“The word conservative means discriminatory practically. It’s a form of political discrimination. What do the Republicans run on? Against gay marriage and for a war that makes no sense. A war that was based on faulty intelligence. That’s all they ever talk about. That and immigration. Another discriminatory argument for political gain.” Basketball legend Charles Barkley sets the story straight about his political affiliation: “I was a Republican – until they lost their minds.” (Via Now This.)
Category: Election 2006
Res ipsa loquitur.
“This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy…If left unchecked, the president’s practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries.” Then, again, I could be sold on the merits of bar associations…if they continue to call out Dubya for trampling on our Constitution.
Here’s to Hamdan.
“If another nation’s leader adopted such positions, the United States would be quick to condemn him or her for violating fundamental tenets of the rule of law, human rights, and the separation of powers. But President Bush has largely gotten away with it, at least at home, for at least three reasons. His party holds a decisive majority in Congress, making effective political checks by that branch highly unlikely. The Democratic Party has shied away from directly challenging the president for fear that it will be viewed as soft on terrorism. And the American public has for the most part offered only muted objections. These realities make the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, issued on the last day of its 2005-2006 term, in equal parts stunning and crucial.” In related news, as seen at both Salon and Mother Jones (as well as the New York Review of Books), author and law professor David Cole underlines the importance of the Hamdan decision in preserving the rule of law and throttling Dubya’s unchecked power grabs of late.
Crushed at the Stem.
As y’all probably know by now, Dubya — so eager to exploit and enlargen executive power in other arenas — vetoed his first bill in five years yesterday, when he decided to capitulate to the sad remnants of his base, set back medical science a few more years, and nip stem cell research in the bud once again. While Dubya said the bill would have forced “American taxpayers…for the first time in our history…to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos,” he made no argument for criminalizing fertility clinics, where similar embryos get tossed away unused every day. “‘If that’s murder, how come the president allows that to continue?’ asked Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). ‘Where is his outrage?’ Harkin called the veto ‘a shameful display of cruelty, hypocrisy and ignorance.‘”
Reed Ruined.
Stick a fork in him — As suspected, former Christian Coalition wunderkind and Casino Jack flunky Ralph Reed is politically finished after being forced to concede the Georgia Lieutenant Governor’s race, a campaign he was a mortal lock to win before his Abramoff shenanigans leaked. Almost as sweet as Reed’s comeuppance, we now know that, despite the GOP’s gamble, the Ballad of Casino Jack does in fact play at the polls this election season. Better start dancin’, Boehner…
Joementum Stalls.
And is dubious Democrat Joe Lieberman finished as well? (At least in the party, that is.) A new Quinnipac poll shows him trailing challenger Ned Lamont 51-47 for the first time in the Connecticut primary, which takes place August 8. (Although, loath to make the same mistake as his former running mate, Lieberman has the one and only Bill Clinton — a man who knows how to survive an inappropriate kiss or two — coming to town on Monday to campaign for him.) Update: Clinton makes the case.
Jack’s Dates with Dubya.
Can Congress solve the Abramoff-Dubya riddle where Judicial Watch failed? Let’s hope so. The House Government Reform Committee subpoenas Casino Jack’s former law firm for information regarding his White House visits.
A Reed in the Wind.
“‘There’s confusion among the Christian conservatives,’ Mr. Towery, the pollster, said. ‘I’m not going to say Cagle’s taking the base, but he’s picking away at it.’” In related news, the NYT surveys the ailing political fortunes of Abramoff accomplice Ralph Reed, now fighting for his political life in a GOP primary for Georgia Lieutenant Governor that takes place this Tuesday. “Mr. Reed’s critics seized on the scandal as proof that he had deployed his Christian supporters for profit. ‘Ralph Reed sold out our values,’ Mr. Cagle’s advertisements say, calling him ‘hypocritical and immoral’ and accusing him of ‘manipulating Christians for casinos.’” Yep, sounds about right.
Post-Hamdan Politicking…
As the legislative and judicial branches struggle to rein in Dubya’s excesses, recent Senate testimony on the treatment of Gitmo detainees reveals fissues within the administration’s approach to the Hamdan ruling: “The testimony has shown that the Justice Department — which had insisted on the legality of the existing policy — is eager to sharply limit the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision, while military lawyers and some other Pentagon officials are celebrating it as a vindication of their long-held concerns about U.S. detainee policy.” Update: “The President is always right?” (Via Looka.)
…and Dubya’s FISA double down.
Meanwhile, in another recent reversal — one likely precipitated by both the Hamdan case and pending lawsuits by the ACLU and others — the Dubya White House agrees to a deal put forth by Arlen “paper tiger” Specter that would put the NSA warrantless wiretaps to a constitutional review by the FISA court. But the trick, as many Dems have pointed out, is under this deal the FISA court would only do a general review of the wiretap program, rather than conduct the individual case-by-case reviews that the law has always demanded: “Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) criticized the agreement, saying he will oppose ‘any bill that would grant blanket approval for warrantless surveillance of Americans, particularly when this administration has never explained why it believes that current law allowing surveillance of terrorist suspects is inadequate.’“