The Onion’s best article of the year so far comes to us as Colin Powell’s Tell-All Book: Steroid Use Rampant In White House
Definately a good read.
Archive for March, 2005
A group of anti-John Boltoners posts this video (obviously edited) where, among other things, he says there isn’t a United Nations. I’m gonna (gasp!) side with Chris on this one and say the man is a poor choice for United States ambassador to the UN.
I have been a staunch advocate for United Nations reform for the past several months. The oil-for-food scandal and the crisis in the Congo have troubled me a great deal, and I believe the UN has strayed far from its purpose, mandate and heart. I believe it has essentially become a place where European diplomats engage in America-bashing at the expense of true solution building.
However, a reformed and strong UN can have a position in world politics well through the 21st century. It is clear that, as traditional conflict becomes less likely and the world’s next wars will be fought against non-state actors like terrorists, it will require the united effort of nations to be victorious.
Proponents of Mr. Bolton have argued that a shakeup at the UN is not only good but necessary, and that it is in the United States’ interests to provide an ambassador who will question UN practice. I couldn’t agree more. However, an ambassador who believes that unilateral control of the world is an inevitability, that the world cannot be united in the quest for peace and that the United States is the only country that believes in what is right and good is not worthy of a mandate from our nation.
Read Mr. Bolton’s most notorious argument:
There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along.’
and ask yourself: Is that the voice of a reformer, or someone who has given up?
(In)famous Iowa columnist David Yepsen opines today on the Iowa House’s quest to define marriage:
Out of all the issues facing Iowa, our state representatives took time out of their busy 3 1/2 day work week to do a little gay and lesbian bashing.
At a time when we’re trying to make Iowa an appealing place to live in order to attract new workers and keep young people in the state, lawmakers have time to send another hostile, unwelcoming signal. (If you aren’t heterosexual, House Republicans don’t seem to want you in Iowa. Some of them don’t want you here if you can’t speak English, either.)So much for the Republican talk about less government in our lives. So much for the Republican notion of defending freedom and leaving people alone. When it comes to the American bedroom, many GOPers seem determined to set up a video camera to make sure everyone is making love only to their adult spouse of the opposite sex in the missionary position.
Worth reading even by non-Iowans, if only for the entertainment.
Now, I try not to shake the liberalism of the blog up too much, but I was spurred to based on this paragraph from a recent speech by Barbara Boxer (D-CA):
Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we’re saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn’t too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don’t you think so? It’s the only check and balance on these people. They’re in for life. They don’t stand for election like we do, which is scary.
Now, regardless of the legitimacy of the point, can we all agree not to call it a super vote? And not to say the phrase “super important position?” Can the Democrats ever learn from fellow democrat JFK, the greatest orator to ever hold federal office?
Sorry about the lack of posts this weekend, I’ve been out of town.
Document the atrocities:
ABC’s “This Week” - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former baseball player Jose Canseco; Jeffrey Sachs, director of The Earth Institute.
CBS’ “Face the Nation” - Rice; Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Joseph Biden, D-Del.
NBC’s “Meet the Press” - Rice; Reps. Tom Davis, R-Va., and Henry Waxman, D-Calif.; Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I.
CNN’s “Late Edition” - National security adviser Stephen Hadley; Sens. Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; Middle East analyst Adib Farha and Syrian Cabinet Minister Bouthaina Shaaban; former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former United Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke.
“Fox News Sunday” - Hadley; Mark Malloch Brown, chief of staff to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Tomorrow morning’s Washington Post chronicles the successes Democrats have had in maintaining a solid caucus opposing privatization, save a few bad apples.
“An overwhelming majority of Democratic senators said they will oppose, under any circumstances, Bush’s plan to allow younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into individual investment accounts that would follow them into retirement. A few others said they will not support such accounts if they require substantial government borrowing. Even many Republicans say that is inevitable because the alternative involves unacceptably large cuts in benefits and/or tax increases to replace the diverted taxes.
Combined, these Democrats form a coalition large enough — more than 41 members — to use delaying tactics to keep the proposal from reaching a vote in the 100-member chamber. The Post survey of the Senate’s 44 Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent indicates there are at least 42 — and perhaps 44 — who firmly oppose personal investment accounts, particularly if they are financed with borrowed money.”
This is really good news. It means we can basically stop any legislation from ever coming to the floor by filibustering the legislation–obstructing a terrible idea that NEEDS to be obstructed.
Of course, there is always a downside to this news, even if it is a minor one. As much trouble as Democrats have had with Joe Lieberman and other Democrats when it comes to privatization, Ben Nelson of Nebraska is the worst. And the Post points that out:
“That leaves Nelson, who faces a potentially tough reelection race next year, as the only Senate Democrat who did not sign the letter and who told The Post this week that he is open to considering Bush’s proposals.”
So, in an effort to stay in office, Ben Nelson is selling himself out ideologically for some kind of political and temporary gain.
Face it Senator Nelson, no matter what you do (even support Bush’s efforts), you’re still not going to be Republican enough to get re-elected in Nebraska. It is an unfortunate set of circumstances, and I know winning is important, but don’t compromise yourself ideologically for a minimal political gain. The title “Democrat” is enough for the Right to attack you and beat you in your home state. Stand up for the good fight, and let’s save Social Security from the Republican threat.
Frank Rich, the New York Times’ Arts and Leisure Sunday columnist, has been given an op-ed slot in the Times’ new, expanded Sunday op-ed section. Editor and Publisher has the details.
Rich is an amazing writer, and was a well-respected columnist on the op-ed page previously from 1994-2003. His columns on Sunday’s will no doubt be as incendiary and thought-provoking as the amazing pieces he’s written lately. The only bad thing about this is that his columns will likely be restricted in length, whereas his current columns feature long, in-depth, and critical analysis.
Senate Clears Tougher Bankruptcy Rules–Reuters.
Well, so many Americans are now fucked.
Tsk, tsk, Ben Nelson.
First, a member of the Fainthearted Faction. Then a bad vote on an amendment to be attached to the bankruptcy bill. Now he plans on voting for John Bolton. Steve Clemmons has the details.
Check out AmericaBlog for more information–a judge issued a temporary restraining order.
I take back what I said about Blogger being pissy. It is evidentally working now.
It looks like the Bush Regime and State Department are fearful of the types of criticism they might receive because of the nomination of John Bolton to be the new Ambassador to the United Nations. Review this post if you’re not familiar with the situation.
Now, according to insider Steve Clemmons, the State Department and the Bush Regime are looking to fast-track his nomination and confirmation hearing to allow as little criticism or debate as possible.
“The time line just got pushed up. This just in from a very well-placed source:
FYI, I’m hearing that they are trying to move this nomination very quickly because the longer it hangs out there, the more time opponents have to mobilize. The State Department’s material for the confirmation hearing (Q&A, etc) is due by COB today; they hope to schedule his hearing for next week.
This person also said that at State, you can feel the “nervousness in the air” about Bolton’s nomination. The powers-that-be there want to push this fast next week and catch the opposition off guard.”
As Steve points out, it is time to take this issue seriously.
I’ll take the time to mention this to Senator Reid and Senate Democrats right now: Don’t give up on this issue. It is time to take the caucus of Democrats and make them unite behind this terrible selection. By doing this, we might even be able to pull a couple of moderate Republicans to our side and make sure that this man does not get confirmed. If we’re going to be called obstructionists, then let us deserve the title and really obstruct this nomination. I don’t think we are obstructionists, by the way, but we’ve got to fight this one.
Steve Clemmons and “The Washington Note” will be sure to keep us up to date on all of the important details. Stick with them and The Political Forecast for updates.
Blogger is acting really pissy and I’m having trouble getting stuff posted. It is probably only by the grace of God that I got this post up. Expect more later when I can actually get Blogger working. Thanks for your patience.
Below you’ll find his message, cross-posted at both MyDD and Daily Kos. Visit their sites for more discussion on the issues in the comments section.
I consider myself to be well-versed in a few aspects of the Bipartisan Campaing Reform Act (BCRA), or McCain-Feingold as it is more commonly referred to. Most of that knowledge comes from reading Titles I and II of the legislation, mainly regarding so-called “issue ads” and the restriction of money as a form of speech in general. The knowledge also stems from the decision in McConnell v. FEC, which upheld the constitutionality of BCRA. However, the follow-up rules and regulations as taken care of by the Federal Election Commission and by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly have basically muddled the picture beyond comprehension. Most of the fault, however, lies with the FEC.
Today, one of the principle authors, Senator Russ Feingold, decided to comment on the issue of Internet political speech, particularly the issue of blogs. And what better way to do it then create his own diary at dKos and MyDD?
Essentially, he argues that indeed some sort of regulation is needed, but that the FEC must “tread carefully.” Moreover, he agrees that some sort of standard be set up so that legitimate bloggers can be given media exemptions, like most paper periodicals currently receive.
Feingold definitely takes the approach in the right light, and with his leadership in Congress on this particular issue, I think the bloggers are safe. What will be interesting to see, however, is how the right-wing blogosphere takes his comments and whether or not they will recognize him as a leader in this issue.
My kids often tease me about the time I pre-heated a toaster before putting some bread in to toast it. I deny it. I still maintain to this day that I DO know how to use a toaster, but I also admit to some not-so-brilliant moments with technology, if you can consider a toaster technology. But, today, even my kids would have to pause to give me a pat on the back for this first ever “Russ Feingold Blog Post.”
I am enjoying reading many blogs, and am fascinated by their immediate reporting that is covering the important issues of the day. Many of the positive comments I have been lucky enough to read about my work relate to the fact that I was the only member of the U.S. Senate to oppose the USA PATRIOT Act. That experience taught me a lot, but one thing I learned for certain is that millions of ordinary citizens support efforts to make sure the government doesn’t try to take more power than it needs. Resisting overreaching by the federal government is appropriate and, yes, even patriotic. I feel very strongly about this, and have made constitutional issues in general, and First Amendment issues in particular, one of the central focuses of my work in the U.S. Senate.
While the days of campus protests are not the same today as when I was in college, many people don’t realize that campus protests are going on every day, all over the country, when thinking people, from all different states, generations, and ethnicities are drawn more and more to participate and exercise their First Amendment rights in an exciting venue: the Internet in general and blogs in particular.
As one of the main authors of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, also known as BCRA, it is particularly difficult to hear the mistaken belief that the law was somehow an attack on our cherished First Amendment rights. It is not. The law was found to be constitutional and it accomplished what we wanted it to do without infringing on First Amendment rights: stopping Members of Congress from soliciting enormous campaign contributions from monied interests; and reducing the corrupting influence of big money donations. Despite the naysayers, and despite shamefully poor and often deliberately harmful interpretations of this law by the agency charged with enforcing campaign finance law, the Federal Election Commission, McCain-Feingold worked in the 2004 election.
McCain-Feingold and the blogs both had a positive impact on the 2004 election and many people don’t realize how similar their impact truly was. Both the blogs and BCRA empowered average citizens. By channeling the power of average citizens to speak out on the Internet, the blogs revitalized the political process last year. In the same way, the power of small contributions was greatly increased by BCRA, and someone who could only send $5 or $50 to a political party has become a sought-after donor. Many parts of BCRA were handled irresponsibly by the FEC, and bloggers are understandably concerned that some members of the FEC may again try to cause trouble by overreaching in the area of free speech on the Internet.
So while I generally agree with the recent decision from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly requiring the FEC to redo its rules relating to political communication on the Internet, I am also concerned that the FEC will again create unnecessary concern and confusion. Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s decision was not a result of problems with BCRA. It was a result of poorly drafted FEC regulations that were challenged in court.
The FEC must tread carefully in the area of political communications on the Internet. Political news and commentary on the Internet are important, even vital, to our democracy, and becoming more so. For starters, the FEC should provide adequate protection for legitimate online journalists. Online journalists should be treated the same as other legitimate broadcast media, newspapers, etc. and, at this point, I don’t see any reason why the FEC shouldn’t include legitimate online journalists and bloggers in the “media exemption” rule.
The definitions and rules relating to “coordinated activity” should be clarified, so legitimate bloggers and journalists alike don’t have to worry about vague rules for legitimate activity. Certainly linking to campaign websites, quoting from or republishing campaign materials and even providing a link for donations to a candidate, if done without compensation, should not cause a blogger to be deemed to have made a contribution to a campaign or trigger reporting requirements.
Also, the FEC should generally exempt independent, unpaid political activity by bloggers on the Internet. We must let this town square, which has added a significant dimension to our political process, continue to flourish. When the FEC issues a proposal on this issue later this month, rest assured that I will be reviewing it carefully and offering detailed comments.
At a time in the country when we need free and open discourse, when the Senate is rubber stamping a bankruptcy bill which hurts those who have no power, when the country is involved in a war with no timetable for an exit strategy, we must be able to speak our minds without fear of recrimination from the government.
There Is No Crisis has full details. I’m proud of the way Democrats are banding together on this issue and tackling it head on. If only our approach to the bankruptcy bill could be the same way.
Big news just coming out of Spain. I hope other Muslim groups take this same type of approach. If so, some monumental reform can come internally in the Middle East, not from unilateral invasions.
