, their proposed statute is a good thing because it

[gives] the president the political benefit of forcing Congress to take a position on going to war. And it would do so without insisting that the president get the consent of Congress.

Well, gentlemen -- if that's the case, then your proposed statute fixes nothing, and clearly runs afoul of the Constitution.  If the President can commit troops to armed conflict without "consent of Congress", then we're back to the same unconstitutional problem we have always had.

I'm glad that the general issue of war powers is being taken up by very important people, and this proposal may be serve as a good launching point for a national debate.  It's nice that Baker and Christopher are talking about "increased Congressional responsibility" when it comes to war powers.  But they still appear to make Congress subservient to presidential military whims, and I strongly suggest a revisit to the drawing board for Baker and Christopher.

Gonzales: Another Bit Of Perjury Yesterday

This centers around a meeting held on March 10, 2004 with members of the Bush Administration and the "Gang of 8", members of Congress who head up intelligence committees.  The topic discussed was --  well, that's the issue. Here's what Alberto Gonzales said under oath on Tuesday:

At a heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terrorist surveillance program....Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe.

Gonzales, who was then serving as counsel to Bush, testified that the White House Situation Room briefing sought to inform congressional leaders about the pending expiration of the unidentified program and Justice Department objections to renew it.

...."Not the TSP?" responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. "Come on. If you say it's about other, that implies not. Now say it or not."

"It was not," Gonzales answered. "It was about other intelligence activities."

Other intelligence activities? Not the TSP? Despite the recollections of other participants that the meeting on that day was precisely about the TSP?

Well, guess what? It turns out the dates of all the TSP meetings were the subject of a memo from John Negroponte last year. So it's all down on paper. And you know what date shows up? March 10, 2004.

Short version: Gonzales lied (again) before Congress.

Olbermann does a good job of breaking it down.  As the reporter says, "this is a really, really big deal and a big problem for Gonzales. … The legal expert I talked to tonight said this is a clear case of perjury."

CNN is on this, too.  Well, everybody is, I guess.  When the nation's top lawyer commits perjury, you know the nation is deep in the crapper.

Hardin-Smith offers advice:

Here’s a tip for Bush Administration cronies:  if you are going to lie under oath, on the record, with a video camera in your face, don’t lie about something for which there is documentary evidence directly contradicting your statements.  It makes you look unprepared, panicked and sloppy.  Even petty thieves get their stories straighter than this in magistrate courts across the nation.  Juries still find them guilty, and see right through their lying skeezeball stories, but at least they have enough pride in their thievery to put a little work into covering their own asses.  It’s especially pathetic when you are given a number of the questions in advance.

Flashback a few months ago to an interesting conversation between Bill Moyers and Jon Stewart regarding Gonzales:

So prescient.

Glenn Greenwald on Gonzales: “That is what Alberto Gonzales does. He lies to protect the President. And the President will never fire him. Gonzales isn’t keeping his job despite his willingness to lie to Congress, but because of it. Congress has no choice but to act meaningfully — impeachment of Gonzales and a Special Prosecutor — and if they do not, then, I suppose, one could say that Congress deserves to be lied to.”

UPDATE:  Oh, man -- as the day gets on, it gets even worse for Gonzales:

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said Thursday the government's terrorist surveillance program was the topic of a 2004 hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials, contradicting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' sworn Senate testimony.

Mueller's statement came hours after Senate Democrats called for a perjury investigation against Gonzales and subpoenaed top presidential aide Karl Rove in a deepening political and legal clash with the Bush administration.

Obstructionist GOP

In 2004, Americans elected a Democratic majority in Congress.  What was the GOP response?  To tie up bills, filibuster, and engage in other parliamentarian tactics to prevent reforms from even coming to a vote.

How bad is it?  Really bad.  At the present pace, the Republicans will be three times more obstructionist than any Congress in recent history.  Margaret Talev reports for McClatchey Newspapers on the GOP's unprecedentedly frequent use of the filibuster. This chart, though, kind of says it all:

No wonder Congress is rated as so low....

Gonzales Lied -- Blatently Lied -- Under Oath, To Congress

Lying to Congress is a crime:

As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Two Justice Department officials say that Gonzo was kept very well informed of FBI civil liberties violations:

The two officials spoke in a telephone call arranged by press officials at the Justice Department after The Washington Post disclosed yesterday that the FBI sent reports to Gonzales of legal and procedural violations shortly before he told senators in April 2005: "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse" after 2001.

"I have discussed and informed attorneys general, including this one, about mistakes the FBI has made or problems or violations or compliance incidents, however you want to refer to them," said James A. Baker, a career official who heads the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review.

"I've discussed a number of times oversight concerns and, underlying those oversight concerns, the potential for violations. And I'm sure we've discussed violations that have occurred in the past," said Assistant Attorney General for National Security Kenneth L. Wainstein.

Gonzales’ office has a spin to rationalize all of this.

[Assistant Attorney General for National Security Kenneth L. Wainstein] defended the 2005 statement by Gonzales that he was unaware of civil liberties abuses related to the government’s counterterrorism effort. Wainstein cited what he described as a dictionary definition of “abuse” in defending Gonzales’s remark. […]

Wainstein said Gonzales was saying only that there had been no intentional acts of misconduct, rather than the sorts of mistakes the FBI was self-disclosing. “That is why I cited the definition of ‘abuse,’ which in Webster’s . . . implies some sort of intentional conduct. And I think that is sort of the common understanding of the word ‘abuse,’ ” Wainstein said.

Got that? Those weren’t abuses; they were just instances in which FBI agents illegally obtained personal information about Americans that they were not entitled to have.

Oy, these people!

It's A Family Affair

CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) has released a devastating report on government nepotism -- how Congresspersons are using their positions to financially benefit their family members.

Highlights:

96 members of Congress used their positions to financially benefit members of their family (44 Democrats and 52 Republicans)

64 paid family members through their campaign committees or PACs (26 Democrats and 38 Republicans);

24 have relatives who lobby Congress (10 Democrats and 14 Republicans);

19 used their campaign committees or PACs to pay a family business or a business that employs a family member (9 Democrats and 10 Republicans);

17 used their campaign funds to make campaign contributions to relatives (11 Democrats and 6 Republicans);

15 used their positions to benefit a family member or a family member’s client (3 Democrats and 12 Republicans);

At least 7 paid offspring who ranged from school-age to college-age (all Republicans)

Some examples:

• Rep. Randy Forbes’s (R-VA) campaign committee paid his three children over $45,000.
• Rep. Paul Kanjorski’s (D-PA) campaign committee and leadership PAC have paid his own company (which he co-owns with his brother) over $40,000 in rent and his campaign committee paid two of his nephews over $70,000. In addition, two companies which are partly owned by Rep. Kanjorski’s family members have received over $9.4 million in earmarks.
• Rep. Zoe Lofgren’s (D-CA) campaign committee has paid her husband’s two businesses almost $350,000, mostly for event management, accounting and fundraising services.
• Rep. Chris Cannon’s (R-UT) campaign committee paid six of his eight children over $60,000. In addition, Rep. Cannon has used his position to assist his brother’s clients.

None of this is, technically speaking, illegal, but it is the hope of CREW that changes should be made in the law to prevent this sort of thing.

Read the full report here (PDF format).

"I'm Not Whining" He Whined

That's the best line from a Dana Milbank piece about the GOP returning to the 110th Congress, where they find themselves not in the majority after several years of bribery and page-seducing.  The whiner is Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.).

Yup -- already the GOP is complaining that they aren't allowed to drive the car anymore, and the session hasn't even begun yet.

The Rude Pundit (rudely) adds his views:

The fact that Republicans even think the victim act will work is laughable, in a "Christ, that's sad, let's shoot Old Yeller way." They don't realize that people love it when the bully gets beaten up. When an abused wife shoots the shit-faced, pummeling husband in the back of the head. When the convicted serial rapist is turned into the gang-banger's punk in prison.

***

They seriously think saying, "Democrats promised to share their toys" is going to have traction as a counter argument to the election results, even when the entire country knows that Republicans kept the playground locked to Democrats for all these years. This is a Karl Rove ploy, the weak wimper of a cancer-ridden corrupt old man, trying to turn the Democrats on themselves, hoist them on their promise of better bipartisanship.

You can smell his sausage-like finger grease all over George Bush's sad editorial in the Wall Street Journal. "What Congress Can Do For America," it was titled. And the simple answer, the one demanded by all Americans whose paychecks don't rely on desperately trying to make Bush into a "leader," is "Fucking stop you."

South Dakota Law

Here you go:

12-11-1. Special election to fill congressional vacancy--Time of election of representative. If a vacancy occurs in the office of a senator or representative in the United States Congress it shall be the duty of the Governor within ten days of the occurrence, to issue a proclamation setting the date of and calling for a special election for the purpose of filling such vacancy. If either a primary or general election is to be held within six months, an election to fill a vacancy in the office of representative in the United States Congress shall be held in conjunction with that election, otherwise the election shall be held not less than eighty nor more than ninety days after the vacancy occurs.

Why this matters...

Mark Foley Report

Ethics Report says that the House Ethics Committee didn't break any rules, but still were negeligent in not protecting the House pages from the very creepy Mark Foley.

The full Ethics Report is here, but if you want to read 104 pages of AOL instant messages from Mark Foley, go straight here (PDF format).  And emails here (also PDF format).

Man, was he creepy!

Congress To Work Five Days A Week

Yup.  Democrats think that our elected representatives should work harder, and that has some Republicans throwing a fit:

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, the Maryland Democrat who will become House majority leader and is writing the schedule for the next Congress, said members should expect longer hours than the brief week they have grown accustomed to [...]

"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."

Right now, our congressmen and congresswomen work three-day weeks.  if Rep. Kingston is so concerned about "families", then why doesn't he sponsor a bill making everybody in the country have three-day work weeks?

And by the way, Representative Kingston, there are other people who perform services to their country, who are taken away from their families for months at a time, and redeployed over and over again.

This is why the GOP lost the last election -- their elected representatives feel they entitled to special considerations.

Prager v. Ellison, Part Two

Shorter Dennis Prager:

You know this controversy that came at my suggestion that Rep. Keith Ellison (a Muslim) get sworn in to Congress by using the Bible rather than his holy book, the Kuran?  It would all go away if Rep. Ellison simply does what I suggested.

Earlier posts: Dennis Prager: Clueless About America

UPDATE:  World o'Crap provides another shorter Dennis Prager "response to my critics":

“I never said that Keith Ellison should be legally forced to swear his oath of office on the Bible, I merely said that he, like all Americans, should pretend to be a Christian in public – you know, for tradition’s sake. Oh, and to all you stinky liberals who said bad things about me, the truth is that there is NO WAY that I could be bigoted against Muslims, because I am a JEW!”

Dennis Prager: Clueless About America

A view days ago, I linked to a debate between an noted agnostic and evangelical columnist Dennis Prager on the subject of the existence of God.  The debate was civilized and I bent over backwards to give Prager as much credit as I could possibly muster (even though his best argument for the existence of God boiled down to "It's nice to believe in God, therefore God must exist").

Well, Prager put his foot in his mouth today, and the reason it went in so deeply is because his brain is the size of a pea.

It's the most mind-numbingly America-ignorant colimn I have read in a long time, so bad that the most aporpos reaction is the one offered by The Seventh Sense reader Brett Borowski (who brought this to my attention)/  To quote Mr. Borowski:

Aaaaaaggggggghhhhh!

Indeed.

So what did Prager write about which is causing Americans' brains to melt?  You can read the full Townhall column here, but the gist is in the title and the first few paragraphs:

America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on

by Dennis Prager

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

It's seems that Prager knows almost nothing about America's culture.  One of the founding principles, if not THE founding principle, is religious freedom.  It's the freakin' FIrst Amendment.

When Prager writes, "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don’t serve in Congress."

Does Prager know that the Constitution says this:

“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

That's the American culture, baby.  But what Prager proposes -- and he apparently is serious -- is an outright and literal violation of the Constitution (a document which Prager ought to read before he opines on what is "American" and what is not).

Prager completely ignores what an oath actually is -- its purpose is to bind the oathtaker to his duty.  To make that oath more palpable and meaningful to the oathtaker, it IS important that he take the oath on something sacred to him.  Otherwise, the oath would be (in his eyes) meaningless.

Americans have recognized this since the inception of America.  Here in North Carolina, for example, they had a debate whether to ratify the new Constitution back in 1788.  On the subject of requiring religious oaths to a particular religion (which Prager is advocating), this was said:

A very remarkable instance also happened in England, about forty years ago, of a person who was admitted to take an oath according to the rites of his own country, though he was a heathen. He was an East Indian, who had a great suit in chancery, and his answer upon oath to a bill filed against him was absolutely necessary. Not believing either in the Old or New Testament, he could not be sworn in the accustomed manner, but was sworn according to the form of the Gentoo religion, which he professed, by touching the foot of a priest. It appeared that, according to the tenets of this religion, its members believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. It was accordingly held by the judges, upon great consideration, that the oath ought to be received; they considering that it was probable those of that religion were equally bound in conscience by an oath according to their form of swearing, as they themselves were by one of theirs; and that it would be a reproach to the justice of the country, if a man, merely because he was of a different religion from their own, should be denied redress of an injury he had sustained. Ever since this great case, it has been universally considered that, in administering an oath, it is only necessary to inquire if the person who is to take it, believes in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most.

Heck, even the Bible commands that "Ye shall not swear falsely", but this is exactly what Prager believes Ellison should do.

Prager is un-American not because he is mean-spirited, but because he is ignorant about the country he lives in.  And it's a shame that he has such a large public forum and following.  (Fortunately, his remarks are being condemned as ignorant and misguided by the right and the left).

By the way, Franklin Pierce chose to take an affirmation rather than an oath with his hand on the Bible.  Teddy Roosevelt also didn't use a Bible for his first inauguration.  (More Presidential inauguration Bible trivia here).

Oh, and by the way?  NOBODY who gets elected to the House of Representatives gets sworn in on a Bible.  The swearing-in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands and swearing to uphold the Constitution.

RELATED:  Rep. Ellison has seen this fearmongering before.  Conservative CNN host Glenn Beck had a go at him, too.  Jon Stewart's takedown is a classic:

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds weighs in.  And here's Prager defending his views with Eugene Volokh, and losing.  In fact, he makes little sense (what is "The American Bible"?)

Who Supports The Troops? Republicans Or Democrats?

The answer is Democrats.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America -- a non-partisan veterans' group -- took a look at 324 legislative votes in the last five years which affected American troops and veterans. Legislative proposals included veterans' benefits, healthcare, and medical research dedicated towards injured soldiers. Based on these votes, IAVA calculated which senators and congressmen had a history of supporting the troops, and which didn't, and graded them on a curve.

Here are the results:

Yup, you're reading that right.  All Senate Democrats ranked higher than every Senate Republican.  Via Bob Geiger.

Vernon Robinson Goes Off The Deep End

North Carolina Congressman Vernon "The Black Jesse Helsm" Robinson has always been weird and corrupt.  But this is just plain bizarre:

Vernon Robinson, who has run a series of brash advertisements about the two-term Democratic congressman, charged that Miller wants to import homosexuals to the United States and supported scientific studies that would pay teenage girls to watch pornography.

"Those are San Francisco values, not North Carolina values," said Robinson, repeating a common theme of his campaign.

Does anybody buy that crap?  I mean, does anybody really think that Brad Miller wants to "import homosexuals" to the United States?  And if not, doesn't that make Robinson a liar unfit for office?

This Foley-Hastert-gate Thing Is Just Getting Weird Now

So what a second.

House speaker Dennis Hastert has met this morning with an evangelical leader who knew al-Qaeda’s Abu Musab al-Zarqawi “when he was nobody”?

An evangelical leader who has counselled Saddam Hussein, Muammar al-Khaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Liberia's Charles Taylor, and Tom Delay?

And they discussed whether or not Hastert should resign?

UPDATE:  Weirder and weirder.  The evangelical that Hastert met with was this guy that I wrote about a week or so ago.

Bizarre.

Everyone's A Giggly Teenage

Even the respectable journalists at The Hill.  From its lead editorial:

Hastert and Boehner need to get on the same page or Republican troubles will continue to mount.

Oh, stop it.

[Via Wonkette]

Foley Blame Game & The Foley Effect

I wish I had kept this list earlier, because then I could hyperlink to examples.

But off the top of my head, this is a short list of all the entities named by the right wing pundits on AM radio and the right blogistan who are actually responsible for Foley's malfeasance:

1. Demon alcohol
2. Catholic priests
3. Gay GOP staffers
4. ABC's Brian Ross
5. Gay Democrats
6. The culture of pedophilia (sanctioned by Democrats, especially Bill Clinton)
7. The Internet (invented by Democrat Al Gore)
8. The pages themselves, playing a "prank"

Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge are advancing the latest meme, even though other pages are coming forward.

Seriously, blaming anybody other that Foley for Foley is just as stupid as blaming recent school shootings on Harry Potter books.

Now, the CW spread by the media is that the Foley sex scandal is dragging the GOP down and will hurt them at the polls.  Time says so.

Well, maybe not.  Time looked at registered voters, not likely voters.

Besides, the GOP was in a freefall before the Foley scandal broke, and it was due to Iraq.  Check out the latest from Pew Research:

The big issue remains Iraq:

And here's my favorite poll result:

I must say, I like the way things are looking.

The "Secret Hold"

It is a very very very rare thing when the right side of the political blogosphere and the left side of the political blogosphere are in total agreement.  It's even rarer when they work together.

But that is what has been happening the past few days, and it is fun to watch.

The issue is Senate Bill 2590, also known as the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590).  It was introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK), Barack Obama (D-IL), Thomas Carper (D-DE) and John McCain (R-AZ).  The purpose of the proposed law?  To create an online public database that itemizes federal funding.

The bill ensures that the taxpayers will now know how their money is being spent.  It's a great idea -- every citizen in this country, after all, should have the right to know what organizations and activities are being funded with their hard-earned tax dollars.

That's why it has overwhelming support.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously passed the measure July 27th, and S.2590 seemed to be speeding on its way to full Senate passage when, in the dark of night, an unknown Senator placed a "secret hold" on the bill. According to Senate courtesies, the bill will never come to a vote as long as the hold continues.

So who's the culprit?

The blogosphere on the left and the right united, and over the past few days, people have been calling their Senators' offices to see if their Senator was the one who blocked the bill.  A tally is being kept here, among other places.  The united effort has become, in essesnce, an online parlor game: "Guess The Secret Senator".

Right now, there are only five senators who haven't denied being responsible for the "secret hold": Byrd, Robert C.(D - WV), Gregg, Judd (R - NH); Hatch, Orrin G.(R - UT); Stevens, Ted (R - AK), and
Bennett, Robert F (R - UT).

Most people now believe the culprit is Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, the testy old curmodgeon famous for the now-legendary "bridge to nowhere", a $233 million bridge in Alaska (named after Stevens himself) which went to a small island with only a handful of inhabitants.

In other words, this bill is designed to make wasteful government spending very apparent to American citizens.  It's no surprise that the most wasteful government spender, Ted Stevens, is behind the "secret hold" on the bill.

P.S.  Ted Stevens is also the man famous for his explanation of the Internet as "a series of tubes" and "not a truck".  He also calls his e-mail by the word "Internet", as in "I received an internet last night...."

In short, the guy is as corrupt as he is stupid.

UPDATE:  Stevens admits it.

The Conyers Report Is Out

Available here for free.  Conyers writes:

The report, which is some 350 pages in length and is supported by more than 1,400 footnotes, compiles the accumulated evidence that the Bush Administration has thumbed its nose at our nation's laws, and the Constitution itself.

Fries Are French Again

Remember that bit of ridiculousness in March 2003, when a couple of Republican Congressmen, angry that France wasn't supporting the U.S. efforts in Iraq, decided to "protest" by having the Congressional cafeteria serve "freedom fries" instead of "French fries"?  It was a bold culinary symbolic statement which raised congressional silliness to new heights.

Three years later, those two Congressmen (Bob Ney of Ohio and Walter B. Jones of North Carolina) have become opponents of the war in Iraq.

And so now -- quietly -- the "french fries" are back in da House (cafeteria).

And the world is safe for democracy now.

My Internet Is Broken -- Is Yours?

If senators don't know what they're talking about, they shouldn't be talking at all.

Here's Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) talking about the Net Neutrality bill, and why he opposes it:

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o’clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

No, it wasn't a slip of the tongue.  He made similar mistakes during his whole speech.

The "American Values" Agenda

Here's the "American Values" Agenda being pushed by the GOP (from the website of Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL)):

• Pledge Protection Act (HR 2389; Akin)
  Summary: Protects the Pledge of Allegiance from attacks by activist federal judges seeking to rule it unconstitutional.
• Freedom to Display the American Flag Act (HR 42; Bartlett)
  Summary: Ensures an individual has the right to display the U.S. flag on residential property.
• The Public Expression of Religion Act (HR 2679; Hostettler)
  Summary: Ensures local officials and communities do not face financial ruin to defend their rights to free speech under the Constitution (provides that when state or local officials are sued over public expressions of religion, no monetary damages, costs, or attorney's fees may be awarded).
• Marriage Amendment (HJRes 88; Musgrave)
  Summary: Constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman
• Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (HR 356; C. Smith)
  Summary: Requires that those performing late-term abortions inform the woman seeking an abortion of the medical evidence that the unborn child feels pain, and ensure that if she chooses to continue with the abortion procedure, she has the option of choosing anesthesia for the child, so that the unborn child’s pain is less severe.
• Human Cloning Prohibition Act (HR 1357; D. Weldon)
  Summary: Bans human cloning and the importation of products derived from a cloned human embryo (e.g. stem cells).
• BATFE Reform (HR 5092; Coble)
  Summary: Reforms the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (BATFE) to protect citizens’ rights.
• Internet Gambling Prohibition (Leach/Goodlatte):
  Summary: Addresses the issue of illegal internet gambling by making gambling laws apply equally to the internet.
• Permanent Tax Relief for Families
  Summary: Likely series of votes on the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, tax incentives for adoption, and other priorities for American citizens.
• Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act (HR 5013; Jindal)
  Summary: Prohibits governments from using federal funds to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens during emergencies.

It's off to a bad start.

Republicans failed to protect the words "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance -- the first item on the list above -- in a House Judiciary Committee vote.

Even though Republicans have a six person advantage on the Committee, seven Republicans skipped the vote and fourteen Democrats opposed the challenge to the courts, resulting in a 15-15 tie.

RELATED:  Speaking of "American values", get a load of Tom Delay joking with other Republicans congressmen about "beaver".  And social conservatives like these people?

Official English

I honestly hope these people have better things to do than debate whether or not English is America's "national language" or a "common and unifying language".  Either way, the piece of legislation is symbolic, since you can't enforce anything. 

Aren't there real problems out there that need addressing in real ways, rather than symbolic ones?

Of course, the legislation is just meat for social conservatives and the religious, who are disgruntled that the GOP is not catering to their desires.  Politicians seem to think that empty symbolic legislation will appease them and bring them to the polls in November.  Sadly, they may be right.

Powerline's John Hindrocket does his best to defend the importance of the issue:

But the issue is not a trivial one, nor is this just a temporary bowing to "nativist" sentiment, as it will no doubt be portrayed in the MSM. It is absolutely vital that America remain an English-speaking country.

Was there a chance it wouldn't be, John?  Take the tin foil hat off your head.

Right next door, in Canada, we have the starkest possible evidence of the catastrophic consequences of bilingualism.

Not suprisingly, Hindrocket doesn't inform us what that evidence is.  Canada, like any country, has its share of problems, but how much of it can be attributed to bilingualism?  Is bilingualism any more destructive than say, a two party government?

I like Bob Harris's take:

In over two centuries of constant immigration, never once has an official language been important enough to bother with. And in these days of the Internet, massive multilingual communication, and translation tools at our fingertips, never has an official language been less necessary. Not even close.

But it’s an election year. And for about 30% of this country, fear is an emotion that overrides everything else.

Congressional Hearing Gets Catty

Everyone's paying attention to the Senate confirmation hearings of General Hayden today, but it looks like all the fun stuff is happening in the other Senate hearing rooms.

Spend-Crazy Republicans

In March, the GOP-controlled Senate voted to increase the federal debt limit by $781 billion, bringing the debt ceiling to nearly $9 trillion.

Neat trick.  If you find yourself outspending the legal limits, just change the legal limits.

And now, two months later, GOP lawmakers decided to raise it again.

A $2.7 trillion budget plan pending before the House would raise the federal debt ceiling to nearly $10 trillion, less than two months after Congress last raised the federal government's borrowing limit.

Of course, they tried to be sneaky about it:

The provision — buried on page 121 of the 151-page budget blueprint — serves as a backdrop to congressional action this week.

Yup.  And why do they need to raise the debt ceiling again?  Because congressional Republicans want to cut taxes for the wealthy (again) and pass a half-trillion-dollar defense policy bill.

WaPo notices that this is nothing new for Repubs in Congress:

With passage of the budget, the House will have raised the federal borrowing limit by an additional $653 billion, to $9.62 trillion. It would be the fifth debt-ceiling increase in recent years, after boosts of $450 billion in 2002, a record $984 billion in 2003, $800 billion in 2004 and $653 billion in March. When Bush took office, the statutory borrowing limit stood at $5.95 trillion.

Yeah, and when he took office, Bush vowed to a balanced budget and pay off the national debt, too.

AP Poll

31% of conservatives think that Democrats should control Congress.  When you think about it, that's an astoundingly high number.

Republican Priorities

Josh Marshall notes that Sen. Elizabeth Dole has remarkable candor when it comes to expressing Republicans' priorities lie this year :

It all started earlier this evening when TPM Reader HH was on the receiving end of one of Dole's blast emails begging contributions for the Republican senate committee.

Says Dole, in her pitch: "If Democrats take control of the Senate in '06, they will cancel the Bush tax cuts, allow liberal activist judges to run our courts and undermine all Republican efforts to win the War on Terror. Even worse ..." Now, here you know it's got to be bad. Even I got a little worried and considered sending in some money since losing the War on Terror for America would already be a pretty bad thing for the Democrats to do. But ... well, let's rejoin Dole in mid-moonbat. "Even worse, they will call for endless congressional investigations and possibly call for the impeachment of President Bush!"

You read it right.

What's "even worse" than losing the War on Terror?  Investigations into Bush!

Hookers and Congress ...and Watergate? -- That's So 1970's!

Billmon:

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the news (from Harper's via TPM Muckraker) that Porter Goss, director of the CIA, may be implicated in a hooker service for corrupt (and horny) congressmen paid for by defense contractors and run out of -- you really gotta love this part -- the Watergate Hotel.

So what are we supposed to call this new scandal? Watergategate?

According to the Harper's article, this scandal involves "pictures" as well, prompting DC gossip blogger Wonkette to gloat:

Best. Scandal. Ever.

Anatomy Of A Photo Op

The captions below each picture are taken verbatim from AP and Reuters (but the emphasis is mine).

U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) speaks at a news conference on gas prices at a gas station in Washington, April 27, 2006. Hastert drove home his points by leaving the news conference in a pair of hydrogen-powered cars. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Ill., left, sits in the passenger side of a hydrogen powered alternative fueled vehicle, drive by General Motors engineer, Mike Miller, after a news conference at a local gas station in Washington, Thursday, April 27, 2006 to discuss the recent rise in gas prices. Hastert and other members of Congress drove off in the Hydrogen-Fueled cars. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Ill., center, gets out of a Hydrogen Alternative Fueled automobile, left, as he prepares to board his SUV, which uses gasoline, after holding a new conference at a local gas station in Washington, Thursday, April 27, 2006 to discuss the recent rise in gas prices. Hastert and other members of Congress drove off in the Hydrogen-Fueled cars only to switch to their official cars to drive back the few blocks back to the U.S. Capitol. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)