Before Republicans get too upset about a tiny number of George Bush's judges not getting a confirmation vote perhaps they should look at the record of judges appointed by President Al Gore.
What judges, you might ask. Exactly. In 2000, despite what one reads in the papers, Al Gore won the presidency of the United States, it's just that activists judges, and a compliant senate, took it away from him.
Going into Florida, which by all accounts was basically a tie, Gore lead Bush by around 500,000 votes overall and by a count of 267-245 in the electoral college. It was only by throwing out hundreds of thousands of votes in Florida were the Republicans able to rewrite the election.
As a result Bush got to appoint 218 judges and had 208 confirmed, which is quite a record of compliance by the Democrats. And President Gore, well he got to appoint 0 judges and 0 were confirmed.
So before Sen. Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell and Sam Brownback complain too much about what the Democrats have done, they need to look at their own action. Since Bush had no moral right to appoint judges, the fact that he got ANY approved is an accomplishment.
What the Democrats should have done is to not recognize the election, nor allow any hearings on judges. Unfortunately the Democrats listened to Republicans mantra of "Act like an American, not like a Republican" and tried to work for the common good.
Look what good it did them.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Monday, May 16, 2005
White House outrage little more than CYA
In an amazing, but predictable, turn of events, the Bush administration is criticizing the publication of questionable information because it could lead people to action and result in deaths.
No, the White House didn't decide to be honest about falsifying the reasons they went to war in Iraq. No, it was about Newsweek magazine formally retracting a story published last week that said U.S. interrogators of Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran, according to USA Today.
"The report had serious consequences. People have lost their lives," White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Again, McClellan wasn't talking about the questionable information the White House put out that led to war in Iraq and the deaths of more than 1,500 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. No, apparently that kind of falsification is OK.
Instead he was talking about Newsweek issuing a retraction of the story that sparked deadly riots in Afghanistan and other countries.
However, the problem is that just as the GOP Schiavo memo was true, the desecration allegations may be accurate as this was not the first time that charges that US soldiers had desecrated a Koran during interrogations at Guantanamo Bay. The Daily Kos reported that several sources, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, had earlier reported such abuse.
Also blaming Newsweek may be attempt to divert Muslim anger. Originally the US government originally said that the riots were not caused by the Newsweek report. The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff says a report from Afghanistan suggests that rioting in Jalalabad on May 11 was not necessarily connected to press reports that the Quran might have been desecrated in the presence of Muslim prisoners held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
So in the end the White House actions may be little more than an attempt to cover their ass over behavior the world finds appalling.
No, the White House didn't decide to be honest about falsifying the reasons they went to war in Iraq. No, it was about Newsweek magazine formally retracting a story published last week that said U.S. interrogators of Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran, according to USA Today.
"The report had serious consequences. People have lost their lives," White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Again, McClellan wasn't talking about the questionable information the White House put out that led to war in Iraq and the deaths of more than 1,500 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. No, apparently that kind of falsification is OK.
Instead he was talking about Newsweek issuing a retraction of the story that sparked deadly riots in Afghanistan and other countries.
However, the problem is that just as the GOP Schiavo memo was true, the desecration allegations may be accurate as this was not the first time that charges that US soldiers had desecrated a Koran during interrogations at Guantanamo Bay. The Daily Kos reported that several sources, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, had earlier reported such abuse.
Also blaming Newsweek may be attempt to divert Muslim anger. Originally the US government originally said that the riots were not caused by the Newsweek report. The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff says a report from Afghanistan suggests that rioting in Jalalabad on May 11 was not necessarily connected to press reports that the Quran might have been desecrated in the presence of Muslim prisoners held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
So in the end the White House actions may be little more than an attempt to cover their ass over behavior the world finds appalling.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Who is the most dishonest of them all?
A few days after the
"You see, this war came to us, not the other way around," the Australian Broadcasting Company quoted Rice as lying to Iraqi government leaders.
This after CNN reported that 89 Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent George Bush a letter asking for explanation about the secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the
The White House had not yet responded to queries about the congressional letter, which was released on May 6, but perhaps Rice's statement was the response.
CNN showed Rice making the statement but a Google search of the phrase shows only Radio
After all they have the image of the administration to keep up. Now if John Kerry had made such a stupid statement the airwaves would have been full of criticisms by both Republicans and media.
Welcome to the world of new media.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
John Bolton - We Can Do Better
On Wednesday, by a 10-8 vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee forwarded the nomination of John Bolton to the full Senate for review, although Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio said there were better candidates.
"This United States can do better than John Bolton," Voinovich said, according to ABC News. He also called Bolton "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." He said Bolton would be fired if he was in the private sector.
So it's come down to this, the United States may have as one of its top diplomats someone who would be fired in the private sector. (And I thought that the GOP praised the private sector for these types of decisions.)
ABC News reported that Voinovich told reporters he would vote against Bolton in the full Senate. Will Bolton win eventual confirmation? "I have every faith in my colleagues. No one really is excited about him. We'll see what happens," he said.
For all the GOP's complaints about filibustering appointments, Bolton will get a vote, which is more than what could be said for William Weld, former Republican Governor of Massachusetts appointed by President Bill Clinton as Ambassador to Mexico but who was never even allowed a committee hearing by Sen. Jesse Helms. Weld eventually withdrew his nomination.
Bolton got more than a hearing, he got a vote, and now will go to the full senate where his prospects are uncertain. Voinovich said he hoped the full Senate, where Republicans hold a 55-45 majority, would reject the nomination.
"This United States can do better than John Bolton," Voinovich said, according to ABC News. He also called Bolton "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." He said Bolton would be fired if he was in the private sector.
So it's come down to this, the United States may have as one of its top diplomats someone who would be fired in the private sector. (And I thought that the GOP praised the private sector for these types of decisions.)
ABC News reported that Voinovich told reporters he would vote against Bolton in the full Senate. Will Bolton win eventual confirmation? "I have every faith in my colleagues. No one really is excited about him. We'll see what happens," he said.
For all the GOP's complaints about filibustering appointments, Bolton will get a vote, which is more than what could be said for William Weld, former Republican Governor of Massachusetts appointed by President Bill Clinton as Ambassador to Mexico but who was never even allowed a committee hearing by Sen. Jesse Helms. Weld eventually withdrew his nomination.
Bolton got more than a hearing, he got a vote, and now will go to the full senate where his prospects are uncertain. Voinovich said he hoped the full Senate, where Republicans hold a 55-45 majority, would reject the nomination.
"What message are we sending to the world community?" Voinovich asked.
Perhaps "Who cares what you think"?
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Laura Bush: Truth Teller
First Lady Laura Bush's performance at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner on April 30 earned her rave reviews (Laura Bush big hit at press corps dinner) from most quarters but few people have taken the time to understand why she was such a hit.
I am a desperate housewife. I mean, if those women on that show think they're desperate, they oughta be with George
Well the whole country lives with the consequences of George and there are a lot of desperate people out here, possibly enough to elect John Kerry President last November, but that's another story. For many of us, Laura was only stating what many of us feel.
But George and I are complete opposites - I'm quiet, he's talkative, I'm introverted, he's extroverted, I can pronounce nuclear...
One has to wonder if that was an inside joke. In the Jib Jab pre-election cartoon, one the lines the John Kerry character said to Bush was "You can't say nuclear - that really scares me."
George's answer to any problem at the ranch is to cut it down with a chainsaw, which I think is why he and Cheney and Rumsfeld get along so well.
Recently the UK was rocked by the release of a pre-Iraq war memo that said "Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war." Maybe that's another example of Bush's chainsaw behavior she was referring to.
"George, if you really want to end tyranny in the world, you're going to have to stay up later."
Perhaps that's been the problem with Russia, Moscow is eight hours ahead of the US so Bush is never awake when the Russians are so it's difficult to get around to talking to Putin regarding democracy.
Laura was a hit alright, she hit a bullseye in describing her husband.
I am a desperate housewife. I mean, if those women on that show think they're desperate, they oughta be with George
Well the whole country lives with the consequences of George and there are a lot of desperate people out here, possibly enough to elect John Kerry President last November, but that's another story. For many of us, Laura was only stating what many of us feel.
But George and I are complete opposites - I'm quiet, he's talkative, I'm introverted, he's extroverted, I can pronounce nuclear...
One has to wonder if that was an inside joke. In the Jib Jab pre-election cartoon, one the lines the John Kerry character said to Bush was "You can't say nuclear - that really scares me."
George's answer to any problem at the ranch is to cut it down with a chainsaw, which I think is why he and Cheney and Rumsfeld get along so well.
Recently the UK was rocked by the release of a pre-Iraq war memo that said "Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war." Maybe that's another example of Bush's chainsaw behavior she was referring to.
"George, if you really want to end tyranny in the world, you're going to have to stay up later."
Perhaps that's been the problem with Russia, Moscow is eight hours ahead of the US so Bush is never awake when the Russians are so it's difficult to get around to talking to Putin regarding democracy.
Laura was a hit alright, she hit a bullseye in describing her husband.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Turning PBS into GOPTV
Dissatisfied with control over the White House, the U.S. House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court, talk radio and most cable news programs, the Republican Party has set its site on the lone holdout of moderate expression, the Public Broadcasting Service.
As the NewYork Times pointed out on May 1, the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.
Long a symbol of liberal propaganda to the right for uncovering stories that the right would prefer not be told, chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson is putting the squeeze on the few liberal programs on television. Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests' political leanings on one program, "Now With Bill Moyers" and encouraged corporation and public broadcasting officials to broadcast "The Journal Editorial Report," whose host, Paul Gigot, is editor of the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.
While this might seem small, what Tomlinson is doing is putting a microscope on a program that includes guests from all political persuasions while placing the extremist Wall Street Journal editorial board under the same microscope.
Should anyone really be surprised? No. But the questions is what should be done. Jonathan Chait of the Los Angeles Times suggests Cut the strings of government funding before right-wingers can destroy public broadcasting pointing out that while Newt Gingrich sought to slash or eliminate programs he considered wasteful, Bush turns those programs into arms of his political machine.
While many people think of Bush as an idiot, perhaps he is a genius, actually an evil genius. Bush takes a program like PBS and gives people the choice - either it will be run his way or get rid of it. So in order to save PBS it will have survive in the marketplace, not sustained like defense contractors with public money.
Yet there already are a number of cable networks that offer children's programming and nature shows, just few that offer real, in-depth analysis of the news, although anyone who watched PBS' Once Upon A Time in Arkansas investigation into whitewater must have thought it a FOX News production.
While those on the right may be drawn to support networks running questionable stories about Christmas under siege or trashing American war heroes, those on the left may not be as willing to support investigative stories on stolen elections or politicians shirking their military duties. So at the end of the day the right has figured out another way to get their message out, now it will be at the public expense.
As the NewYork Times pointed out on May 1, the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.
Long a symbol of liberal propaganda to the right for uncovering stories that the right would prefer not be told, chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson is putting the squeeze on the few liberal programs on television. Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests' political leanings on one program, "Now With Bill Moyers" and encouraged corporation and public broadcasting officials to broadcast "The Journal Editorial Report," whose host, Paul Gigot, is editor of the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.
While this might seem small, what Tomlinson is doing is putting a microscope on a program that includes guests from all political persuasions while placing the extremist Wall Street Journal editorial board under the same microscope.
Should anyone really be surprised? No. But the questions is what should be done. Jonathan Chait of the Los Angeles Times suggests Cut the strings of government funding before right-wingers can destroy public broadcasting pointing out that while Newt Gingrich sought to slash or eliminate programs he considered wasteful, Bush turns those programs into arms of his political machine.
While many people think of Bush as an idiot, perhaps he is a genius, actually an evil genius. Bush takes a program like PBS and gives people the choice - either it will be run his way or get rid of it. So in order to save PBS it will have survive in the marketplace, not sustained like defense contractors with public money.
Yet there already are a number of cable networks that offer children's programming and nature shows, just few that offer real, in-depth analysis of the news, although anyone who watched PBS' Once Upon A Time in Arkansas investigation into whitewater must have thought it a FOX News production.
While those on the right may be drawn to support networks running questionable stories about Christmas under siege or trashing American war heroes, those on the left may not be as willing to support investigative stories on stolen elections or politicians shirking their military duties. So at the end of the day the right has figured out another way to get their message out, now it will be at the public expense.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Bush's Trillion Dollar Tax Increase
One of the points George Bush makes about the Social Security System is that the trust fund to which Americans have paid $1.5 trillion into over the past 20 plus years is basically empty, spent by a series of mostly Republican Presidents.
Yet by making that claim Bush is treating the $429 Billion collected in his first three fiscal years and the $963 billion expected to be collected in the coming five fiscal years as tax receipts that don't have to be paid back, which in effect makes it a Trillion Dollar tax increase.
During Bush's first three years in office the administration has racked up $1,571 trillion in deficits (compared to $1.4 trillion in eight years for Clinton, $1.5 trillion in four years for Bush I and $1.9 trillion in eight years for Reagan).
While the Bureau of the Public Debt shows the annual deficit for the Bush Administration to range from $420 in 2002 to $595 Billion in 2004, the White House uses the excess Social Security receipts to bring the figure to a more "manageable" $413 Billion.
If Social Security wasn't running a surplus then the government would be forced to sell Treasury notes to fund the deficit, which would be required to be paid back. Instead the Social Security trust fund annually covers a large part of the deficit spending.
The Social Security Trust Fund was set up for the government to eventually pay back what it borrows but when Bush says "there is no "trust fund,'" one has to ask whether he is indicating the government will default on those obligations?
Get it? If there's no surplus then the government has to really borrow money which it really has to pay back. But with the surplus it can take the money and run by saying it's gone In effect, by operating this way, Bush was able to enact a $145 billion tax increase in 2004 and $429 billion over his presidency.
Apparently Bush is the one with "fuzzy math." The only question is, is anyone listening?
Yet by making that claim Bush is treating the $429 Billion collected in his first three fiscal years and the $963 billion expected to be collected in the coming five fiscal years as tax receipts that don't have to be paid back, which in effect makes it a Trillion Dollar tax increase.
During Bush's first three years in office the administration has racked up $1,571 trillion in deficits (compared to $1.4 trillion in eight years for Clinton, $1.5 trillion in four years for Bush I and $1.9 trillion in eight years for Reagan).
While the Bureau of the Public Debt shows the annual deficit for the Bush Administration to range from $420 in 2002 to $595 Billion in 2004, the White House uses the excess Social Security receipts to bring the figure to a more "manageable" $413 Billion.
If Social Security wasn't running a surplus then the government would be forced to sell Treasury notes to fund the deficit, which would be required to be paid back. Instead the Social Security trust fund annually covers a large part of the deficit spending.
The Social Security Trust Fund was set up for the government to eventually pay back what it borrows but when Bush says "there is no "trust fund,'" one has to ask whether he is indicating the government will default on those obligations?
Get it? If there's no surplus then the government has to really borrow money which it really has to pay back. But with the surplus it can take the money and run by saying it's gone In effect, by operating this way, Bush was able to enact a $145 billion tax increase in 2004 and $429 billion over his presidency.
Apparently Bush is the one with "fuzzy math." The only question is, is anyone listening?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)