RockThrower

Rick Santorum

Now that is slimy.

Kimberly Hefling of The Associated Press has a great story today reporting that Sen. Rick Santorum collected more than $100,000 from Florida donors during the first three months of 2005, when the Pennsylvania Republican maintained a high profile in the fight over Terri Schiavo.  Santorum received the bulk of the money -- $84,300 -- on March 31, the day the Florida woman died, according to an analysis by PoliticalMoneyLine. While in Florida on March 29, Santorum prayed outside Schiavo's hospice room with her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler.

Shower anybody?

Schiavo Case: Will Republicans Overreach ?

An Out of Control "Moral" Majority?

Do you now or have you ever used Steroids? What's next, naming names?

While baseball looks bad for failing to police performance enhancing drug use, existing state and federal laws, not to mention a new League drug policy provide more than adequate tools to address the issue.

The Republican-led Congress on the other hand appears to be out of control, seeking opportunities for political grandstanding wherever they may find them. Emboldened by their recent electoral victories, and prodded by their conservative Christian supporters, Republicans are turning over every rock in search of political opportunities to build their majority in 2006.

Which is why the only person happier than baseball chief Bud Selig to see the Terri Schiavo case catch fire was Republican Whip Tom Delay.  The Schiavo case was a two-fer for a scandal plagued Delay and the Republican majority.  Not only did it blow news coverage of Delay's dealings off the front page, but according to a report in the Washington Post, a political memo distributed to Republican members of Congress calls the case a "a great political issue" that will appeal to the party base or core supporters."

Never mind that Congress has no jurisdiction in the matter and that the action trashes Constitutional protections of state's rights, conservative Republicans backed by their far right Christian-base see this as a golden opportunity for expanding the "pro-life agenda in the 2006 elections.  Apparently the Constitution no longer applies to cases where the religious right wants their way.

As the Los Angeles Times editorial page wrote in "The Midnight Coup" an editorial on the intervention of Congress, "this case once again shows that some social conservatives are happy to see the federal government acquire Stalinist proportions when imposing their morality on the rest of the country."

And so on Monday morning, leaving Ariel Sharon at the ranch to tend the cows, President Bush cut short his Texas vacation to fly back to Washington DC to sign legislation seeking to force the Courts to reinsert a feeding tube into a woman who has been brain dead for fifteen years.  Too bad Bush didn't move so quickly to prevent the loss of life when he was presented with a memo detailing an imminent terrorist threat a few years back while on vacation at the Ranch.  Maybe we should have had Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council give it to him.

The hypocrisy of the Republicans on this issue knows no bounds.  Republican leaders are spouting endlessly about how deeply Republicans care about states rights and how Republicans will protect those rights, and then in the next breath saying that Congress was right to intervene in the Schiavo case.

As I understand their reasoning, states apparently have rights, as long as Republican members of Congress and their conservative Christian supporters agree with them.  The Republican majority apparently seems to feel that it can make up the rules as it goes along. 

But this Republican hubris is making some folks nervous. In a recent analysis, Gary Langer, director of polling for ABC News, reports that "Americans broadly and strongly disapprove of federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, with sizable majorities saying Congress is overstepping its bounds for political gain. The ABC News Poll finds that the public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case.  More than two thirds of the public say it is inappropriate for Congress to get involved.  The public's sentiments apppear to back Terri Schiavo's husband Mike who on ABC"s Good Morning America news program Monday said "This is a sad day for Terri. But I'll tell you what, it's also is a sad day for everyone in this country because the United States government is going to come in and trample all over your personal, family matters."

"Republicans might want to take a good look at those numbers before they overreach on this issue.  And while they are at it, they might want to remember that the United States grew into the world's strongest Democracy by living under the rule of law, not the whims of the religious right.

Howard Dean

Dean May be the Right Guy at the Right Time -- If Democrat's Don't Castrate Him First.

I'm not wild about Howard Dean being named as Chair of the Democratic National Committee.  My reasons however are not based on any concern about Dean's effectiveness in doing the job, but rather on my hope that he would continue to be a rockthrowing outsider who would tell the nation when the president isn't wearing any clothes. (Which appears to be most of the time.) But unlike Jonathan Chait of The New Republic, who in a recent opinion article in the Los Angeles Times asked " Are Democrats suicidally crazy? " I don't think it's such a bad idea.  And here's why.

First off, things aren't as bad as they seem. A review of the electoral map shows that John Kerry, "the most liberal member of the Senate", came within one state (Ohio) of defeating an incumbent President.  Dean is taking over a Democratic Party that is not as far behind as some would have you believe 

Secondly, the assessment of the electoral map and call to focus on "moral values" in an appeal to "southern voters" by  some Democrats is flat out wrong.  Instead of focusing on southern states they probably can’t win by acting like Republicans, Democrats should  focus on Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico, and take steps to secure states in the upper Midwest. Dean understands that Democrats won't win by being "Republican Lite."  Additionally, his new organization, Democracy for America has already made inroads in Western states and Dean will appeal to newer younger voters whose immigration to those states is changing the shape of the electorate.

Third, Howard Dean isn't as liberal as a lot of people have spent a lot of time and money trying to make Americans believe.  As Governor of Vermont, he was a downright penny pincher who cut taxes, trimmed spending and balanced the budget.  (Note to President Bush, you might want to read up on how that works.) His record of fiscal conservatism will serve Democrats well as they position themselves for the next election.

Most importantly for a party chairman, Dean has proven that he excels at the basics of political campaigns --  Money, Message and Organization.

When it comes to money, Dean turned the political world on its head last year by raising record sums in the Democratic primary by reaching out to donors small and large through an innovative Internet-based strategy.  Dean's success paved the way for Democrats to be able to compete financially with Republicans in the general election.  Even after he dropped out of the race, Dean was able to use his fundraising skills to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Senate and congressional candidates.  Dean's fund raising prowess will serve the Democratic party well and help to even the playing field in the upcoming congressional elections.

More than money, the Democrats need a message and a messenger to deliver it. It was Dean's ability to connect with average voters that first launched him onto the national stage.  He was the first Democrat to stand up and in effect say the President was wrong, that the war in Iraq was mismanaged, that his actions were making America less safe, and that his policies were ruining the economy. He came across as honest and credible, and his message rang true for a large swath of Americans who were greatly concerned their country was headed in the wrong direction.  And in the final weeks of the election, he more than proved himself as an advocate for John Kerry, challenging President Bush and making the case for a Kerry presidency. The Democrats desperately need a spokesperson with national stature who can challenge the President and offer an alternative message. Based on his pabulum like response to the President's state of the nation address, Harry Reid isn't going to cut it.  Dean offers the Democrats the ability to reach out to voters who are increasingly disenchanted with the leadership of President Bush.  The latest Associated Press/Ipsos poll shows the Presidents job approval ratings are sinking and that a growing number of Americans think the Country is on the wrong track. Democrats need to capitalize on that public disenchantment.  Dean can do that, and while he is at if, offer cover to elected officials who need to run in conservative states and congressional districts and may not be as free as Dean is to challenge the President.

I also think that Dean can deliver an effective message to voters who may feel ignored by the Democratic party. One of the most important if controversial things that Dean said during the primaries was that "Democrats need to talk with the guys in Pick-Up Trucks, the ones with Confederate flags."  He may have said it poorly, but he was absolutely right.  There is no justifiable reason that blue collar workers who have been laid off from manufacturing jobs by the thousands should continue to vote against their own economic interests by supporting Republicans whose policies are basically robbing the working poor and middle class to benefit the rich. Democrats cannot continue to let Republicans divert voters from their own economic interests by framing elections as choices over moral values.  Fiscal responsibility is a moral value, a good job that can support a family is a moral value.  Dean understands that and is committed to reaching out to those voters.

As for organization, the rap on Dean is that he is is not a good manager. In his article, Chait sites several campaign types who complain about Dean's management of his presidential campaign.  I have no idea if those claims have any merit, but they are irrelevant.  It's not a candidates job to manage a major campaign, and it should not be Dean's job to manage the day to day functions of the Democratic National Committee.  That's why candidates hire campaign managers, and that is why Dean will hire a skilled manager to run DNC operations. But there is another way to look at the importance of "organization," and that is the ability to engage and organize voters on behalf of a candidate or cause.  At that, Dean has more than proven his merit. His ground breaking use of the Internet during the primaries to create "meet-ups" engaged thousands of new voters in the political process.  And since the primary, Dean's Democracy for America has focused like a laser beam on grassroots development, energizing voters and electing dozens of Democratic candidates at the state and local level.  That experience can only help to re-energize the Democrat's grassroots organizational efforts.

Maybe Chait and other Democrats are right, maybe Dean will be a disaster.  But I think that Dean may bring the right combination of skills and talents to the job of DNC chairman at what is possibly a turning point for Democrats. The only thing I really worry about is that "Democratic leaders" may castrate him before he even gets started, turning him into just another voiceless eunuch without anything meaningful to say.

A Lovely Bunch

" Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" Lord Acton

Hitler had Hans Frank and Carl Schmitt.  George W. Bush has Alberto Gonzalez and John Yoo. They are a lovely bunch, and don't forget, Clarence Thomas is waiting in the wings.

Gonzales, Bush's nominee for attorney general is on the hot seat for his memo basically condoning torture and absolving the president from criminal charges for the torture and abuse of prisoners in the name of national security. Despite this, his nomination will likely be approved by the Republican majority in the United States Senate. But before the Judiciary Committee slams down its rubber stamp, the American people ought to take a closer look at the parallels between the legal policies promoted by Gonzales and others in the Bush administration, and those in Nazi Germany.

Hans Frank and Carl Schmitt, to a great extent, developed the legal and philosophical frameworks of the Third Reich, cloaking its actions in rule of law and justifying its crimes in the name of defense of the nation.

Frank, who had been Hitler's personal attorney and served as president of the German Academy of Law during Hitler's rise to power, built the German legal system for a war of aggression to benefit the homeland.  In a speech before the Academy of German Law in November 1939 he said. "We are proud to have formulated our legal principals from the very beginning in such a way that they need not be changed in the case of war.   For the rule, that right is that which is useful to the nation, and wrong is that which harms it."  In other words, no legal norms, other than those that preserve the state itself, matter.  Frank used this principle to justify the arrest without warrant ( not to mention murder) of tens of thousands of Jews and Russians as a threat to the homeland, and later to plunder the resources of Poland for the benefit of the homeland.

But it is in the writings of Carl Schmitt, a leading jurist, philosopher and Nazi party member whose work and writing provided much of the intellectual justification for Hitler's concentration of power, that even stronger parallels emerge.  Schmitt wrote, " there exists no norm that is applicable to chaos." He contends that legal norms are only applicable in stable and peaceful situations, and not in times of war, "when the state confronted a mortal enemy with the threat of violent death at the hands of a hostile group". Schmitt contended that in such times, the actions of the leader were not subordinate to justice, but were the "highest justice." In other words, the law does not apply in times of war or other exceptions.  And, as Schmitt wrote, "Sovereign is he who determines the exception."

Hitler and his underlings used Schmitt's writings to justify a war in Hitler's words of "unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness," and in which " all officers will have to rid themselves of obsolete ideologies." Orders were issued severely limiting the military's martial courts, and virtually giving immunity to German forces for war crimes.

Sanford Levinson, a respected professor of law at the University of Texas, makes the case that Schmitt, known by some as the"Crown Jurist of the Third Reich" has emerged as the eminence grise of the Bush Administration.  In his article, " Torture in Iraq and the Rule of Law in America,, published in Daedalus in the summer 2004 issue, Levinson contends that Bush administration lawyers seem completely willing  to embrace George w. Bush as the de facto sovereign. This sentiment can be seen both in the 2002 Gonzales memo on torture and the Working Group Report submitted to Secretary Rumsfeld. Both documents argue that "the president enjoys complete discretion in conducting operations against hostile forces. " By their thinking, Levinson further argues, international and domestic laws against torture do not apply to the president.  That is certainly the case the 2002 memo which states " In order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign (federal laws against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander in Chief Authority. "

The Gonzales memo, much of which was apparently developed with substantial help of John Yoo, then a deputy assistant attorney general in office of the Legal Counsel and now a Berkeley Law Professor, is frighteningly close to the writings of Schmitt and the philosophies that guided the Third Reich.  Gonzales writes that the president had called the war on terrorism "a new kind of war," which rendered "obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on the questioning of prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.  And in endorsing a view of presidential power in which the president has "complete discretion" he is endorsing a view of presidential power that as Levinson says is "all to close to the power that Schmitt was willing to accord his own Fuhrer."

In doing so, Gonzales and others in the Bush administration have opened the gates to hell, making the torture and abuse at Abu Ghurayb and Guantanamo Bay possible.  And while, in their attempts to push through the Gonzales nomination, the Bush administration has issued a new memorandum revising its position on torture ( what's next, Ron Zigler rising from the grave to say "that statement is no longer operational" ?) hundreds have been tortured and even killed, and the basic principles of law and morality that have governed the United States and made it a leader in they eyes of the free world have been undermined.  It remains to be seen as to whether they will be held accountable for it.  Apparently they believe that they are above the law. 

ps- one thing Gonzales might want to remember, they hung Hans Frank

Raising Joe McCarthy

Now we get down to brass tacks.

During the first Bush administration, those disagreeing with the powers that be often found themselves under attack.  They were derided as liars or fools, or just plain paranoid by the Bush machine.  Those who questioned Bush’s policy in Iraq or on terrorism were said to be undermining our troops, or had their patriotism questioned. Just ask Richard Clarke.

But now, even before they have finished prepping for the inauguration, the wraps are apparently coming off.  No more kid gloves. If you dare to question the Bush administration, now you are a communist.

Somehow I am not surprised.

And my guess is that Selig S. Harrison, a respected analyst on Korea isn’t either.  Just days after the initial release of his insightful new report in Foreign Affairs questioning the use of U.S. intelligence on North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons, Seligman is being compared to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and branded as a communist by a conservative publication.

Writing in The Conservative Voice, Peter Huessey compares Harrison to those who provided the former Soviet Union with nuclear secrets and says that Harrison, along with writers Jonathan Schell and Noam Chomsky “have been long-time premier apologists for communism and communist regimes everywhere.” He goes on to say “At heart, Chomsky, Harrison and Schell hate the U.S. and everything it stands for. They are in reality Marxists to the core.”

In the next few days look for more conservative writers and pundits to come out swinging at Harrison.  Hey, if you can’t question his research, you can always call him a communist.

Blacklist Anyone?

Abstinence?

Some of you may have noticed an absence of posts to rockthrower lately.  Sorry, I'm just a little jammed right now (those pesky clients), but I'll be back with a vengence. Until then.....

Does Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?

or does it just makes you desperate.

I don't know about you but after a few days without sex I get kinda irritable.  My wife says its more like "desperate."

Maybe that's why all these newly elected senators and their born again friends are so cranky, even though they won the election.

Meanwhile, the push is on to keep horny teenagers from having sex. No wonder they are so moody. President Bush is spending millions on "abstinence" programs. One slight problem, they don't work.  Oh yeah, and their full of lies.

Check out the New congressional report on abstinence programs Download 20041201102153-50247.pdf

Lynch Mob Loses – For Now

But the Rope is Still Handy

Senator Arlen Specter, the new chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, can come out of his office, the lynch mob is gone – for now anyway.

But Specter probably shouldn’t get too comfortable.  While they may have lost the battle over the judicial chairman’s post, anti-abortion conservatives have left little doubt about what they expect from Republican members of Congress.   Specter and others will need to toe the line.

 

After battling for days to win the chairmanship, Specter seems to have prevailed.  But not until he kissed the ring and genuflected before the powerful new troika in town.

On Monday afternoon, Specter met with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC), longtime conservative activist Paul Weyrich, and Richard Land, a pro-life leader from the Southern Baptist Church. Gary Bauer, former president of the FRC and dark prince of the Christian conservative movement was also on hand to keep an eye on things.  Falwell and friends could not have been far away. Specter may have won, but not until they extracted their pound of flesh.

In an announcement commenting on the meeting with Specter, The Family Research Council issued a statement saying that Senator Specter said he would support all of President Bush's judicial picks, regardless of their position on abortion. He also indicated that he promised to hold prompt hearings and have committee votes within 30 days of a nomination.

"Specter has promised that he will 'not use a litmus test to deny confirmation to pro-life nominees,' and assured that he will give President Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court 'quick Committee hearings and early Committee votes.' We intend to hold him to these commitments."

Perkins said his group and others would “hold Specter's feet to the fire.”

That’s got to be pretty close to roasting in hell for the independent minded Senator.  But hey, that’s what you get when you make a deal with the devil.

And Specter is not the only one that will feel the heat from the fire the Christian conservatives are building

"This is just the beginning," said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue. "We worked very hard to put Bush back in office... and now is not the time to derail the president's pro-life nominees."

The Pooch Principle

Why Not Barney, the Bush Family Dog?

Now that Condi Rice has been promoted over to the State Department, it’s time to look for her replacement as National Security Adviser.  And actually, with cabinet officers fleeing like rats off a sinking ship, there are also a few cabinet posts to be filled. And that got me thinking, why not Barney, the Bush family dog?

Now some might say that Barney, an amiable Terrier, might lack some of the qualifications needed to be national Security Advisor or maybe Secretary of Commerce.  But I would argue that Barney has exactly the right talents for success in the Bush Whitehouse: Blind obedience and unquestioning loyalty.

It surely can’t be competence the president is looking for, or heads surely would have rolled by now.  Just take a look at Condi’s record with help from the American Progress Action Fund.

How much worse could Barney be?

I think he is perfect.  He can sit, fetch, and roll-over.  He will probably even lick your hand, or whatever.

How do you think Condi got the job?

Playing for Keeps

EPA - Environmental Pollution Agency?

Anyone who has any doubts about intent of the Bush Administration and the disastrous implications for the world’s environment should be sure to read "Environmental Officials See Chance to Shape Regulations" by Elizabeth Shogren and Kenneth R. Weiss in the Los Angeles Times on

Wednesday November 10, 2004

Shogren and Weiss quote Environmental Protection Agency Adminstrator Mike Levitt as saying that four more years give administration officials an opportunity to mold the environmental agency's professional staffs to more closely reflect their (the Bush Administration’s) priorities. Leavitt said 35% of the EPA's staff would become eligible to retire in the next four years, giving him a chance to remake from the inside out the agency that takes the lead in enforcing air and water pollution and the cleanup of toxic dumps.

For starters, the administration says it will not reconsider regulating carbon dioxide emissions — despite scientific alarm over global warming — because such a policy would hurt the domestic coal industry and send jobs overseas.

I don’t know about you, but I can breathe better already.

Moving?

Better Hurry

Our sources tell us that since the U.S. election the New Zealand Office of Immigration has been overwhelmed by American’s seeking information on immigrating down under.  Check it out if your gonna go, but hurry, the line is getting long.

Better yet, let's all move to key swing states and beat the crap out of the Republicans in the 2006 Congressional elections.

Taos Anyone?