Government by crisis

Where have we heard this before?

A national crisis occurs.

The costs of responding will be limited.

But we must act now, now, now or face impending doom, a figurative, if not literal mushroom cloud.

Now I'm not saying some drastic measures won't be needed to shore up an economy teetering on the brink of collapse, but still that doesn't mean we should allow ourselves to be railroaded into just any old deal because BushCorp™ says it's urgent.

Any benefit of the doubt was lost to this crew a looong time ago.

For a far better and more thorough analysis of the similarities on how the Bushies are selling their bailout like they did the invasion of Iraq I suggest Glen Greenwald.

My main point is this, because we need to do _something_ does not mean we should do just anything.

Monica Goodling: faith-based incompetence in the Bush administration

Few memes are so accepted as Common Wisdom, (within the progressive community anyway) as that of Bush's faith-based government. The ubiquitous response on the left has been its proud allegiance to the "reality-based" community, and Stephen Colbert's witty formulation that, "reality has a well known liberal bias".

But few, and certainly few of the MSM, have really investigated the depth with which the Bush administration has been infiltrated by literal members of the aforesaid faith-based community. Unti now.

One of the oddest little tidbits of information about Monica Goodling, the DoJ deputy who is taking the fifth rather than testify before congress about her role in Gonzogate, was the identity of her law school, Pat Robertson's Regent University School of Law.

And despite the fact that no-one outside the evangelical community has ever before heard of this institution of higher (much higher, heavenly you might say) learning, apparently it's had a huge impact on the nuts and bolts operation of the Bush administration.

As Max Blumenthal, posting at HuffingtonPost points out, our Republican Monica, is not alone in calling Regent her alma mater:

Goodling's involvement in Attorneygate is not the only aspect of her role in the Bush administration that bears examination. Her membership in a cadre of 150 graduates of Pat Robertson's Regent University currently serving in the administration is another, equally revealing component of the White House's political program.

Goodling earned her law degree from Regent, an institution founded by Robertson "to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world." Helping to purge politically disloyal federal prosecutors is just one way Goodling has helped fulfill Robertson's revolutionary goals.

And Regent is far from the only source of holier-than-thou Bush appointments. As Garry Willis makes clear in his extensively backgrounded article in the New York Review of Books, such agents of reaction were placed specifically in an effort to assuage Bush's evangelical supporters. In fact, just as Bush put corporate shills in positions of power on his economic deprtments, he put evangelicals in charge of his social bureaucracies.

How? From Mr. Willis:

The head of the White House Office of Personnel was Kay Coles James, a former dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University and a former vice-president of Gary Bauer's Family Research Council, the conservative Christian lobbying group that had been set up as the Washington branch of James Dobson's Focus on the Family. She knew whom to put where, or knew the religious right people who knew. An evangelical was in charge of placing evangelicals throughout the bureaucracy. The head lobbyist for the Family Research Council boasted that "a lot of FRC people are in place" in the administration. The evangelicals knew which positions could affect their agenda, whom to replace, and whom they wanted appointed. This was true for the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, and Health and Human Services—agencies that would rule on or administer matters dear to the evangelical causes. [Emphasis mine-CK]

Mr. Willis' article should be read in full to appreciate the full depth to which Bush appointees, selected for their adherence to his particularly narrow view of faith rather than say, competence, have penetrated the various executive branch agencies.

The scope of this infiltration is truly breathtaking, though hardly surprising to those of us who've been watching how this wretched administration has trashed this great nation's cities, environment, and military.

More surprising is how the MSM, which now is engaged with much hand-wringing over BushCorp™ incompetence, refuses to talk about exactly why this is so.

[Big hat tip to Digby for pointing me to the Willis article]

Drip, drip, drip

Countdown with Keith Olbermann has become for many as much "Must See" TV as Heroes or Lost, though the plot twists, given the predictable disingenuousness of the Bush administration, are never quite as shocking (is it me or is Locke REALLY going over the edge?).

Anyway, last night's Countdown featured an interview with Senator Charles Schumer, who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, discussing Bush's refusal to let his aides testify under oath regarding the Gonzales 8 investigation.

One quote from Senator Schumer struck me as particularly interesting, as a veiled threat, as well as an invitation for DoJ people to step forward:

There are enough disgruntled people in the Justice Department in particular - because they really resented what happened here - that the information is going to come out. It can either come out 'drip, drip, drip' or it'll come out all at once, we'll get to the bottom of it in a complete way and move one (sic). It would be much better for the White House, as well as the Justice Department and the country, if they let it all come out at once. [Emphasis mine-CK]

Now we see that, as I noted in an earlier post, this is exactly what is happening.

And I strongly suspect, as does Senator Schumer, that Sharon Y. Eubanks is the only government attorney who knows that her position as an officer of the court (which lawyers are) was compromised by political directives from on high.

How high?

That's really the question isn't it?

Wingnut "family" groups oppose transparent government

From the Washington Post:

The National Right to Life Committee and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) are locking horns -- not over abortion, but over whether thousands of top executive branch officials should have to disclose the names of people who lobby them.

Driven by the over-the-top, clandestine lobbying of Bush administration officials by now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Waxman's House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has unanimously approved the Executive Branch Reform Act. A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that she backs the measure, which would require senior bureaucrats to report quarterly whom they speak to about government actions, and that she expects it to get a vote in the House.

But Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, is vowing to stop the bill at all costs. He thinks it would discourage officials from meeting with citizens, including his own members. That makes it downright undemocratic. And he is consistent: He led a coalition that helped kill broad ethics reform legislation last year because it would have imposed a similar type of reporting requirement on grass-roots lobbying. [Emphasis mine-CK]

Get that, he's afraid of letting the public know what lobbyists government officials spend time with.

He's afraid that it would discourage said officials from meeting with said citizens.

Now why would that be?

Perhaps this is just wild speculation on my part, but could it be that if the public found out which wingnut advocacy groups have the administration's ear we might be somewhat less than pleased?

Power of the press

Rarely is the media's power to expose a need and pressure responsible parties to address that need more clearly evident than the Washington Post's recent investigative series examining the deplorable conditions faced by many wounded vets at Walter Reed's now infamous Building 18.

(Links to all related articles here.)

The Post's reports were widely circulated in other national media as well as by many in the blogosphere, including your CaliBlogger.

And while we've yet to see whether the declarations to remedy this deplorable situation will come to fruition, still sincere congratulations are due the Post, as well as lead reporters Anne Hull and Dana Priest who broke the story after a 4 month long investigation.

Truly, great work folks.

Grown-ups back in charge in congress?

Once upon a time Republicans liked to characterize themselves as the daddy party, the stern, clear-sighted paterfamilias who could defend our borders and balance our budgets and keep the nasty little kid nations in line.

Democrats where, of course, as belonging to the mommy party, sympathetic and well intentioned, but not hard-nosed enought to DO WHAT MUST BE DONE in this cold, cruel world.

Now I'm not EVEN going to get into a discussion of the sexism underlying those perceptions, except to point out, that like all such dunderheaded mis-characterizations, they are simply not true.

Regardless, the Republicans have clearly abandoned any claim to fiscal responsibility, and so I was very happy to read that Democrats are taking up the slack.

From the Washington Post:

Democratic leaders declared a temporary moratorium on special-interest provisions known as earmarks as they attempt to cope with a budget crisis left by the outgoing Republican-led 109th Congress.

What an incredible move. Seriously.

Not only are the Dems showing that they're serious about addressing the GOP-created budget crisis, they are also curtailing one of the most corruption-prone practices in government.

And, as Kevin Drum points out:

Since most of the earmarks are probably slated for Republican districts, this is both good policy and good politics.

Nice.

And since the budget crisis was caused by GOPers in a snit about losing the last election, I find it quite appropriate that their pork projects are now off the table.

Ah schadenfreude, sweet, sweet schadenfreude.

Deep Throat Revealed

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Filibuster compromise

I'm reminded of a passage from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. The day job of one of the evil Black Ajah is as a negotiator, which job, done successfully, she viewed as involving the even spreading of pain. As she very much enjoyed spreading pain she was extremely good at her profession.

So, one sign of successful compromise is that no-one, especially at the extremes, is especially pleased with the result, except, perhaps, that there IS a result.

So it is with the filibuster compromise. Liberals will rightly bemoan the appointment of 3 very poor appellate court choices, while the reactionary right will lament the lost opportunity for carte blanche judicial appointments.

And while the result of the compromise is hardly unambiguous (Dems can filibuster under extraordinary circumstances?!) still, the judicial filibuster has been preserved for the moment for use in the really big show, the expected summertime Supreme Court vacancy.

Which reason is why the worst losers are BushCorp™, Frist and the rest of the Dobson right. Even more than a fight between liberals and conservatives, this is a fight between the wingnuts and what passes for the moderate wing of the Republican party. Sens. McCain et al. have sent a shot across the bow of the wingnut faction.

So, welcome to the first volleys of Campaign 2008.

The Black Ajah would be pleased.

Newsflash: Congress not entirely in thrall of religious right

By passing the Castle-DeGette bill removing restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, the House demonstrated that it is not yet entirely insane. Good for them.

BushCorp™ scientist-in-chief George Bush has threatened to veto the law.

"This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life," Bush said. "Crossing this line would be a great mistake."

On the House floor, Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) likened embryonic research to "killing some in the hopes of saving others."

Killing "some"? Killing what? Let us be clear. Yes embryos are destroyed in the process, but be clear, these embryos are not the cute little mini-humans of the famous Life magazine series:

The embryos being destroyed are called blastocyts. They consist of about 120 cells, and look like this:

So yes, I'm in favor of killing, murdering, assassinating any number of microscopic organisms if it means saving the lives of one of these:

Quote of the year (so far)

Via Dave Sirota:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54

Of course Ike also warned of the developing military-industrial complex and we all know that went nowh.... er, nevermind.

While you weren't watching

You may have missed it, what with TV's wall to wall coverage of the MJ (I refuse to write the name) trial or the idiotic "Runaway Bride" coverage, but Congress last week fulfilled its arguably most important constitutional roll by passing a 2006 budget.

Now politicians may complain about the press, but in this case the media have been especially co-operative in not exposing the travesties of the 2006 budget to the light of day.

And why is the budget such a travesty? David Broder writes in today's Washington Post, on the US deficit:

The budget envisages the national debt increasing by $683 billion next year; by $639 billion the second year; by $606 billion the third year; by $610 billion the fourth year; and by $605 billion the fifth year.

On Social Security:

What does the budget do for Social Security? It transfers the roughly $150 billion "surplus" in Social Security taxes over this year's Social Security payments to help pay the bills for this year's government spending and to finance the additional $106 billion in tax cuts the president wants to hand out. [Emphasis mine]

Of course the press is perhaps to be forgiven their inattention given the bum's rush this $2.6 TRILLION spending bill ws given in congress.

How much time did the House and Senate spend on the final budget plan? The agreement took up 36 closely printed pages of small type and columns of figures in the Congressional Record. It was finished on Thursday morning, April 28, and brought to the floor that afternoon -- thanks to a waiver of a House rule that such conference reports "lay over" three days so members can scrutinize them. The ostensible reason for the haste was that the Senate planned to take a week's vacation starting the next day, and the budget was already two weeks behind the statutory deadline.

Yes indeedy, heaven forbid that congress put off a vacation for a day or two to fully consider its legislative duty. And besides, if their'd been time taken for real debate the press might have noticed (a guy can dream can't he?).

To me, though, the most incredible part of this saga is the vote itself:

This budget passed with only Republican votes, 52 to 47 in the Senate, and 214 to 211 in the House. And here's another thing you probably don't know. The 10 House members who missed the vote were seven Democrats and three Republicans. Four of the seven absentee Democrats are members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

If all 10 had voted with their party, as was likely, this budget would have failed by a single vote. You have to wonder what important business kept these legislators away.

The names of the absent congresscritters are: Clyburn (D-SC, Cunningham (R-CA, Doggett (D-TX), Filner (D-CA), Flake (R-AZ), Ford (D-TN), Jefferson (D-LA), Paul (R-TX), Rothman (D-NJ), Towns (D-NY).

If one of the above happens to be your representative I urge you to contact them and ask.

Bugman going batty

I have to assume it's just the pressure from all those ethical violations coming home to roost, either that or just the accumulated damage of years of exposure to pesticides, but regardless, Republican majority leader Tom "the Bugman" DeLay is beginning to lose it.

Ever since he got his nose tweeked by the Federal judiciary's insistance on following law rather than his personal whim in the Schiavo debacle, DeLay's gone further and further off the deep end.

The latest in the erstwhile "Hammer's" cacophony of kooky complaints is that Republican Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy uses a suspicious new tool:

“And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous.”

Internet research?! What has the world come to?

In his defense, I strongly suspect the Bugman believes that the only things you can find on the internet are nude photos of "Jeff Gannon" and Viagra ads.

Or worse, (unless you're Wonkette) nude photos of "Jeff Gannon" using Viagra.

Talk about suspicious tools.

Moveon.org PAC to run ads targeting Democratic leader in House Steny Hoyer

From Raw Story:

MoveOn.org PAC will run sharp radio ads attack against the Democrats' number two in the House, Democratic Whip, Steny Hoyer (D-MD) along with ten Republican congressmembers, RAW STORY has learned.

To recap the basic story on the bankruptcy bill. The bill is essentially a payoff to the lending industry designed to reduce the number of private citizens who could be protected under capter 7 bankruptcy, allowing them to, eventually, start their lives over with a clean slate.

Promoted as an answer to irresponsible scofflaws who abuse the credit system, the bill fails to account for the fact that the majority of private bankruptcies have little to do with irresponsible borrowing, and much to do with the increasing insecurity ofAmerican personal finances. And especially egregious is the bill's failure to protect those whose financial insolvency is due to medical and related emergenies, which now account for about half of all personal bankruptcies combined.

As such the bill, one would think, should be anathema to a Democratic party seeking to protect the interests of working and middle-class Americans against the depredations of the corporate plutocracy. I mean sure, the Repblicans are for it, but they sold their souls to Big Bizness long ago. But Democrats?

Sad but true. The bill garnered 14 key Democratic votes in the Senate, as well as those of 73 house Democrats (including Democratic whip Hoyer).

[Note - Especially cynical were Lieberman's votes, in typical old paradigm fashion, he voted with the Repubs in the only vote the Dems might have won, and switched his vote once the bill's passage was a done deal and his vote was meaningless- grrr.]

This brings up two points. First, the Democratic Party will never be able to courageously represent the interests of working and middle-class Americans until it can divest itself of its own corporate owners.

The second is that Democrats (as well as Republicans, and the corporate media) are going to have to realize they are operating in a new, and much broader based information environment. Time was when hypocrites like Joe Lieberman, and Joe Biden could spend all their speaking time talking up Democratic values, while making deals for corporate giveaways. No longer.

The powers that be have now to deal with literally millions of eyes watching, parsing, discussing and disseminating their every move. And every depredation exposed on the internet, by Raw Story, by Media Matters, by MoveOn, by Kos, by Atrios, by AmericaBlog, by thousands of bloggers great and small, EVERY move is subject to a smell test like never before. And, like "Jeff Gannon's" nudes, once something's on the net, it never goes away.

So to Joe "voted for it before he voted against it" Lieberman and his ilk, be forwarned. A cloture vote in 2005 may seem like something that will have little impact on the public in 2008, but such hypocrisy is now common knowledge to millions not hundreds.

And we will remember.

Terror Incidents rise 4000% in 2004!!

Or did they? We'll never know because State department hand puppet Condi Rice has killed the report that would've told us.

Of course the Republicans have their excuses:

Several U.S. officials defended the abrupt decision, saying the methodology the National Counterterrorism Center used to generate statistics for the report may have been faulty, such as the inclusion of incidents that may not have been terrorism.

But seriously, if the report had been glowing does anyone doubt it would've been hailed from the rooftops of Foggy Bottom?

Of course, optimist that I am I see hope in this Administration cover-up. Instead of merely ignoring facts or distorting them, by killing the terrorism report BushCorp™ is tacitly admitting that facts DO matter.

At least enough to hide them.

I just love the headline

From Reuters via abc:

Rumsfeld Warns on Corruption During Iraq Visit:
Apr 12, 2005 — By Charles Aldinger

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued a terse warning to Iraq's new leaders on Tuesday, urging them to avoid political purges or cronyism that could lead to corruption and sap confidence in government.

Seriously that's the U.S.' job.