The Funeral of John Paul II

Note: At 3:30am Eastern Time on April 8th, 2005 Managing Editor Ryan Oddey awoke to watch the funeral of John Paul II. These are his thoughts, in chronological order, of the services.

I awoke early this morning to watch the Funeral of Pope John Paul II and I must admit it was striking to see so many world leaders from so many different backgrounds in the same place. It was also interesting to see an event where the United States was treated the same as every other nation in attendance and not the benefactor of special significance.

I watched MSNBC's coverage, and I must say that it was quite good. Tasteful enough to let the funeral speak for itself, but insightful enough to have the extra tidbits from Chris Mathews and Chris Jansing that you might come to expect from a major news network.

Also interesting was the outbursts of applause during the funeral, and from what I gather from the news commentary this is an Italian custom. I was also impressed on how the service itself was done in numerous different languages, a true sign of international importance as well as a reflection on John Paul II's own linguistic skills.

As I watched the funeral, I had to wonder if we will ever see a funeral like this again in my lifetime. Yesterday I read that over two billion people would be watching this funeral on television, let alone the millions in Rome for the event. I do not think that any world leader would ever garner that much attention regardless of circumstance.

Regardless of my personal beliefs and my opposition to some of the Church's stances on some social issues I must admit it is wonderful to see so many heads of state sitting together, as equals, honoring one single person. Furthermore, the response by the public at the event is staggering, the applause I mentioned above has been frequent during the ceremony as so many people do their best to say goodbye.

I can't imagine how one would go about planning the largest funeral in history. In the modern day, security concerns must have been at an all-time high, yet it appeared as if there were no problems, a job well done.

The time on my computer reads 6:36am, and as the Cardinals head inside I know that we are moments away from our final look at John Paul II, or as the crowd has been chanting, John Paul The Great. The ceremony today was impressive, and as I said above, I will always remember the scene of so many people, and so many world leaders, of different nations and backgrounds coming together to pay their final respects to one man. On any other day I would not awake early in the morning, but today was different, today was special, as it was the day when I joined the world in saying goodbye to the only Pope I have ever known.



Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

ARNOLD BLINKS

By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

Fresh off his victory in court two weeks ago, in which a Sacramento judge declared that imposing through law a maximum donation limit of $22,500 per person on political committees controlled by the governor was a too-strict limitation on Arnold Schwarzenegger's "freedom of speech" - thus allowing him to troll the national right wing for unlimited donations to his campaign to Republicanize California - Democratic opponents have been gearing up for a knock-down drag-out fight in a $70 million special election this coming November.

That was until the Governor Of All The People got a look at the latest statewide poll by the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University.

In January, Arnold's approval rating was 59% - high, but still down from his high-60s approval ratings of 2004. As of today, his approval rating is 49%, with a disapproval rate of 38% among voters only - with a 43%-43% tie among all California adults. He’s also tied 43%-43% over the question of whether he is working honestly with the legislature and getting things done. 62% think he should do more to work with the legislature, with Republicans agreeing with this 49%-34%.

More importantly, voters disapprove of his plan to bypass the legislature and go directly to the electorate with his propositions, 47%-38%.

In January of this year, 52% of Californians thought the state was on the right track, with only 35% saying we were off track. Three months later, 49% believe the state is off track, with only 39% saying Arnold has things on the right track. Statistically, this is a 180-degree reversal in less than 90 days.

Political ads by California teachers, nurses, police and firefighters, attacking Arnold for saying they are "special interests" - while he gives private briefings to those "regular Californians" who can donate at least $80,000 at his most recent political rally - are having their effect.

Less than 24 hours after this poll was announced, Der Governator called a press conference to announce that he was not going to press for a special election in November, stating that he was satisfied to present his proposals at the next regular election in June, 2006. This means there will be no mid-decade reapportionment of legislative and congressional districts.

I may dislike Arnold Schwarzenegger politically, but I have no doubt of his intellect. He's smart enough to see that the past two weeks - in which the national Republican Party has managed to establish themselves in the public mind as being so extreme they even scare Republicans - has created an atmosphere where even The Terminator realizes that being relentless is a good way to end a political career now.

Der Governator obviously - for now - thinks that saving these proposals to make them part of his re-election campaign next year makes sense. He’s right. But 2006 isn’t shaping up as being a Great Republican Year. His proposals are losing public support, his approval numbers are now close to free-fall, and with the rest of the Republican Party poised to throw themselves over the cliff of True Belief next year, Arnold and his reforms may go overboard with the rest.

THE NEW KING OF FLIP FLOP: BILL FRIST

The other day I reported on how it appeared Bill Frist was distancing himself from people like DeLay who blasted the judges who opted not to order the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube. Frist called the judicial system fair and that he respected the decisions of the judges. Apparently he is changing his mind.

From The Carpertbagger Report:

"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) will host a private tour of the Capitol next week led by a controversial Republican religious operative who advocates the impeachment of "activist" federal judges.

Democrats were quick to question Frist's choice of tour guides.

David Barton, vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party, was invited by Frist to give the tour, which the Tennessee Senator described in a March 31 invitation to all 100 Senators as "a Fresh Perspective on Our Nation's Religious Heritage."

"He is an historian noted for his detailed research into the religious heritage of our nation," Frist wrote his colleagues."

So the question now becomes "where does Frist really stand?" I am willing to bet that his opinion is closer to that of David Barton's. It makes more sense for Frist to come out and tell the media that he respects the decision made by the judges in the Schiavo case in the hopes of trying to save face over the issue than it would to just bring Barton in to be a tour guide in order to keep some radical righties happy.

I hope someone asks Frist about this, it will be interesting to watch him try and explain this one away.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

SCHIAVO MEMO SOURCE REVEALED

Mike Allen of the Washington Post reports today that the legal counsel to Senator Mel Martinez of Florida, Brian Darling, was the one who wrote the memo expressing the benefits to Republicans for becoming involved in the Terri Schiavo case.

Darling offered his resignation which was accepted. Martinez, who seems to be taking no accountability on this issue, said he never read the memo and inadvertently gave it to Senator Tom Harkin, at which point the memo found its way into the hands of reporters.

What I find interesting is that Harkin is claiming Martinez gave him the memo claiming that it contained "talking points -- something that we're working on here."

Our Conservative counterparts in the blogosphere have been claiming that the memo was not authentic, even comparing it to the Bush National Guard Memos that CBS News reported on.

Sorry to bust your bubble righties, but it seems this one is legit. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if Darling took the bullet here for Martinez. Either way, I would hope that all officials read documents that they pass on as their own and even if Martinez did not write the memo he was foolish enough to pass it on without reading it. That kind of ignorance can't help you win votes.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

JACK ABRAMOFF IS KAISER SOZE

By: Ryan Oddey

One of my all time favorite movies has to be 1995's "The Usual Suspects." This movie was a bit of genius to me because it was the first time I had ever been completely surprised by the "twist" at the end. As I reflect back on that movie now, I begin to see some similarities between the fictitious characters of "The Usual Suspects" and the very real low lifes in the GOP.

The plot in "The Usual Suspects" revolves around a group of criminals who are brought together by Kaiser Soze, a criminal mastermind who is a criminal version of William Wallace, more legend as opposed to fact. Soze was the common bond that all of the players shared, and in the end it is Soze who escapes capture while his accomplices all meet their maker.

I first realized that the situation regarding the recent allegations towards Tom DeLay were similar to the plot of "The Usual Suspects" when I read a quote at The Stakeholder: "To the casual observer, it was a pretty simple deal," recalls one former GOP House leadership aide. "Jack raised money for the pet projects of DeLay and took care of his top staff. In turn, they granted him tremendous access and allowed him to freely trade on DeLay's name."

"To the casual observer, it was a pretty simple deal." That line could have opened "The Usual Suspects."

You see, much like the movie, the recent allegations involving Tom DeLay seemed pretty simple at first. DeLay was merely going on trips that were legal under the guidelines that govern members of Congress, or so it seemed. As we learned from "The Usual Suspects," nothing is ever quite as it seems. When Kobayashi got everyone together in one room, the audience knew something was on as we began to see the mysterious Kobayashi had brought everyone together for one purpose.

As we see with DeLay, the news media has become Kobayashi, letting the public know that all of the players in this scandal were brought together for another purpose. Although DeLay claims that these trips were legitimate, it is becoming more and more apparent that he and the other players actually had ulterior motives, in this case the interests of the lobbying groups that paid for their trips.

Now, as the story continues to unfold, the DeLay saga is at the point right where the usual suspects are in the middle of storming the boat and everything is going wrong and you realize that not everyone will make it out of this scandal. The question becomes, "who is Kaiser Soze?"

On the surface, we may be inclined to think that Tom DeLay is Kaiser Soze, just as we may have pegged Dean Keaton during the film. However, DeLay will end up being one of the people who don't make it off the boat, all because Soze was playing him and the others involved for his own benefit.

In order for this DeLay scandal to have been pulled off, assuming the allegations are true, we needed one central person who could bring everyone together. Who had access to Michael Scanlon, the former spokesman for Tom DeLay? Who directed his clients to donate to Republican Think Tanks that had little or nothing to do with the interests of those same clients? Who was a member of the Greenberg Traurig law firm that was described as one of "Washington's most successful lobbying groups"? These questions share one common answer.

Our Kaiser Soze is Jack Abramoff.

At the end of the movie, Soze utters one of the great lines in cinema history when he says "The Greatest Trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist." Luckily for us, this isn’t the movies and all of the usual suspects - Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, and others - have no prayer of disappearing. In the end, DeLay will meet the same fate of all the others who have been played by Kaiser Soze: they end up going down with the ship.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

The Worst Idea Ever?

A new Florida bill that has been proposed by the State Legislature would give residents the right to "open fire against anyone they perceive as a threat in public."

Is anyone else a tad uncomfortable with this? First off, I hope that the wording in the law isn't as vague as the AP Story, because "threat in public" is definitely up for debate. Furthermore, every defense lawyer in Florida who has a client involved in a shooting is going to claim that the victim was a "threat in public".

To the surprise of no one, the NRA is behind this bill. I am not knocking gun ownership, but what I am knocking is the number of people who have little or no training with a firearm in spite of the danger they can cause. This law will only make things worse as more and more innocent people will die at the hands of idiots with guns.

In theory this law may sound good, let people carry a gun to prevent crime, but the problem is this theory will not carry over into reality. Considering we live in the real world its probably best to speak out against a law like this. However, if you live in Florida, you may want to buy some Kevlar just in case.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

PRESIDENT BUSH DEFILES HIS OATH OF OFFICE

By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

The Oath of Office for the Presidency of the United States proclaims that the President will "defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution President George W. Bush has now sworn twice to defend states: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, INCLUDING DEBTS INCURRED FOR PAYMENT OF PENSIONS (my emphasis)... shall not be questioned."

Yesterday, April 5, 2005, President Bush visited the Bureau of the Pubic Dept in Parkersburg , West Virginia, where he held up US Treasury Bonds, which are used to secure the national debt, and joked they are worthless.

The President of the United States questioned the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions.

In other words, President Bush committed what would be - in a country where the Congress of the United States was not under the control of a cabal of radical right revolutionaries dedicated to the overthrow of the Constitutional separation of powers - an impeachable offense.

The reason the Congress placed those words in the Fourteenth Amendment was because certain representatives were questioning the public debt incurred in putting down the rebellion of the Confederate traitors of the South - the spiritual (and many times physical) ancestors of many of the leaders of today's "Republican" Party. IN LAW, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, QUESTIONING ANY PART OF THE PUBLIC DEBT OF THE UNITED STATES IS TO QUESTION ALL OF THE PUBLIC DEBT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IS FORBIDDEN.

As of September 30, 2001, the total debt of the United States government stood at just over $5.8 trillion dollars. As of March 31, 2005, it stood at $7,776,939,047,670.00. Federal debt is divided into "public debt" and "intragovernmental holdings," which is debt held in various government Trust Funds. Social Security and Medicare are the big trust funds. They hold U.S. Treasury Bonds that cannot be re-sold on the market, which is the only difference between these bonds and those sold to Japan, China, Germany, Korea, and anyone else who wants to buy them. They are ALL backed by the "full faith and credit" of the United States Government.

The total of these "Intragovernmental Holdings" went from just under $2.5 trillion on September 30, 2001 to just over $3.2 trillion as of March 31, 2005. This is ALL the Trust Fund debt, not just the Social Security Trust Fund. But if the Social Security Trust Fund is as "worthless" as the President says it is, then the other trust funds must be worthless too.

Does our Moron-in-Chief think the government of Japan, which holds $840.6 billion of the public debt of the United States, or the government of China, which holds over $600 billion of that debt, or the government of the Republic of Korea, which holds over $450 billion of that debt, think it's a joke when he stands in front of a filing cabinet that holds $1.7 TRILLION in United States Treasury Bonds - the same United States Treasury Bonds they hold - and calls them "...just IOUs"??? Is he the president of some banana republic??

We, the American People, now require the rest of the world to buy an average of $2.9 billion of American debt - sold as Treasury Bonds - each and every business day just to keep the magic going. As a country, the United States is a family living paycheck to paycheck who has to go to the Payday Advance loan sharks every week, just to put food on the table and keep the bills paid.

If these governments and the other governments and other investors who buy that daily $2.9 billion of the public debt of the United States - which was nearly $2 TRILLION in Bush's first administration! - decide to take the advice of Fan Gang, the Director of the National Economic Research Institute at the China Reform Foundation who has said, "The U.S. dollar, in our opinion, is no longer seen as a stable currency, and is devaluating all the time, and that's putting troubles all the time. So the real issue is how to change the regime from a U.S. dollar pegging to a more manageable reference...say Euros, Yen, Dollars, those kind of more diversified systems," the days of the Republican Party's Spend-Now-Pay-Never Ponzi scheme are over. One by one, the Asian central banks who hold our Payday Advance checks have dropped increasingly less-subtle hints that they are saturated with dollar-denominated holdings. Korea, Japan, China, India, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore - all are coming to see these massive dollar overweights as a threat to their continued well-being.

$1.7 TRILLION of YOUR MONEY - money you have paid to your government, a government whose founding document FORBIDS THE QUESTIONING OF THAT DEBT - is now considered "nothing more than IOUs" by the President of the United States. He doesn't want to repay the debts he has sworn an oath in public to uphold! And he wants to borrow $5 trillion more to finance the handing-over of your retirement to his friends, the sharks of Wall Street.

George W. Bush has amply proven that his word - the word of a drunk, a drug-abuser, and a serial incompetent - is no good. Now he's set to prove the word of the United States of America is no good.

As Nancy Pelosi said in her press conference:

"This is the first time that a President of the United States has declared that we, the United States Government, will not put the full faith and credit of the federal government behind the Social Security trust fund."

DROP THE HAMMER...Not quite yet?

Mathew Yglesias comments over at Tapped on something that we here at TAFM have been saying for some time now, the best thing for Democrats to do regarding Tom DeLay is not to isolate him to the point where he is forced to resign, but rather allow the media to do its job and let the voters decide his fate in the next election.

However, Yglesias goes even further by saying "The issue here is the rise of a Republican Party that in its House, Senate, and White House incarnations is wholly a prisoner of corporate interests and has abandoned any pretense of ideological principle in an effort to put policy up for sale to the highest bidder." Yglesias ends his piece with a great line, proclaiming "Don't tell America to drop the Hammer, drop the hammer on corporate America and its shills."

DeLay symbolizes what I dislike most about the GOP and I think in due time the rest of America will come to see what Republicans have become. In the end, the GOP may blame DeLay for starting the fall from grace but in the end Republicans need only blame themselves as a group. When your party becomes more concerned with "Big Business" then the citizens you will undoubtedly end up on the losing end.

Between the recent news on DeLay, President Bush's sagging approval ratings, and the decision to get involved with the Schaivo case it would seem the GOP is doing just as much as the Dems in order to help get the Donkey in power.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

A NEW IDEA FOR JOE KLEIN: THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK

One of the magazines I read on a regular basis is TIME. In the April 11 issue Joe Klein has a piece titled "A New Idea for Democrats: Democracy" in which he believes the Democratic party would be wise to embrace "popular constitutionalism." Basically popular constitutionalism is the idea in which things like abortion are put to a vote and the public decides. Klein believes that the Democrats have come to a point where they are now overdependent on legal process creating a "culture of law that has supplanted legislative consideration of vexing social issues. This is Democracy once removed."

Klein also adds "The Democrats come to their dilemma honorably. It dates back to the rights movement, when federal courts had to enforce federal law in states that refused racial integration. But the courts soon wandered into unlegislated gray areas. They imposed forced busing to achieve school integration, allowed racial preferences in hiring and school admissions, extrapolated a constitutional right to privacy and declared abortion legal in the 1973 Roe v Wade case (and more recently, on the state court level, allowed gay marriage). Many of these were worth decisions but they were never voted on. Over time, as the Democrats became the minority party, their efforts to hold on to this last area of solace became more desperate."

"This month, Democrats may use procedural tricks to stop all Senate business and block a Republican Effort to eliminate minority filibuster rights and jam through seven federal judges proposed by the President. The fight may be winnable, but it is a culture of law cul-de-sac. The Democrats will be shutting down the Senate over a matter of process rather than substance, a pinhead of principle most civilians will find difficult to understand."

Klein furthers his argument by noting that if the Democrats resort to the "tricks" he mentioned above during the nomination process for the next Supreme Court Justice could result in "considerable" political damage.

Klein was right that the Democrats have come into the situation honorably, and to totally abandon that position now would would have dire consequences. If the Democrats did not use the right to filibuster (which was established for a reason) then the end result will be more conservative judicial appointments with the final blow coming when Bush nominates someone who is willing to overturn Roe v. Wade to the Supreme Court. The Democrats lead the charge in the Pro-Choice movement and to abandon these legal "tricks" would result in the undoing of one of the most important Democratic triumphs of the 20th century.

As for popular constitutionalism, it is important to remember that when the Supreme Court ruled that "Separate but Equal" was unconstitutional the majority of Americans were still in favor of segregation. Had we allowed the public to vote on the issue then it is quite possible that integration would have either been delayed or stopped entirely. Obviously integration is important in our society, and it took the Democrats and the Supreme Court to nudge the public towards the belief which is now ingrained in our society.

The founders of our Constitution knew that there would be times when the majority is not necessarily right and thus there must be a means in which the best solution can prevail in spite of the majority opinion. Furthermore "popular institutionalism" would be a tough line to walk, do we allow the public to vote on things such as abortion and judicial nominees yet we do not allow for a public vote regarding sending the American Military into war? Do we let the public vote on everything? Of course not, it isn't practical and that is why we have our current system of government. The process works, and just because the majority happens to believe something does not always mean it is right.

We have a system of Checks and Balances which has routinely proved its value each time it has been tested. President Nixon was forced to resign when it became clear he would be impeached for his role in Watergate, thus the legislative branch kept the executive branch in check. Recently, the judicial branch kept the the legislative branch in check by deciding against the reinsertion of Terri Schaivo's feeding tube. In many cases the majority should be able to have their way, but when the correct decision goes against the will of the majority their must be a way to ensure that fairness and justice prevail. Our nation already has a means in which this is done and walking away from it, so that the majority wins 100% of the time is politically and morally unacceptable.

"Popular Constitutionalism" is not one of the ideas the Democrats need to embrace and I certainly hope this concept never comes to fruition. We elect our for one simple reason, to represent us. If we do not like the job they are doing, we vote them out of office. This nation has elected enough Democratic to legally create a minority filibuster and the Democratic Party must exercise this option when failing to do so could result in drastic social consequences such as the criminalization of Abortion. Joe Klein may call that logic "desperate" but I call it fighting for what you believe in.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

FRIST BACKS DOWN

In what could be a sign that the GOP is beginning to let Tom DeLay sink on his own, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist recently gave his support to the judicial system and their decisions made during the Teri Schaivo case.

Reuters Reports that Frist said "I believe we have a fair and independent judiciary today." Frist added, "I respect that."
Frist also added that he thinks the courts "acted in a fair and independent way."

This is a stark contrast to the statements given by DeLay in relation to the Schaivo case. Rep DeLay has recently said ""The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

I think he is right, there will come a time for people to be held responsible for their behavior, and that moment is creeping up on Rep. DeLay.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com