The Daily Pulse: Lincoln, Ethics, and a Cartoon from Norway
by dhonig, Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 04:39:31 AM EDT
Today's Daily Pulse includes editorials from a lot of red states, and a cartoon from overseas. DeLay, as usual, is a topic of conversation, and so is the filibuster. That's a theme, ladies and gentlemen, that I've not been able to shake. It is simply what people are talking about, where people are talking politics.
Enjoy, and come back tomorrow for the weekly "Daily Pulse: Letters Tuesday Editor," an all-LTE version. It's usually pretty interesting. A lot of the letters seem to be written in crayon, and others in blood, but they are always an enlightening view into the minds of our fellow Americans.
Now for the pulse. I'm tired, it's a little weak, so close your eyes until you can feel it. It helps. Ba- bump ... ba-Bump ... ba-Bump ... ba-
<BUMP>
A Nashville attorney writes about the history of Republicans blocking Democratic judicial nominations, from the Fortas filibuster to the anonymous holds during the Clinton years. Well done Doug. Well done indeed.
... Senator Lamar Alexander's recent lament on the issue begs for a response.Alexander declares, ''Until recently, not to vote at all on a president's judicial nominee was unimaginable.'' One can only hope that Lamar didn't write that sentence, as he must know it is flatly untrue.
It was not unimaginable in 1968 when Republicans successfully filibustered President Johnson's nominee for chief justice, Abe Fortas, preventing any vote at all.
More recently, it was not unimaginable when the Republican-controlled Senate failed to allow a vote on at least 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees, six times the number blocked by Democrats. They did it by denying those nominees not only a simple up or down vote, but even a hearing in committee. They did it by putting anonymous ''holds'' on those nominees; and, yes, they did it by threatening or engaging in the filibuster they so oppose today. ...
Alexander continues ''...in the last session of Congress, for some reason that still escapes me, the minority felt it had to use the filibuster to deny an up or down vote 10 times...''
The reason is simple: Democrats believe that the 10 nominees are unqualified for lifetime appointment because they are extreme in their views and activist in their philosophy, and Republicans have stripped the minority of any other means to fight such unqualified nominees. ...
Changing rules to suit majority whims seems to be a trend in Republican Party control of Congress.
Alexander says he truly believes ''...a rules change is not good for the Senate, not good for the country....'' If the proposal is bad for the Senate and bad for the country, it matters not who is ''provoking'' it; Lamar should vote against it. Will he be true to his beliefs or will he join those like Tom DeLay pandering to the extremists?
Doug Johnston is a Nashville attorney.
Rapid City (South Dakota) Journal
Lots of money for war. None for the men that fought it. In this editorial a columnist in South Dakota takes their new Senator to task for supporting Bush instead of the troops, for voting more money for war in Iraq, but NOTHING for the VA system. Thune, he writes, promised to protect South Dakota's interests above Bush's, and is already reneging.
By Sam Hurst, Journal columnistTen years ago, when the AIDS epidemic was exploding across Africa, killing two million people a year, I interviewed the dean of the Emory University School of Public Health in Atlanta about where he thought we would be in 2005. "My biggest fear is that we won't care anymore," he told me. "All the deaths will make us numb, and we will just accept AIDS as part of daily life."
That's precisely where we now stand in Iraq. It has been two years since George Bush strutted like a cartoon peacock onto the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared "Mission Accomplished." ...
It's hard to even find a report of how many American soldiers were wounded last week. We aren't winning the War in Iraq, we just accept it as part of daily life. We're numb.
Americans love a parade. We aren't so good at sweeping up after the horses pass. ...
Last week Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., walked onto the floor of the U.S. Senate and offered an amendment to the White House's $80 billion supplemental funding request for the War in Iraq. ($80 billion! Two years ago we were aghast at the cost of the war. Weren't the Iraqis supposed to pay for the war from oil revenues? Today, we talk about $80 billion as if it were chump change.)
Sen. Murray wanted to add $2 billion to improve veterans health care.
World War II veterans are now facing expensive "end of life" issues. Korea and Vietnam vets are putting heavier demands on the VA each year. And now, we are creating a new commitment to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Independent analysts suggest that the VA is under-funded by $3.5 billion. Murray asked for only $2 billion. ...
Her amendment was supported by Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, the American Legion, and the union that represents VA workers.
Sen. Tim Johnson joined her as a co-sponsor. Senators who vote to send their own sons to war look at these problems with a cold, hard stare of responsibility. If more senators carried Tim Johnson's burden, perhaps the vote would have been different.
It broke almost exactly along party lines. Republicans defeated the amendment 54-46. John Thune voted "no."
I just don't get it. I'm an anti-war Democrat. I think the war policies of the Bush administration are a disaster. But I know my responsibility when I have one, and veterans are our national responsibility. I don't have a magnetic "Support Our Troops" sticker on my truck. But I know my obligation. Tax me if you must. My beef is with Bush and his warlords, not the veterans who take their orders and do their jobs. ...
I asked Sen. Thune's staff in Washington why he had voted against the Murray amendment. "The senator has supported veterans on several occasions," I was told. "But this issue was not germane to the supplemental spending bill."
Really? Build the bombs, but don't fund the hospitals that will care for the wounded? ...l.
Does anyone else remember John Thune's campaign promise to support the president, but stand up for South Dakota when the president was wrong? Well, senator, now would be a good time to start.
The (Oklahoma City) Oklahoman
DeLay must know better than he is publicly presenting. He must know the value of an independent judiciary, especially given the pronouncements to that effect from so many other Republicans. Or so this editorial opines.
...we think DeLay and others, including fellow Texan, Sen. John Cornyn, who have launched verbal attacks against the courts are dangerously off base. Unfortunately, their remarks come in the wake of recent physical violence against federal judges, in Chicago and Atlanta, and death threats against judges involved in the Terri Schiavo case in Florida.For the most part, DeLay is a committed conservative who's not afraid to speak his mind, but he goes too far when he talks of retribution for judges because of the decisions they reach. He said Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be held "accountable" for using international law in deciding a recent death penalty case and that Congress should re-examine the basis for lifetime judicial appointments. ...
Finally, there's President Bush himself, telling newspaper editors last week the three branches of government must check and balance each other and that he is "strongly for an independent judiciary."
Certainly, in his heart of hearts, DeLay must agree. And we'd bet that away from the heat of the public arena, he also would acknowledge that independence means judges need to be able to their jobs without fear of retribution -- which is different from fair, critical analysis of the legal decisions they render.
The Lima (Ohio) News
Wow. I sure wish I knew where to go from here. This guy has a lot of seriously uneducated anger about Lincoln and the Civil War. He serves up ALL the deep south canards about the Civil War being about "States' rights" and not slavery (google "1860 Democratic Convention Yancy" to see how the cotton states walked out on SOLELY the slavery issue, splitting the party and leading inevitably to the war), and tries to paint Lincoln as a bigoted tyrant. I grew up in the south, and it still amazes me that people think this way. On the other hand, he doesn't seem to like Bush much, either, so he has at least one redeeming feature.
By THOMAS J. LUCENTE Jr.Historians and scholars across the United States are signing a petition condemning the "inadequate time given to history instruction." The petition, signed by such notable Pulitzer Prize-winning historians as Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., David McCullough and Gordon Wood, calls on the Congress to amend the No Child Left Behind Act. ...
American students are definitely lacking in what are the three most important academic subjects: history, philosophy and art.
This was evident Tuesday with the opening of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Ill.
Dignitaries, including President Bush, gathered for the opening and sang the praises of the 16th president, honoring a man who plunged us into an unnecessary war that killed some 620,000 Americans.
Bush, during his dedication comments, compared Lincoln's presidency with his own efforts to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan.
He is right in one respect.
Like Lincoln, Bush ignores civil rights and tramples on the Constitution while waging an immoral and illegal war. Like Lincoln, Bush cloaks himself in the flag and delivers insincere platitudes about democracy. It is apropos that Bush claims Lincoln as his favorite president.
Those speaking gave credit to Lincoln for freeing the slaves and fighting for freedom. They ignore the facts that Lincoln failed to legally free a single slave and he fought his war to stifle the Southern people's God-given rights of self-government.
While politicians spewing revisionist history is neither surprising nor important, it is disappointing when a museum resorts to the same. ...
President Bush predicted the museum would refocus scholars and schoolchildren on "all that America hopes to be."
For our sake and the sake of those who still believe in the importance of truth, I hope he is wrong.
Milwaukee (Wisconsin) Journal Sentinel
The offer to put DeLay in front of the ethics committee under the new rules is a farce. Unless and until the rules are changed to have meaning such an act is an exercise in futility and cynicism.
In response to growing concern, even among Republicans, about House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Ethics Committee recently offered to begin an investigation into the wayward leader's behavior. But the offer was an obvious ploy intended not only to deflect concern away from DeLay but from new procedural rules adopted to shield him. That is why House Democrats were right to say, in effect, "Thanks, but no thanks."Advertisement
In January, the committee's rules were changed to protect DeLay from the attacks that were mounting. The committee comprises five Republicans and five Democrats, and under the new rules, a tie vote in the committee would automatically dismiss a case. That means Republicans (or Democrats) could protect their colleagues from an ethics investigation, as long as they maintained party discipline. (Previously, a tie vote would not have aborted an inquiry.) ...
Clearly, an investigation into DeLay is warranted; he was admonished by the committee three times last year, and the months since then have seen plausible new allegations of misconduct, including his travel with a lobbyist whose clients may have paid for foreign trips taken by DeLay, his colleagues and his family. Far from addressing the substance of these allegations, DeLay has testily rejected them as an attempt by Democrats to defame him.
These curt, evasive denials have not exactly endeared him to his GOP colleagues. While few of them are willing to publicly criticize their powerful leader, there is evidence that many GOP members, including some from Wisconsin, are embarrassed by his behavior.
An investigation should be held, but the rules should be changed before the process begins.
The Daily Tribune (Hibbing, Minnesota)
I guess I shouldn't be surprised Bob Dylan's home town isn't coming out in favor of Tom DeLay. But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it. But it also shouldn't surprise me that Hibbing, Minnesota has some Republicans, and that Robert Zimmerman ran like hell to New York to become Bob Dylan. That, too, is in this letter. What do you think of the conclusion about Hillary?
... When I get my dander up, I just can't help myself. Take, for example, Tom Delay, one of the leaders of my Republican Party, loyalty to which exceeds a quarter of a century. Following the Constitutional crisis created on March 20 and 21, the judicial branch of our government failed to do Congress's bidding. Delay wanted revenge. Even the right wing conservative Dick Cheney backed down on that one. Conceivably, one would think as Delay made progress toward becoming the House Majority Leader, he would have learned a little something along the way about our Constitution, even if by accident -- something like the separation of powers concept, for instance. Guess he cut history class that day.Then, of course, there are the recent nominations coming out of the neoconservative White House lately that challenge the rational mind. If you go to the Christian Science Monitor web page, keying in "Empire builders" or "Neocon 101," you will find the participants in this movement. There, along with the other disciples of neoconservatism -- William and Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, et al -- you will find the charming John R. Bolton, Bush's candidate to become our ambassador to the United Nations. ...
In March, my Grand Ole' Party made another serious error. Paul Wolfowitz, a hard-line neocon, was the architect of the war in Iraq. He created the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon to redefine the intell coming out of the CIA and other intelligence agencies to be more in line with Bush's desire to go to war in the Mideast. ...
Still another misstep is being made in New York, state of. Stephan Minarik, NY's GOP chairman, is mounting a "Stop Hillary" drive for the 2006 Senate campaign, claiming the lady is already running for President in '08. Minarik's task is exacerbated by the fact that prominent NY republicans don't want to run for the Senate in '06, Gov. George Pataki and Rudolph Giuliani having other things to do. Minarik ought to cool it and concede this one. Let Hillary do her thing.
If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic candidate for President in '08, the GOP will run the White House until 2012. Take that to the "bank." Ain't life grand?
Sandy Shanks, an author of two works and a native of Hibbing, ...
I'm really too beat for much commentary, so here are two cartoons. The first one is so good I wish we would use it as a back drop at every speech a Democrat gives for the next three years.
This second one is from Norway. I'm stepping out a bit from the pulse of the nation, but what the heck. Tell me if you're bitter. It's interesting to me that our President is the subject of such a biting cartoon there. I know they hate him, but why, the very first time I go to foreign cartoons, is he front and center? They must REALLY hate him. It's sort of like the odds of getting caught for DUI the first time you ever drink and drive.
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
5 Comments