Posts

Showing posts from January, 2006

Bush's State of the Union 2006

A weak speech from a weak President leading his Party into a year of political defeat.

the Alito Senate Vote weighted for population

The final Senate vote confirming Associate Justice Samuel Alito today for a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court was 58-42. (54 Republicans and 4 Democrats made up the "YES" votes. 40 Democrats, 1 Republican and 1 Independent made up the "NO" votes.) If we weight each Senator's vote with half the population of his or her home state the following totals represent the Alito Senate Vote weighted for population: The 58 Senators voting YES on Alito = 146,713,748 citizens The 42 Senators voting NO on Alito = 146,397,932 citizens Now, each Senator, according to our Constitution has an equal vote. Senators represent their states, and each state, regardless of population, has two Senators. I print this weighted analysis simply to make a political point: Do not let anyone tell you our nation is not closely divided about our Supreme Court and Samuel Alito. Do not let anyone tell you that the support for Samuel Alito was a "slam dunk." Every Se

post-Alito

Here's some post-Alito thoughts on Democratic strategy. First, I think, as a basic political principle, debates regarding strategy within a political party should be done with respect and realism. That was why I thought Markos's Reality Check post showed leadership.  Markos did two things: he highlighted the broader 2006 political strategy that most Democrats can agree on. he highlighted how strategic differences about a Filibuster, and even Samuel Alito's confirmation itself, directly relate to that 2006 electoral strategy.  ie. Kos did not just say, "Elect more Democrats" as folks have reported somewhat unfairly, he said, "Elect more Democrats who would have taken a concerted stand against the confirmation of Samuel Alito." That's significant.  It highlights a broad common ground where we can come together. That being said, my post in support of Markos, this moment , added something to the mix that I'd like to revisit: We need a generatio

the Alito cloture vote

{lol, I wrote this last night and failed to post it, I was so tired!} I worked a long day today and, while I'm aware of the results in the Senate: I don't feel I have much to add to the discussion here in the netroots since I haven't been close to that discussion. One simple observation that occurs to me, however, is to note that the Dean model of "fighting" in 2004 seemed to offer a response to the "cynicism" of Nader in 2000 for progressive activists. The two groups of people, Deans supporters and Nader supporters don't necessarily overlap. But.... Dean's call for 'backbone' had real appeal to people in our corner of the political world: Bloggers, netroots and liberal activists, people who like to debate progressive ideas and issues. Dean's fight provided Democratic activists someplace to point when Nader supports argued about the Democrat's lack backbone. Today's result, as predictable as it was, turned alot of that up

the Roberts Test ii

Today, regardless of their likelihood of success, Senators opposing the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court will have their last, most-focused opportunity to make the case against him. For those Senators supporting a filibuster of Judge Alito, a filibuster that many in this country do not even know is being attempted, it will be a chance to explain their rationale for undertaking such a serious action. Whether or not this filibuster effort is successful, what is said today will be significant. The message sent must have unity and principle.  It must also be tactical and clear Some oppose Samuel Alito simply because he is "too extreme". Some oppose him for his views on Choice and his refusal to accept Roe v Wade . Some oppose him for a judicial philoshopy that, the record shows, is antithetical to the little guy.  Some oppose him for his views on executive power.  All of these reasons are sufficient for any Senator to vote no on Samuel Alito; they form a laundry

churning or building?

I look at the citizen activism of the last few days with real, albeit critical, respect. So far, I don't have that same respect for the Democratic Senators. Some of it is that I don't really see great leadership in the Kerry / Kennedy Thursday call out. It was late. It was not done on TV, in the United States, for the world to see. It was not done with a unified, succinct, principled message that went out to every American and not just our base. And the timing: announcing a "call to support a filibuster" after so many in the Democratic Senate caucus had said they opposed, leads me to question what the hell is going on here. Is this a serious filibuster or is this about some other agenda? That is a valid question. I distrust churning. Whether from the netroots or from our Senators. I would point out, even to my activist allies here on the web, that spamming phone numbers in comment threads may be exciting and thrilling: but it is not the same thing as concer

Ben Stein

Ben Stein has an absolutely scathing and brilliant piece up in the New York Times.... read it ...

the Roberts test

When Chief Justice John Roberts came before the Senate Judiciary committee he affirmed that the decision Roe v Wade was settled law. We should call that minimum standard, ie. accepting Roe v Wade as settled law, "the Roberts test." Judge Samuel Alito does not pass the Roberts test. Samuel Alito refused, before the very same Judiciary committee Chief Justice John Roberts faced, to accept Roe v Wade as settled law, even though he was given every chance to do so and every chance to explain himself. A nominee who does not pass the "Roberts test" is, de facto, too extreme to serve on the Supreme Court, and merits a filibuster and a "no" vote on cloture. This standard is moderate and reasonable. Indeed, John Roberts has impeccable credentials as a conservative. He is, after all, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court nominated by President George W. Bush. Chief Justice Roberts recently joined Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, nominated by President Ronald

a Filibuster for Choice

There are different kinds of filibusters: There are filibusters organized well ahead of time by one party in lock-step message discipline. There are filibusters that are the work of one lone Senator with an issue or a cause. There are filibusters that are attempted simply for "show"...doomed to fail...and intended more to make a political point or to rally the base than to actually succeed. We don't have the first, we won't likely get the second, and I am not alone in having real problems with the third. There is another category emerging now: a movement filibuster driven by principle. If we are going to filibuster, we should be serious. If we are going to filibuster, we should intend to succeed. If we are going to filibuster, we need to look down the road at possible consequences inside and outside our party and take responsibility for them. If we are going to make a stand, we need to clearly stake out our ground of complaint and stick to it. If we are going

this moment

{This post is a dkos diary that I'm publishing here since dkos is currently slow as molassess.) There are times when the tide changes, there are generational shifts. This is one of those times. There are times when you lose that you pick yourself up and promise yourself to fight harder next time. There are times when you lose...and it sure as hell looks like we're gonna lose...that you pick yourself up and say to yourself, "It's not just about fighting harder next time, we have to find a new way to fight ." This moment is one of those times. :: John Kerry came to dailykos yesterday to call for a filibuster. In essence, the Senator called on all of us to fight harder . That is his right. But I want to point out that Markos came to dailykos yesterday and reiterated his call for finding a new way to fight . Markos called on us to bring a heavy dose of pragmatism to the battle...to see the political and media battlefield, the balance of power in Washington and in

the Alito Senate vote by population (updated)

If we give each Senator the weight of half the population of his or her home state this is how the current Yes and No votes on the Senate floor break down. Senators voting "Yes" on Alito : 145,147,446 citizens Senators voting "No" on Alito: 131,456,084 citizens Undeclared Senators: 16,181,968 citizens Since most of the undeclared Senators are Democrats, these numbers may well get closer. (The numbers have been updated to reflect: Susan Collins (R) of Maine is a YES. Robert Byrd (D) of VA is a YES. Thomas Carper (D) of Delaware is a NO, Stevens (R) of Alaska YES, Pryor (D) of Arkansas NO, Obama (D) Illinois, NO, Cantwell (D) of Washington is NO. Dayton (D) of MN is NO, Sarbanes (D) of Maryland is NO.) These totals, of course, have no bearing on the Senate vote. The Senate, per our Constitution, has absolutely nothing to do with the population of the individual states. Every Senator's vote is equal. I publish these numbers strictly to make a political poin

Alito endgame: a look back

The New York Times today headlines its op-ed page with the title: Spineless Senators . Read it. It's worthwhile and expresses this moment well. Here are some of the pieces I've written about Alito in the last weeks. I think they add up: 12 Common Sense Reasons to Oppose Alito Supreme Court Surprise Samuel Alito at Princeton the light switch Months ago, however, I wrote a comment here in response to a question of why I opposed Alito on the basis of his gender. I focused on questions of legitimacy that would surround an 8-1 male Supreme Court. I think those questions have weight: Race and gender equity don't just "happen"...equity, or fairness, is a value based on the understanding that diversity creates both a positive strength (better debate, more rounded points of view) and a legitimacy that its absence lacks. The brutal reality is that we don't get diversity by "happy accident" even though I would argue that equitabe representation is a force

what education cuts?

Ryan at the Higher Pie gets this one just right....

democracy bonds

Blogger katiebird , who writes on diet and health issues eat4today had a great comment in the Casey thread yesterday that summed up Democracy Bonds . I haven't written about them yet, so I thought I'd just post her comment here for everyone: Kid Oakland -- I like your idea of sending money for targeted campaigns. But, I'm giving the Democracy Bond idea a chance for my out-of-state contributions. I really like the idea of the DNC putting year-round staff in every state (they're already in every state -- now they're going to hire even more). They are hiring local people to build the party at the local level. I think it's a fantastic idea. These people will be recruiting candidates for all levels of offices. The idea is that if 1 million people will contribute an average of $20 a month -- that's $20 million a month, and wow! Think of the organizing they can do -- for the campaigns you mention and campaigns against every Republican Senator, even in states like

Casey endorses Alito

Hardly surprising or shocking. Casey figures he can do whatever the hell he wants at this point, and he's probably right. Some folks say give $$ to Chuck Pennachio , Casey's Democratic primary opponent. I can't argue with that, even if that seems a pretty hopeless cause. My money would go to Klobuchar in Minnesota. If you're angry about Casey...help Amy Klobuchar defeat "Santorum-wannabe" Mark Kennedy (R) for the MN Senate seat that Democrat Mark Dayton is leaving. Casey / Kennedy replacing Santorum / Dayton would be a net negative, if you ask me. Truth is, Amy Klobuchar will need all the help she can get.

McCloskey.....IN

That's some big news from CA-11. A Republican challenge to Richard Pombo! If you haven't checked out "the best opposition blog going"...and you can quote me... SayNotoPombo ...the article at the link is a great introduction to how McCloskey impacts the race to unseat Richard Pombo in CA-11. In true SayNotoPombo fashion...it's written from an on the ground perspective. Like right THERE. 2006 just got more interesting.

democrats 2006

Here are five strategy proposals for the Democratic Party in 2006: 1. The absolute first organizing principle for everything we do, bar none, is to take back the House of Representatives within the next two election cycles. We may not be able to take back the House in 2006, but we should run with that goal as our clear intention. We should calibrate our campaigns, our message, our fundraising and our coordinated grass roots efforts with this as our first priority. Now, of course, the Senate, the State Houses, and the Presidency are equally significant. I'm not saying they aren't. But the Democrats need to remember this essential nugget and its corollary: a majority party seeks to win a majority in the House of Representatives , and a party that does not seek to win the House is, de facto, the LOSER in American politics. In 2002 and 2004 we looked like a party that was just, you know, trying to avoid being locked out altogether, and what happened. We got locked out. The

the medicare drug disaster: enough is enough

This article from the NYT made my blood boil. If you're anything like me, it'll do that to you, too. On the seventh day of the new Medicare drug benefit, Stephen Starnes began hearing voices again, ominous voices, and he started to beg for the medications he had been taking for 10 years. But his pharmacy could not get approval from his Medicare drug plan, so Mr. Starnes was admitted to a hospital here for treatment of paranoid schizophrenia. Mr. Starnes, 49, lives in Dayspring Village, a former motel that is licensed by the State of Florida as an assisted living center for people with mental illness. [ snip ] Mix-ups in the first weeks of the Medicare drug benefit have vexed many beneficiaries and pharmacists. Dr. Steven S. Sharfstein, president of the American Psychiatric Association, said the transition from Medicaid to Medicare had had a particularly severe impact on low-income patients with serious, persistent mental illnesses. Robert Pear's excellent "Medicare W

an american psychodrama

One of the reasons that the GOP controls America is that our political establishment resembles nothing more than a dysfunctional family. Like all dysfunctional families there’s been bad behaviour all around: Daddy’s abusive, mommy’s a doormat, big brother is loyal to dad even though he resents how dad treats him, big sister knows a secret but she isn’t telling. And, yeah, the above would be ludicrous, if not a little bit pathetic, if it wasn’t so true. I bet, right off the bat, many of you could decode this analogy of the American Establishment without looking at the key below. (For all the literalist nudniks out there...it's the analogy that rings true. No implication regarding anyone's actual family life is intended herein...god forbid!): Daddy = the GOP Mommy = the Democratic Party Big Brother = Corporations and American professional institutions Big Sister = the media Call it the psychodrama of our day. :: Father doesn’t know best. George Lakoff has been quite articulat

Iran

Jeanne, at Body and Soul, has a nuanced post up on Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, including a great quote from Shirin Ebadi.

hypocrisy with a smile

Shortly after the 2004 election an ebullient President George W. Bush took what amounted to a “victory lap” press conference at the White House. The President was asked by one reporter to describe how he felt. That question, and Bush’s response, are worth reading in full: Q Do you feel more free, sir? THE PRESIDENT: Oh, in terms of feeling free, well, I don't think you'll let me be too free. There's accountability and there are constraints on the presidency, as there should be in any system. I feel -- I feel it is necessary to move an agenda that I told the American people I would move. Something refreshing about coming off an election, even more refreshing since we all got some sleep last night, but there's -- you go out and you make your case, and you tell the people this is what I intend to do. And after hundreds of speeches and three debates and interviews and the whole process, where you keep basically saying the same thing over and over again, that when you wi

Samuel Alito at Princeton

Samuel Alito found his experience at Princeton University in the late-60s and early 70s so jarring he mentioned it in his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee: [I was an undergraduate at Princeton] in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was a time of turmoil at colleges and universities. And I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly. And I couldn't help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community. This is an interesting, fascinating and powerful statement. Though the above may seem to be an innocuous biographical observation, it is, indeed, a powerful key to understanding Samuel Alito's temperment and judicial character. In fact, the above statement makes a powerful implicit argument against Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Let's take a look. First of all, the late 60s and early 70s were "a time of turm