Kagan is the Supreme Court nominee

The Party of No is already gearing up their "we oppose everything" campaign, but President Obama's nomination of United States Solicitor General Elena Kagan should go relatively smoothly. They seem to be stressing the fact that she has never been a judge, all the while conveniently ignoring that many Supreme Court Justices have not been judges prior to their appointment to the Court.

Including John Roberts, the current Chief Justice, a Bush II nominee.

Apparently the phenomenon of IOKIYAR isn't just confined to Arizona.

While the confirmation process promises to be a colorful one, particularly given that this is an election year with its incentive for partisan posturing, expectations are that Kagan will be confirmed.

From the email sent out by the President announcing his pick -

Today, it is my great honor to nominate our Solicitor General, and my friend, Elena Kagan, to be the next justice of the United States Supreme Court.

As I send my nomination to the Senate, I wanted to record a special message for you that I hope will help us launch a national discussion.

Take a minute to watch this video, and then help me to introduce Elena to your friends and family by passing it on.

Elena is widely regarded as one of the best legal minds of her generation -- earning praise from across the ideological spectrum throughout her career. Above all, she is a trailblazer. She wasn't just the first woman to serve as dean of Harvard Law School -- she was one of its most beloved and successful leaders, building a reputation for openness to other viewpoints and skill in working with others to build consensus. These were some of the many reasons why I selected her to be my Solicitor General, the nation's chief advocate -- the first woman to hold that post as well.

Her work as Solicitor General has allowed me to see firsthand just why Elena is particularly well-suited to the Court: She has not only a keen understanding of the law, but also one that is rooted in a deep awareness of its impact on people's lives. Last year, she made that clear -- choosing the Citizens United case as her first to argue before the Supreme Court, defending bipartisan campaign finance reform against special interests seeking to spend unlimited money to influence our elections.

Now, I look forward to the prospect of Elena taking her seat alongside Justice Ginsberg and Justice Sotomayor. For the first time, our nation's highest court would include three women, ensuring a Court that would be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.

When Justice Stevens wrote me to announce his retirement, I knew that the Court would be losing a standard bearer. And I felt a responsibility to nominate an individual capable of being that same guiding force, a consistent voice of reason on the Court.

I am certain I have made the right choice. As you learn more about Elena, I am confident you'll see what I do -- that she is a voice we need on the Supreme Court.

Please watch the message -- and share it with others:

http://my.barackobama.com/ElenaKagan

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Later...

An imminent opening on the Supreme Court, Janet Napolitano in D.C...

...and AZ's Republicans start sweating from their eyeballs...

From NPR -

Regarding the resignation of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, it's now a matter of when, not if. Weeks away from his 90th birthday, Stevens is the court's senior justice in both terms of age and service; he was named by President Ford in 1975. An official announcement is expected soon.

{snip}

Stevens is a liberal, and Obama will certainly name a like-minded successor... thought to be on the list is Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano...

Let the screaming begin. :)

Health insurance industry lobby group rides to the rescue

Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chair of the U.S. Senate's Finance Committee, is the "author" of one of the health care reform proposals making their way through Congress. Because his proposal is by far the most industry friendly (OK, it's an industry wish list, including not having any kind of effective public option), he has come under withering criticism from from progressives and moderates across the country for his failure to place the interests of his constituents and other average Americans before those of some of his largest campaign contributors.

Today, the health insurance lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) rode to Baucus' aid with the release of a report that sharply criticizes his plan for not adequately protecting the bottom lines of insurers.

From USA Today -

The health insurance industry is warning that a comprehensive Senate bill would increase the cost of a typical policy by hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars a year after lawmakers eased up on the requirement that all Americans get coverage.

The stinging attack came on the eve of a pivotal Senate vote and was a clear message to President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders who have been making headway on overhauling the nation's health care system. The industry fears that a weakening of the penalties for failing to get insurance would let Americans postpone getting coverage until they get sick.

How is today's release "aid" for Baucus?

It's simple political cover, an attempt to make it look like Baucus isn't in the pocket of the health insurance industry.

And that is the "best-case" scenario. This could also be a shameless ploy to ward off some of the reform proposals with stronger benefits to the public, a "shot across the bow" of reformers, warning them about what to expect if any of their ideas look like they will gain any legislative momentum.

There are those in D.C. who haven't sold their souls to the lobbyists and can't be kept toeing the industry's "party line" via the usual campaign contributions.

Those folks will spend weeks, if not months, digging through the mountains of the best BS that industry payola can buy.

The industry "report" is here, courtesy of Politico.com.

The White House's response, courtesy TalkingPointsMemo.com, is here.

The Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Baucus bill is here.

Later...

Why requiring that people buy health insurance is the wrong approach

Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney offer similar plans to address health care in America. Both plans mandate that people purchase health insurance.

Reasons #1 through 1,824 why Clinton and Romney have the wrong ideas for health care in America...


From AP via Businessweek -

No health care? Higher fines in Mass.

BOSTON

The cost of not having health insurance in Massachusetts is going up.

When the new year begins Tuesday, most residents who remain uninsured will face monthly fines that could total as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by the end of 2008, according to penalty guidelines unveiled by the Department of Revenue on Monday.

To sum up what is so wrong about this scheme, first proposed by Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts, it only guarantees revenue for insurance companies, but does nothing to guarantee decent health care for patients.

Both plans expect the American public to continue to confuse "health insurance" with "actual "health care."

Hillary Clinton's health plan here.

Romney's here. (No 'compassionate' conservative he, with him referring to Americans without health insurance as "free riders.")

Other candidates:

Edwards' plan

Giuliani's plan

Richardson's plan

McCain's plan

Obama's plan

Huckabee's plan

Kucinich's plan (probably the best of the bunch; at least he seems to understand the difference between insurance and care)

Hunter's "plan" (scroll a little more than halfway down the page)

Biden's plan

Most of the plans have some kind of tax credit proposal to help poor families pay for health insurance.

Great idea, except that it presumes that those poor families can afford the price of health insurance up front before later taking it off their tax bills at the end of the year.

One last observation: the "mandated health insurance" scheme is very similar to the way auto insurance is required for all drivers, regardless of ability to pay. How has that impacted low-income drivers?

They either can't drive (legally anyway) or they have patronize 'low-cost' insurers, insurers who frequently take their customers' money while providing inadequate or even non-existent coverage.

If the Clinton/Romney/whoever plan is implemented, how long will it take before it becomes illegal to receive medical care without insurance?

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

and nary a glimpse of Eastwood, Van Cleef, or Wallach... :)

The news from D.C. was a decidedly mixed bag - good news on the Patriot Act front; bad news on continued funding for Bush's war in Iraq, and profoundly ugly news regarding the march to war with Iran coming out of the Senate.

First the good - A federal district court judge in Oregon ruled that two parts of the Patriot Act regarding seaches and intelligence gathering violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

From the CNN article on the ruling -

A federal court on Wednesday struck down two provisions of the Patriot Act dealing with searches and intelligence gathering, saying they violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures with regard to criminal prosecutions.

"It is critical that we, as a democratic nation, pay close attention to
traditional Fourth Amendment principles," wrote Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon in her 44-page decision. "The Fourth Amendment has served this nation well for 220 years, through many other perils."

Then the bad - by a 404 -14 vote, the House passed a continuing resolution, H. J. Res. 52, to fund continuing government operations for the fiscal year. The bad parts? The CR included funding for the Iraq war, an issue that the Democratic leadership gave in on with barely a whimper, and also included a provision that condemned the MoveOn.org "General Betray-us" ad. The MoveOn.org condemnation provision passed as an amendment to the CR by a vote of 341 - 79.

Of the Arizona delegation, only Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) voted against the provision.

As for the ugly, the U.S. Senate passed, by a disgustingly overwhelming margin of 76 - 22, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to the Defense appropriations bill, HR1585. The amendment includes language telling the President that the Congress approves of using military force against Iran.

The passage of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment totally outstrips the import of the earlier passage of the Biden amendment to HR1585. Biden's amendment supports the creation of a federalist system of government with a strong regional component. It's a toothless 'sense of Congress" bit of fluff, but it is the first significant legislative departure from the Bush Party line, which wants a powerful central government in Iraq.

Of course, it may be possible that one of the reasons that the Biden amendment passed is that Big Oil loves it.

Of course2, I may just be thinking like a typical cynical lib... :))

Later!

Our illustrious Senators, Kyl and McCain, had a busy couple of days...

...spending their time showing that they hold the same amount of respect for the Constitution and detainees in prison camps, the residents of the District of Columbia, and for American servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In short, they have no respect at all for any of them.

On Tuesday cloture motion, they voted to kill S. 1257, the D.C. Voting Rights Act. The Act would have given the residents of the District of Columbia full representation in Congress.

Then on Wednesday, in another cloture motion, the voted to kill an amendment to H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 that would have restored habeas corpus rights for detainees.

Finally, later on Wednesday, as the bright sparkling star atop their Christmas tree of contempt, in one more cloture vote, they voted to kill another amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that would have limited the length of tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan served by U.S. troops.

I could rant and rave about their votes (and McCain's somewhat surprising backstab of American servicemen and women), but as despicable as their votes were, they aren't the most deserving of criticism over this.

It's time for Sen. Harry Reid to quit giving in to the Kyl, McCain, and the rest of the Republicans by going for a cloture motion to avoid a threatened filibuster; make 'em earn it.

Make them stand up on the floor of the Senate and on national television and hold up the business of the Senate...hell, the business of the entire nation...because they because the find habeas corpus, taxation with representation, and rested American troops all such dire threats to the Republic.

In other words, it's time for Sen. Reid and the rest of the Democrats that were sent to both chambers of Congress to improve things in D.C. to grow spines.


Washington Post coverage, via the Boston Globe, coverage of the tour of duty limits vote here.

AP coverage of the habeas corpus vote here.

Baltimore Sun coverage of the D.C. Voting Rights vote here.

Later!

Karl Rove Leaving The White House...

...unfortunately, it's a voluntary exit accompanied by effusive "fare thee wells" and book deals, not an involuntary one accompanied by indictments and perp walks.

From AP, via Yahoo! News -

WASHINGTON - Karl Rove, President Bush's close friend and chief political strategist, announced Monday he will leave the White House at the end of August, joining a lengthening line of senior officials heading for the exits in the final 1 1/2 years of the administration.

{snip}

Rove is expected to write a book after he leaves. He disclosed hisdeparture in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

"I just think it's time," Rove said in an interview at his home on Saturday. He first floated the idea of leaving to Bush a year ago, the newspaper said, and friends confirmed he'd been talking about it even earlier. However, he said he didn't want to depart right after the Democrats regained control of Congress and then got drawn into policy battles over the Iraq war and immigration.

"There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family," said Rove, who has been in the White House since Bush took office in 2001.

Ah yes....when the world gets you down - when contempt of Congress citations are imminent, indictments loom on the horizon, when your guy is termed out so the prospects for trampling over honest elections are dim - what else is there to do?

Wrap yourself in flag and family, and get out while the getting's good...

Wonder if the book he is threatening to write will be published before or after the inevitable pardon???

My guess: Before, so that everything he admits to in order to pump book sales can be covered by the pardon.

Reaction to the resignation, courtesy MSNBC, here.

Later!

Bush still plans to invade Iran...

...but he faces a lot more scrutiny from Congress and the public than he did with the Iraq invasion.

With Harry Mitchell signing on as a co-sponsor of HR 1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, attention is starting to turn toward the Administration's next target for a preemptive war - Iran.

From a press release -

"Iran 's defiant pursuit of nuclear arms is a threat to the peace and stability of the United States and the world," said Mitchell. "This is a defining moment for the United States, and for Congress. It must be a national priority to prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon."

The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act calls for enhanced U.N. Security Council efforts in response to Iran's continued defiance of the international community and expands bilateral sanctions against Iran by severely limited the export of U.S. items to Iran. Furthermore, the legislation prevents U.S. subsidiaries of foreign oil companies that invest in Iran 's oil sector from receiving U.S. tax benefits for oil and gas exploration.

In a stroke of good timing, this subject is coming to the fore just two weeks before former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter will be here to discuss his latest book, Target: Iran.

In the past, Mr. Ritter has criticized, correctly as it turns out, the President's rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Ritter said that they didn't have any; Bush said they did.

Bush went ahead with the war, and after thousands of American servicemen and women, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, were killed or wounded, we came to find out that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq, much less WMDs that endangered the U.S.

In the past, he has described, also correctly as it turns out, the vast internecine tribal and sectarian ties and rivalries that Saddam Hussein navigated and used on his way to power and that currently stymie any efforts to bring stability to occupied Iraq. [Endgame]

His knowledge of both Iraq and Iran and of U.S. government plans for them add to his credibility, as in his current book, Target Iran, he chronicles the Bush Administration's drive for regime change, not disarmament, in Iran.

In the book, he calls for a public scrutiny of the Bush Administration plans in regard to Iran. From the book -

"It is essential, therefore, that Iran not be removed from the public debate here in the United States. War with Iran must be discussed, because the ultimate policy objective of the Bush administration regarding Iran is war." [p. 201]

His visit to the Civic Center Branch of the Scottsdale Public Library on March 29 is a perfect opportunity to be a part of that public discussion.

Details -

He will be appearing in the auditorium of the Scottsdale Civic Center Library, 3839 N. Drinkwater Blvd. There will be a reception at 6:30 p.m., with the program starting at 7.

Sponsors: LD8 Democrats, Ronn Lavit, Esprit Decor
Tickets: $25.00 (Minimum suggested donation)/Students: $15.00
Contact: 480-991-7548 or 602-266-5823.

If you are interested in buying a book to read beforehand, I know that Changing Hands still has some copies. It where I bought mine. :)

Addendum:

A transcript of an October interview from Democracy Now! with Ritter is here.

A November article from The Nation titled "The Case for Engagement" that was authored by Ritter is here.

Good night!

The House begins a debate on Iraq

Well, now they've gone and done it - the House is debating H Con Res 63, a non-binding resolution expressing Congress' support for the troops and "disapproving" of the President's strategy of sending more troops into Iraq to do more of the same things that have worked so well up to this point. [that's dripping sarcasm, folks.]

The text of the resolution -

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That--

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

That's it.

Anyway, what is striking about the debate so far is that the Republicans generally aren't arguing in favor of the President's strategy, other than to say "give it a chance to work before criticizing it."

Nope, their basic plan of rhetorical attack is to lie, dissemble and use straw men.

John Boehner (R-OH), the minority leader, says that the resolution criticizes American troops.

Read the resolution; it doesn't. It praises the troops.

Hell, it barely criticizes Bush.

Referencing terrorism, but speaking in support of the War in Iraq, he said "we didn't start this war, they did."

Which brings the straw man tactic they are using - since there's no justification for the Iraq war, the supporters of the President, his war, and his plan to escalate the war, equate the war in Iraq with the fight against terrorism.

I suppose they might have a point here, since their war has been very effective a creating terrorists that they think we should fight against.

Kind of self-perpetuating, that.

Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) was perhaps the speaker who was most open about why he supports the war and opposes the resolution -

He argues that Muslims, specifically "jihadists", are working for the "downfall of white society."

He may be repulsive, but at least he's open about his racist reasons for supporting the war.

Note: I'm not sure that comment will make it into the official record unsanitized, but I'll post a link if it does.

14 Feb 2007

On edit: I caught the replay of this part of the debate on CSPAN last night, and either Hoekstra's comment was edited out or I simply missed it. I started to wonder if I had actually heard what I thought I'd heard.

However, when I checked the Congressional Record today, it was there.

The exact quote from page H1502 -

Al Banna is not the only studied ideologue. Another name, Sayyid Qutb, wrote, "Islam has a mandate to order the whole of human life, and that the Western idea of separation between religion and the rest of life is, quote, a hideous schizophrenia that would lead to the downfall of white civilization and therefore its replacement by Islam.''

It seems that he was quoting someone else's writings; I'm not sure how much deliberation the congressman and his staff put in to selecting that particular quote.

End edit.

The rest of the debate so far has been more subtle than that, with Democratic supporters of the resolution citing casualty statistics, the lack of defined goals, the incompetency of the civilian leadership of our troops, etc.

Republican opponents of the resolution emphasize the 'non-binding' status of the resolution and deride it as weak and ineffective, but then say it undermines the morale of our troops and emboldens our enemies or they talk about the fight against terrorism.

My take on the resolution: It *is* non-binding and certainly won't compel Bush to pull his head out of his @$$, but if it serves as a first step toward Congress reclaiming its oversight duties under the Constitution, the resolution will be the best bill passed by the 110th Congress.

Not "passed so far", but "passed" period. Nothing they'll do for the rest of their terms will be more important.

Note: I called Harry Mitchell's district office his D.C. office and was told that he is tentatively scheduled to speak on the resolution sometime tomorrow. If I find out a firm time, I'll post it.

On edit, also 14 Feb: According to the congressman's D.C. office, he will be speaking on the Iraq resolution tomorrow (Thursday) around 2 p.m. E.S.T. (noon AZ time). I'd recommend tuning in to CSPAN by 11 a.m. (AZ time) or so - the timing is approximate and depends on the brevity or loquaciousness of the other speakers.

End edit.

Three days of this....ARRRGGHHHHH!!

:)

Later!

Is Jon Kyl doing a remote job interview for the VP job

if Cheney leaves?

From a speech he made yesterday on the Senate floor [with some comments from me :) ] (pages S1269, S1270 and S1271 of the Congressional Record):

On the President's "new" strategy in Iraq -

My position is clear. I think we ought to give the President's strategy a chance to work. We asked him to come up with a new strategy. He has done so, and it seems to me that it is our responsibility as a Senate to give that a chance to work or to provide an alternative--not an alternative to leave but an alternative to win. There are plenty of ways to leave. We can begin leaving now and have it done in a year. We can leave in 6 months. We can leave to the border but not beyond. There are a lot of different ideas about how to leave, but an alternative is not how to leave but how to win.

[Senator, it's not a "new" strategy; it's the same failed strategy with more body bags. Also, Senator, "alternative" means just that, not "different words that express the same idea that we have."]

On the anti-war resolutions that have begun popping up in Congress -

Resolutions that are nonbinding nevertheless have consequences. They can't change the policy that is already being effected, the strategy in Iraq, but what they can do is send very powerful messages. First, they can send a message to our enemies. It seems to me the last message we want to send to the enemy is that the Congress does not support the mission in Iraq. Obviously that emboldens the enemy.

{snip}

Most importantly, a resolution such as this sends a message to our troops. It is a very powerful message and a very negative one...We are sending you into a place where you could well die, but we don't support the cause for which you are dying.

[Silent acquiescence is un-American. And given that thousands of American soldiers have died in Bush's War to Aid Halliburton's Bottom Line, silent acquiescence may be treasonous.

Furthermore, given the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have died as a result of Bush's War, silent acquiescence may border on crime against humanity.]

In essence, Senator Kyl seems to be saying that the only way to honor the American servicemen and -women who have given their lives in this war is to send more to sacrifice their own lives.

That's crap.

In other JK news, he supported militarizing space in a speech given yesterday to the conservative think tank/lobbying group, the Heritage Foundation. (Aviation Week)


[I don't know whether to refer to him as the "White House's water carrier on the Hill" or the "White House's Kool-Aid drinker on the Hill," but he's definitely more Bush's representative than Arizona's.]


I was going to write a post about the Scottsdale City Council's agenda item to approve turning back on photo radar cameras on Loop 101 at tonight's meeting, with some coverage of the legislative discomfort with that idea, but this was more interesting. :)

Later!

In case you missed it...

From AZCentral.com:

Tired of being asked to predict what voters would do, the state Supreme Court is dropping a legal standard that Arizona justices have used for decades to help decide whether some ballot measures can go before voters.

No longer will courts attempt to decide whether a "reasonable voter" would likely support all elements of a proposed constitutional amendment or feel compelled to back the package to get parts of it passed even if others were objectionable, the Supreme Court said.

In a case relating to the November ballot's Proposition 107 (anti-same sex marriage/unmarried couples of any combination measure), the Arizona Supreme Court decided it "will continue to decide single-amendment compliance by whether a ballot measure's provisions are on the same topic, related in content and share a common purpose to form a consistent and workable package that should stand or fall together, " while discarding the standard of what a "reasonable voter" would decide because that standard had caused too much confusion through the years.

A .pdf containing the Court's opinion is here.

Since I didn't work on any of the proposition campaigns, I'm not sure what effect this ruling will have; in retrospect, perhaps the backers of the measure would have been better off if the court had kicked their measure off of the ballot last fall.

Most observers feel it was defeated because it tried to do too much - an attack on same sex marriage might have passed; the writers of the measure were a little too greedy when they went after unmarried couples, too.

...Thanks to Desert Beacon in Nevada for pointing out this resource: CoherentBabble has put together an index of President Bush's "signing statements"; aka - the statements where he says that the laws of this country don't apply to him or anyone doing his bidding.

...Lost in the uproar over the President's plan to send more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians to their deaths in his personal War to Aid Halliburton's Bottom Line is one of the methods he is using to find the warm bodies he needs: unlimited redeployment of National Guard units that have already seen combat.

Previous policy called for a minimum of five years between combat deployments for National Guard units.

Bonus: a column on the Halliburton subject, written by Gerald W. McEntee, International President of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO. is here.

...The Bush administration's efforts to deny detainees any legal assistance continued this week when the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, one Charles Stimson, told a radio talk show that companies should take their business away from any law firms that represent detainees and give it to firms that represent "reputable firms." He went on to name a number of law firms engaged in the defense of detainees.

Of course, Mr. Stimson actually likes the living conditions of the detainees, even at Guantanamo. He probably just can't understand why anyone would object to the detention.

The Pentagon later stated that Mr. Stimson was not speaking for the Bush Administration, even though on Friday, the Wall Street Journal supported him like he was. (The Editor and Publisher link is used because the WSJ requires a subscription for their website. Not gonna happen. :) )

Later!

The journey of the 2008 Democratic Convention to Denver hits a snag

From DenverPost.com:

Dems put city pick on hold until '07

The union official at the center of Denver's stalled bid for the 2008 Democratic convention said Tuesday that his opposition has been clear for months.

Denver's stagehand union leader, Jim Taylor, explained his entrenched problem with holding a political convention at Denver's Pepsi Center as Democrats headed into the holiday recess with bids from both Denver and New York in doubt.

The Democratic National Committee on Tuesday delayed its decision between the two cities in light of Denver's union problem and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's continued concerns about raising enough money.

Taylor, Business Agent for Local No. 7 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, expressed concerns over the proposal to hold the convention at the Pepsi Center in Denver, which has a history of being anti-union.

Discussions in Denver are ongoing, with an announcement of the final choice by the DNC in early January.

Personally, I hope that the convention is in Denver; my sister lives there and has volunteered to be a host for volunteers if space is needed.

That would be an awesome opportunity, both to witness the selection of the nominee and for a few of the denizens of the AZ blogosphere to cover the event together.

Good night!

Short Attention Span Musing - National/International Edition

From Iran: David Duke, former KKK leader and Randy Graf supporter, appeared at a Holocaust denial conference in Tehran.

...and some CD8 Republicans still wonder how Randy Graf was perceived as too extreme for the district.

From Chile: This weekend, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet followed Ken Lay's example on how to avoid facing justice for his crimes.

He died.

We don't have to worry about this fate befalling any of the officials of the current Presidential administration - W can pardon them preemptively. Hell, the pardon papers are probably already printed and filled out.

The only real question is if, under the U.S. Constitution, a President can self-pardon.

From New York: A Manhattan court has sent a firm message that hardcore criminals will not be tolerated. Cindy Sheehan was convicted of trespassing for trying to deliver anti-Iraq war petitions to the U.S. mission to the United Nations.

From Baghdad: 57 people died in car bomb attacks.

And the Bush Admin thinks that *protesting* the war non-violently is a crime, but *fighting* it is OK?

From Cleveland: U.S. Rep Dennis Kucinich announced his candidacy for the 2008 Democratic nomination for the Presidency.

No wiseass comment here; I don't think he has a snowball's chance of winning, but he should make the campaign rhetoric interesting.

From Houston: Keith Turner was sentenced to 90 years in prison (has to serve 30 years before being eligible for parole) for his role in a vicious and brutal racially-motivated attack. His partner in the crime, David Henry Tuck, was previously convicted and sentenced to life in prison for his role in the crime.

Turner is 17; Tuck is 18.

I wrote about the attack in late April; at the time, the victim was not expected to survive.

After a huge number of operations (and, I assume, rehab sessions), he is well enough to testify that he couldn't remember anything about the attack.

The sentences aren't long enough. Not by a long shot.

And finally, the most important news -

In Chattanooga, TN: The Minutemen as scheduled to invade Chattanooga on Friday, December 15.

No, not the group of David Duke-wannabes dedicated to fearlessly protecting our country from poor brown people looking for work.

Nope, the Minutemen I'm talking about are the members of the University of Massachusetts' football team.

They're in the 1-AA championship game, facing the Mountaineers of Appalachian State University (NC).

Have a great night!

The Repubs are frothing over a Muslim Congressman-elect

swearing to his oath of office with his hand on a Quran instead of a Bible.

Conservative talkshow host and columnist Dennis Prager wrote last week about his outrage that Congressman-elect Keith Ellison of Minnesota will be taking his oath of office on a Muslim Quran instead of a Christian Bible. (TownHall.com)

The conservative blogosphere picked up on the column almost immediately, and the feeding frenzy ensued.

Laurie Roberts of the AZ Rep mentioned it in her AZCentral.com blog, where it immediately became the most-commented upon entry of the day, pushing aside the ever-popular illegal immigration as the biggest hate-magnet.

A couple of points here -

1. I cannot find any MSM references to any such announcement by Congressman-elect Ellison. I'm not saying that he *isn't* going to have a Quran at his swearing-in, but I'd like a more credible source than Mr. Prager.

2. As noted by Stacy of AZCongressWatch in a comment on Laurie Roberts' blog, members of Congress don't swear their official oaths of office with religious books. They can have them at private swearing-in ceremonies/photo ops. (The Hill)

It seems that Mr. Prager (and a large part of the conservative blogosphere) doesn't let little things like facts, or the lack thereof, get in the way of his bigoted and hypocritical rantings.

Personally, what I'd like to see is all Congressfolk swearing their oaths of office on a printout of the Congressional ethics rules that the outgoing Republican leadership actually enforced for the last 12 years.

It's something that all of them would revere equally, and it would be environmentally-friendly, given all the trees that would be saved.

Later!

Political news roundup for Friday, December 1

First, the national stuff -

2008 Presidential race comings and goings:

...Bill Frist(R) is out. (SitNews.us in Alaska)

...Tom Vilsack(D) is in. (AZ Rep)

...Evan Bayh(D) is almost in. (IndyChannel.com)

...John McCain(R) isn't "officially" in yet, but he's trying to rain on the parade of his biggest rival for the Rep nomination, Mitt Romney, by showing up at the meeting of the Republican Governors Association. (International Herald Tribune)

An organization currently headed up by Governor Romney.

It seems that McCain isn't going for subtlety. :)

...Mitt Romney(R), who isn't officially in yet, is headed to Asia after the RGA meeting. (Boston Globe)

The purpose of the trip is to increase his experience in foreign affairs.

Well, it could also be timed to avoid questions about why the strongly anti-illegal immigration governor of Massachusetts hired illegal immigrants to do his landscaping and lawn care. (Boston Globe)

...Barack Obama(D) brought his tease of the electorate/book tour to the Tonight Show last night. (NCTimes.com - California)

AZ stuff -

...Democratic LD17 Reps-elect David Schapira and Ed Ableser were featured in a great front-page article in the East Valley Trib on Friday.

...On Thursday, State Treasurer David Petersen joined the long list of Arizona office-holders that have left office in disgrace before his term was over. (AZ Star)

Anybody want to start a "Dean Martin Indictment Date Pool"?

Local stuff -

...The EV Trib has finally noticed Scottsdale's plans to ban and/or restrict political signs in an article about next week's open houses. According to the article, City Council member (and LD8 Republican PC and State Committeeman) Ron McCullagh gets the credit/blame for this one.

Have a great weekend!

This week's sign that the landscape in D.C. has changed...

at least for George Bush:

From All Headline News -

Freshman Rep. [Keith] Ellison Chooses AFL-CIO Reception Over Meeting President

The Minnesota Democrat, who is replacing outgoing Rep. Martin Sabo, tells
reporters, "I went to the AFL-CIO reception, because I wanted to meet and greet
leaders of labor, and get to know them. Those are the people who I came here to
support."