Day: October 9, 2007

Leonard Nimoy Is Just Another Hollywood Liberal

Buck Banks

I guess I should have known that Leonard Nimoy was a flaming liberal. It’s pretty clear, based on whose campaigns he has contributed to over the years. A new Web site, PoliticalBase.com, has a tool that enables you to search public records and find out who received dough (and we can assume support) from whom.

For instance, in January Nimoy gave $2,300 to Barak Obama’s campaign. In March he gave $1,700, then $2,300 to Al Franken’s campaign for Senate. He supported Barbara Boxer in 1992 and again in 2004. But Nimoy seems to hedge a little when he’s not sure about the horse he’s backing — he gave $2,000 each to Howard Dean and John Kerry in 2004. And we won’t mention the $1,000 he gave to Bill Bradley’s presidential campaign in 2000.

But Nimoy seems to hedge a little when he’s not sure about the horse he’s backing — he gave $2,000 each to Howard Dean and John Kerry in 2004.

Curious, I wondered how my co-editors voted with their money. Editor-In-Chief Jon Ponder in 1998 and 2000 gave a total of $1,500 to the campaign of Tom “Eliminate the Immigrants” Tancredo. Just kidding. That was Jon Ponder from Littleton, Colo. Co-editor Trish did not show up on the radar, but we suspect she could actually be in the witness-protection program. Some whack job with my given name gave $3,000 to help elect George W. Bush, and if I ever get to Portland, Ore., I’m going to look up the fellow and give him a piece of my mind.

PoliticalBase.com is a great place to waste time productively, if you have a drop of wonk in your veins. You can vote on who you think are the most important people. Overall most powerful is dead Republican Ronald Reagan and most powerful media person is Jon Stewart. Most trustworthy overall and among media people is Jon Stewart again. Most partisan are Ted Kennedy and Markos Zuniga of the Daily Kos blog.

Most attractive? Overall, it was Jon Stewart, Mitt Romney and Barak Obama. Among media it was Jon Stewart, Arianna Huffington and Keith Olbermann.

Stewart’s mom must be stuffing the ballot box. Which is one of the dangers inherent in a Wikipedia-style site that encourages visitors to become contributors, albeit with moderation.

The site was built by a handful of Web designers:

Early this summer, the five folks on your right started building Politicalbase.com as a resource for people wanting to make informed decisions when casting their vote. This team has worked on previous web sites like CNET, Comicvine, CHOW, TV.com, Rhapsody, MP3.com and a few more.

Check it out when you have a few minutes to waste productively. It’s fun.

Why Is the GOP Hellbent On Giving Pres. Hillary Clinton Authority to Wiretap Without Oversight?

Jon Ponder

With word this morning that Democrats have caved again on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) wiretap laws, it appears that Pres. Bush will get what he wants: the unfettered ability to spy on anyone anytime.

Republicans are so intent on winning the battle that they have lost sight of the fact that a new president will be sworn in 15 months, and that the new president may well be their femi-nazi arch-enemy, Hillary Clinton.

The glee among Republicans over the Democrats’ spinelessness is understandable. They have them right where they want them. All they have to do is suggest liberals are coddling terrorists and Speaker Pelosi et al fold in the wind.

What is even more striking, however, is the Republicans’ short-sightedness. Are they are so intent on winning the battle that they have lost sight of the fact that a new president will be sworn in 15 months — and that the new president may well be their femi-nazi archenemy, Hillary Clinton?

Not just Clinton. Why would Republicans want Pres. Obama or Pres. Edwards, or any Democrat, to have this power? It makes no sense.

Rank and file liberals object to giving Bush unfettered wiretap authority because there is an extremely high likelihood that if he hasn’t already abused this power and spied on his political enemies (in both parties), he will before he’s through.

Either the Republicans’ rhetoric about Hillary Clinton as an evil communist bogeywoman is all a sham, or they are being overly confident about the outcome of next year’s elections.

As it stands today, all trends point to the Dems gaining in the House and the Senate and taking the White House. If trends prevail and Democrats sweep into power in January 2009, the GOP in the next Congress will be powerless to rescind the powers they are eagerly ceding to Bush today.

Congressional oversight of the Executive is not a recommendation in the Constitution, it is a requirement. No president should have unfettered power, especially when it comes to spying on Americans. But if the Republicans are determined to give this sort of authority to the current president in order to score political points, so be it. The Dems are kowtowing to their bullying and fear-mongering, which means Republicans have the votes.

We can only hope the next Democratic Congress will be more willing to watchdog a president of their own party than the GOP was during its six year reign of power.