MORE BOLTON PROBLEMS SURFACE

As the Senate Foreign Relations Vote on John Bolton approaches, new allegations regarding his past conduct have surfaced. This new information only furthers the point that John Bolton should not represent anyone, at anywhere, at anytime, especially when it comes to representing the United States in the United Nations.

Courtesy of The Washington Note, evidence that "John Bolton was actually voted down by senior partners of Bolton's law firm, Covington and Burling, where he worked before serving in the Department of Justice, because of concerns over his abusive behavior. An individual who would only speak anonymously shared the content of the super-secret partner's meeting with me yesterday.

In addition, after Bolton left the first Bush administration in 1993, he served on the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom and engaged in not only abusive behavior inside that government agency but also worked hard to have two people with whom he disagreed fired. The victims -- who now work at other institutions in Washington -- are reticent about making public claims because of Bolton's continued ability to cause negative consequences for them and their fear that he will seek retribution."

Somehow I do not think that the playground bully approach that Bolton seems to have used for years would ever really be effective in the United Nations. Furthermore, this "bully" policy will do nothing but weaken our ties with the international community.

Fortunately, more Republicans are beginning to speak out against Bolton. Colin Powell's Chief of Staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, gave an interview to the New York Times in which he said ""Under Secretary Bolton was never the formidable power that people are insinuating he was in terms of foreign policy, or blocking the policies that Secretary Powell wished to pursue," Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Mr. Powell's chief of staff, said in a telephone interview.

"But do I think John Bolton would make a good ambassador to the United Nations? Absolutely not," Mr. Wilkerson said. "He is incapable of listening to people and taking into account their views. He would be an abysmal ambassador."

Lets hope that those who get to vote on Bolton's confirmation do some real research and realize that Bolton would be nothing but a cancer in the United Nations.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

Crazy, Crazy for feeling......

Have you ever heard an idea that was so insane, that in the back of your head Patsy Cline's song "Crazy" started playing. Maybe I am the only one who does that, but this classic country tune certainly could have been applied to an idea that was proposed by Rep. Steve King.

Courtesy of The Carpetbagger Report, King is on record as saying "Congress can't lower judges' salaries or fire them ? provisions tucked into the Constitution by the Framers, who watched judges serve at the whim of King George III. But lawmakers can eliminate their positions altogether.

"We could reduce the size of the Supreme Court,? says Rep. Steve King. "It doesn't take nine judges, it only takes one. It would just be Chief Justice William Rehnquist with his card table."

Unfortunately, King has said this type of garbage before.

"[Courts] have defied federal law. And this confrontation now is the confrontation between the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, the will of the people and the judicial branch of government," said Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican. "Constitutional authority will either be imposed upon the judicial branch of government, or we might as well board up the Capitol and turn this country over to the whims of the judges."

Mr. King said he is planning a legislative strategy that will involve offering amendments to appropriations bills designed to "put the courts back in their appropriate constitutional place," but said it is too early to say exactly what he will pursue.

Is he crazy? Seriously?

I doubt that congress would ever reduce the size of the Supreme Court, but that does not excuse King from making comments like this. The unfortunate part, is that although it is unlikely that the GOP would try and reduce the number of justices on the Supreme Court, it is not out of the question. The GOP obviously has no respect for the balance of power, as they try and eliminate minority filibusters as well as try and order Federal Judges what to do, most recently in the Schaivo case. Still think that the "Radical Right" doesn't exist?

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

GOP AND THE RACE CARD

I know that Senator Rick Santorum has been called the mad dog, why I do not know, but after reading his Op-Ed Piece in the Washington Post yesterday I am starting to think a new nickname may be in order. Idiot comes to mind, or maybe "race card player", although I doubt Santorum would go for either suggestions. Still, when you consider what he wrote, it is apparent that Santorum has no problem dropping the race card.

In his piece, Santorum compared two judicial nominees who had not yet been approved by congress. Now, just like in those "Highlights" Magazines from when I was a kid, lets compare the paragraphs written about the nominees and find the differences. The first nominee mentioned, is Texas Supreme Court Judge Priscilla Owen. Santorum writes: "It has been almost four years since President Bush nominated Texas Supreme Court Judge Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Since then the Senate has held two hearings, conducted many days of floor debate, analyzed Owen's judicial opinions down to the last comma and attempted four times to invoke cloture so that debate could finally be concluded and the Senate could take an up-or-down vote on her nomination.

Not only has Owen withstood this intensive examination, she has shown time and again that the American Bar Association got it right when it unanimously awarded her its highest possible rating. She was also reelected with 84 percent of the vote in 2000 and had the endorsement of every newspaper in Texas. Owen has earned the support of a clear majority of senators."

Alright, that seems fine, now lets look at how Santorum referred to another nominee, Justice Janice Rogers Brown.

"This July will mark almost two years since the president nominated Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Brown started life as the daughter of a sharecropper in the segregated South and through hard work and determination became the first African American woman to serve on California's highest court. In 2002 she was called upon by her colleagues to write the majority opinion more often than any other member of the California Supreme Court. She was retained with 76 percent of the vote in her last election. In short, Brown has shown herself to be unquestionably trustworthy, highly intelligent and well within the mainstream, and she has earned the enthusiastic support of a majority of the U.S. Senate."

Now, can you spot the difference? If you said that Santorum's bit about Owen seemed to make her case based on her credentials alone, but his piece on Owen played the race card, then you win. Of course, you probably do not feel like much of a winner as you probably feel some level of disgust towards Santorum. That is a common reaction when dealing with the "Mad Dog".

The Bush Administration has nominated numerous minorities to different positions, including Alberto Gonzales and Condoleezza Rice, however I think a persons gender or skin color is far less important than their political record. Opposition towards Alberto Gonzales did not come about because he was , rather it came about because he played a key roll in when it came to the torturing of "enemy combatants."

The Gadflyer notes that on several occasions in which a minority was nominated by the Bush White House, other GOP leaders have made public comments which the candidates. Senator Trent Lott said that Migue Estrada's nomination was held up "because he's ".

Senator Orrin Hatch said in regards to Judge Owen that the nomination was being opposed "because she is a woman in public life who is to have personal views that some maintain should be unacceptable for a woman in public life to have." Hatch added that this sexism "represents a new glad ceiling for woman jurists, and they have come too far to duffer now having their feet bound up just as they approach the tables of our high courts." ? Graceful Senator Hatch, very graceful.

The is that the GOP knows that the people they have put forward would never be approved by the Democrats, and rather then go head to head with the Donkey on the issues, they would rather place the race card, or gender card, in the hopes of gaining sympathy for their nominations. However, when you read comments such as the ones made by Senators Hatch, Lott, or Santorum, you come to realize that the only time they care about race or gender is when it would help their party. The GOP is more concerned with their Right Wing Policy and Conservative Agenda than they will ever care about equality.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

The Arrogance of Power--GOP Style

You have probably heard by now that the bankruptcy bill, which benefits businesses at the expense of the people, has been passed. As appalling as this new bill is, considering it provides predatory lenders with the motivation to go out and try and take advantage of more Americans, the process in how this bill was passed through the house is even more absurd. Rather, I should say the lack of process.

From the Carpetbagger Report, word today that Tom DeLay and other Republicans within the House "limited the debate to just two hours and didn't even allow congressional Dems to offer an amendment to the legislation."

Carpetbagger reports "What kind of amendments are we talking about here? Pretty straightforward stuff: proposed provisions included expanded disclosure from credit card companies, limits on lender fees, identity-theft protections, and leniency for military personnel returning from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not just that Republicans were opposed to these consumer protections — though they were — it's that the GOP wouldn't even let Dems bring these amendments to the floor for consideration."

These actions by the House GOP are nothing short of arrogant, and although this happened in the house, I it makes a stronger case for keeping the minority filibuster in the senate. If Frist and the GOP are able to eliminate the filibuster get ready to see more laws passed and more judges appointed that will cater to the GOP Agenda: The Right and Big Business. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to unimportant to the GOP until election time comes around and they throw us a bone in the hopes of winning some votes. Regardless of any last minute offering from the GOP, let us not forget things like the passage of the bankruptcy bill, and the means in which it was done, because it truly shows that Republicans care more about helping Big Business then they do about helping the American People.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE

Yesterday I broke down some of the arguments regarding the minority filibuster rule in congress as well as giving some of my own thoughts on the issue. The Washington Post is reporting that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist "is all but certain to press for a rule change that would ban filibusters of judicial nominations.."

This decision by Frist could have many ramifications, as the Post speculates that a move to ban minority filibusters could create a situation in which the passage of President Bush's Agenda becomes much more complicated and difficult.

As I said yesterday, I support the filibuster law, as it prevents a tyranny of a slight majority. Although some other bloggers have been calling for the Democrats to give in and eliminate the filibuster, I can not say enough how much I disagree with that idea. Although the Democrats may face problems in the future when the tables are turned and they have a majority, their are enough Democrats in this country who want the party to fight for their beliefs even if they do not hold a majority in congress. If the Democrats abandoned the filibuster and simply rolled over on this issue it would end up eroding at the base of the party, and I costing more votes in the long run as life long Democrats will feel that their elected law makers have simply given up.

If the GOP wishes to use filibusters in the future to stall Democratic policy then so be it, they will deal with the consequences of their actions. Honestly, do you think if the tables were turned the GOP would simply give in and surrender the right to a filibuster? Absolutely Not.

Hopefully enough Republicans can concede the of a minority filibuster, and Frist's plans will never come to fruition. In the mean time, call your representatives and demand that they respect the filibuster as is.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

CHANGE IS IN THE AIR

How does it feel to know you made a difference? I pose this question to you, our readers, because as you may have heard, the FCC ruled today that TV Broadcasters must disclose the source of video news releases. So now, when you watch the so called "Fake News", you will at least be informed that what you just saw was not a news report, but rather a commercial embedded in the news. So I congratulate everyone who took the time to email the FCC and I thank you all for helping to make a difference. Lets keep up the good work.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

Sorting Through the Filibuster Debate

Everyone is weighing in with their thoughts on the filibuster issue and I decided that today I would give my thoughts on it. As you know the GOP is trying to eliminate the minority filibuster in congress, thus paving the way for whomever has the majority to pretty much do whatever they want. I think this sounds a little dangerous, but lets examine some arguments.

Matt Yglesias at Tapped notes that the filibuster has often been used to halt progressive legislation.
Yglesias writes: "It is, by contrast, very easy to think of liberal initiatives that filibusters have blocked. Indeed, as conservative activist Jim Boulet Jr. has wisely argued in a memo to his comrades, the filibuster is crucial to conservatism. By his account, without it, majorities would exist to raise the minimum wage; reform labor law to make new union organizing easier; ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment; reduce greenhouse-gas emissions; and close the "gun-show loophole." I'm not a gun-control fan myself, but everything else on the list is a key priority. In the past, of course, the filibuster is most famous for its role in delaying the dawn of civil rights. Less well known is that it was integral to the defeat of Bill Clinton's health care plan in 1993. If liberals ever get another chance to go for comprehensible health-care reform, the filibuster will once again rear its ugly head.

At any given moment, the filibuster rule helps the minority party. Right now, that's Democrats. But taking the long view, the filibuster is bad for Democrats. Ideally, you'd want to get rid of it at just the ideal moment. But, realistically, that can't be done; only minority-party acquiescence will let it happen. Now's a good time for Democrats to show some rare appreciation for the importance of long-term thinking and let the right shoot itself in the foot -- rather than giving them yet another tool with which to rile up their base."

Excellent points and a very good argument, however Paul Waldman at The Gadflyer has his own thoughts on Yglesias's opinion. "Matt's argument is pretty persuasive - at the same time, so is the argument that if there's one thing you do want filibusters for, it's judicial nominees, since unlike legislation they can't just be undone."

Waldman goes on to say "So what if the secret plan is to win by losing? It works this way: Democrats goad Senate Republicans into eliminating the filibuster. Democrats are thus given a political issue that fits nicely with the larger story they're telling about Republicans: that they are corrupt, drunk with power, in thrall to a tiny group of theocrats, etc. The filibuster issue becomes part of the 2006 campaign narrative. But in the long run, the end of the filibuster helps enact lots of progressive legislation, and Democrats win in two ways, all for the relatively minor cost of a few extremist judges."

Waldman makes a good case, but what happens if the DEMS do not win back congress, and the GOP is able to throw in some judges who manage to overturn Roe v. Wade? Will it have been worth it then? Not to mention, if we allow the majority to do whatever it pleases then we set the stage for a sort of legal anarchy as laws change every few years simply because one party regains control of congress. Are we really going to let things such as abortion be legalized and criminalized every few years just because the majority keeps changing?

Although the filibuster has caused the Democrats its share of problems, America needs the stability that comes with the downside of this process. If enough people want to see legislation passed, then it will happen, regardless of party politics. The Democrats must not lose the right to a minority filibuster, not only because it could undo many of the great Democratic achievements in the last one hundred years, but because our future as a nation depends on the stability that a filibuster helps deliver. In good times, and in bad, the filibuster is necessary, and on the whole is good for the American people.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

COMFORTING THE COMFORTABLE - AFFLICTING THE AFFLICTED

By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

It was once said of the former Governor of Texas - "Pass the Biscuits Pappy" O'Daniel - that his political aim was to "save the soul of the poor man and the wealth of the rich man."

The same is true of today's Republican Party. Today, the radical-right House Republicans voted to permanently end "the death tax."

Even before its "temporary elimination" in 2001, the estate tax - which the far right has turned into a populist cause by calling it "the death tax" - only applied to estates of more than $1 million, and actually affected approximately two percent of Americans.

During their campaign to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted, the Republicans claimed that the 55% tax on such estates forced heirs to sell off "family farms" to meet the tax, WHEN IN FACT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY "FAMILY FARM" EVER HAVING TO BE SOLD IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. But then, there's never been a Republican who let the facts stand in the way of ideology.

Under the tax reforms of 2001, the estate tax was to be gradually reduced and eliminated by 2010, only to spring back the following year to its 2001 level. How any Democrat was able to convince themselves that, once done, such an act would be un-done boggles the mind. Those Democrats who still believe in the Tooth Fairy will be the only one surprised when the House votes to keep full repeal in the tax code after 2010.

So how much are we talking about? Try $290 billion in tax breaks for the two percent of Americans who will benefit.

Democratic Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota had proposed an alternative that would protect all estates below $3.5 million for an individual and $7 million for a couple, which would have applied the tax to a mere three-tenths of 1 percent of estates.

With $290 billion coming to the government over ten years, it might not be necessary to cut Medicaid or health care for veterans, among other things.

But goodness, how could we possibly imagine it would be a good thing to ask those who have benefitted the most from the opportunities of America to participate in their community - as the Bible teaches they should - to care for the poor and the sick, to care for those who risked their lives to defend the nation that has provided such riches?

In the four years that George Bush and the Republicans have given us "conservative economics," the pay of the average family has gone up 3.5 percent - and this past year it took a 2 percent pay cut due to inflation - while the pay of the average CEO has gone up 34 percent since 2000, and is now approximately 400 times the annual wage the average employee of that CEO's company.

Anyone who believes their boss is 400 times better than they are, 400 times smarter than they are, is definitely dumb enough to pass the IQ test low enough to be qualified to join the Republican Party. And since that person just knows in their soul that they’ve got as much chance of becoming a millionaire as anyone else - because that's their God-given right as an American - of course we have to abolish the "death tax" so they can pass those riches on to their children.

DELAY UP TO HIS OLD HABITS

The Washington Post reports today that Tom DeLay met with Republican Senators yesterday and asked them to "stick with him" while he fights his way through these allegations. DeLay made the point to reporters that his message was "Be Patient, we'll be fine." Keep dreaming Tom.

DeLay has yet again called these allegations surrounding his relationships with lobbyists a part of "the Democratic agenda." DeLay went even further by suggesting that the allegations he is facing are the result of a "lack of an agenda."

Lets clear this up now, I believe the allegations facing DeLay are true, and they are nut the result of any Democratic agenda, or lack of an agenda. DeLay's situation is the result of a lack of moral integrity and legal responsibility, and the blame can only be places on DeLay. When you and I have to deal with a business, either to fix our homes or what not ,we check out to see who we are dealing with in order to make sure we do not get scammed. DeLay says he did not know he was dealing with lobbyists, yet why should he be less accountable in his daily life then the rest of us are.

DeLay's defense is the equivalent to a situation out of pre-school when you get caught taking someones toy but you try and say the other kid gave it to you. DeLay's response to these allegations have had zero integrity, and thus we are starting to see the Hammer for who he really is: a greedy and immoral lawmaker who will never take accountability for his actions. Enjoy your last term in congress.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com

Follow up about Inflation

A quick follow up to my post yesterday about how inflation great at a higher rate than did wages. It appears that it is only those of us not in the Upper Class who are suffering as the Gadflyer reports that high level executives are doing fine.

Quoting an AFL-CIO report, The Gadflyer reports "In 2004, the average CEO of a major company received $9.84 million in total compensation, according to a study by compensation consultant Pearl Meyer & Partners for The New York Times. This represents a 12 percent increase in CEO pay over 2003. In contrast, the average worker's pay increased just 3.6 percent in 2004."

Hmm, The leaders of Big Business continue to make more money while the rest of us suffer, that's the GOP machine for you.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com