Burnt Orange Report

More on our two senators

By Jim Dallas

SurveyUSA has polls. Hutchison is among the nation's most popular senators with a 64-26 percent approval spread; Cornyn's approval remains in the abyss, at 40-36. That's actually a lower raw approval rating than Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania (although Sticky Rick's 45-44 spread is technically worse).

Could Cornyn be vulnerable to a strong challenge in 2008? Redistricted Congresspersons, I'm looking at YOU.

Hutchison added as a cosponsor to the anti-lynching resolution

By Jim Dallas

I had no idea that Senators could sign on as cosponsors after the fact, but Senator Hutchison has. The resolution passed last night by unanimous consent; as Kos explained, technically nobody voted against it. Which is good.

Senator Cornyn, however, remains on the Wall of Shame.

Jackson acquitted of all charges

By Jim Dallas

Our long national nightmare is over. Back to missing white females and shark attacks!

Link

Take My Retirement -- Please!

By Jim Dallas

Kevin Drum has an insightful post on the political reality of raising the Social Security retirement age.

You know, as an eager young goof-trooper, it's easy to say "aww, shucks, sure, I'll work until I'm seventy." Work, when your'e 23, is pretty cool stuff. It's what sets you apart from your younger friends, and it helps buy cool stuff (like food and rent).

Though, now that I think about it, I may really feel differently about this in forty years. So I suppose Old Man Drum is correct.

Cornyn for Supreme Court?

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Coming out of right field (because there is little that is left about John Cornyn) is this story that Texas Senator John Cornyn is simply "flattered" that people think he's make a good nominee for Supreme Court Justice.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is flattered to be mentioned as a possible Supreme Court candidate and would consider the job if it were offered.

"You can never rule out something like that, but it is not something he is looking for or something he has asked for," spokesman Don Stewart said.

Stewart said Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court justice and state attorney general, likely will run for re-election in 2008.

The White House has kept quiet on its choices for the Supreme Court, which will have a vacancy if ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist steps down. The short list often includes J. Michael Luttig, a Texan on the Richmond, Va.-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, another former Texas justice.

Among the Texans thought to be in a second tier of possible candidates are Cornyn and U.S. District Judge Ricardo Hinojosa.

Of course, picking a sitting Senator (slightly better than picking your nose) helps Bush's chances of getting his nominee through, gasp, the Senate Judiciary Committee which Cornyn, gasp, is a member of! Then again, picking Cornyn means that Governor "Don't you dare run against me" Perry would get to anoint appoint a replacement. And that little issue makes this story particularly juicy, as if the Texas Republican "which office should I run for" dance wasn't complicated enough.

Maybe KBH could become Governor, and then appoint herself back to the Senate if she realized it wasn't all that it's cracked up to be. At which point Perry could battle off Strayhorn in a special election for Guv. Oh, the possibilities are endless...

Katherine Harris to run for FL Senate

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Don't say you didn't see it coming, but the infamous Florida Bean counter responsible for being a major pain in the punch card is running for the Republican nomination for Florica Senate against incumbant first term Dem, Bill Nelson.

She would likely be a favorite to win the nomination, but of course, there are many Republicans that feel she may be a weaker polarizing choice against Nelson. But if she led the Republican ticket, it would be sure to galvanize the Florida Democrats who don't have much to be all that cheery about these days. Wait and see...

The Dots Are Now Connected

By Andrew Dobbs

One of the big questions I've had during all the DeLay scandals was how long it would take to finally reach George W. Bush.

Wait no longer.

The Texas Observer is reporting that criminal lobbyist, DeLay crony and Bush "Pioneer" Jack Abramoff strong armed the Coushatta Indian Tribe (the same tribe he bilked for $82 million) into donating $25,000 to Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform in return for a private meeting with Bush. Abramoff also got the tribe to donate $1 million at the same time to a nonprofit started by the lobbyist. Essentially, Grover Norquist used his corrupt friend Abramoff to turn the White House into a pay-for-play amusement park. Whether Bush knew about the situation or not is still up in the air, but there seems to be no denying that he was the bait for an elaborate scheme to fish for campaign cash.

From the Observer:

Four months after he took the oath of office in 2001, President George W. Bush was the attraction, and the White House the venue, for a fundraiser organized by the alleged perpetrator of the largest billing fraud in the history of corporate lobbying. (...) Abramoff was so closely tied to the Bush Administration that he could, and did, charge two of his clients $25,000 for a White House lunch date and a meeting with the President. From the same two clients he took to the White House in May 2001, Abramoff also obtained $2.5 million in contributions for a non-profit foundation he and his wife operated.

Abramoff’s White House guests were the chiefs of two of the six casino-rich Indian tribes he and his partner Mike Scanlon ultimately billed $82 million for services tribal leaders now claim were never performed or were improperly performed. Together the six tribes would make $10 million in political contributions, at Abramoff’s direction, almost all of it to Republican campaigns of his choosing. (...)

According to a source close to the tribal majority, Chairman Poncho recently “revisited that issue” of his visit to the White House. He had previously denied it because he thought he was responding to press inquiries that implied he had a one-on-one meeting with Bush. He now recalls that he in fact did go to the White House on May 9, 2001. Tribal attorney Kathryn Fowler Van Hoof went with him, although she did not get into the meeting with the President. That meeting lasted for about 15 minutes and was not a one-on-one meeting. At the meeting, Bush made some general comments about Indian policy but did not discuss Indian gaming. Abramoff was at the meeting—for which he charged the Coushatta Tribe $25,000. The change in Poncho’s position is odd in light of the fact that he and his spokespersons have maintained for more than a year that he did not meet with President Bush in May 2001.

Norquist has not responded to inquiries about using the White House as a fundraiser. It is, however, a regular ATR practice to invite state legislators and tribal leaders who have supported ATR anti-tax initiatives to the White House for a personal thank-you from the President. A source at ATR said no money is ever accepted from participants in these events. The $25,000 check from the Coushattas suggests that, at least in this instance, Norquist’s organization made an exception. The $75,000 collected from the Mississippi Choctaws and two corporate sponsors mentioned in Abramoff’s e-mail suggests there were other exceptions. Norquist recently wrote to the tribes who paid to attend White House meetings. His story regarding that event is also evolving. The contributions, he told tribal leaders in letters that went out in May, were in no way related to any White House event. That doesn’t square with the paper trail Abramoff and Norquist left behind, which makes it evident that they were selling access to the President.

The White House press office has not responded to our questions about other visits Jack Abramoff might have made to the White House or about Norquist using the official residence of the President to raise funds for Americans for Tax Reform. None of the political contributions Abramoff insisted the tribes make as yet have been returned.

Either President Bush is a dupe who didn't realize that his political allies were using him and abusing the White House in order to make money for themselves, or he has put the "people's house" up for the highest bidder. Either way, this scandal dwarfs any of the nonsense the GOP crowed about all during the Clinton years.

Bush needs to answer some questions, and Abramoff needs to go to jail.

Deep Throat Revealed!

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

It's W. Mark Felt. We think. Maybe. For now.

Update: It's him, WaPo and W&B confim it. Read.

Previously.... Most news outlets are putting it somewhere between top news story to something a couple notches down. The main reason being it is Mr. Felt that has said it is him, rather than the Washington Post or Woodward and Berstein. From the MSNBC story..

In 2003, Woodward and Bernstein reached an agreement to keep their Watergate papers at the University of Texas at Austin.

At the time, the pair said documents naming “Deep Throat” would be kept secure at an undisclosed location in Washington until the source’s death.

Bernstein issued a statement neither denying nor confirming Felt's claim. Bernstein stated he and Woodward would be keeping their pledge to reveal the source only once that person dies.

The Washington Post had no immediate comment on the report.

Who was the real Deep Throat was long a source of speculation and rumor.

Among those named over the years as Deep Throat were Assistant Attorney General Henry Peterson, deputy White House counsel Fred Fielding, and even ABC newswoman Diane Sawyer, who then worked in the White House press office. Ron Zeigler, Nixon’s press secretary, White House aide Steven Bull, speechwriters Ray Price and Pat Buchanan, and John Dean, the White House counsel who warned Nixon of “a cancer growing on the presidency,” also were considered candidates.

And some theorized Deep Throat wasn’t a single source at all but a composite figure.

The last time there was a flurry of focus on Felt was in 1999, when a high school senior in New York claimed that Bernstein's son let the secret slip at a summer camp.

At the time, Felt denied he was the man.

“I would have done better,” Felt told The Hartford Courant. “I would have been more effective. Deep Throat didn’t exactly bring the White House crashing down, did he?”

So is it him? Is this the finale, or do we have to wait a few more years once again? Your thoughts?

Justifying Abortion

By Jim Dallas

Nathan Newman has a post on the rhetoric of abortion which ought to provoke considerable thought about the first principles of the pro-choice movement.

As an aside, the "pro-choice" moniker was adopted in large part to put the focus on the libertarian rhetoric Newman criticizes. So I think there's very little doubt that Newman has at least correctly identified the dominant mode of anti-prohibitionist rhetoric, viz., that abortion is not good, but criminalization is and would be bad (or worse). Newman cites Howard Dean's statement last Sunday as Exhibit A:

I don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a good thing. I don't know anybody in either party who is pro-abortion. The issue is not whether we think abortion is a good thing. The issue is whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care

For what it's worth, I'm going to make a few remarks defending the libertarian perspective against Newman's critique.

First, I take issue at Newman's claim that the pro-choice perspective is amoral:

Abortion is not just some individual decision with no effects on broader society. That kind of rhetoric is a copout that is unconvincing. Allowing abortion is critical to equality for women and whether unwanted children are forced on parents is bound to have effects not just on those families but on our communities. Most abortion rights activists have not been libertarians who thought individual choices have no effect on broader society, but people who thought the availability of abortion causes profound and needed changes in that broader society: increasing women's ability to participate equally in the workplace, changing power relations between men and women within the family, and encouraging family planning so that children were wanted and not abused.

This is not to say that abortion does not raise moral dilemmas or should be encouraged indiscriminately, but those in favor of abortion rights have to argue that, overall, we have a better society because abortion is legal than if abortion was criminalized.

Abortion politics should not be a choice between moral injunctions from the rightwing and amoral libertarian platitudes from the pro-choice side. It should be a choice between two visions of creating a good society, with progressives arguing that their vision is the more profoundingly just and moral alternative.

I'd argue in response that there is a strong moral position in defending the autonomy and dignity of women, and that is precisely what the "amoral libetarian platitudes" of the keep-your-laws-off-my-body crowd amount to. Indeed, I'd argue that such strong claims are necessary to respond to the equally moralistic injunctions of the save-the-zygotes posse. When the other side is comparing you to Hitler and claiming that abortion is the worst moral crisis since slavery and the Holocaust, you really can't respond with blunt utilitarian claims about crime and the economy.

Of course, it would be unfair of me to characterize Newman's critique as being only that; clearly, Nathan Newman does have profound respect for womens' rights and their equal participation in society.

Let me draw an analogy. I was having a discussion with another law student yesterday about the death penalty, which she opposes strongly and I am, at best, lukewarm about (more against than for, but definitely mixed). In this discussion, she pointed to the well-documented disproporitionately large number of black men on death row and the inherent racism which can, and should, be logically inferred from this.

My argument, however, was that disparate impact is, quite frankly, a "racism problem", not a capital punishment problem per se.

Here's the analogy - if women need abortions to be equal in society, then I'd suggest we've got a much bigger sexism problem to deal with. Now, I suppose it could be argued that this isn't comparable - women have a monopoly on the baby business, and certainly there is considerable strain placed on women individually and as a class because of this. That said, I am still not convinced that abortion is the "great equalizer", and even if it were that this would be a per se justification for legal abortion by itself.

The libertarian position, however, affords an opportunity to subtly shoe-horn these concerns into an argument without really claiming they make all abortions A-OK. That is, in discussing personal autonomy, the issue of compassion towards women generally has to be discussed. The right-wing groups like Focus on the Fetus, err, Family has spent years attempting to humanize a clump of cells and dehumanize adult women as criminals.

A final issue I'd like to address is the issue of selectivity. The libertarian position, of course, does not claim that abortion is a "good thing." But that is not the same as claiming that all abortions are unjustified. Indeed, when Newman asks, "if abortion is never a good thing, then why should anyone have the option to have one," he is touching on this, albeit in a way which misses the subtle distinction between characterizing abortion generally and some abortions specifically.

For example, "war" is not a good thing and very few people hanker for Four More Wars. Yet, almost everybody aside from a few absolute-pacifists can think of a war that was worth fighting.

Certainly, conceding ground in cases where abortions are not justified but merely rationalized on some abstract principle is not exactly a good opening move. But in the larger picture, it may be a better way to piece together a pro-choice majority than trying to argue abortion is not a sin needing justification whatsoever.

At the very least, I think what Newman is proposing is a very long-term project, moving public opinion at a glacial pace. Given the fact that pro-criminalization politicians and activist-judicial nominees stand ready to crush reproductive rights at virtually any moment, I'm not sure it's a practical proposal.

"Killing Nine Lives to Create One"

By Byron LaMasters

It's nice to see a pro-life Democrat point out the sheer lunacy and hypocrisy of the arguments of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research. Since half of embryos of potential "snowflake babies" do not survive the "thawing" process, a consistent pro-lifer would argue that such process constituted "destruction of a human life in order to save a human life". Hmmm... that sounds familiar.

For pro-lifers conflicted on embryonic stem cell research, read this post on Greg's Opinion.

Forcing the Veto on Stem Cell Research

By Byron LaMasters

Good news from the U.S. House:

Ignoring President Bush's veto threat, the House voted Tuesday to loosen limits on embryonic stem cell research, approving a measure supporters said could speed cures for diseases but opponents viewed as akin to abortion.

Bush called the bill a mistake and said he would veto it. The House approved it by a 238-194 vote, well short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto.

The bill has the votes in the senate, and when it passes the senate, the bill will force a veto. It's a shame that countries like South Korea will be taking the lead on the issue of embryonic stem cell research, but hopefully other states will follow California's lead in instituting broad statewide programs.

However, forcing Bush to veto a bill that would not save a single life will allow the America public see how Bush is beholden to the interests of the pro-life absolutist / theocratic wing of the Republican party over the bipartisan pro-science and research majority in Congress. The bill would only use embryonic stem cell lines that would be thrown out anyways, will force Bush to veto a popular issue and hopefully see his approval ratings drop further. Any bets on when he will dip below 40%?

On the Filibuster Compromise

By Byron LaMasters

While I don't like the compromise, it was probably the second best solution for Democrats (with the best solution being a defeat of the proposed rule, but from what I've read - Reid only had 49 or at best 50 votes, so Frist would have won).

My guess is that Reid signed off on this at the last minute, and then prepared to declare victory. I'm disappointed that three right-wing activist judges will be confirmed, but most importantly, senate tradition has been preserved, and that Democrats will have the option of filibustering a radical Supreme Court appointment. In addition, two more right-wing judges will either be defeated or withdrawn. Furthermore, this is a huge defeat for Bill Frist. He's already an anathema to Democrats of all stripes, and now the far-right James Dobson / theocrat wing of the Republican Party are hyperventilating over Frist's failure to unite the GOP caucus.

Reid's statement is great:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) released the following statement Monday after 14 senators struck a deal to avert the nuclear option and allow votes on certain judicial nominees.

“There is good news for every American in this agreement. The so-called 'nuclear option' is off the table. This is a significant victory for our country, for democracy, and for all Americans. Checks and balances in our government have been preserved.

“The integrity of future Supreme Courts has been protected from the undue influences of a vocal, radical faction of the right that is completely out of step with mainstream America. That was the intent of the Republican 'nuclear option' from the beginning. Tonight, the Senate has worked its will on behalf of reason, responsibility and the greater good.

“Abuse of power will not be tolerated, and attempts to trample the Constitution and grab absolute control are over. We are a separate and equal branch of government. That is our Founding Fathers’ vision, and one we hold dear.

“I offered Senator Frist several options similar to this compromise, and while he was not able to agree, I am pleased that some responsible Republicans and my colleagues were able to put aside their differences and work from the center. I do not support several of the judges that have been agreed to because their views and records display judicial activism that jeopardize individual rights and freedoms. But other troublesome nominees have been turned down. And, most importantly, the U.S. Senate retains the checks and balances to ensure all voices are heard in our democracy.

“I am grateful to my colleagues who worked so hard to achieve this agreement. I am hopeful that we can quickly turn to work on the people’s business. We need to ensure our troops have the resources they need to fight in Iraq and that Americans are free from terrorism. We need to protect retiree’s pensions and long-term retirement security. We need to expand health care opportunities for all families. We need to address rising gasoline prices and energy independence. And we need to restore fiscal responsibility and rebuild our economy so that it lifts up all American workers. That is our reform agenda, the people’s reform agenda. Together, we can get the job done.”

The full text of the agreement is here.

Y'all Just Don't Get It

By Andrew Dobbs

Late last week I took on NARAL for their endorsement of Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island. Unfortunately, many people have no knowledge of what is going on there and declined to read my post terribly closely, so I need to respond to the criticisms here.

There are NO pro-life Democrats in this race. The only two Democrats running-- Matt Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse-- are both pro-abortion rights. Jim Langevin was considering the race, but dropped out when NARAL started gathering support for Brown in particular, but pro-abortion rights Democrats in general. So NARAL didn't stake out their independent position on their single issue by supporting a pro-abortion rights Republican over a pro-life Democrat, they supported a pro-abortion rights Republican over not one, but two abortion rights Democrats.

That is my problem. I don't expect NARAL, or the Sierra Club or the NAACP or any other left-liberal single issue organization to support Democrats universally-- they are independent of our party. Republicans likewise do not expect the NRA or the Chamber of Commerce to support them just because they are Republicans. But when there is an issue where the parties are dramatically opposed, it makes no sense to support a candidate who supports a minority view within his party when he'll simply turn around and vote for leadership opposed to that cause. NARAL's endorsement of Chaffee will go a long way to helping him defeat his pro-choice opponent, and thus usher in pro-life leadership in the Senate. If they had any political sense they would have waited for the Democratic primary and then supported the Democrat. But they screwed themselves over and stabbed the only party that cares about their issue in the back. It was an idiotic move on their part.

In PA, I expect NARAL to issue a "no endorsement." If the race in Texas is Kay Bailey Hutchison versus a pro-life Democrat (say, Charlie Stenholm, who is not expected to run), I would expect them to endorse KBH. Come to think of it, they can totally make this up if they very publicly endorse KBH in the GOP primary. Are you listening, NARAL? You do that, the GOP nominates the roundly disliked Perry for governor and we beat him in November. Now THAT would be good politics.

Judges, Filibusters and Conservativism

By Andrew Dobbs

It is very likely that May 24, 2005 will be a day that future generations of Americans will read about in their history classes (assuming they still teach history at that point, an increasingly unlikely prospect). The passage in their textbook will begin with the battle over the filibuster, saying that in from the 1910s to the 1970s opposition to the filibuster was a liberal litmus test. Liberals, a majority of the Congress from the 1930s until the 1970s, saw the act as a way that the Senate's right-wing, often anti-civil rights minority kept socially progressive bills from getting an "up-or-down vote." It will then say that with the divisions of power that began in the 1970s and continued until the 1990s the filibuster became less important and less of an issue for both sides. This consensus ruled until an absolute Republican majority came into power in 2003 and was strengthened by George W. Bush's reelection in 2004 and the minority Democrats (since the 1970s, realigned as an almost exclusively liberal party) began using the process to block judicial nominations to appeals courts. Republicans began threatening to end the practice, and on May 24, 2005 launched what had been termed the "nuclear option"-- the barring of the filibuster for judicial nominees. After Bush had all of his nominees to appeals courts approved on slim up or down votes, Republicans and others began wondering why the process would be needed at all, even for legislative priorities. In 2006, as minority Democrats began resisting Social Security privatization and regressive tax reforms, Republicans managed to end the filibuster for legislation thus ending the Senate's traditional role as a moderating force on the more reactionary elements of the House.

This is a tragedy, and a confusing development as well. The filibuster is a fundamentally conservative institution. The founders of the Senate and its reformers who helped to codify the current filibuster rule in the early part of the 20th century were fearful of government power. They knew that the natural instinct of humanity was towards self-interest and grasps for power and wealth, politicians being the worst culprits in this regard. Thus they divided the powers of government into three coequal branches with checks on one another's power. Still, they knew that the legislative branch was the most likely to become a hotbed of popular passion; close to the people, it could easily be consumed by mob rule. In order to quiet the passions of the heedless masses they divided the legislative branch into two chambers-- a House that would be directly elected and proportioned by population (and thus more susceptible to passionate masses) and a Senate that would be appointed by legislatures, two from each state, and far more deliberative. When establishing the rules of the Senate, the body's founders-- 10 of whom had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 4 of whom had signed the Declaration of Independence, including such luminaries as Rufus King, Richard Henry Lee, James Monroe and Samuel Johnston-- developed the idea of unlimited debate. Any member could continue debate indefinitely, thus allowing the body to easily thwart offensive or extreme pieces of legislation. The filibuster required legislation to be mainstream-- if a significant number of Senators were seriously opposed to a measure, it would be blocked. This process kept government power in check for generations, and is part and parcel of the founders' ideals of limited and divided government.

But now the conservatives want to get rid of an institution that promotes classically conservative values. The whole scenario seems odd until you consider the the recent history of American conservativism. American conservativism is a peculiar movement, in that it is essentially the morphing of two diametrically opposed traditions that almost everywhere else in the world form opposite sides of the political divide. Conservativism in the US is essentially the marriage of classical liberalism (which in Europe and elsewhere usually led to the formation of a Liberal Party) and traditionalism (which typically meant a Conservative Party that defended the church, the aristocracy and the crown abroad). The two have managed to work out a nice compact, wherein American conservatives recognize that virtue is the highest public good, but that virtue based on coercion is morally bankrupt. Therefore conservatives enforce strict political liberty and promote traditional values. The process has created a powerful political movement and a series of great leaders-- from Alexander Hamilton and John Calhoun until Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater.

But now the movement is in trouble. Since the late 1970s the traditionalist element of American conservativism has been ascendent. Where the two elements once provided a check on one another (traditionalism trumping the libertinism inherent in lassiez-faire thought, liberalism defeating the paternalistic impulses of traditionslists), the creeping moralism of traditionalists has spread further with each election. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the one thing that kept either side from trying too hard to grasp ultimate power-- the united front against communism abroad and leftism at home-- was interrupted. The moralists now had an opportunity to grasp the whole movement for themselves, and the beginning of the War on Terror in 2001 now created a new struggle based not so much on economics and politics (as was the battle against Communism), but rather religion. It became clear that religosity would now be a litmus test of conservativism. Essentially, the libertarian elements of conservativism are being choked off, creating America's first classically conservative party. No more are they interested in checking government power, but rather in promoting traditional social establishment-- the maintenance of class order, the expansion of federal power, the establisment of quasi-official religion and restrictions of discourse in the name of traditional ways of life. As the libertarian-right is further marginalized, the liberal movement in the US is reacting to the movement on the right. Now Democrats have become a traditionally liberal party-- promoting social experimentation, greater autonomy and political involvement and secularism. The divide now defines American politics.

Right wing movements abroad, which have always been predominantly traditionalist, have typically depended on the courts for the promotion of their policy. Iran provides one example (before Republicans start screaming, I'm not comparing the GOP to Iranian Islamists, just saying that Republicans belong on a significantly less extreme part of the traditionalist political spectrum), Francoist Spain another. The lifetime appointments and absolute authority of the courts harken to a more aristocratic and royalist past. Executive authority is of course another element of traditionally conservative government. The end of the judicial filibuster is simply the Senate prostrating itself in front of the power of a mighty executive-- the President-- in his quest to create a traditionalist consensus on our nation's highest courts. The Senate has a plurality of traditionalists, led by Bill Frist, that are moving in this direction even if they don't realize it. The Democrats make up the opposition liberals and a small number of typically American conservative Republicans in the mold of Goldwater and Taft (John McCain, Chuck Hagel, John Warner) make up the third element. Whether the American conservatives decide to listen to the liberal aspects of their philosophy or the traditionalist aspects of it remains to be seen, but their decision will swing tomorrow's action.

With all of this talk of the Senate and larger political movements, it must be remembered that Bush himself is simply doing what Presidents used to do, but have been to timid to do in the face of an increasingly powerful Congress over the course of the last 20-30 years-- appointing daring jurists who stand boldly for the president's ideology. The Supreme Court is a sad example of the timidity of both parties, but particularly Democrats, over the last two decades in the realm of court appointments. Where is the Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Earl Warren, the William O. Douglas or Abe Fortas? The best jurist on the court, despite my personal disagreements with his philosophy, is undeniably Antonin Scalia. If you reflexively disagree with me, I would challenge you to read his opinions (or even better, his dissents). They are magnificently written, tightly reasoned (from a philosophical position, originalism, that I tend to be skeptical of) and intellectually stimulating. They seek to lay down a broad vision of the constitution and a general philosophy of government. While Rhenquist and his compatriots find ways to narrow the streams of thought trickling down from the Court, Scalia seeks to flood the traditions of American government with a downpour of constitutional thought. Yet at one point the Court was full of men like Scalia (and as of yet they have all been men as O'Connor lacks the force and vision, while Ginsburg is closer, but still no cigar), particularly on the liberal side of the equation. Democrats have been gunshy of Congressional approval though, and Clinton chose to nominate bland and short-sighted, if technically qualified candidates. Reagan and Bush I made the same mistakes, though Reagan did nominate Bork and Scalia (both brilliant men that I disagree with) and Bush thought he would be doing well with Thomas, who simply lacks the intellectual power of Scalia. Bush seeks to remake American jurisprudence by putting brilliant, visionary, ideologically serious candidates on the Court. Democrats should do the same thing when they get the opportunity.

In the end, this is a tale of an ongoing tectonic shift in American politics. Party realignment has made dramatic shifts from the mid 1780s until the early 1800s, from the 1820s until the late 1850s, from 1890s until the 1920s and from the 1960s until the 1980s. We are now in the beginning of the latest restructuring, and this realignment has the curious result of taking American politics into a structure that looks remarkably like 19th century European or early 20th century Latin American politics. A nationalist, traditionalist, elitist, classically conservative party is emerging from the ashes of a long-standing conservative consensus; an internationalist, experimental, secular, liberal party has risen from the wreckage of a populist-progressive coalition. The debate is no longer whether government should be expanded or not, but rather if it should be used to strengthen the traditional bastions of the powerful, or to radically rearrange the structure of our society. Both are worrisome, and if May 24, 2005 goes down in history as it appears it will, it will be too late to unring the bell that tolls for the American way of life.

Exile on Main Street

By Jim Dallas

A few days ago, Slate's Timothy Noah wrote an essay denouncing what he perceived to be the new happy-to-be-exiled Democratic Party:

What's shocking about this new Democratic enthusiasm for retreat is that it is being expressed not on narrow special-interest issues, but on broad issues affecting the entire Democratic constituency: regaining a Senate majority, redistributing Social Security benefits, democratizing Senate procedures. It might be argued that the Democrats are merely imitating the winning strategy the Republicans used to regain the House in 1994: Spurn the glad-handing incremental victories favored by Newt Gingrich's predecessor as House Republican leader, Bob Michel, and instead propagandize your way to political victory. But congressional Democrats differ from congressional Republicans in three crucial ways. First, the Republicans, in becoming obstructionists, didn't change their positions on the issues, as Democrats are doing. Second, the Democrats haven't been shut out for many decades, as the House Republicans had been when they announced they were fed up with accommodation. The Democrats' obstructionism comes off seeming petulant and unearned. Third, Democrats, unlike Republicans, actually want to achieve something. Governmental paralysis, practically by definition, is agreeable to conservatives, but it's anathema to liberals, at least in the long run. Or rather, it should be.

Frankly, I'm all for enjoying minority status, and I'm not convinced by Noah's attempts to distinguish the 1980s House GOP from the 2005 House Democrats. They seem to be distinctions without a difference, and he doesn't really explain why any of them are really relevant, besides recycling conventional wisdom and, dare I say, GOP talking points.

If Democrats appear clunky playing the role of the blowhard, it's probably because we're not particularly experienced at it. What's missing is the fact that, while the GOP establishment for years remained, well, establishmentarian, the grassroots never quite were, and there was always a cranky-conservative-movement wing of the Congressional caucuses. Even before Goldwater. The difference that matters, I think, is that Democrats aren't very smooth when it comes to watering the grassroots.

Moreover, I think Noah overlooks the many positive aspects of being a blowhard.

Paradoxically, is that presents opportunities to form new proactive coalitions. It's a proven fact that it's easier to unite people by declaring what you're against than by stating what you're for; by bringing strange bedfellows together, oppositionalism should serve as a catalyst for laying out a post-New Deal grand strategy.

Moreover, this presents us with a natural opportunity to ditch principles that aren't working and adopt ones that will. This might seem opportunist or at best philosophically pragmatic, but the thing about pragmatism is that, by definition, it works. When the overlying principle is "no," it makes it a lot easier to re-shuffle the ideological deck while nobody is looking.

If nothing else, minority status ought to force us to get back in touch with real people in real communities. Inevitably, the majority "goes native"; indeed, there's a strong case to be made the GOP majority became captives of institutional interests years ago.

Finally, the blowhard isolates himself from tomorrow's outrage at today's excesses. It's possible, of course, that the GOP really knows what they are doing, and, in fact, we will all look back and praise mightily their righteous words and deeds. That said, such an outcome is highly improbable.

I should note, I think, that all of these rationales are long-term rationales. Being a blowhard is not a means of attaining power in the short-term, because nobody likes a downer. Exile is defensible on one ground and one ground only - that at some point in the future, we're going to stop being in exile. That at some point in the future, we're going to break out of the cocoon of the present and become a beautiful butterfly.

I suppose I would share Noah's concern, then, if I thought that the Blue State blues were terminal; however, insofar as this is a phase we're working through, it can be a very beneficial experience.

Priscilla Owen Rated Worst Justice by the Houston Bar Association

By Byron LaMasters

The Houston Bar Association rated the six (all Republican) Texas Supreme Court Justices (along with many other judges) that have served on the court since July 31, 2004. The Houston Chronicle reports (via Kuff):

The poll, which is completed every two years, asked HBA members to rate judges "outstanding," "acceptable" or "poor" in seven categories, including following the law, demonstrating impartiality, paying attention in court and using attorneys' time efficiently. It also assigned them an overall rating. The poll included federal, state, county and municipal judges.

About 1,200 lawyers, 11 percent of the association's membership, responded to the poll. Most judges were not rated by every attorney participating in the poll because lawyers were asked only to consider judges they have worked with directly.

"It doesn't necessarily mean that a judge is good or bad," said Rocky Robinson, a civil attorney and HBA president. "It is an indication of the attorneys' perceptions of the judges' performance in those categories based on their experience in front of the judges." [...]

Supreme Court of Texas

Judge	Outstanding	Acceptable	Poor
Scott A. Brister (422)	36.9	20.7	42.4
Nathan L. Hecht (327)	40.3	17.4	42.3
Wallace B. Jefferson (270)	53.4	29.7	16.9
Harriet O'Neill (334)	55	30.5	14.5
Priscilla R. Owen (350)	39.5	15.2	45.3
Dale Wainwright (316)	48.7	25.7	25.7

Of the six Texas Supreme Court Justices rated, Priscilla Owen had the highest "poor" rating, and the second lowest "outstanding" rating. Furthermore, Owen has the largest negative difference between respondents ranking her "poor" over "outstanding" with 5.8% more "poor" ratings than "outstanding".

The results are even more telling when the details are examined:

SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS PRISCILLA R. OWEN

Number of Attorneys Rating This Judge: 350

Question	Outstanding	Acceptable	Poor
Is attentive to oral argument?	45.8	20.3	33.9
Interacts constructively with counsel during oral arguments?	42.6	19.5	37.9
Opinions demonstrate well reasoned, clearly - written disposition of the case based on proper application of the law to the record?	38.4	15.3	46.3
Is impartial and open-minded with respect to determining the legal issues?	34.6	16.6	48.8
Overall rating?	39.5	15.2	45.3

Are these ratings from a non-partisan organization of lawyers who have worked directly with Justice Owen reflective of someone who deserves a promotion? I don't think so...

More at Kuff.

NARAL Screws Self Over, Stabs Dems in the Back

By Andrew Dobbs

Well, it's not every day that you see Kos taking on a liberal activist group like NARAL, but he makes an excellent point in his post today.

Earlier this year it appeared that Rhode Island Congressman Jim Langevin (D) would be running for the US Senate. Langevin, one of Congress' few disabled members (he is a quadripeligic), was leading Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chaffee by several points and looked to beat him in 2006, adding yet another D to the Senate. But Langevin had one problem-- he is a pro-life Democrat and Chaffee is a pro-abortion rights Republican. What to do? NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, sprang into action and ran Langevin out of the race by getting a bunch of out-of-staters to start raising money for potential primary opponents. Langevin dropped out in favor of two pro-abortion rights Democrats-- Secretary of State Matt Brown and former Congressman Sheldon Whitehouse. Neither are doing as well as Langevin in the statewide polls, but NARAL seemed to get what it wanted, a Democratic nominee who would fight for access to abortion.

Now, as my one-time roommate Ezra Klein points out, NARAL has greeted this opportunity to knock off a Republican by endorsing Lincoln Chaffee for reelection. Chaffee is indeed pro-choice, one of the country's last prominent liberal Republicans, but he is a Republican no less. The first vote he cast this year was for Bill "James Dobson is My Homeboy" Frist as Senate Majority Leader. Langevin's first vote was for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. It seems as though NARAL could realize that their causes are better served by ANYONE other than Chaffee, and now that they have two Democrats on their side in the race, why wouldn't they wait to support the eventual nominee? It is truly confounding.

As a Democrat, I am angered and as someone who is pro-life I am appalled. Jim Langevin would be a phenomenal Senator, as his record in the House attests to, and would join Bob Casey (assuming he beats Santorum) as a new and exciting pro-life leader in our caucus. While they are unlikely to turn our party pro-life, they would send a clear message to anti-abortion voters who agree with us on other issues that it is okay to vote for us-- we aren't beholden to any special interest. Now NARAL has not only demonstrated to anyone paying attention that our party is hostile to pro-life candidates, but has abandoned us in favor of a Fristian Republican. It's a lose-lose situation for Democrats.

For those who support access to abortion NARAL is still the nation's primary advocate for their cause, but it lost a bit of credibility today. It is time for us to realize that all the petty differences in the world are meaningless-- in a partisan age, partisan politics must be played. Here's hoping Langevin shows them up by reentering the race, winning the nomination and taking out Chaffee (or possibly the right-winger that beats Chaffee in the primary). We need him in the US Senate.

Military Musical Chairs

By Jim Dallas

An old friend brings to my attention that the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) committee has made its recommendations about which bases to close. Looks like the Navy is taking the biggest hit, particularly in Texas.

Ft. Sam Houston in San Antonio is getting bigger, as is Ft. Bliss.

Texas stands to net 9,000 jobs overall; the closures in Corpus Christi and in Ralph Hall's district being offset by units being shifted from other states.

UPDATE: Still, a net gain in jobs does not make up for the many communities which are going to be sorely disrupted by the fifteen base closures scheduled for Texas. The Chris Bell campaign put out a PR to that effect:

The Pentagon today recommended closing a long list of military bases in Texas against zero in Oklahoma, bringing up yet another example of Rick Perry’s failed leadership.

“Texas and Oklahoma have two Republican senators and a congressional delegation dominated by Republicans. What does Oklahoma have that Texas doesn’t have? A Democratic Governor. Maybe we should get one of those,” said Jason Stanford, spokesman for the Chris Bell for Governor Exploratory Committee.

I'm not sure comparing the military presence in Texas to the military presence in Oklahoma is quite fair, but certainly what we got ain't the product of any great success on the part of Governor Perry. On the other hand, the 147th TANG is staying at Ellington Field, and I know Senator Hutchison's been fighting pretty hard for that.

Nuclear Text Messages

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

So, we keep waiting to know when the Senate goes Nuclear. I'm on the edge of my seat (though maybe I should hide under it to protect me from the fallout).

Sign up with the People for the American Way's text message alert, which will also give you the number of the Senate Offiers to call as soon as the trigger is pulled. That way you can be part of the instant response while the vote is open.

DeLay and Frist: Out of Control

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

It's not often that I pay much attention to DSCC emails, but today's gave noticed to a really powerful ad they've developed. Watch and donate here. I'm impressed to say the least, about ethics of all issues. Can we say campaign theme '06?

Well boys, I reckon this is it -- nukyular combat, toe to toe with the GOP

By Jim Dallas

Word is that Frist is threatening to go nuclear over Patricia Owen this week.

I agree with PandaJesse. Texas Supreme Patricia Owen is really not all that bad compared to, say, California Supreme Janice Rogers Brown. (That's not an endorsement, just a comparison.) I'd almost reckon that Frist's boastings about Judge Owen are almost an intelligent form of bluffing to encourage Senate Democrats to make the compromise.

Though it looks like Fightin' Harry Reid is in no mood to compromise. "Bring it on."

Update: It takes a special class of "bad" to be unfavorably compared to a judge Alberto Gonzales accused of "unconscionable judicial activism." I just cannot stand the thought of Janice Rogers Brown being a federal judge. Whereas Judge Owen has very strong opinions about what the law ought to be, Judge Brown seems to have extremely bizarre interpretations of twentieth century history (or in the words of Kieran Healey, " a heady and unstable mix of libertarian obiter dicta, Randian bromides, culture-war cliches and, um, Procol Harum lyrics. No, really.").

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. That's where I draw the line between the two nominees.

Meanwhile, in Ohio...

By Jim Dallas

It's often fairly easy to get down on the Texas lege; the number of questionable stunts pulled each and every session seems to be almost innumerable. But looking at the big picture, sometimes you have to hand it to the Ghost of Legislatures Past for putting together some fairly sensible laws.

One lege horror story this year which was frustrating for at least a few of our readers involved a House committee basically shunning a bill to eliminate the statute of limitations for child molestation. In another post, I argued that Texas's statute was already fairly generous to victims (with limitations running ten years after the victim's 18th birthday, which could in theory be as long as 28 years), and hence I was skeptical of abolishing it.

Nonetheless, the idea of abolishing the statute of limitations is a worthy idea that deserves consideration. Several commenters disagreed strongly with my skepticism, and I'd note that at least a few were no idle contrarians, as they've been toiling awfully hard in his pursuit of justice. But, even despite the indefensible shenangins of Reps. Keel, Hodge, et al., the status quo being defended could be a lot worse.

How much worse? Well, try Ohio. According to Joe-in-DC of Americablog, in Ohio limitations run in only two years. Let me repeat that: two years.

That's pretty awful, and you might've guessed that everyone'd be for changing it to a Texas-style law, at the minimum. And indeed, every one says that they are - in principle. As the Toledo Blade story linked to by Americablog Joe, the trouble arises over whether to allow a one-year "look back" window for the filing of civil suits by victims who, previously, had very little recourse:

The Toledo Catholic Diocese is stepping up its efforts to defeat a bill that would rewrite Ohio's statutes of limitations for victims of child sexual abuse.

Bishop Leonard Blair sent a letter to diocesan priests this week stating that Senate Bill 17 "should be of serious concern to all of us," and urged them to contact their state representatives to voice opposition to the legislation.

...

key provision of S.B. 17, which was passed 31-0 by the Ohio Senate in March, and this week was sent to a House committee, is to extend the statutes of limitation for filing lawsuits over allegations of child sexual abuse.

Ohio law now requires civil suits to be filed within two years after the victim turns 18. The current bill would lengthen the statutes to 20 years after turning 18.

The diocese and the victims' advocacy group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) are in agreement in calling for the statutes to be lengthened to 20 years after reaching adulthood.

Such a change in civil cases would match Ohio statutes for criminal law, which were extended in 1999.

But Bishop Blair and the state's other Catholic bishops strongly oppose an amendment that would set a one-year "look back" period during which victims could file civil suits over abuses that occurred as long as 35 years ago.

Although Ohio Catholics have an interest in wanting to avoid legal battles (and I think Joe in DC is a bit reductionist, unfairly to the Catholics, when he portrays this as merely being about covering up pedophile priest scandals), I think it is just to say that putting much-needed reform on hold for that reason is extremely unfair and unreasonable.

Rep. Terri Hodge's crazy ramblings aside, Texas does not have this problem. We have a decent (although reasonable people can disagree on whether or not it is the best possible) statute of limitations. And at least in theory, we can have a fairly civil discourse about the issue.

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good

By Jim Dallas

The Associated Press does a poll:

Most people say they are not willing to give up some of their promised Social Security benefits to save the poor from having their payments cut.

About 70 percent of people surveyed do believe President Bush's warning that Social Security is running out of money. But most also say they do not like the way the president is handling the issue, according to an AP-Ipsos poll...

The poll, conducted for the Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs, found that 56 percent of respondents are not willing to give up some guaranteed benefits, while 40 percent said they would. Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents were opposed to losing any benefits.

"If I were guaranteed that the poor would get what they're supposed to, that would be fine, but I'm not sure they would," said Margaret Normandin, 80, a Democrat from Laconia, N.H.

...

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, said persuading the middle class to give up benefits is a hard sell.

"The middle class feels like it's barely holding on," she said. "And Social Security is perceived to be the original middle-class support program."

...

When asked whom they trust more to handle Social Security, 48 percent of respondents said Democrats and 36 percent said Republicans. The president still faces strong opposition to his approach to Social Security, with 60 percent of those surveyed saying they disapprove.

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults was taken May 2-4. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Last week, when the President gave his speech, we heard a lot of crowing about how he had finally changed the dynamic and forced the Democrats to choose between faux-progressivity and defending benefits for Republicans, or whatever.

In retrospect, can anyone think that such a claim is anything but ridiculous? It's a false choice, akin to asking middle America whether we'd prefer a kick in the nuts or a lead pipe to the kneecap. It's a false choice because it presumes that any solution must be revenue neutral - even when the entire "surplus" scheme engineered in 1983 came with the implicit promise of higher taxes on the wealthy.

Finally, the claim was and is ridiculous because, even as Americans have worked themselves into a panic over Social Security's solvency at some distant date, trust in President Bush in the immediate present has hit its own crisis point. Telling the American people that he wants to cut their benefits is not exactly the best way to sweeten that pot.

What Democrats must do is attack, because when you scratch the surface, the Republican plan continues to be the destruction of Social Security for the benefit of the rich and powerful. You can spin, but you can't hide.

To the extent that the people's own enlightened (or unenlightened) self-interest encourages people to grasp these key facts, and indeed support universality (in that weird sort of paradoxical Rawlsian way) the more, the better.

Filibuster Frist

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Princeton University is now around their 200th hour of filibustering at thier incredibly awesome idea, Filibuster Frist. Check out their page, live webcame, and extensive media coverage. If only we had the time here at UT, I'm sure this would have been a project our UDems would have liked to have done as well.

These Men Have A Plan, A Plan to Destroy Social Security...

By Jim Dallas

Bush and DeLay made the front page of the Houston Chronicle together last night. Meanwhile, Brad DeLong gives the Galveston Plan the golden raspberry. As does the H-Chron.

Someone please cut an ad. If you don't I will. And I know how to use Flash now so you all better be scared!

In other news, former Senator (and 2004 Dem VP nominee) John Edwards was in town last night. I missed because I was studying for exams, but I hear it was good!

Heber Taylor on the Galveston Plan

By Jim Dallas

Heber Taylor, Galveston County Daily News managing editor and voice of sweet reasonableness, wrote on Sunday:

As the hometown newspaper, we're sometimes asked what we think of this plan. We're open to changes in Social Security but don't think the Galveston Plan is the best model for change. The plan has two problems.

The first is that it benefits workers at the top of the pay scale more than it benefits those at the bottom. We'll admit that's a hotly contested conclusion. We've followed the debate. We've studied the arguments on both sides.

The conclusions that make the most sense are those drawn from a study conducted by the Government Accounting Office in 1999. In general, the study found that the alternate plan benefited higher-paid employees. The study found that low-income workers would fare better under Social Security.

Obviously, that's a problem that any attempt at reform should avoid.

The peple who most need an adequate guaranteed income are those at the bottom of the pay scale. Any effort to reform Social Security must take that truth as a starting point.

The second problem with the Galveston Plan is that a worker can opt out of the deal. Some county workers have done so. Over the years, we've talked to some who cashed in their chips, bought a new car and started looking for work elsewhere.

What do they have to show for their time with the county? Nothing. No Galveston Plan. No Social Security.

What happens when those workers retire? The burden of caring for them probably will fall back on the public. That burden is one of the things Social Security was designed to alleviate.

If you think about the analogy between Bush's proposal to reform Social Security and the Galveston Plan you'll come to one conclusion. The analogy is awfully superficial.

Bush wants to let workers invest some fraction of their contributions in the stock market. The county's alternate pln invests all of an employee's withholdings and county's contributions into conservative investments such as insurance annuities.

People who are looking at the Galveston Plan in hopes that it will shed light the President's proposal should look elsewhere for illumination.

Nonetheless, if President Bush wants to claim his plan is "like" the Galveston Plan, then I'm more than willing to make him "own it."

P.S. Incidentally, there seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance about the Galveston Plan. Initially put forward of as proof that a privatized system could work, subsequent criticism has resulted in other privatizers backing off the claim and, indeed, blaming the "liberal media" for even suggesting the analogy. Did Dubya get the memo? Apparently not. He's not getting many of the memos these days.

(Also, George, we're putting the coversheets on all TPS reports. Did you get the memo about this? If you could just go ahead and make sure you do that from now on, that would be great. Uh, I'll go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that memo, ok?)

Dean-Style

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

From Washington Whispers for all of those interesting in the head of our Party...

Let's just state the obvious: New Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is no Terry McAuliffe . Where the flashy former Clinton fundraiser was a gregarious ringmaster accustomed to the bling-bling of the highest non-publicly elected Democratic job around, Dean is almost a seminarian in his approach to the post. And, oddly, his style seems to fit with the party's bid to build its blue-collar base--just as McAuliffe's meshed with the DNC's need to raise gobs of money and go high tech.

What's so different? McAuliffe would limo around town, dropping in at the Palm to huddle with Washington big shots. The 2004 presidential hopeful, by contrast, takes the bus or subway, buying his own $1.35 ticket. Sometimes he bums rides from staffers or walks the four blocks to the Capitol for meetings. "Please Call Me Howard" never flies first class and always carries his own bags.

Other signs of the ex-guv's modest style: He eats at his desk, stays in a cheap D.C. hotel, and likes oxford shirts and penny loafers. Affectionately dubbed a "geek" by pals, he's often glued to his cellphone and loves E-mail. "His expertise is grass roots and his lifestyle is no different," says an associate. So far, Washington likes what it sees, surprised he's not the oddball that newsies pegged him as last year. Says an aide, smiling: "They're giving him a shot."

The battle is joined

By Jim Dallas

Noam Scheiber (via Amy Sullivan) - Democratic libertarianism bad!:

Far more interesting--and politically more consequential--is an emerging Democratic split between social libertarians, who emphasize privacy, and what I'll call communitarians, for lack of a better word. Like social conservatives, the communitarians believe the government has a role to play in Schiavo-like dilemmas. If they prevail, it could help the Democratic Party reclaim its popular majority.

William Galston - Democratic libertarianism good!:

Undermining the conservative vision of freedom is the essential first step for a liberal recovery. But no movement ever built a governing majority just by criticizing its adversaries. To regain the initiative, liberals must return to their historic mission of modernizing and promoting freedom.

To be sure, Scheiber and Galston are taking this from slightly different angles, and there's probably much they can agree on. That said, are you ready to RUMBLE!?!?

... and silly me, I forget to reference Greg's Opinion.

Filibuster Veterans for Truth

By Jim Dallas

The filibuster debate continues onward, with Mark Schmitt and Nathan Newman representing the pro- and anti- filibuster viewpoints in the blogosphee.

Meanwhile, the Alliance for Justice Action has launched a Schoolhouse Rock-style flash campaign to "Save Phil" (as in, Phil A. Buster). While public education on this topic is a great idea, I'm not sure the tone of the campaign is serious enough; it almost seems like a South Park-style parody.

Of course, one silly campaign deserves another (and note, this is my best crack at designing the most offensive attack ad possible, not at expressing my true feelings).

Public Dis-Service Announcement

By Jim Dallas

Amy Sullivan reminds us that in order to blame, the people need to know who to blame.

Repeat after me...

"The Republican politicians in Washington."

If it ain't fili-busted, don't fili-fix it.

By Jim Dallas

There seems to be some dissent in the blogosphere about Democrats vowing mutually-assured destruction as the Republicans mull going "nuclear" on the filibuster. Some ask, is the filibuster even worth fighting for?

The fili-doves includes Matt Yglesias and Nathan Newman; the hawk-ibusters include the sagacious Mark Schmitt. Kevin "Switzerland" Drum is sitting on the fence.

As for me, I suppose it's true that one could argue that the filibuster is anti-democratic; but then again, any body that is Constitutionally required to give Wyoming the same number as votes as California is not exactly a democratic institution. On the contrary, the Senate was expressly designed largely to impede progress and trample the will of the people (err, well, state legislatures elected by white property-owning men). When the powers that be decide to deal with bigger obstructions to democracy, such as the electoral college and gerrymandering, maybe then we can talk about nuking the filibuster under such pretenses.

Cornyn on Tape

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Think Progress has the video of Sen. Cornyn's Violence Against Judges remarks on the Senate Floor.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em

By Jim Dallas

For the last week we've heard the word that right-wingers think that the polls that showed that Americans disapproved of the moralistic totalitarianism of the "save Terri" caucus were meaningless push polls, even though, frankly, they weren't.

Failing to convince anyone, LifeNews proceded to... commission Zogby to do their own poll, using loaded questions only tangentially related to the matter at hand, apparently designed to produce pre-determined results. Of course, Michelle Malkin says its "honest."

I'm sorry, but I'll change my opinion only when Zogby publishes, oh, the sample size and demographics (which as far as I can tell, they haven't). And stops using loaded language.

Moreover, Zogby just put out another poll:

On the Schiavo issue, DeLay consistently has stated that his constituents backed his decision to lead Congress into the dispute over whether to continue nourishment to the severely brain-damaged Florida woman.

But nearly 69 percent of people in the poll, including substantial majorities of Democrats and Republicans, said they opposed the government's intervention in the long-standing family battle.

Respondents in the Chronicle survey also were critical of DeLay's individual role. Nearly 58 percent disapproved of his decision to get Congress involved.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe Tom DeLay's Sugarlanders are any more "pro-death" than the average American constituency. Then again, they did elect Tom DeLay to Congress. But I digress; the more important point is, Zogby knows how to appease his clients, and this whole episode makes me skeptical of any poll results his firm puts out.