Year: 2007

More Rumors of Cheney Ouster

Jon Ponder

In November, we predicted that Vice Pres. Dick Cheney would be ousted in 2007, “resigning” purportedly due to health problems or an overwhelming need to get back to the private sector.

There are rumblings from the capitol today that Cheney’s resignation could be in the works:

Spurious rumor alert: Negroponte to State to replace Rice, who is tapped to replace ailing Cheney.

Our prediction was that John McCain would take Cheney’s place (despite the president’s loathing of him, and vice versa), and will stick to that scenario for now.

Appointing the first woman and first African-American into the second chair may appeal to Bush as a much needed positive bullet point on his legacy, the GOP powers that be would likely prefer having someone like McCain waiting in the wings for 2008.

Post-Partisan Depression: Schwarzenegger to Cut Children’s Welfare

Jon Ponder
Republicans can’t resist the call of the dark side. It’s always a mistake to vote for them.

Wow! That didn’t take long! It was just last Friday, during his inauguration ceremonies, that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger promised Californians a new era of what he called “post-partisanship.”

Three days later, we learn that one of the governor’s first actions in his second term will be as Republican-partisan as a politician can get: He’s going to cut welfare payments to poor children:

“It’s ironic that the governor is proposing healthcare for poor kids while taking away their breakfasts,” state Senate leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) said of the cuts, which would affect more than 40,000 families. “Even Republican Gov. [Pete] Wilson, at the time he negotiated welfare reform, agreed that children should not suffer for the behavior of their parents.”

The plan alarmed advocates for the poor, who predicted that eliminating the cash payments of several hundred dollars a month would substantially increase the risk of homelessness for those families.

Schwarzenegger’s proposal also would eliminate this year’s cost-of-living increase for welfare recipients.

The governor made a wild swing to the left last year in order to get re-elected, so it was predictable that he would swing back toward the conservative dark side after his second term was secured. But who knew it would happen so fast.

House GOP Leaders: Dems Must Honor Minority Party ‘Rights’ That GOP Rejected in 2004

Jon Ponder

In June 2004, after House Democrats had endured 10 years of heavy-handed, authoritarian control by the Republican majority, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) put together a “Bill of Rights” for the party of out of power, promising then-Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) that if he adopted the new rules, the Democrats would abide by them too, if they were to take control of the House again.

How did the Republicans react to the future-speaker’s proposal? By ignoring it:

In keeping with the general atmosphere of the House these days, aides to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said he will not respond to the two-page proposal from Minority Leader [Pelosi].

What was in the proposal? Essentially, Pelosi proposed changing the tone in the House:

Pelosi’s document… says: “Too often, incivility and the heavy hand of the majority” have silenced Democrats and choked off “thoughtful debate.” She called on the majority to let the minority offer meaningful amendments and substitutes to important bills; to limit roll-call votes to the normal 15 minutes rather than keeping them open to round up needed votes; and to let all appointees to House-Senate conference committees participate in meetings and decisions.

“When we are shut out, they are shutting out the great diversity of America,” Pelosi said in an interview. “We want a return to civility; we want to set a higher standard.”

In the 2004, the chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee, Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), reacted to Pelosi’s proposed Minority Bill of Rights with his patented unctious smarm:

[Drier] said in an interview that Democrats are crying about the process because they are losing policy debates over job creation and progress in Iraq. His mission as chairman, he said, is “to move our [Republican] agenda, and to do it in the fairest and most responsible way possible. And I do it in that order … Yes, we have done, as we have had the responsibility of governing, some of the things we criticized when we were in the minority.” But he said he feels the Hastert leadership team has struck a fair balance.”

No one believes the Republicans managed the House of Representatives well, and the charges of unfairness against them during their 12 year reign are legion.

So now that the House Republicans are in the minority, how do they feel about the Democrats using their own tactics against them:

“I am very disappointed,” sighed David Dreier of California.

So disappointed that his colleagues have come up with their own “Minority Bill of Rights,” which is basically Pelosi’s 2004 proposal, word for word.

It is, said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., “based on the exact text that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi submitted in 2004…” He added it would ensure “all sides are protected, that fairness and openness is in fact granted by the new majority.”

Right… And what happens now if the Republicans’ rather flamboyant hypocrisy is pointed out to them:

During a House GOP press conference about the new rules Thursday,[Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Florida), said the Democrats “missed [an] opportunity to really change the way that the House does business.”]

Rick Klein of the Boston Globe, referring to Pelosi’s 2004 attempt at that same inclusion, asked, “What stopped you from taking that opportunity when you were still in the majority?”

Putnam quickly tiptoed away from that mine field: “Well, I’ll let Chairman Dreier speak to that.”

Return of the Closeted Gay Republicans

Finally, on a slightly different topic – two of the spokesmen for the House GOP in this article, representatives Dreier and McHenry, bring with them some unresolved baggage from the 109th Congress that demands acknowledgement. Both are allegedly gay men who hide their identities from their constituents while routinely vote against gay civil rights.

Prior to the elections in November, we heard rumblings that the American talibanis (a.k.a the GOP base) were planning a purge of the Gay Republicans on Capitol Hill. Maybe all this sable rattling from Dreier and McHenry is meant to show that even Gay Republicans can be good solidiers for the party.

House GOP Leaders Whining: Dems Won’t Honor Minority Party ‘Rights’ Document That GOP Rejected in 2004

Jon Ponder

In June 2004, after House Democrats had endured 10 years of heavy-handed, authoritarian control by the Republican majority, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) put together a “Bill of Rights” for the party of out of power, promising then-Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) that Democrats would abide by the agreement when they took control of the House again.

How did the Republicans react to the future-speaker’s proposal? By ignoring it:

In keeping with the general atmosphere of the House these days, aides to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said he will not respond to the two-page proposal from Minority Leader [Pelosi].

What was in the proposal? Essentially, Pelosi proposed to change the tone in the House:

Pelosi’s document… says: “Too often, incivility and the heavy hand of the majority” have silenced Democrats and choked off “thoughtful debate.” She called on the majority to let the minority offer meaningful amendments and substitutes to important bills; to limit roll-call votes to the normal 15 minutes rather than keeping them open to round up needed votes; and to let all appointees to House-Senate conference committees participate in meetings and decisions.

“When we are shut out, they are shutting out the great diversity of America,” Pelosi said in an interview. “We want a return to civility; we want to set a higher standard.”

In the 2004, the chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee was Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) reacted to Pelosi’s Minority Bill of Rights with his patented unctious smarm:

[Drier] said in an interview that Democrats are crying about the process because they are losing policy debates over job creation and progress in Iraq. His mission as chairman, he said, is “to move our [Republican] agenda, and to do it in the fairest and most responsible way possible. And I do it in that order … Yes, we have done, as we have had the responsibility of governing, some of the things we criticized when we were in the minority.” But he said he feels the Hastert leadership team has struck a fair balance.”

So now that the House Republicans are in the minority, how do they feel about the Democrats using their own tactics against them:

“I am very disappointed,” sighed David Dreier of California.

So disappointed that his colleagues have come up with their own “Minority Bill of Rights,” which is basically Pelosi’s proposal, word for word..

It is, said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., “based on the exact text that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi submitted in 2004…” He added it would ensure “all sides are protected, that fairness and openness is in fact granted by the new majority.”

Right… And what happens now if the Republicans’ rather flamboyant hypocrisy is pointed out to them:

During a House GOP press conference about the new rules Thursday,[Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Florida), said the Democrats “missed [an] opportunity to really change the way that the House does business.”]

Rick Klein of the Boston Globe, referring to Pelosi’s 2004 attempt at that same inclusion, asked, “What stopped you from taking that opportunity when you were still in the majority?”

Putnam quickly tiptoed away from that mine field: “Well, I’ll let Chairman Dreier speak to that.”

Finally, on a slightly different topic – the spokesmen for the House GOP in this article, representatives Dreier and McHenry, carry some unresolved baggage from the 109th Congress that demands acknowledgement. Both are allegedly gay men who hide their identities from their constituents while routinely vote against gay civil rights.

Wasn’t there going to be a purge of the Gay Gops on Capitol Hill by the American talibanis? Or has that been postponed until Romney or Brownback are elected president?

How Bad is This?

Trish

Way bad.

The Army said Friday it would apologize to the families of about 275 officers killed or wounded in action who were mistakenly sent letters urging them to return to active duty.

The letters were sent a few days after Christmas to more than 5,100 Army officers who had recently left the service. Included were letters to about 75 officers killed in action and about 200 wounded in action.

Penny Award for the Most Worthless Piece of Paper in 2006: The Bill of Rights

Buck Banks

The Bush administration’s assault on personal liberties in 2006 rendered one of the most cherished documents in the United States — the Bill of Rights — virtually worthless. In case you haven’t check in with the BOR lately, you can find it in its entirety here.

Following are a few examples from last year and the specific amendment they rendered worthless:

  • Ten Commandments, Intelligent Design, Stem Cell Research. Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  • Secret Wiretaps, Internet Records, Opened Mail. Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
  • Reditions, Secret Prisons, Guantanamo Bay.Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
  • Waterboarding, Abu Ghraib, Jose Padilla. Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
  • Signing Statements. Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Schwarzenegger Breaks with GOP, Promises ‘Post-Partisan’ Era

Jon Ponder

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was sworn in for his second term in Sacramento yesterday. Sounds like a festive occasion. Jennifer Holliday and Jose Feliciano (remember him?) performed. The governor had a right to celebrate. He had executed a succesful turnaround in exactly 12 months. In November 2005, his approval rating was in the low 30s; in November 2006 he won reelection in a landslide.

Schwarzenegger won because he made a sharp turn to the left on policy, particularly healthcare and the environment — and because was able to convince voters, especially independents, that he had seen the light on Republican-style devisive politics.

In his speech yesterday, he declared his independence from the GOP, and thus became the nation’s most powerful RINO:

“I believe that we have the opportunity to move past partisanship, past bipartisanship to post-partisanship,” the governor said before about 3,000 invited guests. “Post-partisanship is not simply Republicans and Democrats each bringing their proposals to the table and working out differences. Post-partisanship is Republicans and Democrats actively giving birth to new ideas together.

“I believe it would promote a new centrism and a new trust in our political system,” he said. “And I believe we have a window to do it right now.”

The address was written by a former Ronald Reagan speechwriter, Landon Parvin. But there appeared to be more Kennedy touches than Reaganisms.

When Schwarzenegger’s popularity was at its lowest point, there was still a Republican who scored lower. Pres. Bush’s approval rating among California voters hasn’t budged out of the low 30s in years.

Why did Arnold turn it around, while George apparently cannot? Because the president can’t admit mistakes, much less learn from them. Schwarzenegger’s rise from immigrant body builder to multimillionaire movie star to governor of California required, above all, adaptability.

The 40 percent of us who did not vote for him, which is roughly the Democratic base in the state, remain skeptical of his sudden lurch to the left. I stand by my prediction that he’ll lurch back to the dark side before his term is over.

But for now, he has the state’s full attention and a renewed mandate. Good luck, governor.

The Mess in the Middle East: Iraq Insurgent, Iran Emergent, and Two Civil Wars Temporarily On Hold

Buck Banks

Muddled East: Given the limited and slanted reporting on the Middle East we get from in the MSM, and our Western lack of understanding of the political forces at work, not to mention our ignorance of the cultural and religious currents driving events in the region, it’s no wonder we don’t understand what’s happening there. A cogent, clear and unflinching assessment of the situation and its position in global politics is provided by a column in the latest edition of Challenge magazine.

Challenge is a bi-monthly leftist magazine written by Arabs and Israelis and published in Tel Aviv. It looks at the Israeli-Palestinian situation and attempts to contextualize it within the region and globally. It’s a good read:

From Challenge # 101, January – February 2007

Two Civil Wars with Brakes On

By Roni Ben Efrat

THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN conflict was once the mother of all problems in the Middle East. Today it is one among many. For this demotion we may largely thank US President George W. Bush and his war in Iraq. Apart from splitting that unhappy country into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish sectors, Bush’s war has changed the geopolitics of the region. The Iraq of Saddam Hussein used to be the area’s major power, but today it is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran. Saddam was a secular dictator who represented Arab nationalism; Ahmadinejad represents Shiite fundamentalism — and his country, of course, isn’t Arab.

In Bush’s new Middle East, then, two axes have emerged. There is the American axis, which includes Fouad Siniora in Lebanon and Abu Mazen in Palestine, along with older members: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. Over against them, in the Iranian axis, stand Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria. Does the Iranian axis aim to become America’s global opponent, like the Soviet Union in the Cold War? No. Apart from the central role of Islamic law in Iran, this axis presents no counter-agenda, political, social or ideological. Iran and its allies would prefer to have American and European recognition, but they aren’t willing to change their spots: they aren’t willing, that is, to become American lackeys, eradicating their own identities. They are encouraged in this self-assertion by the weakening of the US as a global power, thanks again to its entanglement in Iraq.

If we want a good example of lackeyism, we may look to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In a recent cabinet meeting, he justified his rejection of Syrian peace overtures, saying that a positive response was forbidden at a time when President Bush, “the most important strategic ally of Israel, opposes any negotiations with Syria.”

The two axes confront each other at three flashpoints: (1) Iran, which opposes the world on the nuclear issue while backing Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Shiites of Iraq.(2) Israel/Palestine, which includes not just the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but now also that between Fatah and Hamas.(3) Lebanon, where the opponents of Syria’s interfering hand are at odds with those who eat from it, namely Hezbollah.
[…]