Leading With the Women(from today's NY Times...and worth posting the whole thing)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/opinion/28thu1.html
If war breaks out in the Senate over judicial nominations, the initial battle is likely to center on two women, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. Republicans seem to think that those nominees will come off as so likeable that Democrats will be forced to back down from their threats of a filibuster. But when the American public looks beyond the photo-op, it will be clear why these women do not belong on the federal bench. Both have records of kowtowing to big business and showing contempt for ordinary people who are the victims of injustice.
Senate Democrats have confirmed almost all of President Bush's judicial nominations, more than 200 of them. But they have balked at a few of the least qualified, most ideologically driven nominees. The Republicans have, shamefully, countered with accusations of ethnic and religious bias. When Democrats blocked one far-right Hispanic, Republicans claimed that he was a victim of anti-Hispanic discrimination - even though Hispanic groups opposed him. An address by Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, was heard last weekend as part of a convention that attacked Senate Democrats as being "against people of faith" for blocking judicial nominees. Now the Republicans appear to be trying to make the opposition look sexist.
Justice Owen was elected to the Texas Supreme Court with Karl Rove as a campaign consultant, and with donations from Enron and other large corporations. On the court, she has a record of reflexively ruling in favor of corporations, including Enron. She bent the law in an attempt to protect an insurance company that wrongly refused to cover a woman's heart surgery bills, and a carmaker against a lawsuit by a teenager paralyzed in an accident.
There are serious questions about Justice Owen's willingness to enforce the law when it does not match her ideology. In a dissent in a much-discussed abortion case, she wanted to rewrite Texas law to make it harder for minors seeking abortions to bypass the requirement that they notify their parents. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, then a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, suggested that Justice Owen's narrow reading of the law was "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
Justice Brown, currently a member of the California Supreme Court, is an extreme right-wing ideologue. She is an outspoken supporter of a radical movement to take constitutional law back to before 1937, when the federal government had little power to prevent discrimination, protect workers from unsafe conditions or prohibit child labor. She has attacked the New Deal, which created Social Security, as "the triumph of our socialist revolution."
On the bench, Justice Brown - a black woman raised in segregated Alabama - is a consistent enemy of minorities and old people, and of people injured by big business. In an age discrimination case, she wrote a lone dissent against a fired 60-year-old employee, warning about the harm the case could do to the "stability of the business community." She contended - contrary to established law - that age discrimination "is the unavoidable consequence of that universal leveler: time."
The Republicans are trying to make the fight about process, about whether the Democrats have a right to filibuster judicial nominees. It is a dishonest discussion: Senator Frist does not like to admit that he participated in a filibuster of an appeals court nomination made by President Clinton. But even more important, the discussion of process is crowding out the debate we should be hearing over whether the nominees being fought over would make good federal judges. Justice Owen and Justice Brown have extensive records that point to the inescapable conclusion that they would not.
2005-2006 CDems Elections
Congratulations to the newly elected board members of the UD College Democrats!
We look forward to a great year!
President: Sarah Von Esch
Vice President: Dana Rohrbough
Secretary: Julie Palmer
Treasurer: Genevieve Salem
Campaign Chair: Mike McKain
Public Relations: Matt Reichert
Membership/Social Chair: Teresa Richards
We look forward to a great year!
President: Sarah Von Esch
Vice President: Dana Rohrbough
Secretary: Julie Palmer
Treasurer: Genevieve Salem
Campaign Chair: Mike McKain
Public Relations: Matt Reichert
Membership/Social Chair: Teresa Richards
Frist's Tryst with the Fundamentalists
Bill Frist’s decision to speak at the event entitled “Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith” is an abomination on many levels, and is perhaps the most vile Republican tactic yet in their efforts to enact their reactionary ideology at any cost.
The debate over the filibuster is one of a legitimate political nature that, while I support the Democrat’s efforts, is also one that has the potential to be good for the American political system as a whole, a reevaluation of our processes and the values contained therein.
However, this recent effort to wed church and state is wholly absurd, and speaks to the need to maintain the wall of separation between the two. Not only does this latest attack reflect the incessant desire by Republicans to move toward a system that is more theocratic, it also reveals the danger of politics becoming involved in matters of faith.
You see, my Republican friends, there are a lot of good Democrats who are ALSO “people of faith.” To them (and yes, I am among them), this attack is simply offensive, and we are SICK of these radical fundamentalists hijacking the public face of our religion and trying to link themselves indelibly with the Republican Party. Religion - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. - HAS NO political party, and NO political party has a monopoly on any one of them, nor do they have any right whatsoever to claim that they do.
The recent Republican attempt to do exactly that and to use it to garner sympathy for their radical judges is nothing more than a cheap political trick, but in today’s political climate, one can hardly expect better from our friends on the Right.
The debate over the filibuster is one of a legitimate political nature that, while I support the Democrat’s efforts, is also one that has the potential to be good for the American political system as a whole, a reevaluation of our processes and the values contained therein.
However, this recent effort to wed church and state is wholly absurd, and speaks to the need to maintain the wall of separation between the two. Not only does this latest attack reflect the incessant desire by Republicans to move toward a system that is more theocratic, it also reveals the danger of politics becoming involved in matters of faith.
You see, my Republican friends, there are a lot of good Democrats who are ALSO “people of faith.” To them (and yes, I am among them), this attack is simply offensive, and we are SICK of these radical fundamentalists hijacking the public face of our religion and trying to link themselves indelibly with the Republican Party. Religion - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. - HAS NO political party, and NO political party has a monopoly on any one of them, nor do they have any right whatsoever to claim that they do.
The recent Republican attempt to do exactly that and to use it to garner sympathy for their radical judges is nothing more than a cheap political trick, but in today’s political climate, one can hardly expect better from our friends on the Right.
Keeping with the Theme: Kudos to Senator Biden
If anyone watched on CSPAN the Senate Foreign Relations Committee open hearing on the John Bolton nomination for US UN Ambassador, you'd have seen our own Delaware Senator, Joe Biden, persuading the conservatives to rethink their support for Mr. Bolton.
Biden's passion was highly regarded by some Republicans, so much so that they now have serious reservations about the conduct and actions of nominee Bolton.
Biden led the effort in this abnormal open committee meeting to have the doors shut so that people who would like to share their professional experience with the Senators regarding Mr. Bolton, would be able to do it in private so their careers and lives would not be at stake. Besides, nominee discussions are normally held in closed committees.
In addition, Biden asked for more time to read the lengthy reports on Mr. Bolton's behavior, and to gather more information from coworkers of Mr. Bolton, which the Committee Chair did not want to allow. (Note: Biden was committee chair for years until the Republican take-over).
With more time, now Senators are rethinking Mr. Bolton. Here is a short excerpt from American Progress:
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) admitted Wednesday he "had some reservations" about Bolton's nomination, joining two other senators - Sen. Chuck Hegel (R-NE) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) - who have voiced "significant doubts about whether Mr. Bolton has the temperament and credibility to win confirmation." The nomination hangs on what some critics call a "pattern of abuse" in Bolton's treatment of underlings and intelligence officers while he was at the State Department. In interviews on Wednesday, "some Senate aides said they would not be surprised if the nomination was ultimately withdrawn."
Biden's passion was highly regarded by some Republicans, so much so that they now have serious reservations about the conduct and actions of nominee Bolton.
Biden led the effort in this abnormal open committee meeting to have the doors shut so that people who would like to share their professional experience with the Senators regarding Mr. Bolton, would be able to do it in private so their careers and lives would not be at stake. Besides, nominee discussions are normally held in closed committees.
In addition, Biden asked for more time to read the lengthy reports on Mr. Bolton's behavior, and to gather more information from coworkers of Mr. Bolton, which the Committee Chair did not want to allow. (Note: Biden was committee chair for years until the Republican take-over).
With more time, now Senators are rethinking Mr. Bolton. Here is a short excerpt from American Progress:
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) admitted Wednesday he "had some reservations" about Bolton's nomination, joining two other senators - Sen. Chuck Hegel (R-NE) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) - who have voiced "significant doubts about whether Mr. Bolton has the temperament and credibility to win confirmation." The nomination hangs on what some critics call a "pattern of abuse" in Bolton's treatment of underlings and intelligence officers while he was at the State Department. In interviews on Wednesday, "some Senate aides said they would not be surprised if the nomination was ultimately withdrawn."
Kudos to Senator Carper
The New York Times offered its support today to Delaware’s Senator Tom Carper’s blocking of EPA Nominee Stephen Johnson because of his refusal to promise a “detailed technical analysis” of a plan that would serve as a viable alternative for Bush’s Orwellian-named “Clear Skies” initiative. Traditionally, the EPA has always been willing to embrace science and at least seriously consider plans proposed, but this measure has been bogged down for two years without receiving serious consideration. One can only speculate that the reason for this is that it would reveal the weaknesses of Bush’s Clear Skies initiative and provide a better alternative for those who are genuinely concerned about the environment.
Before the Republicans cry “obstructionism” as they love to do so much, Carper already has said that he believes Johnson to be qualified as an individual, in spite of his project in Florida where the EPA paid parents to allow the monitoring of the effects dangerous pesticides had upon their exposure to children. This ghastly project was cancelled at the request of Barbara Boxer and Bill Nelson.
So why is the usually moderate Senator Carper so upset? In the end, this is not about Stephen Johnson, but the EPA and what President Bush has made of it. In the past four and a half years of the Bush administration, the EPA has essentially been a stooge agency for the President’s political agenda, withholding or manipulating scientific evidence in order to support and advance his agenda. Christine Whitman’s refusal to do so led to her term as EPA chief being cut short. It seems even party loyalty cannot come between President Bush and the business interests he represents.
So bravo, Senator Carper, for taking a stand. I like our Senator BECAUSE he is a moderate voice (though this draws scorn from some). Here, I think we see the benefits of his usual bipartisan moderatism; when he stand up and cries “foul!,” we know it isn’t chicken-little syndrome, but a legitimate concern. If we’re lucky, though, this stand will one day lead to the proclamation, “The ‘Clear Skies’ is falling.”
Such an occurrence would be a victory for the environment over business, and would be a triumph for this country’s silent moderate majority over Bush and his cronies’ radical Right-wing pro-business ideology.
Bush Listens to Democrats?
WASHINGTON, April 18 - President Bush campaigned for his Social Security proposals today in South Carolina, where he also told state lawmakers that he was eager to hear ideas from Republicans and Democrats alike to put the retirement system on a sounder footing. - NY Times, 4/18/05
Now if we can only have this debate in the US Congress...
Private accounts are not the answer, but perhaps in a bi-partisan manner, politicians can get together a plan that would raise the age a few years (after all, people are living longer), raise the cap from 90,000 and incorporate a percentage-based bracket, along with raising taxes. All of these things will fully fund social security. The problem is getting politicians to make these political moves, which no one wants to do. However, if they all propose these changes, then they will all be on the same political level.
Now if we can only have this debate in the US Congress...
Private accounts are not the answer, but perhaps in a bi-partisan manner, politicians can get together a plan that would raise the age a few years (after all, people are living longer), raise the cap from 90,000 and incorporate a percentage-based bracket, along with raising taxes. All of these things will fully fund social security. The problem is getting politicians to make these political moves, which no one wants to do. However, if they all propose these changes, then they will all be on the same political level.
A Follow Up on Right Wing Hypocrisy...
In another case of Republican hypocrisy House Republicans decided to change the rules of the Ethics committee to make sure that no ethics investigation can go forth without at least one member of the opposite party voting for the investigation. This is disgusting because not only did republicans do it to shield their own Tom Delay from an inevitable investigation into his possible ethics violations, and i'm not saying if Delay is guilty or not, because thats irrelevant, what is relevant is the House Republicans have made it impossible for a full scale investigation to actually occur. This whole fiasco is also disgusting because it was the Repbulicans who set the original rule in 1997 so that any one party could investigate the other parties politicians without the support of anyone in the other party. Go figure...more hypocrisy from the Republicans.
Bankruptcy Bill, Positioned by Republicans, to Pass
Via NYTimes, WASHINGTON (AP) -- Bankruptcy legislation that could make it impossible for thousands of people to wipe away their debts neared passage by Congress Thursday amid acrimonious debate as Democratic opponents in the House warned that the bill would hurt the economically vulnerable.
After eight years of failed efforts by banks and credit card companies, the biggest overhaul of bankruptcy laws in a quarter-century was catapulted toward enactment by a Republican majority strengthened in the fall elections. The legislation, which garnered some Democratic votes, cleared the Senate last month 74-25.
After only a few hours of debate, the House was voting on the bill, which would require people with incomes above a certain level to pay credit-card charges, medical bills and other obligations under a court-ordered bankruptcy plan.
In a bitter scene on the House floor, Democrats -- most of whom opposed the legislation -- used an array of parliamentary tactics to delay the final vote, forcing a roll call vote on adjourning the session and lining up one by one to register their objections in brief, biting statements. Democrats were furious that the GOP leadership allowed no proposed amendments to be voted on.
President Bush has said he will sign the bill into law. It marks a second victory for Bush this year on pro-business legislation.
Opponents say the change would fall especially hard on low-income working people, single mothers, minorities and the elderly and would remove a safety net for those who have lost their jobs or face crushing medical bills.
The legislation ''protects the credit industry at the expense of the consumer,'' Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., declared in debate on the House floor. ''It will drive more Americans deeper into financial crisis and weaken the nation's economy and social structure.''
...
The bill creates a test for measuring a debtor's ability to pay. Those with insufficient assets or income could still file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which if approved by a judge erases debts entirely after certain assets are forfeited. Those with income above the state's median income who can pay at least $6,000 over five years -- $100 a month -- would be forced into Chapter 13, where a judge would then order a repayment plan.
Critics say that's unfair because many people who file for bankruptcy have lost their jobs, or are going to lose them.
Under the current system, a federal bankruptcy judge determines under which chapter of the bankruptcy code a person falls -- whether they have to repay some or all of their debt.
------
On the Net:
Information on the bill, S. 256, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/
After eight years of failed efforts by banks and credit card companies, the biggest overhaul of bankruptcy laws in a quarter-century was catapulted toward enactment by a Republican majority strengthened in the fall elections. The legislation, which garnered some Democratic votes, cleared the Senate last month 74-25.
After only a few hours of debate, the House was voting on the bill, which would require people with incomes above a certain level to pay credit-card charges, medical bills and other obligations under a court-ordered bankruptcy plan.
In a bitter scene on the House floor, Democrats -- most of whom opposed the legislation -- used an array of parliamentary tactics to delay the final vote, forcing a roll call vote on adjourning the session and lining up one by one to register their objections in brief, biting statements. Democrats were furious that the GOP leadership allowed no proposed amendments to be voted on.
President Bush has said he will sign the bill into law. It marks a second victory for Bush this year on pro-business legislation.
Opponents say the change would fall especially hard on low-income working people, single mothers, minorities and the elderly and would remove a safety net for those who have lost their jobs or face crushing medical bills.
The legislation ''protects the credit industry at the expense of the consumer,'' Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., declared in debate on the House floor. ''It will drive more Americans deeper into financial crisis and weaken the nation's economy and social structure.''
...
The bill creates a test for measuring a debtor's ability to pay. Those with insufficient assets or income could still file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which if approved by a judge erases debts entirely after certain assets are forfeited. Those with income above the state's median income who can pay at least $6,000 over five years -- $100 a month -- would be forced into Chapter 13, where a judge would then order a repayment plan.
Critics say that's unfair because many people who file for bankruptcy have lost their jobs, or are going to lose them.
Under the current system, a federal bankruptcy judge determines under which chapter of the bankruptcy code a person falls -- whether they have to repay some or all of their debt.
------
On the Net:
Information on the bill, S. 256, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/
And if You Look to Your Right, You'll See Hypocrisy...
In their latest efforts to show their unceasing patriotism and support for our troops, Senate Republicans voted unanimously AGAINST a bill that would provide almost $2 billion in emergency funding for medical care for veterans. This was to be part of the 80.6 billion dollar emergency supplemental appropriations bill the Bush administration has put forward to continue military operations in Iraq. The Bush administration sought NO money for the VA as part of its supplemental request.
As wounded service men and women return home, many will seek treatment in VA facilities that already face funding issues. This amendment, according to The Marine Corps Times, would have provided “$1.975 billion to the VA, with $525 million earmarked for mental health programs, $610 million provided specifically for the treatment of veterans wounded in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, and $840 million evenly divided between VA regions.”
Apparently for Republicans, funding the continuation of the war warrants “emergency funding,” but taking care of those who are fighting it does not. This vote is the epitome of Republican hypocrisy.
College Democrats Events
UPCOMING EVENTS from the College Dems Calendar, www.ud-dems.com
April 13th - Weekly Meeting: At Grottos this week!
Grottos Pizza!! See you at 6pm at Grottos on Main Street, in the Galleria! Bring spare cash. For more info email president@ud-dems.com
April 13th - The Great Debate
UD Philosophy Department, sponsoring "The Great Debate" series. "Is The Iraq War Justified?" Pro/Con with respective experts. Willard 007 7pm. The debate will feature Thomas Hurka from the University of Toronto and Jeff McMahan from Rutgers and Princeton. In addition to the debate, the Ethics Program is sponsoring an essay contest, with $1,200 in prizes. The contest is open to all students attending a Delaware college.
April 15th - 23rd District Spaghetti Dinner
Free spaghetti dinner for UD College Democrats! Hang out with the 23rd district committee, new State Representative Terry Schooley, and meet new people! Live auction with auctioneer County Executive Chris Coons! 6-9 pm in Newark (walking from campus). Interested? Email Dana at dcrohrbough@aol.com
April 18th - Spring Social
Delaware State University Young Democrats Spring Social April 18, 2005 MBNA Building Longwood Auditorium 7:00pm Guest Speaker Jordan A. Harris Lifetime Achievement Award Honorees Mr. Harold Stafford Secretary of Labor-Delaware Ms. Stephanie T. Bolden 3rd District Councilwoman-City of Wilmington For more inofrmation please contact: Jessica Terry 302.857.8137
April 27th - SAGE: Take Back the Night
Take Back the Night with SAGE, Students Acting for Gender Equality, on Thursday, April 28 at 7:00 pm. Contact Info: cdechern@UDel.Edu
April 27th - Nominations for UD board
Nominations for UD's College Democrats board Due April 27. (Please note: different from the State Level College Democrat nominations which should be emailed to Dana at dcrohrbough@aol.com). For more about the UD Board, click on "board" on the sidebar.
May 14th - State Democratic Convention - Statewide Delaware College Democrats Elections
Elections for the College Democrats at the State Level. Nominations send to Dana at campaign@ud-dems.com For more about the State Level, visit www.collegedems.com and click on "student corps" then, "Delaware." In Dover at the Sheraton. Rides will be arranged. All College Dems invited. Email Dana campaign@ud-dems.com for details.
Is your event not listed? Email campaign@ud-dems.com
April 13th - Weekly Meeting: At Grottos this week!
Grottos Pizza!! See you at 6pm at Grottos on Main Street, in the Galleria! Bring spare cash. For more info email president@ud-dems.com
April 13th - The Great Debate
UD Philosophy Department, sponsoring "The Great Debate" series. "Is The Iraq War Justified?" Pro/Con with respective experts. Willard 007 7pm. The debate will feature Thomas Hurka from the University of Toronto and Jeff McMahan from Rutgers and Princeton. In addition to the debate, the Ethics Program is sponsoring an essay contest, with $1,200 in prizes. The contest is open to all students attending a Delaware college.
April 15th - 23rd District Spaghetti Dinner
Free spaghetti dinner for UD College Democrats! Hang out with the 23rd district committee, new State Representative Terry Schooley, and meet new people! Live auction with auctioneer County Executive Chris Coons! 6-9 pm in Newark (walking from campus). Interested? Email Dana at dcrohrbough@aol.com
April 18th - Spring Social
Delaware State University Young Democrats Spring Social April 18, 2005 MBNA Building Longwood Auditorium 7:00pm Guest Speaker Jordan A. Harris Lifetime Achievement Award Honorees Mr. Harold Stafford Secretary of Labor-Delaware Ms. Stephanie T. Bolden 3rd District Councilwoman-City of Wilmington For more inofrmation please contact: Jessica Terry 302.857.8137
April 27th - SAGE: Take Back the Night
Take Back the Night with SAGE, Students Acting for Gender Equality, on Thursday, April 28 at 7:00 pm. Contact Info: cdechern@UDel.Edu
April 27th - Nominations for UD board
Nominations for UD's College Democrats board Due April 27. (Please note: different from the State Level College Democrat nominations which should be emailed to Dana at dcrohrbough@aol.com). For more about the UD Board, click on "board" on the sidebar.
May 14th - State Democratic Convention - Statewide Delaware College Democrats Elections
Elections for the College Democrats at the State Level. Nominations send to Dana at campaign@ud-dems.com For more about the State Level, visit www.collegedems.com and click on "student corps" then, "Delaware." In Dover at the Sheraton. Rides will be arranged. All College Dems invited. Email Dana campaign@ud-dems.com for details.
Is your event not listed? Email campaign@ud-dems.com
Chile and Social Security: The Latest Republican Propaganda
In their latest efforts to convince America that the privatization of Social Security is a good idea, the Republicans have turned to an unlikely source: Chile. Under the Right-wing military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, the social security program in Chile was privatized, and "At first glance, returns on individual account investments in Chile appear quite respectable." It is this superficial success that Republicans are touting as an example for the United States and the Bush program.
Besides the fact that they are comparing two very different nations, they are severely glossing over the negative effects of the transition to private accounts. The Economic Opportunity Institute does a nice job at pointing out the problems:
"Advocates of Social Security privatization continually crow about Chile’s high returns under individual accounts. In concentrating on returns, however, they miss crucial parts of the story. They ignore the fact that Chile has cut social spending, raised taxes, and cut benefits in order to pay transition costs—transition costs that the government will continue to pay until 2050. They ignore exorbitant management fees that have, over a number of periods, cut these much-vaunted returns to nearly zero. Advocates also fail to mention that these individual accounts have increased economic inequality and left workers vulnerable to market downturns. Moreover, privatized systems must either require retirees to convert a substantial portion of their account into an annuity – which means that the account can't be passed on to heirs other than the spouse – or accept a high percentage of the very elderly outliving their account and falling into dire poverty. Once these factors are taken into account, the case for privatization becomes much shakier."
If you would like to read a more detailed analysis, visit http://www.econop.org/SS-SocialInsecurityChile.htm .
Clearly, this comparison is just another Republican attempt to deceive the American people by over-simplifying a complex issue in order to advance their agenda of making Social Security less social and less secure.
Besides the fact that they are comparing two very different nations, they are severely glossing over the negative effects of the transition to private accounts. The Economic Opportunity Institute does a nice job at pointing out the problems:
"Advocates of Social Security privatization continually crow about Chile’s high returns under individual accounts. In concentrating on returns, however, they miss crucial parts of the story. They ignore the fact that Chile has cut social spending, raised taxes, and cut benefits in order to pay transition costs—transition costs that the government will continue to pay until 2050. They ignore exorbitant management fees that have, over a number of periods, cut these much-vaunted returns to nearly zero. Advocates also fail to mention that these individual accounts have increased economic inequality and left workers vulnerable to market downturns. Moreover, privatized systems must either require retirees to convert a substantial portion of their account into an annuity – which means that the account can't be passed on to heirs other than the spouse – or accept a high percentage of the very elderly outliving their account and falling into dire poverty. Once these factors are taken into account, the case for privatization becomes much shakier."
If you would like to read a more detailed analysis, visit http://www.econop.org/SS-SocialInsecurityChile.htm .
Clearly, this comparison is just another Republican attempt to deceive the American people by over-simplifying a complex issue in order to advance their agenda of making Social Security less social and less secure.
John "CrazyHorse" Bolton as America's UN Ambassador
John "CrazyHorse" Bolton as America's UN Ambassador
BY RYAN MCWILLIAMS
Obviously I have little regarded to anyone whos last name is Bolton and first name is not Michael. With that said, John Bolton reminds me of one of those little radio controlled cars I had when I was little -- it was this little nasty thing, that could bounce off of rocks and break through dirt walls. It made a lot of noise and had flashing lights, and I used it to beat up all the other objects that I played with. In reality all it really did was trash up my kitchen.
Thats kind of what I feel about yet-to-be-confirmed UN Ambassador John Bolton. Bolton will soon be up for confirmation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which I believe sits Kerry, Boxer, Biden, Feingold, Nelson and a few other Republicans. Senator Lincoln Chaffe (R-RI) of Rhode Island is expected to be the deciding vote, as it would create a 9-9 tie, and thus hold Bolton's nomination. Sen. Chaffe has given weak support to Bolton, but as advertising and campaigns in Rhode Island are brewing, that support seems to be as stable as a Firestone tire. John Kerry also has started advertising in Rhode Island, and promises a constituent firestorm for Sen. Chaffe if he does not block Bolton's nomination.
In any situation, whether or not Sen. Chaffe decides to confirm Mr. Bolton's nomination, Democrats will come back full force in 2006. Watch out Santorum & Frist...new ideas are going to take over. I know blocking Bolton will be useless because some Republican "Lack of" Ethics committee will step in and Bolton will magically find his way into the seat. You have a better chance of finding all the burried Gore votes than you do of blocking Bolton...but I guess its worth a shot...huh?
--------------
Previous post on SmartBlueHens about Mr. John Bolton found here.
Visit Ryan's blog here.
BY RYAN MCWILLIAMS
Obviously I have little regarded to anyone whos last name is Bolton and first name is not Michael. With that said, John Bolton reminds me of one of those little radio controlled cars I had when I was little -- it was this little nasty thing, that could bounce off of rocks and break through dirt walls. It made a lot of noise and had flashing lights, and I used it to beat up all the other objects that I played with. In reality all it really did was trash up my kitchen.
Thats kind of what I feel about yet-to-be-confirmed UN Ambassador John Bolton. Bolton will soon be up for confirmation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which I believe sits Kerry, Boxer, Biden, Feingold, Nelson and a few other Republicans. Senator Lincoln Chaffe (R-RI) of Rhode Island is expected to be the deciding vote, as it would create a 9-9 tie, and thus hold Bolton's nomination. Sen. Chaffe has given weak support to Bolton, but as advertising and campaigns in Rhode Island are brewing, that support seems to be as stable as a Firestone tire. John Kerry also has started advertising in Rhode Island, and promises a constituent firestorm for Sen. Chaffe if he does not block Bolton's nomination.
In any situation, whether or not Sen. Chaffe decides to confirm Mr. Bolton's nomination, Democrats will come back full force in 2006. Watch out Santorum & Frist...new ideas are going to take over. I know blocking Bolton will be useless because some Republican "Lack of" Ethics committee will step in and Bolton will magically find his way into the seat. You have a better chance of finding all the burried Gore votes than you do of blocking Bolton...but I guess its worth a shot...huh?
--------------
Previous post on SmartBlueHens about Mr. John Bolton found here.
Visit Ryan's blog here.
Joke
Here's a joke that my friend sent to me... thought it might make for a humorous post.
Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?
Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?
The Religious Debate
Here's the next article from the newsletter:
THE RELIGIOUS DEBATE
By Genevieve Salem
We are not a Christian government, however lately it seems as if many of the policies President Bush enacts revolve around his strong Christian religious faith. There are many who let their religious values and moralities interfere with the operations of the government. One of the bases this country was founded on was the freedom to exercise any religion and just as important, the separation of Church and State.
Recently, a display of the 10 Commandments in a public courthouse in Texas sparked controversy, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court. Whether or not it should be left there has been and continues to be passionately debated. Yes, Christianity is a big part of the history of this country, and the majority of Americans are Christian. Furthermore, the word God appears on our money, and it is in the pledge of allegiance. George T. Mason, a guest commentator of the Daily Times said, “We are a secular nation with a secular government that supports religious freedom. Most citizens are generally Christian, hence the desire by many to wear the Christian nation moniker is easily understood.”
A federal courthouse is certainly not the place to promote religion, as it is a place of governmental authority. Courthouses are supposed to be places where we learn the law that governs our country, and not places to learn the laws of a certain religion. An anonymous person published in the Daily Times said, “Having important pieces of history displayed in public places does not affect the ability of those who carry out the law to do their jobs.” What purpose do the Ten Commandments have in such a place if not all of us choose to live by that set of religious rules? The 10 Commandments are not the law of the United States government.
The opposition may argue that we need to display our nation’s history for our posterity. In addition, many religious symbols are already in place in our monuments, on our currency, and in our pledge.
However, the existence of these symbols does not merit the extension of the status quo. This anonymous writer went on to say, “To remove the Ten Commandments would be an attempt to erase our roots.” We should leave this display of the 10 commandments in the courthouse out of respect to the preservation of this country? Why not respect the people that are in this country now and that are not Christian and those that choose not to follow the ten commandments as their law? Why not respect those that want to learn and have a clear understanding about the laws that run this country? If you want to teach religion, then go to a church, go to a religious school, or take religious classes.
People take what they want out of religion; just because someone is Catholic doesn’t mean that they’re anti-choice and doesn’t mean that they’re against gay marriage. Just because someone is Christian or Jewish doesn’t mean that they’re automatically going to choose to go by the Ten Commandments, and simply because someone doesn’t practice a religion doesn’t mean that they don’t have values and a sense of morality.
We all have our own set of values and personal beliefs that influence our decisions. Government’s role should not be to rub Christianity in people’s faces, let alone any type of religion. There are some who believe that every word in the Bible is true, and there are others who believe that the Bible is full of uncertainties and hypocrisy. Overall, however, the Bible is open for interpretation, and whether or not we decide to go by the beliefs and rules that are set in it is everyone’s own personal decision.
THE RELIGIOUS DEBATE
By Genevieve Salem
We are not a Christian government, however lately it seems as if many of the policies President Bush enacts revolve around his strong Christian religious faith. There are many who let their religious values and moralities interfere with the operations of the government. One of the bases this country was founded on was the freedom to exercise any religion and just as important, the separation of Church and State.
Recently, a display of the 10 Commandments in a public courthouse in Texas sparked controversy, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court. Whether or not it should be left there has been and continues to be passionately debated. Yes, Christianity is a big part of the history of this country, and the majority of Americans are Christian. Furthermore, the word God appears on our money, and it is in the pledge of allegiance. George T. Mason, a guest commentator of the Daily Times said, “We are a secular nation with a secular government that supports religious freedom. Most citizens are generally Christian, hence the desire by many to wear the Christian nation moniker is easily understood.”
A federal courthouse is certainly not the place to promote religion, as it is a place of governmental authority. Courthouses are supposed to be places where we learn the law that governs our country, and not places to learn the laws of a certain religion. An anonymous person published in the Daily Times said, “Having important pieces of history displayed in public places does not affect the ability of those who carry out the law to do their jobs.” What purpose do the Ten Commandments have in such a place if not all of us choose to live by that set of religious rules? The 10 Commandments are not the law of the United States government.
The opposition may argue that we need to display our nation’s history for our posterity. In addition, many religious symbols are already in place in our monuments, on our currency, and in our pledge.
However, the existence of these symbols does not merit the extension of the status quo. This anonymous writer went on to say, “To remove the Ten Commandments would be an attempt to erase our roots.” We should leave this display of the 10 commandments in the courthouse out of respect to the preservation of this country? Why not respect the people that are in this country now and that are not Christian and those that choose not to follow the ten commandments as their law? Why not respect those that want to learn and have a clear understanding about the laws that run this country? If you want to teach religion, then go to a church, go to a religious school, or take religious classes.
People take what they want out of religion; just because someone is Catholic doesn’t mean that they’re anti-choice and doesn’t mean that they’re against gay marriage. Just because someone is Christian or Jewish doesn’t mean that they’re automatically going to choose to go by the Ten Commandments, and simply because someone doesn’t practice a religion doesn’t mean that they don’t have values and a sense of morality.
We all have our own set of values and personal beliefs that influence our decisions. Government’s role should not be to rub Christianity in people’s faces, let alone any type of religion. There are some who believe that every word in the Bible is true, and there are others who believe that the Bible is full of uncertainties and hypocrisy. Overall, however, the Bible is open for interpretation, and whether or not we decide to go by the beliefs and rules that are set in it is everyone’s own personal decision.
A Mandate No Longer
Whatever political capital or “mandate” George W. Bush had coming out of his narrow victory in the 2004 election is gone.
The latest poll numbers for him are dismal; his job approval rating sits at 44%, versus a 54% DISapproval number; 56% think the country is headed in the wrong direction, while only 38% believe we are on the proper course. The Republican Congress faces numbers that are even slightly worse; 37% approve of the job they are doing, while a full 58% disapprove of their performance.
Why are these numbers so low? It seems it has a lot to do with the (accurate) perception that the Republicans are overstepping their bounds as a result of the power they have. For instance, the “moral value” issue is no longer helping them; 54% of people surveyed said the government should be less involved in the morals and values of the country. Another poll showed that 55% believe Republicans are using the federal government to interfere in the private lives of Americans. Moreover, Americans (57% of them) do not want them to further strengthen their power and influence by getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees. Contrary to the Republican belief that the Terri Schiavo case would excite the pro-life base, an overwhelming 76% disapproved of Congressional involvement in the matter, and only 34% approved of the way George W. Bush handled the situation.
In the 2004 election, a tiny majority of the American public decided to give George W. Bush and the Republicans a second chance; Bush promised to try to bring the country together, and for a few weeks, people even seemed to believe him. Since the election, however, the Republicans have worked to expand their power even more, advancing their right-wing agendas under the guise of a “mandate” from the American people. It is now clear that the people are not getting what they expected; they are dissatisfied, discontented with the performance of the Republicans in power.
It will be interesting to see if the Republicans care enough to listen and moderate their views back to the mainstream, to work WITH the Democrats to actually accomplish something positive, or if 2006 will be a banner year for us Democrats.
(Note: All poll numbers come from http://www.pollingreport.com, and were up to date as of 3:00pm on Sunday, April 10.)
The latest poll numbers for him are dismal; his job approval rating sits at 44%, versus a 54% DISapproval number; 56% think the country is headed in the wrong direction, while only 38% believe we are on the proper course. The Republican Congress faces numbers that are even slightly worse; 37% approve of the job they are doing, while a full 58% disapprove of their performance.
Why are these numbers so low? It seems it has a lot to do with the (accurate) perception that the Republicans are overstepping their bounds as a result of the power they have. For instance, the “moral value” issue is no longer helping them; 54% of people surveyed said the government should be less involved in the morals and values of the country. Another poll showed that 55% believe Republicans are using the federal government to interfere in the private lives of Americans. Moreover, Americans (57% of them) do not want them to further strengthen their power and influence by getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees. Contrary to the Republican belief that the Terri Schiavo case would excite the pro-life base, an overwhelming 76% disapproved of Congressional involvement in the matter, and only 34% approved of the way George W. Bush handled the situation.
In the 2004 election, a tiny majority of the American public decided to give George W. Bush and the Republicans a second chance; Bush promised to try to bring the country together, and for a few weeks, people even seemed to believe him. Since the election, however, the Republicans have worked to expand their power even more, advancing their right-wing agendas under the guise of a “mandate” from the American people. It is now clear that the people are not getting what they expected; they are dissatisfied, discontented with the performance of the Republicans in power.
It will be interesting to see if the Republicans care enough to listen and moderate their views back to the mainstream, to work WITH the Democrats to actually accomplish something positive, or if 2006 will be a banner year for us Democrats.
(Note: All poll numbers come from http://www.pollingreport.com, and were up to date as of 3:00pm on Sunday, April 10.)
A More Serious Problem
With all of this talk over bias at the University level, I could not help but think of a more serious problem of ideology interfering in education.
In public school systems, particularly in the South, we have witnessed the impact of “conservative values” on the educational system. Textbooks now come with warning labels for evolution; of course this absurdity is irrelevant since the subject is not even taught in most schools.
But it is not just the Deep South where this is an issue; I went to Caesar Rodney High School right here in Delaware (good old Slower Lower). In my 9th grade biology class, we ever-so-briefly went over the very basic concepts of evolution (mainly bacteria and birds) but skipped the section on human evolution entirely. I had a young teacher who was afraid of the consequences of teaching these concepts, and as a result I had to catch up in my anthropology class that assumed a basic background of the subject.
Science is not the only subject affected and influenced by the Conservative agenda; President Bush and his right-winger allies wholly support abstinence-based education. Caesar Rodney had such a curriculum. In health class, the sex ed section essentially consisted of basic physiological terms and explanations, and the repeated affirmation that the only safe sex was no sex at all. We then learned about a whole slew of STD’s and about the risk of AIDS (yeah, it’s transferred sexually and through blood contact, not sweat, saliva, and tears, Dr. Frist). Then we were told that in order to lower our risks of these, do not have sex. Period. We had a guest speaker from ARC (A Resource Center, which promotes “safer sex”); this person was forced to literally black out all information in her literature concerning condoms and other contraceptives, and was not permitted to discuss these topics.
Moreover, we had no wellness center at the school (they have finally managed to get one approved by the board) because of fears it would promote promiscuous sex and abortions. The one that finally was approved can still provide no information concerning contraceptives, condoms, etc.
Here’s the kicker; Caesar Rodney had a serious problem with teen pregnancy. Go figure.
The imposition of Conservative ideology on public schools is much more severe and is a greater risk than any individual biases that may exist at the collegiate level. These are matters that are affecting the education young Americans are receiving, at an age at which they are greatly susceptible to the information the adults in authority are providing (or in these cases, NOT providing) to them. This is not an issue of specific educators or a majority of students influencing the discourse as alleged at the University level; this is a predominant political ideology manifesting itself through the educational system with the intention of producing students who believe in and support the same ideas as the Reactionary adults in authority.
As a future teacher, this prospect terrifies me much more than concerns that my already developed and mature ideas will be changed or challenged by allegedly “biased” professors.
In public school systems, particularly in the South, we have witnessed the impact of “conservative values” on the educational system. Textbooks now come with warning labels for evolution; of course this absurdity is irrelevant since the subject is not even taught in most schools.
But it is not just the Deep South where this is an issue; I went to Caesar Rodney High School right here in Delaware (good old Slower Lower). In my 9th grade biology class, we ever-so-briefly went over the very basic concepts of evolution (mainly bacteria and birds) but skipped the section on human evolution entirely. I had a young teacher who was afraid of the consequences of teaching these concepts, and as a result I had to catch up in my anthropology class that assumed a basic background of the subject.
Science is not the only subject affected and influenced by the Conservative agenda; President Bush and his right-winger allies wholly support abstinence-based education. Caesar Rodney had such a curriculum. In health class, the sex ed section essentially consisted of basic physiological terms and explanations, and the repeated affirmation that the only safe sex was no sex at all. We then learned about a whole slew of STD’s and about the risk of AIDS (yeah, it’s transferred sexually and through blood contact, not sweat, saliva, and tears, Dr. Frist). Then we were told that in order to lower our risks of these, do not have sex. Period. We had a guest speaker from ARC (A Resource Center, which promotes “safer sex”); this person was forced to literally black out all information in her literature concerning condoms and other contraceptives, and was not permitted to discuss these topics.
Moreover, we had no wellness center at the school (they have finally managed to get one approved by the board) because of fears it would promote promiscuous sex and abortions. The one that finally was approved can still provide no information concerning contraceptives, condoms, etc.
Here’s the kicker; Caesar Rodney had a serious problem with teen pregnancy. Go figure.
The imposition of Conservative ideology on public schools is much more severe and is a greater risk than any individual biases that may exist at the collegiate level. These are matters that are affecting the education young Americans are receiving, at an age at which they are greatly susceptible to the information the adults in authority are providing (or in these cases, NOT providing) to them. This is not an issue of specific educators or a majority of students influencing the discourse as alleged at the University level; this is a predominant political ideology manifesting itself through the educational system with the intention of producing students who believe in and support the same ideas as the Reactionary adults in authority.
As a future teacher, this prospect terrifies me much more than concerns that my already developed and mature ideas will be changed or challenged by allegedly “biased” professors.
A Response to the CRepug's Ramblings about Academia
It's not a vast and overbearing left-wing conspiracy - as some Republicans would like to think. Some Republicans, even here at UD, actually believe that universities hire professors with some kind of test of political ideology.
If political ideology can take over a school, then let me tell you about UD and conservative interests. MBNA, the giant corporate credit card company (and new "DuPont" of Delaware) is a huge donor to the University - our business school is formerly known as the "MBNA School of Business and Economics" and our current career services center is named "MBNA Career Services Center."
Follow the money.
Looking up donors to political campaigns from the 2004 election using FundRace.org, you can count the number MBNA bankers and executives and spouses (pay attention to names and addresses to find the spouses) in the 19711 zip code (one of the zip codes which includes UD) who have maxxed out to President Bush's campaign or to the RNC.
Here is another search, including the whole state of Delaware, who donated to Bush's campaign.
MBNA is one of the most red companies and also in the top 3 of University of Delaware's contributors. Ranked by employee donations, MBNA was the largest corporate contributor to the Bush campaign, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics, an election research group and Common Dreams. Additionally, MBNA also frequently donates to Delaware Republican Candidates.
For fun, click here and type in the last name "DuPont." DuPont, by the way is also the name for not one, not two, but three of our University's buildings.
In addition, we have a DuPonter in the high ranks of the University Administration, specifically the Vice President and University Secretary, who was a former staff member for former US Senator Bill Roth, not surprisingly, a Republican.
UD has a conservative school administration with a sprinkling of liberal professors in the liberal arts. Is this a conspiracy? No. It's because the State of Delaware is very corporate, hence our sole university in Delaware just mirrors those interests.
Further, the conservative argument against academia is weak. Was it ever a thought that a commonality between people who choose an academic life might exist -- and that the commonality might be that these people are more open minded and therefore may be more inclined to the liberal side?
Let me close by saying that conservatives are quick to pull the trigger against professors and academia. Even our fellow College Republicans at UD feel threatened by some alleged 'liberal leaning' at this university.
I think it's unfounded. I say to them, Stop playing the 'academic minority' game - your party basically runs the world now so you're just looking for something to complain about, and the easiest thing to fight against is "liberal bias in academia" expounded by Ann Coulter and other fascists.
Now college conservatives are launching campaigns for frivolous lawsuits against 'liberal' professors in order to trump first amendment rights at higher education schools. Reminds me of the Soviet era.
Liberals need to keep a watch-dog eye on this movement or else it will quickly turn campuses into anti-thought arenas.
Here is a great op-ed piece from the NY Times about professors and ideology. Here is an abstract:
It's a fact, documented by two recent studies, that registered Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives make up only a small minority of professors at elite universities. But what should we conclude from that?
Conservatives see it as compelling evidence of liberal bias in university hiring and promotion. And they say that new "academic freedom" laws will simply mitigate the effects of that bias, promoting a diversity of views. But a closer look both at the universities and at the motives of those who would police them suggests a quite different story.
Claims that liberal bias keeps conservatives off college faculties almost always focus on the humanities and social sciences, where judgments about what constitutes good scholarship can seem subjective to an outsider. But studies that find registered Republicans in the minority at elite universities show that Republicans are almost as rare in hard sciences like physics and in engineering departments as in softer fields. Why?
One answer is self-selection - the same sort of self-selection that leads Republicans to outnumber Democrats four to one in the military. The sort of person who prefers an academic career to the private sector is likely to be somewhat more liberal than average, even in engineering.
But there's also, crucially, a values issue. In the 1970's, even Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan conceded that the Republican Party was the "party of ideas." Today, even Republicans like Representative Chris Shays concede that it has become the "party of theocracy."
-------
If political ideology can take over a school, then let me tell you about UD and conservative interests. MBNA, the giant corporate credit card company (and new "DuPont" of Delaware) is a huge donor to the University - our business school is formerly known as the "MBNA School of Business and Economics" and our current career services center is named "MBNA Career Services Center."
Follow the money.
Looking up donors to political campaigns from the 2004 election using FundRace.org, you can count the number MBNA bankers and executives and spouses (pay attention to names and addresses to find the spouses) in the 19711 zip code (one of the zip codes which includes UD) who have maxxed out to President Bush's campaign or to the RNC.
Here is another search, including the whole state of Delaware, who donated to Bush's campaign.
MBNA is one of the most red companies and also in the top 3 of University of Delaware's contributors. Ranked by employee donations, MBNA was the largest corporate contributor to the Bush campaign, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics, an election research group and Common Dreams. Additionally, MBNA also frequently donates to Delaware Republican Candidates.
For fun, click here and type in the last name "DuPont." DuPont, by the way is also the name for not one, not two, but three of our University's buildings.
In addition, we have a DuPonter in the high ranks of the University Administration, specifically the Vice President and University Secretary, who was a former staff member for former US Senator Bill Roth, not surprisingly, a Republican.
UD has a conservative school administration with a sprinkling of liberal professors in the liberal arts. Is this a conspiracy? No. It's because the State of Delaware is very corporate, hence our sole university in Delaware just mirrors those interests.
Further, the conservative argument against academia is weak. Was it ever a thought that a commonality between people who choose an academic life might exist -- and that the commonality might be that these people are more open minded and therefore may be more inclined to the liberal side?
Let me close by saying that conservatives are quick to pull the trigger against professors and academia. Even our fellow College Republicans at UD feel threatened by some alleged 'liberal leaning' at this university.
I think it's unfounded. I say to them, Stop playing the 'academic minority' game - your party basically runs the world now so you're just looking for something to complain about, and the easiest thing to fight against is "liberal bias in academia" expounded by Ann Coulter and other fascists.
Now college conservatives are launching campaigns for frivolous lawsuits against 'liberal' professors in order to trump first amendment rights at higher education schools. Reminds me of the Soviet era.
Liberals need to keep a watch-dog eye on this movement or else it will quickly turn campuses into anti-thought arenas.
Here is a great op-ed piece from the NY Times about professors and ideology. Here is an abstract:
It's a fact, documented by two recent studies, that registered Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives make up only a small minority of professors at elite universities. But what should we conclude from that?
Conservatives see it as compelling evidence of liberal bias in university hiring and promotion. And they say that new "academic freedom" laws will simply mitigate the effects of that bias, promoting a diversity of views. But a closer look both at the universities and at the motives of those who would police them suggests a quite different story.
Claims that liberal bias keeps conservatives off college faculties almost always focus on the humanities and social sciences, where judgments about what constitutes good scholarship can seem subjective to an outsider. But studies that find registered Republicans in the minority at elite universities show that Republicans are almost as rare in hard sciences like physics and in engineering departments as in softer fields. Why?
One answer is self-selection - the same sort of self-selection that leads Republicans to outnumber Democrats four to one in the military. The sort of person who prefers an academic career to the private sector is likely to be somewhat more liberal than average, even in engineering.
But there's also, crucially, a values issue. In the 1970's, even Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan conceded that the Republican Party was the "party of ideas." Today, even Republicans like Representative Chris Shays concede that it has become the "party of theocracy."
-------
Newsletter Articles- Judicial Nominations
Tonight I'm going to begin posting the articles of the newsletter. This first piece is by Brian McGinnis, on the topic of Judicial Nominations:
JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS: A CRISIS?
By Brian McGinnis
“The filibuster of judicial nominations must end,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) said months ago to the Federalist Society, referring to the Democratic tactic of indefinitely stalling a handful of judicial nominees by requiring 60 votes to end debate on confirmation.
GOP leaders have decried judicial filibusters as unconstitutional and have even kicked around the “nuclear option”—a parliamentary procedure that would declare them unconstitutional and, in Republican eyes, end a judicial system crisis. This “crisis” has proven an effective electioneering tactic; GOP candidates vaulted to success in the 2002 and 2004 elections by painting Democrats as obstructionists. This tactic was especially effective in ’04, in which challenger John Thune unseated Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD). But what exactly is the state of obstructionism in the nominations process?
In his first four years, President Bush made nominations to fill 229 judicial vacancies. All but ten of these 229 were confirmed by the Senate, achieving an approval rate of almost 96% in four years. How does this fare comparatively?
Bill Clinton’s presidency of eight years, with a Republican Senate for much of that time, saw 377 vacancies filled (which is close to the all-time record held by Ronald Reagan with 382 confirmations in eight years).
In his book, Square Peg, Senator (and Judiciary Committee chairman during the Clinton tenure) Orrin Hatch (R-UT) writes, “at the end of the Clinton Administration there were only thirty two nominations left unconfirmed” for a rate of almost 92%.
Ignoring the obvious mathematical relationship between the numbers 96 and 92, President Bush is also on track to out-confirm President Clinton, one of the all-time most successful presidents in terms of judicial nominations. In only half the time as Clinton, Bush has already managed 58% of the appointments as Clinton.
Hypothetically speaking, if this rate continues this near-perfect trajectory, Bush will shatter the Reagan held record and fill some 437 vacancies total. So what of that “obstructionism” that Republicans run around screaming bloody murder about?
I think it’s interesting to consider the hypothetical math and apply it to a familiar situation: if the Eagles had done an equivalent job of “obstructing” Patriots quarterback Tom Brady this past Super Bowl, the Pats would have won 525-21 instead of just 24-21. A crisis, indeed.
JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS: A CRISIS?
By Brian McGinnis
“The filibuster of judicial nominations must end,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) said months ago to the Federalist Society, referring to the Democratic tactic of indefinitely stalling a handful of judicial nominees by requiring 60 votes to end debate on confirmation.
GOP leaders have decried judicial filibusters as unconstitutional and have even kicked around the “nuclear option”—a parliamentary procedure that would declare them unconstitutional and, in Republican eyes, end a judicial system crisis. This “crisis” has proven an effective electioneering tactic; GOP candidates vaulted to success in the 2002 and 2004 elections by painting Democrats as obstructionists. This tactic was especially effective in ’04, in which challenger John Thune unseated Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD). But what exactly is the state of obstructionism in the nominations process?
In his first four years, President Bush made nominations to fill 229 judicial vacancies. All but ten of these 229 were confirmed by the Senate, achieving an approval rate of almost 96% in four years. How does this fare comparatively?
Bill Clinton’s presidency of eight years, with a Republican Senate for much of that time, saw 377 vacancies filled (which is close to the all-time record held by Ronald Reagan with 382 confirmations in eight years).
In his book, Square Peg, Senator (and Judiciary Committee chairman during the Clinton tenure) Orrin Hatch (R-UT) writes, “at the end of the Clinton Administration there were only thirty two nominations left unconfirmed” for a rate of almost 92%.
Ignoring the obvious mathematical relationship between the numbers 96 and 92, President Bush is also on track to out-confirm President Clinton, one of the all-time most successful presidents in terms of judicial nominations. In only half the time as Clinton, Bush has already managed 58% of the appointments as Clinton.
Hypothetically speaking, if this rate continues this near-perfect trajectory, Bush will shatter the Reagan held record and fill some 437 vacancies total. So what of that “obstructionism” that Republicans run around screaming bloody murder about?
I think it’s interesting to consider the hypothetical math and apply it to a familiar situation: if the Eagles had done an equivalent job of “obstructing” Patriots quarterback Tom Brady this past Super Bowl, the Pats would have won 525-21 instead of just 24-21. A crisis, indeed.
TONIGHT
Reminder:
Tonight, Wednesday April 6
Guest Speaker Lt. Governor John Carney of Delaware!
6pm * Gore 204
Hope to see you there!
Tonight, Wednesday April 6
Guest Speaker Lt. Governor John Carney of Delaware!
6pm * Gore 204
Hope to see you there!
A TRUE "Culture of Life"
A friend of mine from Florida State sent this article to me, and I was so impressed I thought I'd pass it along. Michael Blanding is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in several national publications. He has also taught writing at Tufts University.
It is a great (and I would say accurate and appropriate) way to frame the "culture of life" argument.
He writes, "The problem with the "culture of life" argument is that, like any of these phrases, its vagueness allows you to define it however you want. Is it any coincidence that its application happens to gel with the core issues of those who created it? Rather than dismiss the argument, however, progressives should hold culture-of-lifers to their word.
At minimum, a true "culture of life" would support the following ten positions..."
It is a great (and I would say accurate and appropriate) way to frame the "culture of life" argument.
He writes, "The problem with the "culture of life" argument is that, like any of these phrases, its vagueness allows you to define it however you want. Is it any coincidence that its application happens to gel with the core issues of those who created it? Rather than dismiss the argument, however, progressives should hold culture-of-lifers to their word.
At minimum, a true "culture of life" would support the following ten positions..."
Finally, Iraq's elections have an outcome
NY TIMES BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 5 - The major political parties of Iraq agreed this evening to appoint a president and two vice presidents at a meeting of the national assembly on Wednesday, breaking a two-month deadlock and taking the first significant step in forming a new government.
The presidency council will have two weeks from its appointment to name a prime minister, who would select a cabinet. The new government would then have to be approved by a majority vote of the assembly, according to the interim constitution.
The main Shiite and Kurdish political blocs have agreed to name Jalal Talabani, a Kurdish leader, as president; Adel Abdul Mehdi, a prominent Shiite Arab politician as vice president; and Sheik Ghazi al-Yawar, the Sunni Arab president of the interim government, as the other vice president, said Hussein al-Shahristani, a vice speaker of the assembly.
The presidency council will have two weeks from its appointment to name a prime minister, who would select a cabinet. The new government would then have to be approved by a majority vote of the assembly, according to the interim constitution.
The main Shiite and Kurdish political blocs have agreed to name Jalal Talabani, a Kurdish leader, as president; Adel Abdul Mehdi, a prominent Shiite Arab politician as vice president; and Sheik Ghazi al-Yawar, the Sunni Arab president of the interim government, as the other vice president, said Hussein al-Shahristani, a vice speaker of the assembly.
Wednesday: Lt. Governor John Carney Jr.
You're invited!
College Democrats at UD
*
Guest Speaker: Lt. Governor of Delaware John Carney Jr!
*
THIS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6TH @ 6pm
*
Gore 204
*
Make new friends, and bring old ones too!
*
*
*
More about our Lt. Governor:
John was born in Wilmington and raised in Claymont by his parents Jack and Ann. He was quarterback of the 1973 state championship St. Mark's High School football team, and earned All-Ivy League and Most Valuable Player honors in football at Dartmouth College, from which he graduated in 1978. He later coached freshmen football at the University of Delaware, while earning his master's degree in public administration.
Previous to being elected Lt. Governor, John served as Secretary of Finance and Deputy Chief of Staff under former Governor Tom Carper, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for New Castle County, and on the staff of U.S. Senator Joe Biden. He also served as Associate Director of the Catholic Youth Organization in Wilmington.
In addition to presiding over the Senate and chairing the Board of Pardons, John is chairman of the Delaware Health Care Commission, the Interagency Council on Adult Literacy, the Criminal Justice Council, the Center for Education Technology and the Livable Delaware Advisory Council. In 2002, he launched the award-winning education initiative, "Models of Excellence in Education," to identify practices in schools that have raised student achievement. He also created the healthy lifestyle initiative, "The Lt. Governor's Challenge," to encourage Delawareans to be more active and address the State's high rate of chronic diseases. More than 17,000 people have taken The Challenge.
Since the fall of 2001, John has distributed about 85,000 free cable gun locks through "Project ChildSafe." And he has recently teamed with the Metropolitan Wilmington Urban league to form a committee of experts to look at the health disparities that exist among minority and low-income communities.
Continued Tragedy in Africa
As you read this, people continue to suffer and die in Sudan.
While the UN has finally been stirred to action, for millions of innocent victims, it is too little, too late.
Approximately 2.4 million people have been displaced from their homes in the Darfur region of Sudan, and estimates of those slaughtered range from 100,000-300,000.
The situation was caused by a two year rebellion in the region, which the Sudanese government admits to arming militias to quell. Though they deny any role in the Janjaweed, an Arab militia mostly responsible for the atrocities committed against the black Africans in the Darfur region, many suspect otherwise.
The United Nations has moved at a pathetically slow pace concerning this situation, while the Bush administration has made only guarded statements. Learning nothing from the tragic mistakes of Bill Clinton and his policy in Rwanda where the situation unfolded at a much faster pace, President Bush would not risk bold decisive action with an election on the line in November. Finally, the United Nations has advanced sanctions (which will probably impact the poor more harshly than those in power, but that is a debate for a different day) and has just put forth a measure to hold those responsible for these crimes accountable before the International Criminal Court. To date, there is uncertainty as to whether this measure will pass; it faces a threatened U.S. veto because of Bush’s vehement opposition to the ICC.
This, combined with the Bush administration’s continued inaction, is a moral failure of the first degree. There is nothing “moral” about standing aside as hundreds of thousands are slaughtered. Intervention may not have been popular, it may have cost him the election, but history could have then honestly looked upon him as the champion of human life he CLAIMS to be.
While the UN has finally been stirred to action, for millions of innocent victims, it is too little, too late.
Approximately 2.4 million people have been displaced from their homes in the Darfur region of Sudan, and estimates of those slaughtered range from 100,000-300,000.
The situation was caused by a two year rebellion in the region, which the Sudanese government admits to arming militias to quell. Though they deny any role in the Janjaweed, an Arab militia mostly responsible for the atrocities committed against the black Africans in the Darfur region, many suspect otherwise.
The United Nations has moved at a pathetically slow pace concerning this situation, while the Bush administration has made only guarded statements. Learning nothing from the tragic mistakes of Bill Clinton and his policy in Rwanda where the situation unfolded at a much faster pace, President Bush would not risk bold decisive action with an election on the line in November. Finally, the United Nations has advanced sanctions (which will probably impact the poor more harshly than those in power, but that is a debate for a different day) and has just put forth a measure to hold those responsible for these crimes accountable before the International Criminal Court. To date, there is uncertainty as to whether this measure will pass; it faces a threatened U.S. veto because of Bush’s vehement opposition to the ICC.
This, combined with the Bush administration’s continued inaction, is a moral failure of the first degree. There is nothing “moral” about standing aside as hundreds of thousands are slaughtered. Intervention may not have been popular, it may have cost him the election, but history could have then honestly looked upon him as the champion of human life he CLAIMS to be.
Long Live the Fillibuster...
In a couple of days congress will be voting on whether or not to eliminate the fillibuster on judicial nominations. This is absolutely ridiculous, and completely against the grain of our version of democracy. If this was a pure democracy, then by all means the fillibuster would be a bad thing, but the fact of the matter is that we have a democracy that respects, values and protects the rights of the minority. We are by no means a tyranny of the majority.
Unfortunately that is exactly what republicans would like us to become. Of course the sole reason republicans would like to see this is because they are presently the majority. In the future, if say I don't know, Hilary Clinton, is president and the dems control congress, and Hilary, in her infinite wisdom appoints liberal, pro-choice, activist judges, i'm sure republicans would be begging for the fillibuster back, but i could be wrong on that.
The fact that republicans are even attempting to eliminate the fillibuster is disgusting. Its an attempt on the republicans to do everything they can to solidify their power, and push their agenda, in other words, politics as usual for republicans. This kind of tactic puts republicans on the same level as leaders of failed developing world democracies. The reason why many of these democracies fail is because the leaders do everything within their power to attempt to retain their power, regardless of law or the principles of democracy. These failed leaders have no foresight, and their myopic view leads them to only look at how they can solidfy power.
The republicans are doing the same thing here. I mean you would at least expect the republicans to be a little more discrete in their attempts to cling to their power as long as possible, but this move is brazen, its arrogant and its completely unacceptable. I do not see any possible justification for eliminating the fillibuster. Its almost incredulous.
I hope democrats fillibuster the fillibuster bill.
Unfortunately that is exactly what republicans would like us to become. Of course the sole reason republicans would like to see this is because they are presently the majority. In the future, if say I don't know, Hilary Clinton, is president and the dems control congress, and Hilary, in her infinite wisdom appoints liberal, pro-choice, activist judges, i'm sure republicans would be begging for the fillibuster back, but i could be wrong on that.
The fact that republicans are even attempting to eliminate the fillibuster is disgusting. Its an attempt on the republicans to do everything they can to solidify their power, and push their agenda, in other words, politics as usual for republicans. This kind of tactic puts republicans on the same level as leaders of failed developing world democracies. The reason why many of these democracies fail is because the leaders do everything within their power to attempt to retain their power, regardless of law or the principles of democracy. These failed leaders have no foresight, and their myopic view leads them to only look at how they can solidfy power.
The republicans are doing the same thing here. I mean you would at least expect the republicans to be a little more discrete in their attempts to cling to their power as long as possible, but this move is brazen, its arrogant and its completely unacceptable. I do not see any possible justification for eliminating the fillibuster. Its almost incredulous.
I hope democrats fillibuster the fillibuster bill.
