Burnt Orange Report

State of the Union Open Thread

By Phillip Martin

Thoughts, opinions and ideas with historical perspective are a plus. Thoughts, opinions and ideas along the lines of "stupid liar" are unoriginal. Tell us what you thought. We'll do a wrap up when it's all over.

Everybody Loves Poll Numbers...

By Damon McCullar

There's a new poll out on the eve of the State of the Union address. In a NBC Nightly News/Wall Street Journal poll, the President's approve/disapprove numbers are 39/54. Read the full poll here.

Phillip Martin Posed with Jack Abramoff

By Phillip Martin

From left to right: Unidentified, Phillip Martin, Secretary Norton, C. Bryant Rogers, and Jack Abramoff.

President Bush's Interior Secretary, Gale Norton, posed for a photo with notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff, as well as Chief Phillip Martin of the Mississippi Band of Chocataw Indians. Chief Martin -- whom I have read about for many years after numerous Google searches -- did not officially meet with Abramoff.

Since I know Phillip Martin would never lie, we'll take him at his word. The story is here. The link to the photo is here. Thanks to fellow blogger Rawhide for the tip.

Sen. John Kerry Threatens Filibuster on Alito Nomination

By Damon McCullar

According to CNN, Sen. Kerry has said that he will filibuster the confirmation vote on Sam Alito. I have to say that I'm dubious about the success of this. The the confirmation vote as been scheduled for 4:30pm eastern time on Monday.

What President Bush Knew About Katrina

By Phillip Martin

An article in today's Washington Post uncovers a report the White House received two Days prior to the landfall of Hurricane Katrina. The report, issued by FEMA, warned the intensity of Katrina could cause significant levee damage, displace over a million Louisiana residents, and require one of the largest search and rescue operations in United States history.

From the Washington Post:

A computer slide presentation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, prepared for a 9 a.m. meeting on Aug. 27, two days before Katrina made landfall, compared Katrina's likely impact to that of "Hurricane Pam," a fictional Category 3 storm used in a series of FEMA disaster-preparedness exercises simulating the effects of a major hurricane striking New Orleans. But Katrina, the report warned, could be worse.

The hurricane's Category 4 storm surge "could greatly overtop levees and protective systems" and destroy nearly 90 percent of city structures, the FEMA report said. It further predicted "incredible search and rescue needs (60,000-plus)" and the displacement of more than a million residents.

The NISAC analysis accurately predicted the collapse of floodwalls along New Orleans's Lake Pontchartrain shoreline, an event that the report described as "the greatest concern." The breach of two canal floodwalls near the lake was the key failure that left much of central New Orleans underwater and accounted for the bulk of Louisiana's 1,100 Katrina-related deaths.

The article went on to note that President Bush -- despite notice of the storm's impact two days before landfall -- insisted, immediately following the storm, that no one could have expected what happened.

President Bush, in a televised interview three days after Katrina hit, suggested that the scale of the flooding in New Orleans was unexpected. "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm," Bush said in a Sept. 1 interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

President Bush has since apologized for "the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right," going on to say that he wanted to "know what went right and what went wrong."

It seems that at least one thing that went wrong was a failure to listen.

Alito Hearings, Day One

By Jim Dallas

Shorter Lindsay Graham: When Alito was writing anti-Roe memos for the Reagan administration, he wasn't being a wingnut, just a kissass.

Shorter Chuck Schumer: Judge Alito - you're crazy, aren't you?

[Schumer then proceeded to rake Alito over the coals, but finished with a thoughtful argument for why mum ain't the word.]

Shorter John Cornyn: All the Democrats are for Alito, except for the ones that aren't [metaphorical evil eye to Schumer], and that's swell.

Shorter John Cornyn (2): I want someone on the Supreme Court who will cram religion down our throats - you know, someone who doesn't have an extremist liberal agenda.

Shorter Dick Durbin: I might vote for you if you dressed up like Sandra Day O'Connor.

One Warm Fuzzy Feeling, A Little Bit of a Fix-er-Up-er

By Jim Dallas

About a month ago I cited the UFW as an example of how to write good fundraising letters. The L.A. Times (via Matt Stoller) shows us why good fundraising can make little difference if the funds aren't used well:

Today, a Times investigation has found, Chavez's heirs run a web of tax-exempt organizations that exploit his legacy and invoke the harsh lives of farmworkers to raise millions of dollars in public and private money.

The money does little to improve the lives of California farmworkers, who still struggle with the most basic health and housing needs and try to get by on seasonal, minimum-wage jobs.

Most of the funds go to burnish the Chavez image and expand the family business, a multimillion-dollar enterprise with an annual payroll of $12 million that includes a dozen Chavez relatives.

The UFW is the linchpin of the Farm Worker Movement, a network of a dozen tax-exempt organizations that do business with one another, enrich friends and family, and focus on projects far from the fields: They build affordable housing in San Francisco and Albuquerque, own a top-ranked radio station in Phoenix, run a political campaign in support of an Indian casino and lobby for gay marriage.

The current UFW leaders have jettisoned other Chavez principles:

The UFW undercut another union to sign up construction workers, poaching on the turf of building trade unions that once were allies.

The UFW forfeited the right to boycott supermarkets and stores, a tactic Chavez pioneered, in order to sign up members in unrelated professions.

And Chavez's heirs broke with labor solidarity and hired nonunion workers to build the $3.2-million National Chavez Center around their founder's grave in the Tehachapi Mountains, a site they now market as a tourist attraction and rent out for weddings.

For what it's worth, the story reads like a hit piece; at least a couple of the sources seem like they've got some axes to grind. That doesn't mean the criticisms are baseless, though.

The point to take away from this is not that unions are crooked and that idealism is futile. The point Matt Stoller makes is that half the battle for organized laborers is keeping their institutions clean. The same can be said, I think, of any progressive institution.

Which leads us to recent posts by some bloggers (e.g. Matt Yglesias), who ask of our House Democrats, "where's the beef?"

I'm all for a Democratic political reform package but I wouldn't put too much stock into it. At the moment, Republicans are loving lobbying reform bills. Such bills allow them to seemingly get out from under the cloud of sleaze while remaining, fundamentally, in hock to corporate interests.

To run a campaign, you need ideas the other side can't sign on to. More to the point, you need ideas they can't easily co-opt by counterproposing a watered-down version. That means you need to attack some of the substance of what K Street Republicanism has done, not just the atmospherics of the lobbying trade.

Dern tootin'. While my googling skillz are not running on all four today, I do recall someone saying something to the effect of "our ethics reform proposal will have gone far enough when half the caucus has to be dragged along kicking and screaming." I like that saying. I think I'll put it in my clip-and-save box.

House Slashes Patriot Act Extention **Update**

By Damon McCullar

As I'm sure that you are aware of, the Patriot Act renewal passed the Senate yesterday. The renewal was for six months so that lawmakers could sort out differences on violations of civil liberties. Well, when the measure when to the House of Representatives, they only approved a month extension. Now I'm fuzzy on the rules, but I think that the bill has to either go back to the Senate for approval or to conference committee to work out the differences.

Also in Congressional news, the ANWR amendment (drilling in ANWR) that was attached to the Defense Appropriations Bill was removed after the Republican leadership couldn't drum up enough votes to end debate (i.e. filibuster). Once the ANWR amendment was removed, the Defense Appropriations Bill was approved unanimously on voice vote. Alaska Senator Ted Stevens has been trying to get this measure passed for twenty-five years! In his latest attempt, he did everything but get down on his knees an beg senators to vote for it. And of all the underhanded tricks the Republican leadership has played, labeling a vote against the Defense Appropriations Bill with the ANWR Amendment as a vote against the troops is about as low as I have seen them stoop.

And finally, yesterday the Senate passed a budget deficit reducing bill that reduced the amount of money set aside for college loans and slashed funding for programs for the poor. The Vice-president had to come forth from his undisclosed location to cast the tie-breaking vote.

**Update** 10:30pm

The Senate met for a few hours today and approved the one month extention that the House had preiously approved.

David Van Os: "The Constitutional Crisis"

By Damon McCullar

This is a press release I received via email from David Van Os, candidate for Attorney General. The thing that I thought was the most interesting about it was the precedents that he sited in the footnotes (case precedent after the jump). For your reading pleasure:

George W. Bush has plunged the country into the kind of Constitutional crisis that was resolved in 1974 by the issuance of articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon and Nixon’s subsequent resignation. Make no mistake about it – the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution covers telephone communications, and warrants are required for wiretaps. (See for example, Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 [1967]*). Federal judges can and do quickly issue warrants authorizing wiretaps whenever the government shows the need. George W. Bush cannot and does not claim that the judges have been stingy with such warrants; rather he claims that the legal and constitutional requirements simply do not apply to him. As if that were not bad enough, he also claims the authority to spy on peaceable American citizens who are engaging in traditional American freedom of speech and assembly. Make no mistake about this – Bush’s claim of the authority to wiretap Americans’ telephones without warrants and to spy on peaceful First Amendment activities is in brazen defiance of the Constitution.

George W. Bush’s arrogant claim that the “executive power” referenced in Article II of the Constitution authorizes him to override the First and Fourth Amendments is a declaration of war against the very notion of a Constitution, because if his claim wins out, then there are no longer any limits on what the chief executive can do, and we will be living under dictatorship instead of in a democracy. To George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzalez, the Constitutional rights and liberties of Americans can be wiped away by a president’s executive decree – my dear friends and fellow Texans, a Bill of Rights that exists only at the sufferance of executive power is not a Bill of Rights at all, and an executive who claims such power is no longer the executor of Constitutional government, but has become by such actions an unconstitutional usurper. My words are provocative, because the situation is provocative when the U.S. president makes open war on the Bill of Rights that so many fearless American patriots sacrificed so much to preserve, protect and defend.

If Bush’s claim of the power to wiretap the telephone communications of Americans without warrants and to spy on peaceful American citizens is not blocked now, he will have prevailed in claiming that he can overrule our Bill of Rights by executive decree. There is no tomorrow on this one. There is no middle ground on this, no room for normal protocols. George W. Bush has declared that he has been wiretapping Americans without warrants, that he has the power to do so, and that he is going to continue to do so. He has declared that he is going to continue to spy on Americans’ freedom of speech and assembly. Bush has thrown down the gauntlet, and he has dared the people to pick it up.

A Texas Attorney General who understood that his job was to be the people’s lawyer would pick up that gauntlet. The Bill of Rights belongs just as much to the people of Texas as it does to anyone else in America. As Texas Attorney General I will fulfill my duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, by fighting on behalf of Texans with every means and resource at my disposal against any and all such anti-constitutional federal usurpations. For example, I would move swiftly into the courts as the lawyer for the people of Texas to challenge the Bushite government’s defiance of the Bill of Rights and have their actions declared unconstitutional. The current Texas Attorney General clearly will not challenge them, since he is a Bushite mouthpiece and will not bite the hand of the master who appointed him to statewide Texas public office. Probably no other Texas public official will challenge them either; but under the Texas Constitution it is the Attorney General, more than other state office-holder, whom the people of Texas most depend upon to fight for their Constitutional rights and liberties; and I will do so against all comers.

*United States Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark in Berger v. New York (1967): “They [previous Supreme Court decisions] found ‘conversation’ was within the Fourth Amendment’s protections, and that the use of electronic devices to capture it was a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Amendment, and we so hold. …The purpose of the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment [is] to keep the state out of constitutionally protected areas until it has reason to believe that a specific crime has been or is being committed.” (Justice Tom Clark was from Texas.) Justice Louis Brandeis, 77 years ago in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928): “The progress of science in furnishing the government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire tapping. Ways may some day be developed by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. …As means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants [two examples of British abuse that contributed to the American Revolution] are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire tapping. …The makers of our Constitution…conferred, as against the government, the right to be left alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

Federal Judge Rules Intelligent Design Out of the Classroom

By Damon McCullar

A federal judge today ruled that a statement read before studying the theory of evolution in the Dover, PA school system is unconstitutional.

From the Washington Post:

In his ruling today, Jones said several members of the Dover Area School Board repeatedly lied during the trial to cover their motives for promoting intelligent design even as they professed religious beliefs, the Associated Press reported.

I'm impressed. I was sure that this dressing up of creationism would be able to sneak it's way into the classroom. I guess over the years I've become a bit of a cynic when it comes to the religious right. It just seemed to me that they were a overpowering influence in our country that was insurmountable. I guess they aren't as powerful as I figured. Maybe brighter days are ahead.

New from Jib Jab: 2-0-5

By Damon McCullar

From the creators of This Land, It's Good To Be in DC, Second Term and Big Box Mart comes a year in review politcal parody, 2-0-5. Check it out it's worth a few chuckles.

President Bush Bashes NY Times

By Phillip Martin

In a televised address, President Bush said that the New York Times article that described the secret authorization of wiretapping and eavesdropping should not have been released, and that sharing this information with the public "puts our citizens at risk."

From the transcript of his remarks:

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies.

Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

The secret program described in the Times article differs from wiretapping that is legal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. That act allows for a secret court to receive and approve warrants that seek to gather information for any person or persons that could be a threat to national security. A recent FISA report showed that, in the past three years, the issuance and approval for such warrants has more than doubled from previous years. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC):

There were 1758 applications for secret surveillance in 2004, an all-time high. None of the applications for secret suveillance warrants were denied. In 2004, as in 2003, more secret surveillance warrants were granted than federal wiretap warrants, which have more stringent standards. A report on federal wiretapm warrants in 2004 reveals that state and federal courts authorized 1,710 interceptions in 2004, an increase of 19 percent over 2003 and more than in any previous year. Federal officials made an all-time high 730 intercept applications in 2004, a 26 percent increase over 2003.

The secret program President Bush has reauthorized 30 times, however, allows for the covert eavesdropping on any domestic communication without court-approved warrants. This change in intelligence gathering policy surprised many Senators and Congressmen -- especially since FISA already allows for immediate, 72-hour emergency wiretapping without court approval. Should an emergency come up immediately, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on any person for three days, so long as they receive the warrant after the three days. Considering the fact that not a single warrant was been denied in 2004, it seems to some that existing law would be more than sufficient for any national security purposes.

President Bush didn't explicitly detail why there was a need to change the intelligence gathering policy, simply stating that the secret program "is crucial to saving American lives."

Partially due to the contents of the controversial NY Times article, the Patriot Act was not approved by the Senate on Friday. President Bush was not pleased with the Senate's delay, saying:

A minority of senators filibustered to block the renewal of the Patriot Act when it came up for a vote yesterday. That decision is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act. In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), who is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that his committee plans to investigate the matter. In the mean time, the Patrioat Act remains in the Senate, and President Bush plans to continue reauthorizing his secret eavesdropping program as long as is necessary.

No word yet on whether or not the New York Times story was in fact illegal, as President Bush suggested.

Senate Blocks Renewal of Expiring Provisions of the USA Patriot Act

By Damon McCullar

According to Reuters, the Senate has block renewal of the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act On a vote of 52-47, the resolution fell 8 votes short of the the 60 needed to end debate and bring the measure to a vote.

Senate Democratic and Republican foes of the proposed renewal said the law could be swiftly reauthorized if lawmakers agreed to better balance national security with civil liberties.

"None of us wants it to expire, and those who threaten to let it expire rather than fix it are playing a dangerous game," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat.

Proponents of the legislation warned that much of sweeping anti-terror law was to expire at the end of the month, and if it did, the nation could be placed at increased risk.

"We have a clear choice before us today: Do we advance against terrorism to make America safer or do we retreat," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said shortly before the vote.

It seems that the tide is turning in at least one of our houses of Congress. It's ironic that "The People's House", otherwise known as the House of Representatives can't do the will of the people but the Senate can. Hopefully that will change in November.

Fine, take a nap, then FIRE ZE MISSILES!

By Jim Dallas

The IAEA has Iran's gonna have nukes.

So, let's see, that makes two out of three charter members of the Axis of Evil so far. At this rate maybe we will end up finding WMDs in Iraq...

(Click here if you don't get the headline).

Money? No, but I'll give you a piece of my mind.

By Jim Dallas

Can I vent - just for a second? I'm tired of getting three-page-long fundraising pleas from national Democrats which devote two pages to whining about how awful the Republicans are and one page to meaningless platitudes. Lots of bloggers have made similar posts before, I'm sure (no, really, I'm sure, I'd link to them if I had the time to dig them up). But the message just doesn't seem to be getting through: yes, we know the Republicans are bastards. Fundraising letters are supposed to, you know, inspire people. Preferably in the 15 seconds or so between the time I open the letter and the time I toss it in the trash. I got a fundraising letter today, for example, from the United Farm Workers (they are asking for gifts). It was clear, concise (one page, front and back) and motivational. It explained in a few words what the UFW has done for farm workers this last year and what it wants to do.

As for the UFW - I don't have any money to gift out, but here's a "high-five" for giving me a warm fuzzy feeling about the labor movement.

Just plain wrong.

By Jim Dallas

Matt Stoller:

A party strategist tells me that a great fundraising idea would be to put press hound Sheila Jackson Lee in a room with Chuck Schumer and one TV camera and ask people to pay to watch them fight over it.

Person of the Year

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Over at TIME you can send in nominations for Person of the Year.

Or you can ignore that and nominate a Texan of the Year. That deadline is Wednesday.

Voting Rights Act Kabuki

By Jim Dallas

JURIST Paperchase has a blurb about the upcoming debate about renewing parts of the Voting Rights Act (or not):

A small minority of southern Republicans have announced their intention to challenge the renewal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act [text; DOJ introduction], currently being evaluated by Congress for a 25-year renewal on the grounds that it is unfair to southern states and no longer necessary. Though the White House, Congressional leaders of both parties, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the teh US Justice Department support the reauthorization of the Act [JURIST report] in its entirety, several southern lawmakers are critical of section 5, which requires southern states with dicriminatory voting records to seek federal approval before changing voting locations within districts, a requirement not imposed on northern states. The original purpose of the provision was to prevent the racist practice of moving voting locations to intentionally inconvenience black voters. Leading the opposition, first-term US House member Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) [official website] argues that the areas protected by the provision are now "controlled by minorities" and no longer need protection. Representative Sanford Bishop (D-GA) [official website], one of many House members who support the renewal of the provision, has nonetheless noted that "in an ideal world we would not need the Voting Rights Act, and in an ideal world we could apply Section 5 across the board without watering it down and making it ineffective. But if history, both past and present, teaches us anything, it's that we do not live in an ideal world." AP has more.

Continued below the fold...

The AP writes it up this way:

A school closes that once housed a polling place. For the next election, city officials send voters to a new site across the street. In Boston, no problem. In Atlanta, no problem provided the federal government grants permission.

Such has been the law for 40 years under the Voting Rights Act, which sought to end racist poll taxes and literacy tests by putting Southern states - then, without question, the worst offenders - on a shorter leash than most other places.

Now President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and congressional leaders from both political parties are pushing to renew this requirement for 25 more years. Although it doesn't expire until 2007, continuation of Section 5 - the provision involving federal preclearance of voting laws - seems a foregone conclusion.

Still, a handful of Southern Republicans - particularly those from Georgia - are determined to mount a spirited dissent, though they realize it will probably be in vain.

"It's just a matter of feeling dissed when you know you've paid for your sins or the sins of your forefathers, and it wasn't even our party that did it," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga.

Congress is just a few weeks into its hearings on the act's renewal, but most have involved a parade of witnesses who support extending the requirement and a small handful who don't. So Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a Georgia Republican in his first congressional term, decided it's time for the other side to mobilize.

Earlier this month, Westmoreland called a meeting of several Southern Republicans whose states are subject to Section 5 approval. He shared with them some facts involving his state.

First, blacks there now turn out to vote at a higher rate than whites, according to a study by two political scientists. Second, the state has little trouble electing minorities to office. Four of 13 members of the U.S. House are black, as is Thurbert Baker, who was easily re-elected as the state's attorney general.

"I'm not going to deny there weren't problems," Westmoreland said. "But right now, if you look at those same communities where there were problems, those communities are controlled by minorities."

Ironically, the loudest voices for continuing Section 5 use the same primary argument as those who want to scrap it. They just insist the progress happened mostly because the Voting Rights Act was there at all. Take that away, they fear, and discrimination returns in force.

At a news conference this past week largely in response to Westmoreland's efforts, Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and civil rights leader, called Section 5 "the heart of the act." His Georgia Democratic colleagues agreed, with Rep. David Scott predicting a "full-frontal assault" by opponents.

This all seems kind of... ridiculous... to me. If, in fact, large areas of the South have changed (and they probably have), then the simple and reasonable solution to removing the heavy hand of Big Government is to change the coverage formula for Section Five, not repealing it entirely. The Justice Department has to vet thousands of election law changes a year under Section Five, and many of the jurisdictions covered were first added to the "naughty list" thirty or forty years ago. It's probably reasonable to suggest that this situation may not be entirely fair or efficient. But shouldn't the law have a provision holding serial offenders of voting rights accountable? Mend it, don't end it.

More to the point a debate over Section Five (unless Congress wants to extend its coverage to all fifty states, fat chance) does nothing to resolve voting rights issues in non-covered jurisdictions. Most of Florida and none of Ohio is covered by Section Five, despite widespread complaints in those states during the last two presidential elections.

And coverage means... what, exactly? It didn't seem to have any effect during Texas re-redistricting or Georgia's voter identification kerfluffle.

I fear that the debate over renewing the Voting Rights Act is going to be purely symbolic, instead of what we really need - a serious debate about improving the quality of our democracy.

Phoney Baloney

By Jim Dallas

Please, Mr. Hunter, for the good of the country, stop being a douchebag.

Update: After Jean Schmidt started calling Rep. Murtha a "coward", I realized I could never be a member of Congress. I'm sure that by now I'd have been dragged out of the House kicking and screaming obscenities.

Today's Iraq debate is about the closest I've seen to a barroom brawl on C-SPAN.

Dark Clouds? Yes. The Perfect Storm? Probably Not.

By Jim Dallas

Kenneth Baer puts in words a concern I've been having recently, to wit, that while 2006 will be a bad year for our erstwhile friends-across-the-aisle, it is silly to predict that recent generic-ballot polls could translate into huge Democratic majorities in Congress:

But if Democrats want to win, they should stop fetishizing the 1994 Republican takeover. It resulted from a once-in-a-lifetime convergence of institutional changes, historical trends, and some blind luck. With the ground less fertile in 2006, a new Contract with America containing simple, poll-tested nostrums won't be enough (and, in fact, most studies show that the 1994 Contract contributed little to the GOP win). What's needed is a coherent agenda, built around deeply held principles, that speaks to the challenges Americans face today: Islamo-fascist terrorism, a global and interdependent economy, underperforming schools, an inefficient and increasingly ineffective health care system, and a looming fiscal crisis. Put answers to these problems in a contract, and voters will readily sign.

Aside from the hyperbolic use of "Islamo-fascist terrorism", which all the kewl kids at The New Republic are apparently required to use at least three times a day (moreover, shouldn't Democrats have a plan dealing with other, non-militant-Islamic terrorism?), I would have said exactly the same thing.

The biggest reason is that the Republican takeover in 1994 hinged largely on a whole lot of seats changing hands in the South. I can't think of any area of the country so obviously prone for re-alignment. Winning back Congress will, almost necessarily, involve beating Republicans in Republican districts.

Cornyn Linked

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

From the Statesman...

Former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed claimed in a 2001 e-mail to a lobbyist that he choreographed John Cornyn's efforts as Texas attorney general to shut down an East Texas Indian tribe's casino.

The lobbyist was Jack Abramoff, who is under federal investigation, along with his partner Michael Scanlon, on allegations of defrauding six Indian tribes of about $80 million from 2001 to 2004. The e-mail, along with about a dozen others, was released last week as part of the investigation.

In 2001, Abramoff was working as a lobbyist for the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to prevent rival gaming casinos from siphoning off its Texas customers. He paid Reed as a consultant, and Reed lobbied to get the Alabama-Coushatta and Tigua casinos closed in Texas.

In the Nov. 30, 2001, e-mail, Reed told Abramoff that 50 pastors led by Ed Young, of Second Baptist Church in Houston, would meet with Cornyn to urge him to shut down the Alabama-Coushatta tribe's casino near Livingston. He said Young would back up the request in writing.

"We have also choreographed Cornyn's response. The AG will state that the law is clear, talk about how much he wants to avoid repetition of El Paso (where the Tigua casino was) and pledge to take swift action to enforce the law," Reed wrote. "He will also personally hand Ed Young a letter that commits him to take action in Livingston."

National Round-Up

By Phillip Martin

***Update*** Rawhide, over at Pinkdome, has written an excellent post titled "We're Still Here" that focuses on why Republicans shouldn't celebrate too long about yesterday's (sadly inevitable) results.

A look at a variety of stories about the results from other important items up for election yesterday:

Democrats won the governorships in both Virginia and New Jersey.

The Governator's slate of proposals were defeated in California. As CNN reported, the measures included "capping spending, removing legislators' redistricting powers; making teachers work five years instead of two to pass probation; and prohibiting public employee unions from using dues for political activities without the permission of their workers."

All eight members of the Pennsylvania school board that advocated intelligent design were easily defeated.

Feel free to leave any other results, comments, and discussions about all non-Prop 2 elections in the comments section below.

Election Night Open Thread

By Byron LaMasters

The campaigns are over, and I'll be watching returns tonight. Here's where to look to find results for races of national and Texas interest:

Virginia
New Jersey
Ohio
California
Texas
Houston City Races
Dallas Strong Mayor

U.S. Senate (Done) Meeting in Closed Session

By Phillip Martin

Update: The Senate is back, and there will be a Task Force of 6 United States Senators (3 from each party) to study "Phase 2" of the Intelligence Committee's investigation into the question of prewar intelligence -- who knew what, when they knew it, and if anything was hidden. The task force will report to the Senate leadership by November 14. The Democrat line seems to be that this investigation has been going on for 1 1/2 years, and it's time to see answers. The Republican line seems to be that they've been doing their job, and all of this was simply a stunt.

Well, anyone who ever complains that Democrats never stand up for what they believe in are going to have to get some new talking points.

Democrats in the United States Senate have shut down the U.S. Senate, accusing the Republican leadership and the Senate Intelligence Committee of putting politics ahead of the American people. The Democrats in minority want to talk about Iraq, the reasons we went to war, and how the White House may have manipulated information to sell the war to the American people.

The U.S. Senate is meeting in a closed door session -- no press, no cell phones, no blackberries, no pagers, no nothing -- and talking about why there has been no serious investigations into the corruption in the White House.

Here's what CNN is reporting:

Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, questioning intelligence that led to the Iraq war and deriding a lack of congressional inquiry.

"I demand on behalf of the America people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted," Democratic leader Harry Reid said.

Taken by surprise, Republicans derided the move as a political stunt.

"The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," said Majority Leader Bill Frist. "They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas," the Republican leader said.

This comes out on a day when President Bush had announced his plan to address the bird pandemic, and a day after he announced Alito as his newest nomination for the Supreme Court. Looks like the White House can't chance the subject that eaisly, as Democrats are hell bent on not letting the issue of what the White House knew before the war slip into the back pages of the newspapers.

There's lots of arguments for and against this. Sen. Frist, the Senate Majority Leaders, is accusing Democrats of "hijacking" the Senate and using a "publicity stunt" to shut down democracy.

At first blush, this seems a lot like what Texas Democrats did when they went to Ardmore, Oklahoma and New Mexico during the redistricting battles -- an extreme, admittedly risky move to draw the public's attention to problems they see with the Republican leadership...

Updates as I continue to get them...

DeLay Judge Removed

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Democratic Judge Bob Perkins, who was scheduled to preside over DeLay's trial, has now been removed by a fellow Democratic Judge from Bell County.

More will be developing, but one thing that isn't going to change no matter which judge lands this job, is the fact that in Texas we elect our judges, and we elect them on a partisan basis. Many of them donate to their respective parties. To us here, it's hardly a big deal, but it's great political fodder.

Of course the DeLay team will play off of this to the national media where most people don't understand this concept of electing partisan judges (I'm not a fan of it by the way). More to come.

We wish you a Merry Fitzmas

By Jim Dallas

Scooter Libby indicted, resigns.

Now, let's get back to serious issues.

For example, taxes. Tax reform is like granola. It just reeks of seriousness but, in the end, isn't really all that good for you.

Miers Withdraws Nomination

By Phillip Martin

From CNN:

President Bush on Thursday accepted the withdrawal of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, according to a statement from the White House.

In her letter to the president, Miers said she was "concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and its staff and it is not in the best interest of the country."

The White House said Miers had to withdraw over concerns that senators wanted documents of privileged discussions between the president and his top lawyer.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said.

It seems this nomination didn't work because the Senate simply wouldn't take President Bush's word that Harriet Miers was well qualified. I guess President Bush and Harriet Miers were the last two people to realize that.

Bait and Switch

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

DeLay Headlines today...

DeLay acknowledges failure to report defense fund donations

DeLay presses case against judge

By the way, Austin City Councilman Raul Alvarez will not seek re-election as he comes up against term limits (thoug in Austin 19,000 signatures gets you around the limit). This is the "Hispanic" seat on the council so it will be interesting to see who moves up the chain to run for the spot. Austin does not have council district; instead there is an 'understanding' that certain at large Place seats are expected to be Black or Hispanic, male or female.

DeLay Judge Named

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Statesman Breaking News:

Bell County District Judge C.W. Duncan has been appointed to decide whether state District Judge Bob Perkins of Austin should continue to preside over former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's criminal case. A hearing has been set for 10 a.m. Nov. 1 in Austin.

Wrap-Up of John Edwards Speech

By Phillip Martin

I just got back from the Opportunity Rocks event in the Texas Union Ballroom, where Senator John Edwards talked about the way students can take charge of the grassroots movement to fight poverty. After the speech, I got a chance -- along with fellow bloggers Pinkdome and In the Pink Texas -- to meet John Edwards and ask him some questions.

Details of the speech and the questions we asked him can be found by clicking on the jump below, but here is one question I was able to ask:

PM: You mentioned the need for leadership that will stand up for the core beliefs of the Democratic party, that we need to lead, and not follow, if we want to show the country where we want to take America. As you know, there are opposite spectrums of the Democratic Party, and the moral priorities of the people they represent are extremely different. How do we persuade people that don't agree with our politics to work on issues like poverty?

Edwards: Whether you're on the far right or the far left, there is no question that the issue needs to be discussed. People will have different ideas about what we need to fix it, and that's fine, but first we need to recognize the problem...There's no ideological basis for fighting poverty -- we just need to help these people. They don't want a Democrat or a Republican. They want a champion. They want to feed their kids, and I think any person of either ideology can understand that and should work to help.

More questions, and details of his speech, after the jump.

Here are the four main proposals he discussed about how best to fight poverty:

1) Pass real labor law reforms, and increase the minimum wage.
2) Create housing vouchers for poor families across the country, so we no longer separate the rich and the poor in our communities.
3) Finance work bonds that match money that poor families are able to set aside into savings accounts.
4) Support a pilot program he's started called "College for Everyone," where any student that qualifies, isn't in trouble, and does 10 hours of work study their first year will be guaranteed free tuition and books.

Have You Hugged A Self-Identified ModerateToday?

By Jim Dallas

Paul Waldman argues that the American people aren't conservative, and that "[t]he Democrats' 'liberal' problem isn't about issues, it's about identity."

In addition to being self-flattering, the Waldman theory also happens to explain a few phenomena evident in polling that the simplistic "21-34-45" theory does not.

At any rate, I have one quibble; Waldman's salve is to start attacking conservatism. That's great... but... I'd argue that the current identity problem exists not just because the term "liberal" has low valence but because "conservative" has high valence. That is, after all, Waldman's rationale. The sticky point is this: how do you attack conservatism without making conservatives think that you are making a judgment on them personally?

And indeed, this may be part of our problem. If I had a dime for every GOPer who complained about the "preachy moralism" of the "Left," I'd be a rich man.

Accordingly, I would argue a more effective strategy would be to explain in rational terms, "this is what liberalism can do for you and your family." And no, not in the stale, technocratic "teh pR3SKRIPSHUN DRUGGS!!!11!!!1!one" way either.

Incidentally, Jason Stanford said basically the same thing the other day:

Yes, we need to get the folks in the middle of the spectrum to vote Democratic, but we can't do it by offering store-brand cola (Tastes just like Coke, but it's really cheap!). We need to capture their imagination and offer a compelling vision of the future that takes us all in a different direction.

Which, if you've been paying attention, is exactly what Chris Bell is trying to do.

Agreed.

DeLay: Warrent for your Arrest

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Greetings: You are hereby commanded to arrest: Thomas Dale DeLay.

Remember, it's not a crime to be a conservative, but it is a crime to be criminally corrupt! Book 'em, Dano!

Senate Committee Probing Miers For More Texas Data, White House Info

By Vince Leibowitz

I haven't seen much on BOR in recent days about the Miers nomination, and ran across some interesting sutff via SCOTUSBlog, which I thought I'd post and expound on.

In particular, SCOTUSblog links to a letter from Sens. Specter and Leahey requesting Miers supplement her answers to a previous set of questions she received from the Judiciary Committee. And, they're asking some things about her Texas work. In the letter, the Senators asked Miers to:

"Please supplement your answer to this question, listing all reports, memoranda, or policy statements prepared, produced with your participation, or produced under your guidance during the time in which you served in any public office, including your various positions at the Dallas Bar Association, the State Bar of Texas, the American Bar Association or any of your positions in the White House. Please also provide the Committee with any policy position documents or questionnaires you filled out while running for Dallas City Council. Specifically, if you sought particular group endorsements or responded to position questions by particular groups in the community, please describe and append relevant materials."

With regard to the State Bar stuff, I believe the Committee is referring to Miers effort in 1993, while Texas State Bar president, to persuade the American Bar Association to abandon its abortion-rights stance.

Of course, litigation concerning her former firm means Texas legal powerhouse Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP.

The Dallas City Council material obviously refers to a Texans United for Life survey Miers filled out in 1989 when running for Dallas City Council, which included the following question, to which Miers responded, "YES:"

"If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature?"

Miers' full responses to the questions, which are now online via the Washington Post, shed light on the former Lottery Commission chairwoman's legal activities, and include some interesting Texans whom she opposed or served as co-counsel with. Miers also states that she represented Smith County, Texas, though no specific information is stated concerning when or concerning what she represented them on.

For example, one of Miers' numerous co-counsels in Microsoft Corp. v. Manning, 914 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. App. exarkana 1995, pet. dism'd), was none other than Max Sandlin, Jr.

And, the infamous Andy Taylor rears his head, too. Taylor was co-counsel for the Texas electors in Jones vs. Bush, the case concerning whether or not Cheney was a Texas resident, and concerning whether or not the president and vice president may be from the same state.

Miers also represented a woman in a Social Secutiry Death Benefits case with her sister-in-law (and 5th District Court of Appeals Justice) Elizabeth Lang-Miers.

And, in Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Esprit Finance, Inc., 981 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. App. an Antonio 1998, pet. dism'd w.o.j.), Miers was opposed by none other than Carlos Zaffirin, the attorney husband of State Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo).

Vince Leibowitz is former County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County, Texas, and is semi-regular contributor to Burnt Orange Report. He may be reached at Vince_Leibowitz-at-verizon.net

Odds and Ends

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

West Campus here in Austin has a lot of development going on right now, with last year's rezoning of the region. The Statesman had an interesting article about it earlier in the month.

The only reason I bring this up is because it's the best tie in I could think of to ask you to fill out a fellow blogger's survey for his stats project. You need only answer if you are actually renting the place you currently live. Answer his one question survey here.

Speaking of money, if you are a local candidate or campaign, you might think about buying a BlogAd. As you may have noticed, for the first time in months, we have a period of no advertisers. I'd take advantage of this lull as there are some more national buys coming later in the month and it's prime time for a buy. I've even noticed an uptick in people clicking on the Google Ads instead because that tower is now up at the top of the page.

Many times I use BlogAds sales to turn right around in my giving to local political action. For instance, I'll be making about $100 of recent income available to campus efforts to defeat Constitutional Amendment 2. We blog because we care, not because we're going to get rich!

You, too, can be a member of the liberal elite!

By Jim Dallas

Kevin Drum catches Rammesh Ponnuru telling us to take our latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading (maybe not, but I digress), Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Oklahoma, where it belongs:

In 1997, Republicans lost a special election in the 22nd House district of California. I talked to a well-known Republican strategist afterward, and he blamed, in part, social-conservative activists who had run ads on abortion during the campaign. The strategist said that this was a stupid move "in a wine-and-brie coastal California district." It was a nice line at the time. But my impression is that the proportion of our population that consumes either wine or brie, or both together, has gone up since then. (If I were David Brooks, I'd have the data, straight from American Demographics, at my fingertips.) Hasn't the insult lost its bite? I thought of this when I read a crack against elites that mentioned bottled water. It sure seems as though drinking bottled water has ceased to be an elite activity. Back in 1997, conservatives could mock latte towns--but you can find latte in any town you're in nowadays. Conclusion: We need some new put-downs. (Confession: I like brie and wine, have occasionally had a latte, and buy bottled water for my family--but that last point reflects the high lead content in D.C. water rather than a preference on my part.)

Incidentally, the economic elite... that's another story entirely.

Anti-Earle Ads Running in Austin

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

As locals may have started noticing, the 'barking dog' anti-Earle commercials are now being broadcast here in Austin. Why? Because it's part of a Republican strategy to make the issue of corruption, not about Tom DeLay (because he's certainly not corrupt) but about a District Attorney who's prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans and was popularly elected county wide without Republican opposition last fall.

Watch the ad here.

I think my favorite part is the end of the ad, where the narrator urges people to call Earle (the phone number goes to the office of the DA, I called tonight) and "tell him it's not a crime to be a conservative."

No, it's not a crime to be conservative. But it is a crime to be corrupt or commit criminal acts.

In the meantime, Earle has subpoenaed DeLay's home phone and car records.

Some Poll Numbers

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Anyone else find it amusing that in the latest CBS poll Bush is now tied with the gas/oil crisis as the US's Most Important Problem, one point above Terrorism?

Bush, a bigger problem than Terrorism...

His new approval? 37/58
Right/Wrong Track? 26/69

How low can you go? How low can you go...

(Oh and gays who have been celibate for 3 years may soon be able to become Catholic priests according to leaked reports from the Vatican.) (PD)

Rove Under Fire Yet Again

By John Pruett

Frances Lovett, a 15 year resident and registered voter in Kerr County, filed a formal complaint today with the Kerr District Attorney over presidential advisor Karl Rove's voter registration status. This new complaint comes one month after the Texas Secretary of State's office determined that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) could not submit a similar complaint. Under Texas law, the complaint must be filed with the county by a resident.

Ms. Lovett and CREW argue that Rove cannot be legally registered as a voter in Kerr County since he does not legitimately reside there. CREW's press release issued today states:

County property records show that Mr. Rove and his wife have owned two tiny rental cottages in Kerr County since 1997, the largest of which is only 814 feet and is valued by the county at $25,000. In contrast, the Roves’ Washington, D.C. home is valued at over $1.1 million.

CREW's initial filing arose from questions surrounding Rove's claim for homestead tax exemptions and property tax cap on his Washington, DC. home while claiming similar exemptions on his property in Texas. Elizabeth Reyes, an attorney with the Texas Secretary of State's office was later fired after "violating press protocols" when she spoke about the issue with the Washington Post.

Lovett's formal complaint calls for an investigation and for Rove's subsequent conviction. I'm sure that I'm more excited about the prospect than Rove is right now, especially since he's potentially facing charges for the Plame affair. It's unfortunate though that Rove's violation of Texas election law only counts as a Class B misdemeanor. Either way, Bush would probably whip out a pardon before he let his buddy face punishment.