Abuse of power/hypocrisy seems to be

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

So, what goes around comes around. After a hard week out on that campaign trail attacking Obama right, left and center, seems Sarah has a character issue of her own now to deal with. Oops!

THE GOP'S FILIBUSTER HYPOCRISY

Though seemingly forgotten by most TV talking heads, it was only three years ago, when the Republicans had control of both the White House and Congress - and "filibuster" was a dirty word.

It was usually coupled with "obstructionist" amid demands that any of George W. Bush's proposals deserved "an up-or-down vote."

Yet now, with the Democrats holding the White House and Congress, the Republicans and the Washington press corps have come to view the filibuster fondly, as a valued American tradition, a time-honored part of a healthy legislative process.

Today, it's seen as a good thing that Democrats must muster 60 votes in the Senate to pass almost anything.

When the TV pundits talk about Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan squeaking through the Senate, they're actually referring to a vote that might fall in the range of 60 or more yes votes to perhaps 38 no's, a three-touchdown "squeaker."

The only thing close about the vote is whether the package can overcome a Republican filibuster and get 60 votes for "cloture." To reach this super-majority, Democrats have been forced to accept a higher percentage of tax cuts, even if leading economists consider tax cuts one of the least effective ways of stimulating the moribund economy.

Yet, this anti-democratic fact about the GOP strategy - that it seeks to frustrate the will of the American majority, which rejected the Republicans and their policies in the last two U.S. elections - is rarely mentioned in the news.

Nor is the fact that Republicans railed against even a hint of a filibuster when the Democrats were in the minority just a few years ago.

Back then, when the Republicans controlled everything, the big story was how a threatened Democratic filibuster against, say, one of Bush's right-wing judicial nominations would be met by the Republican "nuclear option" - using a majority-vote on a rule change to eliminate the filibuster permanently.

For instance, in 2006, when Bush wanted to put Samuel Alito on the U.S. Supreme Court, the move amounted to a direct threat to the Republic. Alito was a staunch believer in the imperial presidency, a promoter of a "unitary executive" who would wield unlimited powers at a time of war - and the "war on terror" promised to be an endless war.

If confirmed, Alito would join three other justices - John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - who shared his extreme views, and possibly another, Anthony Kennedy, who was considered only slightly more moderate.

In effect, the Alito nomination raised the specter of five right-wing justices effectively gutting the U.S. Constitution and its checks and balances in favor of Bush's personal rule.

The Republic in the Balance

With the future of the American Republic in the balance and Bush short of 60 votes in favor of Alito, a filibuster could have stopped this radical nomination in its tracks and could have forced Bush to select a less extreme nominee.

Many in the Democratic "base" urged Senate Democrats to use the filibuster at this critical moment - a time when Bush was viewing himself as a new-age monarch and his political aides were fantasizing about a "permanent Republican majority," transforming the United States into a virtual one-party state with the Democrats kept around as a cosmetic appendage.

As this drama played out, the Washington news media weighed in heavily against a Democratic filibuster, essentially repeating Republican talking points about the need to give the President's nominee an up-or-down vote and bemoaning the anti-democratic nature of the filibuster.

Republican leaders thundered that any use of the filibuster against Alito or other Bush judicial nominees would force them to go "nuclear" by outlawing filibusters forever. Then, the Republicans could ram through whomever - or whatever - they wanted.

Rather than call the Republicans' bluff, "moderate" Democratic senators joined a bipartisan group called the "Gang of 14," which agreed to forego filibusters except in "extraordinary circumstances." And despite the alarm of many Americans about Bush's moves to eradicate the Republic, this "gang" did not believe Alito's confirmation reached the "extraordinary" standard.

So, when a few Democratic senators led by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts tried to mount a filibuster, the Senate Democratic leadership refused to put up a fight, even as their former standard bearer was mocked by Republicans as a "Swiss Miss" for first urging the filibuster while he was attending an economic conference in Davos, Switzerland.

Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan piled on Kerry at a White House press briefing. "I think even for a senator, it takes some pretty serious yodeling to call for a filibuster from a five-star ski resort in the Swiss Alps," McClellan laughed.

In support of his filibuster, Kerry could line up only 25 votes, while the Republicans amassed 72 votes for cloture - a dozen more than the 60 needed to shut off debate. Those votes included 19 Democrats.

On the final confirmation vote, however, Alito was approved by a much smaller margin, 58-42, meaning that he could have been kept off the Supreme Court if all those who considered him a poor choice had backed the filibuster.

[As for the fate of the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy turned out to be less of an extremist than some Republicans had hoped. He joined with more moderate justices in key 5-to-4 opinions that rebuffed President Bush's assertions of unlimited powers.]

Reversing Majorities

Despite the timidity of Senate Democrats in the Alito battle, an energized Democratic "base" - joined by Republican constitutionalists - fought on against the "permanent-Republican-majority" dreams of Bush, Karl Rove and the neoconservatives. In November 2006, the Republicans were repudiated at the polls.

Suddenly in the congressional minority, the Republicans did a flip-flop on the filibuster, discovering the high principles behind the tactic. The GOP used the filibuster routinely in 2007 and 2008 to block Democratic initiatives, especially any challenges to Bush's expansive claims of executive authority.

Typical of the modern Washington press corps, its leading voices changed, too, joining the Republican chorus hailing the filibuster as an honored tradition of democracy and finding value in the need for the Democrats to muster 60 Senate votes to pass any significant bill.

Today, the press corps continues in that pattern, forgetting the GOP's earlier contempt for the filibuster and treating its use by the Republican minority against the stimulus bill as normal.

There are rarely any comments about obstructionism, nor are the Republicans compared to the Southern segregationists who famously used the filibuster to resist civil rights laws in the 1950s and 1960s.

Given this pass by the press, Republicans are making the filibuster their chief weapon in pressuring Obama and congressional Democratic to accept more of a Republican-style stimulus bill with less spending and more tax cuts, regardless of whether that represents the best hope for the U.S. economy.

But the stimulus battle is likely to be only the first taste of the GOP strategy to hobble the Obama presidency. The Republicans can be expected to use the filibuster again and again to prevent many of the social and economic changes that the American voters endorsed in November 2008, policies like national health insurance and spending on long-neglected domestic needs.

In this obstructionism, the Republicans appear to have a powerful ally in the Washington press corps that - with few exceptions - treats the GOP's promiscuous use of filibusters as some responsible application of a time-honored tradition. The press also forgets to remind the U.S. public that just a few years ago, the Republicans hated filibusters.

--------

Congressional Budget Increased to pay GOP Staffers

February 25, 2009 12:04 PM

A ten percent increase in the budget for Congressional operations was needed because Senate Republicans wanted to retain previous staff levels despite having lost roughly 20 percent of their ranks in the 2008 elections, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Wednesday.

Congressional Republicans have been pouncing on any instance of wasteful spending they can find, but the congressional-operations line item will likely remain safe from their ire.

The one-tenth hike brings the budget for Congress itself to $4.4 billion.

Reid, asked about the increase at a press conference, initially dodged the question, speaking instead about spending in general.

The unsatisfied reporter repeated the question about a ten percent raise for the congressional budget. "How is that going to help get out of the depression?" she pressed.

Don't blame us, said Reid.

"We had a situation -- you should direct that question to Senator McConnell," he said, referring to the Senate Minority Leader, "because we had trouble organizing this year. He wanted to maintain a lot of their staffing even though they had lost huge numbers. And the only way we could get it done is to do what we did. So you should direct that question to Senator McConnell."

A McConnell spokesman didn't immediately return a phone call.

UPDATE: A GOP leadership aide is calling rubbish: "I just don't know how they can get away with blaming us for that 10 percent figure," he writes in an e-mail. "Republicans aren't getting a dime more in committee money for staff than we got last year. The entire pot of funding used to operate Senate committees and other 'inquiries and investigations' is around 3 percent of the total ($137 million of $4.4 billion). And the increase from last year's funding for the 'inquiries and investigations' account is less than 2/10ths of 1 percent of the entire bill."

He adds: "For perspective: all Senate operations funding increased 7 percent, the House funding increased 7.5 percent and the Architect of the Capitol funding increased 28 percent."

UPDATE II: A Democratic leadership aide picks up on the notion that "Republicans aren't getting a dime more," noting that while they aren't getting more, they aren't getting less, either, even though they have far fewer members.

"This would be funny if it wasn't from someone associated with the the so-called party of fiscal responsibility," writes the aide. "This is the height of hypocrisy and utterly fails to acknowledge the fact that in the past, when the spread has been like it is now, the minority party gets far less money than what they eventually got. It was an unprecedented deal that is more outrageous when you realize that they will end up voting against the bill."

Look at the previous posts from pubs. Key words include marxist, communist, socialist, illegal alien, Muslim (like that's a bad word), anti-American, terrorist, and the list goes on. So, according to your standards, pointing this out is a smear tactic? At least the McCain campaign actually knows what a smear tactic is.

I'm sure the usual suspects from the Conservative board also agree with the conclusions of THIS Pennsylvania nut case and will be ready to blame Kennedy for starting trouble. LMAO!

Kennedy slams Santorum for church sex abuse remarks

WASHINGTON --In a rare personal attack on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy called Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum self-righteous and insensitive for his remarks linking Boston's liberal reputation to the clergy sex abuse scandal.

In recent days, Santorum has refused to back down from comments he made in a 2002 column, in which he said promoting alternative lifestyles spawns aberrant behavior, such as priests molesting children. He went on to say that it was not surprising that liberal Boston was at the center of the scandal.

"The people of Boston are to blame for the clergy sexual abuse? That is an irresponsible, insensitive and inexcusable thing to say," said Kennedy, D-Mass., in a speech from the Senate chamber.

Kennedy called for Santorum to apologize to the people of Boston and across the nation, noting that the clergy abuse happened all across the country, in "red states and blue states, in the north and in the south, in big cities and small."

On Wednesday, Santorum spokesman Robert Traynham said the Pennsylvania conservative recognizes that the church abuse scandal was not just in Boston.

He said Santorum "was speaking to a broader cultural argument about the need for everyone to take these issues very, very seriously."

Santorum's initial observations were in a July 2002 column for Catholic Online, and came back to public light last month and earlier this week in newspaper accounts.

"Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture," Santorum wrote in the Catholic Online column. "When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."

Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., accused Santorum of abject ignorance, and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., called the senator's rationale bizarre.

"As a prosecutor in Massachusetts, I saw some of the worst criminals who had abused children and not once did I hear them hide behind Sen. Santorum's bizarre claim that the state was responsible for their acts," Kerry said.

David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said Santorum's column tries to minimize the abuse scandal, and imply that "some vague, larger societal defects" somehow caused clergy to assault children.

"In 2002, we gave Sen. Santorum the benefit of the doubt, assuming he was not aware of the scope of the abuse crisis," said Clohessy. "In 2005, it's hard to understand how he could repeat and stand by such misguided and harmful comments."

The scandal began in Boston in early 2002 when internal church files released under court order revealed abusive priests were transferred from parish to parish rather than removed from ministry. Cardinal Bernard Law resigned as archbishop later that year amid criticism over his handling of the crisis.

A 2003 investigation by Attorney General Thomas Reilly found that at least 1,000 children were abused by more than 235 priests and church workers between 1940 and 2000. And the archdiocese has paid out more than $120 million to settle abuse claims since 1950.

Reilly, a Democratic candidate for governor, also criticized Santorum on Wednesday. "For him to equate liberalism with child abuse is disgraceful," he said. "It's embarrassing for him and embarrassing to his party and his party should disown him."

When this was first posted, it was posted before there were separate political boards. Still, there was no response.

You people have done nothing by drive-by sniping posts for the last couple weeks, to the point where some of them had to be removed by the moderator.

I guess we can leave it at that. You're obviously more outraged that I posted regarding this subject than you are at the subject itself.

Friday, Nov. 10, 2006
Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
By ADAM ZAGORIN

Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called 20th hijacker and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a special interrogation plan, personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski � who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case � has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld .

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides universal jurisdiction allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a a big, big problem. U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case � that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue � has been proven wrong.

The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer, says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition � the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.

U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against war criminals could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet � whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration � was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.

For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

He questions "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good," and then he turns around and marries a LAWYER!

This isn't surprising to me at all. Bush's is doing nothing but taking us backwards in time, whether it regards science or civil rights. The only area that is moving forward by leaps and bounds and progressing at an alarming rate is the price of gasoline.

If these are *family values* then the right is RIGHT. I'm proud to say I
don't have 'em!

These people get scarier and scarier every day, and I'm keeping my children
away from them!

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) � The longtime head of the Christian Coalition of Oregon
said Monday that he is withdrawing from public life, a day after news reports
detailed accusations of sexual abuse against him by three female relatives.

I am thankful for a family that loves and supports me, and intend to withdraw
from public life until this is resolved, Lou Beres wrote in a statement posted
on the organization's web site, at http://www.coalition.org

Beres has denied any criminal misconduct and wrote that he will pursue the
Biblical response and do all within my power to reconcile with that person.

Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk told The Oregonian
newspaper that officials are investigating the complaints against Beres.

The three women � now adults � allege they were abused by Beres as preteens.
Their families called the child abuse hot line last month, after the three
openly discussed the alleged abuse for the first time.

I was molested, one of the women, now in her 50s, told The Oregonian. I was
victimized and I've suffered all my life for it. I'm still afraid to be in the
same room with him.

Only one of the three cases appears to fall under Oregon's statute of
limitations on sex abuse, which expires after six years. Authorities said that
case involves a young woman who was allegedly abused by Beres when she was in elementary school.

My family has gone through hell, said Richard Galat, 41, of Oakland, Calif.,
who told detectives that his uncle had molested several female relatives over
the years.

Lives have been ruined. Those of us who have come forward have been
ostracized, verbally abused and the victims of character assassination...It must
stop, he said.

In response to Galat's statements, Beres said on the Christian Coalition web
site Monday, I am grieved by the false allegations of my nephew, Richard Galat.
I am attempting to determine the source of each claim.

Beres, who did not immediately return a phone message from The Associated
Press, is the former head of the Republican Party in Multnomah County, the
Democratic stronghold that includes Portland.

Jim Moore, who teaches political science at Pacific University in Forest
Grove, said Monday that Beres has not been particularly influential in Oregon
politics.

In fact, under his leadership, the Christian Coalition in Oregon has gone
downhill.

In state legislative races in 2004, for example, Moore said that, we found
that Christian Coalition candidates basically did not do as well as they did in
the past.

Oregon Republican Chairman Vance Day said Beres hasn't been much of a factor
in state GOP politics since he stepped down as Multnomah County chairman about 10 years ago.

I don't view this as having any major impact on politics here in Oregon; I
don't think the Christian Coalition has a big footprint here at all, he said.

The group did support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage that
passed handily with voters in November of 2004, but support for that cause was
rallied by another conservative-leaning group, the Defense of Marriage
Coalition.

Tim Nashif, the political director of that group, said he has few details
about the allegations, and added that his group is not associated with the
Christian Coalition.

Anytime any family goes through anything like this it's a pretty grievous
situation and our hearts go out to them, he said. The truth has a tendency to
come out.

There are kinds of folks in this country. There are right-wing kooks, religious kooks, left-wing kooks, serial killers, child pornographers, bigots/racists, right-wing militia people-whose-exact-names-I-forget and all types worse and better.

The thing is, in this country the decent people are the majority, whether right or left in politics/beliefs. That's why this country is so great.

When you fixate on folks who are overly negative you give them power. Please rise above the comments of those who represent a very tiny minority. I pay no attention to those who voice unreasonable beliefs and I advise you do the same. Take the power away from those people.

Although this story doesn't emphasize the fact, others do. The outrage that exploded when the conservative teacher in Kansas lost his job has caused school officials to reverse their decision:

Never buy into the lie that demon-crats and the media try to sell you that conservatism is dead. Not only ain't we dead, we ain't begun to fight! We're the same handful of colonial militia who defeated the whole durn British army a long time ago. First they laughed at us...and then they died.