Via Josh Marshall: Six people recently resigned from the Republican Party operation in South Dakota over allegations of voter fraud, which are now the subject of an investigation by the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation. According to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, “When South Dakota Republican Party Chairman Randy Frederick announced the resignations of Russell and five others Monday evening, he said the state party has a “zero-tolerance policy.”” As well they should: voter registration fraud is serious business, and no party should engage in it. However, while the state party might have zero tolerance for this, apparently the national Bush/Cheney campaign does not share their view. From the same article:
“An internal Republican Party memo obtained by the Argus Leader said Russell would be going to Cleveland “to lead the ground operations” for President Bush and Vice President Cheney there.
Ohio is a swing state considered vital to a successful presidential victory.
Attempts to contact Bush-Cheney campaign officials in Cleveland were unsuccessful.
The memo was e-mailed to Republican staffers and officials Sunday evening by the state party’s Executive Director Jason Glodt. Three other GOP workers who resigned over the application fracas also will be involved in the Ohio campaign, according to the memo.”
Meanwhile, in New England, there’s a case involving an attempt to interfere with Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts in 2002, by having computers place automated calls to Democratic phone banks, thereby jamming their lines. Two people have pled guilty in this case, and there is also an unindicted co-conspirator. The unindicted co-conspirator turns out to be the New England regional chair of Bush/Cheney 2004. Josh Marshall asks:
1. Why do Justice Department officials in Washington seem to be interfering in the legal proceedings surrounding this case to push depositions and discovery past November 2nd? (See the Union Leader article and today’s court filing.)
2. When did the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign first learn of Tobin’s alleged involvement in the phone-jamming case?
3. Does the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign believe that Tobin is an appropriate person to oversee the Bush campaign in New Hampshire and the rest of New England when his alleged involvement in this earlier election fraud case is still being investigated.
Meanwhile, in Oregon, the state has opened a criminal investigation into the consulting firm Katherine wrote about a few days ago — the one that has been tearing up Democratic voter registration cards in Nevada and (allegedly) Oregon, and that has used questionable tactics in Pennsylvania and West Virginia — like asking people who they plan to vote for and only offering them the chance to register if they say ‘Bush’. This group is paid by the Republican National Committee.
And there’s always Florida…
If I’d ever given a dime to the RNC, I’d ask for it back plus interest.
The leaders of the Republican party are fascist scum – pure and simple. Yes, I’m repeating myself, but it needs to be repeated often.
Under Republican policies and tactics we are headed for a country ruled by a combination of a hereditary aristocracy and religious groups. No, not next year, but in less time than you might imagine.
Does this sound hysterical? I suppose it does, but let me add a few things. I am not particularly a “left-winger.” I consider myself a moderate Democrat. It is the events of the past few years that have led me to this conclusion. These include the tax cuts, the cavalier attitudes towards the law and the rest of the world, torture, voter suppression, court appointments, thuggish behavior in Congress, the odious smears, blatant and shameless dishonesty in public statements, the description of an irresponsible policy-making process provided by serious people, like Paul O’Neill, John DiIulio, Richard Clarke, and others, the implications that opponents are disloyal, etc.
This is not just “politics ain’t beanbag.” It reflects an absolutist state of mind typified by Bush’s inability to even think of a mistake he’s made.
It’s dangerous. It threatens our democracy. If I sound overwrought, so be it. I hope I’m wrong.
The leaders of the Republican party are fascist scum – pure and simple.
This violates the posting rules. Retract or face banning.
Thank you.
Actually, Edward, I’d have to contest that.
Actually, Edward, I’d have to contest that.
Sorry. Not following.
Wanted to get that in first… longer version; the ‘Republican leadership’ doesn’t post here, and I’m guessing that Bernard specifically put that qualifier in there because I’ve made such a stink about broad-brushing. Can’t fault a person for making a good-faith effort.
Moe
PS: Bernard’s wrong, of course, and I look forward with some interest for his explanation about why all of this is evidence of the Looming Fascist Takeover and, say, union squad attacks on Bush/Cheney offices, or burned swastikas in Republican lawns, are not. But Bernard’s allowed to be wrong.
OK.
{backing out}
going for coffee…
sorry Bernard…just trying to prevent a repeat of previously volatile threads.
e
I had to reread that exchange a couple of times, because I’d gotten the source of both comments mixed up. Thanks, Edward and Moe.
My personal opinion is this: Bernard’s opinion in this regard doesn’t affect me in the slightest, because I’m not in the RNC leadership, and furthermore because he’s engaging in inaccurate generalization.
Not that my personal opinion is relevant in this matter, mind you.
All is well, then.
Plus it commits the cardinal sin of letting someone off easy by overplaying your hand. Now we can all agree how lovable the RNC leadership is, because they’re not fascist scum.
They are, however, completely unscrupulous plutocrats apparently willing to bend or break any rule of law or decency to acquire and maintain power.
Not fascist scum?
OK, then what *do* you call widespread, organized, criminal actions to disenfranchise voters when the national party rewards the people who committed that widespread, organized, criminal activity to disenfranchise voters by hiring them in more states to carry out the widespread, organized, criminal actions to disenfranchise voters?
OK, then what *do* you call widespread, organized, criminal actions to disenfranchise voters when the national party rewards the people who committed that widespread, organized, criminal activity to disenfranchise voters by hiring them in more states to carry out the widespread, organized, criminal actions to disenfranchise voters?
You call it “Republican Party leadership”.
To answer Palladin’s question, it sounds like an attempt to bring machine politics into the 21st century, or to reconstitute the PRI with an American accent.
May it fail miserably.
Dunno, Palladin, but you’d do well do look up fascism and ask yourself what it might have to do with this particular bit of chicanery.
“what *do* you call widespread, organized, criminal actions to disenfranchise voters when the national party rewards the people who committed that widespread, organized, criminal activity to disenfranchise voters”
Call it exactly that. More than effective enough. . benefit of being true.
If you can prove that that somehow relates to hypernationalism, subordination of the individual to the state, and total state control of industry, you’re welcome to call it fascist.
sidereal, what if it’s total industry control of state?
Then we’re living in Snow Crash.
Edward, Moe,
Yes. I was trying to be careful not to violate the rules.
Is “fascist scum” too strong? Well, it’s a bit of hyperbole, perhaps, but not too much. Is it an “overgeneralization,” as Slarti says. In terms of individuals, yes. There are decent Republicans, even in the leadership. But organizationally, I think not.
I do think the following is it is unarguable:
1. Bush tax cuts and proposed cuts will have the effect of increasing wealth disparities tremendously, and will at least come close to creating a hereditary class of wealthy individuals who pay little or no tax.
2. The Bush administration has consistently misrepresented its policies in a blatant and wilful way. See for example Medicare legislation, budget projections, etc.
3. The Republican Congressional leadership has behaved thuggishly: sending police to break up a Democratic caucus, offering bribes and on the House floor, threatening industres for hiri g Democrats as lobbyists, using federal agencies inappropriately in a state political matter, excluding Democrats from any role in the legislative process, doing things like voting on lengthy bills only a short time after making them available to Democrats, etc.
4. The Administration and the Congressional leadership winks at torture. Katherine has admirably documented this, and Gonzales, his latest CYA letter notwithstanding, has a role in this. Among many other thngs, the Bybee appointment tells us a lot.
5. The Administration insiders I named clearly think the policy-making process is a joke.
6. The Administration has argued that it has an absolute right to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely based solely on the President’s order. I await any explanation as to why it is incorrect to describe this as a fascist policy.
7. Influential elements of the Republican Party reject the notion of separation of church and state, and would like to see the US declared a “Christian Nation.” Minimize the importance of the Texas GOP platform all you want, it still represents the views of many party members in a large and important state. And I don’t think it’s just Texas.
8. The republican majority in Congress seeks to strip the courts of as much authority as it can get away with.
9. The Bush Administration goes to extraordinary lengths to maintain secrecy. Why is Cheney embarassed about his task force? What’s in those redacted pages? Why oppose the 9/11 Commission and then stonewall it?
10. The people engaged in voter fraud that hilzoy describes were hired by the RNC. So were the people tearing up Democratic voter registration forms in Nevada and elsewhere.
To answer Moe’s question: Who burned those swastikas? Was it Terry McAuliffe do you think, or random hooligans? And which Democratic leaders were urging the union squads on?
And the major difference is this: The matters I describe are direct abuses of power by actual leaders of the Republican Party, including the President. They are not some moron burning swastikas or stealing yard signs. I think there’s a difference.
And I await an answer to the question I put in bold in #6.
Bernard.
1. Very arguable, especially the clause after the comma.
2. Arguable. Especially since you are trying to show especially bad behaviour as opposed to making a general comment about the trustworthiness of politicians.
3. Ranting.
4. I’ll give you something close to ‘winks at’. Katherine’s focus seems to have done some good.
5. Wrong.
6. I’m not even sure I would give you that they had argued for it. But even if so, they certainly do not have it.
7. Not even close.
8. This is an interesting topic. I might argue that the courts have been trying to strip the democratic branches of as much authority as they can get away with. So I think this is classified as arguable.
9. I’ll give you secrecy. I’ll note in passing Kerry’s refusal to release his whole military file.
10. I don’t support voter fraud. I would support a registry of eligible voters. Democrats certainly would not. While we are getting dirty, I will suggest that they like receiving votes from illegal immigrants in certain swing states like Florida.
Sebastian, your point 5) is self-referential.
Bernard: 6. The Administration has argued that it has an absolute right to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely based solely on the President’s order. I await any explanation as to why it is incorrect to describe this as a fascist policy.
Please look up “fascist” in the encylopedia. Wait, I’ll do it. From the Wikipedia article on fascism:
While GWB and the current administration may be many things (authoritarian, incompetent, arrogant, hubristic, intolerant, myopic, um, where was I? Oh yeah), they are emphatically not fascists. Attempts to associate them with fascism is as equally a waste of time and words as the foolish term “Islamofascism”.
3. Ranting.
Sebastian, that’s not really a response. Are you honestly saying that the K Street Strategy doesn’t exist, and that the House leadership hasn’t done an excellent job of excluding Democrats from the process of drafting legislation? (I’ll agree that “excluding Democrats from any role in the legislative process” is a little over the top… but there’s definitely an issue there.)
Sebastian Holsclaw: 9. I’ll give you secrecy. I’ll note in passing Kerry’s refusal to release his whole military file.
Do you really mean to answer the charge of secrecy in conducting public affairs with the countercharge of secrecy in private matters? I don’t think that’s a road you want to go down.
What’s amazing to me is that we’re sidetracked as to whether or not the disgusting behavior outlined in the OP is fascist or not.
The right to vote is perhaps our most fundamental right, and (call me naive) but I really don’t see how the Republican party can possibly justify employing in any capacity these people where there is strong reason to believe they engaged in illegal activities such as voter fraud or voter suppression.
Have they no shame?
That’s probably a question best directed toward the appropriate “they”.
Be sure and let us know what they say.
What’s amazing to me is that we’re sidetracked as to whether or not the disgusting behavior outlined in the OP is fascist or not.
Therein lies one of the problems with throwing around empotionally charged and inaccurate lables like “fascist” — it detracts from the point of the discussion.
Jeez, what’s with the typos today. Make that: Therein lies one of the problems with throwing around emotionally charged and inaccurate labels like “fascist” — it detracts from the point of the discussion.
Ah, a rare moment of agreement. We must both be wrong.
8p
DPU,
Very well then. Substitute “police state” in my question if you like.
Sebastian,
1. When you seek to eliminate estate taxes and eliminate or sharply reduce taxes on investment income you are unarguably moving in the direction I describe. Individuals will inherit large sums, tax free, and be able to live off the income without paying much in the way of taxes on that either. If you disagree perhaps you could explain why.
2. A matter of degree, certainly, but I think Bush has gone far beyond the usual bounds. There’s that business about Iraq, of course. And in the domestic arena using falsehoods in support of policy proposals has gone to extreme lengths.
3. Hardly ranting. These things have happened. They are abuses of power, and they exceed previous conduct. Do you think they are not abuses, or are just politics as usual?
4. Thank you. In my opinion this alone is more than enough to disqualify Bush and his associates from any further role in the leadership of the country.
5. Do you think O’Neill holds the Bush policy process in high regard? Is “Mayberry Machiavellis” a term of praise? Was Clarke complimentary of Bush’s anti-terror strategy?
6. They didn’t argue for it? Of course they did. What were they arguing in the Padilla case? Or Hamdi? To say it doesn’t matter because they didn’t get it is liking arguing that a mugger is innocent because his victim’s wallet had no money in it. And the reason they don’t have it is because it offended the Supreme Court, even Scalia. They clearly want it. And if they can find a way to strip the court of jurisdiction they will do it.
7. Close. Explain Texas. Even better, visit some of the GOP’s strongholds in the South and read the papers, listen to talk radio, etc. Then tell me it’s not close.
8. We disagree.
9. See Gromit at 3:03.
10. I didn’t accuse you of supporting voter fraud. I accused the RNC.
Slart, you and d_p_u are entirely right. I think the current admin represents some danger to our democracy blah blah blah, but the people running it are not fascists or Fascists (though some of them are as dumb as a bundle of sticks) and it abuses the language to say so, even if in admitted exaggeration.
(Not that it’s equivalent, but I wish Bush had something more substantial to say about Kerry other than he’s a liberal liberal from a liberal state.)
Sebastian, forensically speaking your argument is the equivalent of “I got nuthin.” If Bernard’s #1 (the pre-comma non-hyperbolic part) is arguable then argue it. Let’s see if you can find some charts that don’t show both wealth and income disparity accelerating during the latter half of the Bush administration.
If your response to #2 is something other than plain old evasion, then let’s see some precedents (in living memory) for the total misrepresentation of the medicare bill and the repeated assertion that Saddam posed a threat to the US.
Your flip reponse to #6 is particularly disturbing. Are you genuinely under the impression that they haven’t argued for this? Go out and do a little research and tell us what you find. Your argument is basically that people like Michael Dorf are so overcome with rabid Bush hatred that they’ve become completely irrational. Here’s Dorf lying through his teeth about the content of public documents and then — what chutzpah! — linking to them in the text. If Dorf is off the rails he should be easy to refute.
Etcetera etcetera etcetera as Yul Brynner so famously said. And I’d just like to mention that though I personally am registered as independent your response to #10 strikes me as a violation of the (unwritten?) posting rule that Bernard was scrupulously trying to obey.
> That’s probably a question best directed toward the appropriate “they”.
Karl Rove isn’t returning my calls. But as long as we’re having this little chat… Slart, Sebastian, Moe, do you personally feel that Sproul, Russell et al should continue to work for the BC04 campaign, or should they sit this one out?
union squad attacks on Bush/Cheney offices…
I’m not sure what you’re talking about here, Moe; have any of the attacks on BC04 headquarters been proven to be union-sponsored?
Incidentally, the main bolstering for the “GOP Leadership = Fascists” meme is Dave Neiwert over at Orcinus, but that’s not actually what he’s said. His thesis — which I must admit I find compelling — is that there is a rise of something he calls “proto-fascism” on the extreme right in America, which is forming alliances and inroads with the “corporatist” (as distinct from any form of fascist) GOP leadership. I highly recommend his writings on the subject, although I suspect he’s a sufficiently known quantity as to act less like a facilitator for discourse and more like a Rorschach test. Nonetheless, I think he repeats two valuable points: the first is that fascism doesn’t become fascism until two disparate strands (that he identifies as “proto-fascist” and “corporatist”) fuse and metastasize; and the second is that, as an essentially home-brewed phenomenon, fascism will never manifest the same way twice.
As always, here more than ever, YMMV.
Sebastian: I don’t support voter fraud. I would support a registry of eligible voters. Democrats certainly would not.
Uhh… wtf?
Slart, you and d_p_u are entirely right. I think the current admin represents some danger to our democracy…
Slarti thinks the current administration represents a danger to democracy? I for one would like to welcome brother Slarti in the best traditions of solidarity and comradeship to the collective.
Hmph.
Actually, our area of agreement was the misuse of “fascist”.
I for one would like to welcome brother Slarti in the best traditions of solidarity and comradeship to the collective.
One of usss…. One of usss…
I don’t think they’re fascist yet. Just proto-fascist. I can big this up with serious argumentation if you really feel like hearing it. Suffice it to say that the marriage of big business, big media, big government, and big militarism is a bad thing for American democracy. I like the old days, when the GOP had principles.
Are these people going to sit on their money or spend it? Are these investments going to be sold? Do you realize that trust income is taxed? Are you aware that most estates already avoid taxation? Or is your worry that this is some sort of sea-change in upper-class structure founded on a misunderstanding?
From unarguable to a matter of degree is quite a way. I’m not convinced by your concept of ‘Iraq’. Are we talking about deception which the intelligence community of every interested party agreed with? Including people (like Clinton) from before the Bush administration? Are we talking about ‘seeking uranium’ which Wilson now admits to having evidence for? Hmm. This definitely sounds arguable to me. Domestic policy lies? How about the lie that a recession which began before Bush took office is Bush’s fault? Let’s not even talk about hyping unemployment levels which even at their highest don’t compete with the major European countries which you hold out as models. Or is that not important?
3. Ranting because you aren’t specific. The idea that governments respond positively to companies that support them and negatively to those that do not is unsurprising. You might want to look at the practices of the Democratic Party-controlled Congress in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Or rather, you probably don’t unless you want to avoid noticing how non-Republican governments work. It might be annoying, but it isn’t a nefarious plot.
4. Ok, but that doesn’t make them neo-Nazis.
5. You may notice that Clarke for instance doesn’t like anyone’s terrorist policy. Do some former employees dislike the administration? Absolutely. But that isn’t what you said.
6. No they didn’t argue what you claim. And actual nazi thugs wouldn’t listen to the Supreme Court. Which is a distinction you might think about.
7. I am well acquainted with both the Christian community and the Republican party. A) you seem to evidence little understanding about what the church-state distinction is about if you think devout Christians can’t have a say, and B) the Christian Coalition is no more in control of the Republicans than the Moore wing of ‘we invaded Afghanistan for oil’ is in control of the Democrats. So if you want me to agree with you, all you have to do is admit that Moore’s thinking is really ascendant in the Democratic Party. I’ll be waiting
8. You disagree. I’m well aware. And you say the position is unarguable. That was exciting.
9. If you believe that secrecy about a presidential candidates military record is private, I must express confusion about the alleged importance of a certain candidate’s
guard record.
10. The RNC as a whole? I don’t think so.
Calling people “fascists” really coarsens the tone of the debate. It gets people, many who may be inclined to agree with you, angry and upset.
And, could we stick to the (very important, IMHO) issue at hand, vote fraud and suppresion? The “Bushco is Evil” thread is over at DKos, if you’re looking for it. Three shows daily.
Leaving aside the question of fascism for the moment, and recognizing that no one who posted here is the ‘they’ in ‘have they no shame’, I would like to ask what anyone thinks we can do to prevent this sort of thing from happening, bearing in mind that different means may be available to people who would normally vote with the party responsible than may be available to others. Do you keep voting with them no matter what? Is there some level beyond which, in the opinions of conservatives here, they would forfeit your support? Is there anything else you might do, like becoming active in the party and working against this sort of thing?
Yeah, I too yearn for the day when the other party was honest. On second thought, I wasn’t alive back then.
And, could we stick to the (very important, IMHO) issue at hand, vote fraud and suppresion?
Anyone here think that vote fraud and suppression is a good thing?
Anyone?
And that may be why the discussion has been on a slightly different matter.
“Sebastian, forensically speaking your argument is the equivalent of “I got nuthin.”
Actually no. I have given the charge which is the direct equivalent of “Democratic Leadership consists of murderous Communists” entirely too much time already. The support given by Bernard is pathetic given the extreme nature of his charges. And I’m not giving you proto-fascistic either. Furthermore Neiwart is the man who can use racist comments from Democrats as support for his thesis that Republicans are supporting the rise of neo-Nazism–needless to say, I’m not impressed.
“Karl Rove isn’t returning my calls. But as long as we’re having this little chat… Slart, Sebastian, Moe, do you personally feel that Sproul, Russell et al should continue to work for the BC04 campaign, or should they sit this one out?”
I’m ready to drop the Bomb: fire everybody, both campaigns, and declare a complete news blackout until the day after the election. Everyone involved with either campaign gets to fill out an absentee ballot – and then be politely told not to go near the polling places on election day. Violation of these rules earns the violator a public shaming, probably involving feathers and water-soluble glue (not tar; that could hurt people).
I’m still trying to work out how to make sure that the elderly and disabled get to the polls, but I think that I’m onto something, here. Even if it’s only yet another reason why I should not be allowed any position of trust and/or power in the American government.
Moe — while I appreciate the generosity of your remarks, would you be willing to settle for firing, on both sides, those officials whose campaign activities are already the subjects of criminal investigations? I would.
“Is there some level beyond which, in the opinions of conservatives here, they would forfeit your support?”
Do you still support a Party which has encouraged illegal immigrants to illegally vote in elections for decades?
I’m afraid you do.
If we want to talk about how to secure elections against fraud in general I’d love to talk about it. If you want to talk about Republicans are the main offenders I have to disagree. Democrats have a multi-decade history of union-supported voting corruption in some of their most strongly supported states. They have a multi-decade history of illegal immigrant fraud, and have resisted attempts to curb it.
I’m not for voter fraud. But the reason it is so easy is because both parties have resisted cracking down on it. The reason they have both resisted is that both think they can get something out of it.
It is government corruption, and I decry it. But don’t try to tar me or my party with being the main offenders. More than almost any other equivalency case, both parties do it and neither party tries too hard to stop it.
Yeah, I too yearn for the day when the other party was honest. On second thought, I wasn’t alive back then.
Hell, if you’re going for real honesty, I don’t think America was alive back then…
As for the union thing, Anarch, I was referring to the events found here. I suspect that I’m not as worried as John Fund about this sort of thing being the crest of a wave of organized political violence, but it was political violence and I am not blase about it.
Update: Tobin, the NE chair of Bush/Cheney 2004, is out.
“Moe — while I appreciate the generosity of your remarks, would you be willing to settle for firing, on both sides, those officials whose campaign activities are already the subjects of criminal investigations? I would.”
Alas, that scenario merely eliminates the ones too clumsy to properly cover their tracks. Nuke ’em from orbit; it’s the only way to be sure.
Sebastian, I would honestly appreciate evidence that the DNC has encouraged illegal immigrants to vote illegally for decades. That news to me, and I agree it’s a serious charge.
All right. I used “fascist” very broadly and perhaps technically inaccurately. What I fear is one-party rule, disregard for individual liberties, disregard for religious freedom, gross economic inequalities, inequitable tax burdens, excessive power held by business, disdain for science, and probably a few other things I’ve left off this list.
By the way, I do not agree that the part of my first point following the comma is hyperbole. Here it is
Bush tax cuts and proposed cuts will … at least come close to creating a hereditary class of wealthy individuals who pay little or no tax.
So let me ask. How rich does one have to be, and what tax rate do they have to pay, to qualify as a wealthy individual who pays little or no tax? And let me ask further why it is not obvious that eliminating the estate tax and sharply reducing the tax on dividends will increase the number of such individuals?
P.S. I did think it went without saying, but I will clarify for civility’s sake, that I certainly was not referring to all Republicans (or any posters here) when I asked “have they no shame.”
Sebastian: I too would appreciate the cites for your claim about the DNC.
And in exchange, here’s the cite for Bernard’s 6th claim: here. On p. 14, they claim: “The district court erred in ordering that Padilla be afforded access to counsel for the purpose of mounting a factual challenge to the President’s determination that he is an enemy combatant. … Because the President’s determination that Padilla is an enemy combatant represents a core exercise of the Commander-in-Chief authority, that determination is entitled to great deference. At most, the President’s determination can be reviewed to ensure the existence of “some evidence” supporting it. Because that standard focuses exclusively on the factual support presented by the Executive, there is no warrant for granting Padilla access to counsel to make a factual showing.
Are these people going to sit on their money or spend it?
I suppose they will sit on some and spend some. So what? Assets can generate income without being sold.
Are these investments going to be sold?
Possibly. And right now the tax on the gain is 15%, and there is considerable agitation on the right to eliminate it altogether.
Do you realize that trust income is taxed?
Why is this relevant?
Are you aware that most estates already avoid taxation?
Most estates are small. many large estates escape taxation by virtue first of the unlimited spousal exemption. The taxes may also be reduced by charitable contributions, etc. The fact is the government collects about $30 billion a year from this source. Someone’s paying it, and spare me the small-business/farmer rhetoric.
Let’s not even talk about hyping unemployment levels which even at their highest don’t compete with the major European countries which you hold out as models. Or is that not important?
What did I say about Europe? And no one has claimed the recession was Bush’s fault, whenever it started. What has been claimed is that his alleged anti-recession program was poorly designed and inadequate. The employment record justifies that I think.
Ranting because you aren’t specific.
I was quite specific, and I wasn’t referring to campaign contributions. The bribe in question was in regard to the Smith incdent for which the House Ethics Cmmitteee, in fear and trepidation, has now slapped DeLay gently on the wrist. Other items were specific as well.
Ok, but that doesn’t make them neo-Nazis.
No. It makes them complicit in torture, as I said.
Do some former employees dislike the administration? Absolutely. But that isn’t what you said.
Correct. What I said was that they regarded the policy-making process as absurd. That is amply supported by their comments. What do you think O’Neill’s opinion is?
They didn’t make that claim
Did so.
Christian Coalition, etc.
Christians are entitled to a say. I never said they weren’t. But they are not entitled to impose their practices, prayers, and beliefs as some seek to do. What ever the strength of the Christian Coalition per se in the GOP, it is clear that fundamentalist Christians are a strong force in the party.
secrecy
Again, see Gromit. My discussion was about secrecy in the exercise of political power
The RNC as a whole. I don’t think so.
The RNC as an organization. There may be members who disapprove. I don’t know. But in hiring thugs the RNC acted as an organization, and can be criticized on that basis.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I was finding the 10-question dialogue very hard to follow. I did some cutting and pasting, and with the use of the nifty lj-cut tag, I’ve got the dialogue relating to Bernard’s 10 questions and Sebastian’s responses on my journal.
Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10.
I did it as much for my own convenience as anything else, and, obviously, if anyone cited objects, I’ll remove them. (If Sebastian or Bernard or any of the ObWing mod squad object, I’ll remove the whole post.)
” I would like to ask what anyone thinks we can do to prevent this sort of thing from happening,”
These toads thrive in the dark. You prevent it with an engaged citizenry that has a medium with which to coordinate and communicate.
I bring you. . . the blogosphere.
I would reccomend John Fund’s book on Voter Fraud, see also here , here , I know you aren’t going to like a FrontPage cite, but they cite a number of good government references worth tracking down if you really want to here , notice especially “Among the special interest groups that oppose requiring ID to vote: The League of Women Voters, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, La Raza, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.”
An interesting story about California fraud here :
I have some books at home if you need more.
sorry, posted that by mistake, before I had added the closing quote (after ‘factual showing’), and the comment: the argument here is that the very most that anyone could claim is that the President’s determination can be reviewed to ensure that there is “some evidence” supporting it. That’s the administration’s fallback position.
See also Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, p. 20:
But are you really saying that you haven’t heard of the illegal-immigrant voting issue before? Really?
Sebastian: so as far as I can tell, the evidence you cite for the claim that the Democratic party is encouraging non-citizens to vote is that they support motor-voter laws. What exactly is wrong with that? And is it supposed to compare somehow to keeping people on your payroll who you know are under criminal investigation for election fraud?
I think there is an issue of timing here. In previous years, my impression of the question of letting questionably qualified voters go to the polls was not to swing the election, but to be as inclusive as possible, so Dems supported such efforts. Trying to claim that because the Dems supported these efforts, so therefore were trying to subvert the process before the Republicans, is on first glance, a smooth, but on closer examination, a rather repulsive rhetorical trick.
Coupled with the Mary Cheney brohaha, (which I think has everyone lining up on two sides not because of the content, but, like touching a bruise, you are quite willing to do it yourself (‘gee, does this still hurt?’) but as soon as someone else reaches to touch it, you pull back even before it is touched) I find myself waiting for the updated version of Larkin’s MCMXIV…
> Are these people going to sit on their money…?
Apparently so. They certainly seem to be sitting on it right now, at least in the sense that whatever they’re investing in doesn’t seem to be reducing their liquidity any. Production is way below capacity remember? VC money is out pounding the pavements and not finding work. Employment is, uh, down sharply. Housing is, well, let’s just say that there’s talk of a bubble. If you don’t like the accumulated liquidity explanation offer a different one, because whatever the top quintile is doing it sure as heck ain’t doing anybody else any good…
> No they didn’t argue what you claim.
wtf?!
The government urges us not only to reverse and remand the June 11 order, but in the alternative to reach further and dismiss the instant petition in its entirety. In its brief before this court, the government asserts that “given the constitutionally limited role of the courts in reviewing military decisions, courts may not second-guess the military’s determination that an individual is an enemy combatant and should be detained as such.” The government thus submits that we may not review at all its designation of an American citizen as an enemy combatant – that its determinations on this score are the first and final word.
From Hamdi v Rumsfeld — look for IV A.
This is very clearly an argument that American citizens may be arrested and held indefinitely based on the their designation as “enemy combatant,” and that said designation is not subject to judicial oversight or review by virtue of being a military determination. Now then… I challenge you to find me any legal document filed by this administration which suggests anything other than that designation as an “enemy combatant” is at the sole discretion of the CinC and/or entities below him in the chain of command, or even that there is a formalized procedure for said determination.
</threadjack>
I suspended my natural skepticism of your sources long enough to determine that there doesn’t appear to be any connection whatsoever between the fraud referred to and the Democratic party, or any centralized entity really. And hey, you think WaTimes is a legitimate news source, right? What to make of this article? Do these folks have a legitimate beef or not? Anyway HAVA passed, so what’s the problem?
Well, I’d avoid the F word too, but there’s enough to Bernard’s 10 points that Reps ought to be concerned.
1. It is unarguable that the tax policy of the Admin, now and in the future, is to lessen taxes on investment income, and inherited income. That this will end up increasing the proportion of gov’t spending borne by wage-earners seems obvious enough. The Admin claims this is good policy. That may be arguable, but the trend isn’t.
2. The Admin has been dishonest. That other Admins in the past may have been dishonest as well is no excuse. I see no reason we shouldn’t expect more, and I think it’s perfectly legitimate for Republicans to urge that Kerry be held accountable for his read my lips pledge, should he win. This too is no answer to the charge of fairly blatant manipulation of facts in policy debates.
3. The Republican leadership in Congress has been less procedurally fair, I think most would agree, than their predecessors, who were not themselves paragons. The Republicans took control on a platform of being more fair than their predecessors.
4. No one can be proud of the Admin’s public record with regard to torture. This hurts us in very significant ways.
5. I don’t know what the specific people named think about everything, but the criticism that politics drives policy seems valid. Not long ago, we were treated to the argument, in response to an LA Times story, that allowing politics to drive policy, in small decisions, was perfectly OK because the political goals were so important. Does this sentiment exist in the Admin? Seems likely enough, especially among the political people. And I’ve thought it funny that some times when the Pres has been given an opportunity to knock the charge down, he’s ducked. An example that comes to mind is when, at a press conference earlier this year, he was asked essentially whether if he lost re-election over Iraq it would have been worth it. This seemed to me to be the perfect opportunity for him to say “Hell yes, freedom and safety for Americans are much more important than whatever happens to me.” Instead he said, “Won’t happen.”
6. I know that the Admin spin was that they had prevailed in the Hamdi and Padilla cases, but it’s been made plenty clear above that extreme claims for the Executive were made and rejected.
7. Here, Bernard’s claims are uncharacteristically understated, and I would say therefore unarguable. He did not claim that fundamentalists are in charge. He said they were “influential,” and that the Texas platform represented the thinking of “many” Republicans in Texas.
8. Bernard’s statement is way over the top, as is Sebastian’s. There are a great many more ways that Congress could restrict access to the courts. There is no organized movement by courts to infringe on legislative powers. The courts take cases brought before them, and have to decide what, based on the facts and the law, they have to decide. I would never say that they always get it right, but intentional usurpation, if it happens at all, is exceedingly rare. Where the legislative branch intrudes on the rights of the individual — Loving v. VA is a nice example — and the court finds that the intrusion offends the constitution, some might find this usurpation, where others would say that it is the judiciary’s job to protect the constitutional rights of citizens from infringement by the state.
9. Well it certainly makes a hell of a lot of difference to me whether the information being held secret relates to private or public business. But then I’m not aware of anyone arguing that disclosure of a candidate’s records is legally required — it’s just that people want to check references before hiring. This is completely different from suppressing information about conducting the public’s business.
10. Republicans would do well be be loudly demanding that people who shred registrations, and all the other stuff, be fired, investigated, and prosecuted. I don’t understand why they don’t do so. Surely more votes can be had from taking the right position here, than from engaging in any of the bad stuff. The fact that I’m not seeing organized Republicans take the high road suggests that they disagree with me on the latter part of the equation.
Thanks for the summation, Charley. But what is this @##$%* stuff about “uncharacteristically understated?”
But what is this @##$%* stuff about “uncharacteristically understated?”
What this isn’t 😉
partisan source but:
and more fun stuff.
I would add the following to CharleyCarp’s summary:
1. (Inherited wealth): see my post here for links and support.
3. I’ll just paste in Bernard’s comments, with links: “The Republican Congressional leadership has behaved thuggishly: sending police to break up a Democratic caucus, offering bribes and on the House floor, threatening industres for hiri g Democrats as lobbyists, using federal agencies inappropriately in a state political matter, excluding Democrats from any role in the legislative process, doing things like voting on lengthy bills only a short time after making them available to Democrats, etc.” As for the last two, you can read about them in a three-part series on Congress that starts here. It details various changes that have taken place over the last four years. The two that are relevant to Bernard’s specific charges are:
“Bills are increasingly crafted behind closed doors, and on two major pieces of legislation — the Medicare and energy bills — few Democrats were allowed into the critical conference committee meetings, sessions that historically have been bipartisan. The energy bill — a sweeping package meant to lay out a national energy policy — started in closed-door meetings held by Vice President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force and was written in private sessions on Capitol Hill that excluded all Democrats. On the Medicare negotiations, only two Democrats — both already supportive of the bill — were included.”
“The amount of time spent openly debating bills has dropped dramatically, and lawmakers are further hamstrung by an abbreviated schedule that gives them little time to fully examine a bill before voting on it. The House typically holds no votes until Tuesday evenings — and then usually on noncontroversial items such as the renaming of post offices — then adjourns for the week by Thursday afternoon. The Iraq war resolution was debated just two days in 2002; the defense authorization bill, which customarily undergoes weeks of floor discussion, was debated and voted on this year in two days.”
Other findings from the series include the following:
“The House Rules Committee, which is meant to tweak the language in bills that come out of committee, sometimes rewrites key passages of legislation approved by other committees, then forbids members from changing the bills on the floor. Only five times this year were House members allowed to amend policy bills on the floor, and only 15 percent of bills this year were open to amendment. For the entire 108th Congress, just 28 percent of total bills have been open to amendment — barely more than half of what Democrats allowed in their last session in power in 1993-94. Further, the Rules Committee has blocked floor votes on legislation opposed by the Bush administration but supported by a majority of the House. For example, a bill to extend benefits to the long-term unemployed has been kept off the House floor despite what backers say is the support of a bipartisan majority.
The Rules Committee commonly holds sessions late at night or in the wee hours of the morning, earning the nickname “the Dracula Congress” by critical Democrats and keeping some lawmakers quite literally in the dark about the legislation put before them. On the Patient’s Bill of Rights legislation in 2001, for example, the Rules Committee made a one-word change in the middle of the night that drastically limited the liability of HMOs that deny coverage to their patients. The measure was hustled through the House hours later, with few lawmakers aware of the change.
Congressional conference committees, charged with reconciling differences between House- and Senate-passed versions of the same legislation, have become dramatically more powerful in shaping bills. The panels, made up of a small group of lawmakers appointed by leaders in both parties, added a record 3,407 “pork barrel” projects to appropriations bills for this year’s federal budget, items that were never debated or voted on beforehand by the House and Senate and whose congressional patrons are kept secret. This compares to just 47 projects added in conference committee in 1994, the last year of Democratic control.”
5: I’d be happy to provide quotes from the people Bernard mentioned, if anyone is interested. My only quibble with what Bernard said here is that ‘joke’ may be too polite a term for O’Neill’s and Clarke’s views (I’d describe their views of the policy-making process in this White House as ‘completely mysterious’ and ‘utterly irresponsible’, respectively.)
8: I don’t know what Bernard was referring to, but if I had written this, I’d have had the Congress’s various attempts to remove various issues from jurisdiction in mind. Remember the ‘outsourcing torture’ provisions of HR 10: one of their pernicious features was removing any determinations made under those provisions from judicial review.
Going by the dialogue-so-far (allowing for the fact that Sebastian or some other Bush supporter may come back and try to rebut some of the points made):
Q1: A difference in opinion. Both sides stated their case fairly, neither side is likely to convince the other. A win/win draw.
Q2: Sebastian loses this one: he’s driven to claiming that the administration weren’t deliberately deceptive over Iraq, ducks the Medicare issue completely, and goes on the attack with claims that Bush opponents have been just as deceptive.
Q3: Sebastian doesn’t even try to win this one: he simply claims that Bernard is ranting, and fails to respond to any of the points made.
Q4: I don’t think anyone disagrees that torture is bad and that the Bush administration should not be complicit in it. A win/win draw.
Q5: Sebastian loses, again, mainly because he doesn’t even try to argue his case.
Q6: Sebastian loses, rather spectacularly, by claiming what is not so. The Bush administration has claimed that it has the right to hold US citizens, as well as citizens of other countries, indefinitely, on the mere assertion that they may be terrorists.
Q7: Sebastian loses, again without ever really trying to address the issue. Texan Republicans are very influential in the national Republican party, in the Administration, and in both Houses, right now – and the Texan Republican platform is very, very “Christian Nation”.
Q8: Bernard makes an outrageous claim: Sebastian counters with an equally outrageous claim: neither of them can back it up: a lose/lose draw.
Q9: Sebastian concedes the point and tries to change the issue. Point to Sebastian for conceding that the administration has been secretive over matters they shouldn’t have: point taken away by trying to claim that the military record of either Kerry or Bush is equivalent to a matter of public policy.
Q10: Voter fraud. On this, I don’t think I can better Charley’s summary. It’s true that Democrats have committed voter fraud in the past – though Sebastian didn’t link to any examples of it – but the current voter fraud that is apparently being condoned by the Bush administration is something that it’s not worth defending even by going on the attack against the other side. This could have been another win/win draw, but Sebastian dropped the ball.
In summary: Q1 and Q4 are win-win draws, Q8 is a lose-lose draw, Q10 ought to have been a win-win draw. Q3 and Q5 Sebastian surrendered without a fight. Q2, Q6, Q7, Sebastian inarguably lost the argument on facts. Q9 was a win-win draw until Sebastian brought up candidate military records.
What? I’m bored! I was meant to be going to a housewarming party tonight, but the friend who was giving me a ride there never showed.
I dispute your characterizations, Jesurgislac and am only stayed from begining an equally outrageous “Democrats are Communists which is to say on the road to genocide” thread by the fact that I know I’ll be less angry in the morning. Suffice to say that the questions you believe I didn’t adequately respond to weren’t phrased in arguable terms so I could not argue them.
Hilzoy, your characterization of the Democratic position as being purely motor-voter is odd.
I quoted: “A later investigation discovered that 60% of the voter registrations processed by Hermanidad Mexicanos Nacional, an L.A. area Hispanic organization, were of non-citizens who fraudulently claimed the right to vote [San Jose Mercury News (Oct. 14, 1997)]. The investigation by the California Secretary of State identified 5087 non-citizens on the election rolls of Orange County.”
I would also like to note that the year those investigations were taking place, the Clinton Administration wasn’t all that interested in persuing them.
and I quoted:
“Among the special interest groups that oppose requiring ID to vote: The League of Women Voters, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, La Raza, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.”
I suspect you will not try to claim that those organizations are acting for the benefit of the Republican Party? Perhaps I suspect too much.
Accursed League of Women’s Voters! I knew they were up to no good when they opposed requiring ID to vote!
Sebastian, to be clear: I was looking for things that the Democratic party might have been behind, and that was what I found. The reason for that was that I thought you were arguing a parallel of some kind between the issues you cited and the things in my original post. Those include a person who is (or was when I posted) the New England director of Bush/Cheney being an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case involving election misconduct (and I think it unlikely that today was the first the campaign heard about this, since the guilty pleas and cooperation that led to his being named have been around for a while, and since the Justice Department has gotten involved in trying to delay the proceedings); four people who have resigned in South Dakota as a result of a criminal investigation into voter registration fraud being brought in to the Bush/Cheney campaign in Cleveland to lead the ground operation there; and a group paid by the RNC shredding Democratic registration forms. It’s not just that some random pro-Bush group is doing this; people paid by Bush/Cheney and the RNC are.
I have worked with the League of Women Voters on occasion, and have always found them to be completely non-partisan.
I do not agree with Bernard’s characterization of the leadership of the Republican Party as fascist scum. But of his list of 10 points, I think he’s right on almost all of them. On question 8, I am not sure I’d agree that “the republican majority in Congress seeks to strip the courts of as much authority as it can get away with”, and in particular the last 6 words (who knows how much they can get away with?), but I do think that their efforts to strip courts of jurisdiction are extremely dangerous and radical. Also, on 10, some of the people I mentioned in my original post are employed by the Bush campaign, not the RNC, but that doesn’t affect the substance of the point. For the rest, I think his 10 points are accurate, for the reasons I’ve given.
> 5087 non-citizens on the election rolls of Orange County
Y’know, now that I actually go look things up and think about it, 5100 (±0.17%) isn’t all that surprising for a population of ±3,000,000 that’s ±30% hispanic, ±30% foreign-born, and 100-odd miles from Mexico. Not exactly an indicator of widespread deliberate fraud. If I saw that ratio in MN or Ohio I’d be worried. In Dade Co. I wouldn’t be.
Thanks for the peek behind the curtain tho. Left to do my own research on the internets I would have foolishly concluded that the grand jury’s decision not to offer any indictments despite access to pretty much the entire (seized) contents of the HMN offices must have been on merits, and that the voter fraud was sort of a tempest in a teapot, having resulted in a grand total of 303 illegal votes for Loretta Sanchez (and presumably another 300 or so legal ones). BTW your source is confused. According to my calculator 45% of the HMN registrations were fraudulent. 61% is how many of that 45% actually voted. Unless of course not everybody who signed up for the citizenship course filled out the VR form?
Anyway that’s obviously just the cover story. In reality HMN is merely a front for the DNC (which I now see is controlled by Bert Corona and a group of Berkeley economics and history professors who are blackmailing the Clintons). This clearly poses quite the insidious threat to modern democracy.
> The League of Women Voters, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, La Raza, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Weird. One of these things is way not like the others. And isn’t the ACLU also opposed? What about Cato Institute?
hilzoy, I hate to mention this but do you remember the Constitution Restoration Act? Looks like it’s languishing in committee…
“Weird. One of these things is way not like the others. And isn’t the ACLU also opposed? What about Cato Institute?”
I suspect the ACLU is opposed, but did not what to claim so without a cite.
I suppose you credit them as non-partisan on an issue like this?
> I suppose you credit them as non-partisan on an issue like this?
Oh heck no. I just sort of assumed that that was somebody’s pre-compiled list so I was perplexed that there was such an obvious sticky-outy bit. I figured either go ahead and add ACLU since the pattern was already broken or substitite SPLC (for example) for LWV to keep the pattern. If it was an ad hoc list that’s different…
“hilzoy, I hate to mention this but do you remember the Constitution Restoration Act? Looks like it’s languishing in committee…”
Thank heaven for small mercies.
(warning: sarcasm in the form of a eulogy. If easily offended, please skip)
We are gathered here today to pay tribute to a fine idea and to mourn its passing. Of course, I speak of the notion that the winner of an election in our system of government would be truest if we truly were able to plumb the depths of each person’s soul and total up the balance. Thus we were enjoined to attempt to enfranchise to the fullest extent possible, with our errors being understood as the errors of imperfect beings struggling towards the light.
But rather than talk about that cold lifeless vessel of that idea that lies before us, I’d like the members of the congregation to reflect for a moment on the life of that idea. It was never an easy existence, beginning from eliminating non-landowners, to those who were of different color, to those who were of different gender. It struggled through poll taxes and literacy tests, through blatant intimidation and mroe subtle misdirection. Yet it continued to live. Even as we grew complacent, both sides of the aisle never gave up the belief that if everyone would vote, their ideas would triumph. Isn’t that what was invoked by the ‘silent majority’?
In this, we were ground-breaking, unique. We did not imitate the laws of other states but were a model to others. We invoked the notion of democracy because our decisions were in the hands of the whole people, rather than just those who were fortunate to not run afoul of the law, or those whose names resembled those on a list of those who ran afoul of the law. Our belief in the ability to vote did not depend on the ability to obtain a drivers license, or be in a position to have a utility bill, it merely depended on our existence within society.
This marked one of the ways in which we differed from our enemies. Our country is open to all the world and we aimed to make the possibility of having a voice in our government a foundation.
Sadly, that is all past. It is clear in these times that any organization that advocates maximum turnout is working towards nefarious ends. The notion that we err on the side of allowing too many people to have a voice is an extravagant luxury and our friend before us passed away so that we can begin to realize that not only voting, but also encouraging others to vote is not a responsibility but an honor that only those truly worthy can be allowed to accept.
We therefore commit these ashes to the deep, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to some future political heaven, where once more we can assert that voting is an act not limited to a few but expanded to the many.
Amen
I dispute your characterizations, Jesurgislac and am only stayed from begining an equally outrageous “Democrats are Communists which is to say on the road to genocide” thread by the fact that I know I’ll be less angry in the morning.
I’m sorry you’re angry, Sebastian. I was trying to follow the argument down the page, and ended up cutting and pasting into a notepad file because I couldn’t figure out what was going on without a whole lot of scrolling up and down.
Suffice to say that the questions you believe I didn’t adequately respond to weren’t phrased in arguable terms so I could not argue them.
I’ll give you Q5 – though Bernard later expanded his point so that it was arguable, if you’d chosen to do so. But not Q3: Bernard presents a series of assertions, which you do not attempt to counter. And certainly not Q7, the other one you just kind of gave up on. (Understandably: what are you going to do, claim that the Texan Republicans aren’t influential in the national party, or that the Texan Republican party platform doesn’t exist?)
Looks like Q8 is moving away from being a lose for both sides, too….
Honestly, I was trying to be fair. I don’t agree with you on Q1, but it seemed to me that both sides presented their argument fairly, and depending on which economic theory you believe in, both “won”: I just happen not to believe in your theory. Hence win-win draw.
The problem with things like Q3 is they exhibit little historical knowledge about Congressional norms. I won’t try to defend bribery, but I will note that is a single allegation and that allegations of bribery occasionaly surface against whatever party is in power in Congress. But since you are trying to establish a fascistic pattern I will defend the idea that lobbyists who closely ally themselves with one side tend not to get what they want when the other side wins. In the 1970s and 1980s, Democrats were ruthless in exactly the same regard. So either Democrats were fascistic in the same way for 20+ years, or your definition of the concept is ridiculous.
Q7 I didn’t give up on. Bernard made assertions from his outsider view. I made assertions from the insider view. I don’t know what more I can do. I could note that there was no proposed constitutional amendment to ban late term abortions, or allow school prayer, or all sorts of other sops to the Christian community that you would expect if they were really in control of the agenda. But you don’t care about that. I could note that the whining about ignoring ‘separation of church and state’ is just whining, but you don’t care. You seem to believe that certain positions must be religious. You are wrong, but what can I do about that? The question is useless because it is axiomatic to you–therefore not subject to proof. I assure you that the Christian coalition is every bit in control of the Republican Party as Moore’s wing is in charge of the Democratic Party–possibly less. But the fact that Moore is not in charge is more obvious to you because you run in Democratic circles. I know lots of Republicans, and lots of Christians, and lots of people who are both. And I know that you don’t have to worry about a fundamentalist Christian state in the US. But feel free to worry. I’m not ignoring you, you just aren’t being rational.
And I’m not a Christian. I have no interest in a fundamentalist state.
But since you are trying to establish a fascistic pattern
Bzzzt!
Bernard has conceded – at least twice over – that he was wrong to use the word “fascist”. Can you move on from this?
Sebastian, you wrote
“And I’m not a Christian. I have no interest in a fundamentalist state.”
While Bernard is more than a bit OTT on this (IMO), you seem to be suggesting that if you are a Christian, you have an interest in a fundamentalist state. You also wrote earlier “I am well acquainted with both the Christian community and the Republican party.” so I am assuming that you have some reason for making this connection.
Just as I cringe when people raise a flag of ‘Islamofacism’, I also do so when they link Christian principles with any particular party. (regardless of how those parties may hide behind said principles) A useful antidote is The Village Gate group blog, which was formerly The Right Christians.
Whoops, gave out my real name. Never mind the man behind the curtain…
Sebastian,
Please reread my point #7:
Influential elements of the Republican Party reject the notion of separation of church and state, and would like to see the US declared a “Christian Nation.” Minimize the importance of the Texas GOP platform all you want, it still represents the views of many party members in a large and important state. And I don’t think it’s just Texas.
I said nothing about the Christian Coalition. I am mostly discussing the Texas GOP platform. Do you maintain that the Texas party – the state party of both the President and the House Majority Leader, is not influential – that its views are totally out of the mainstream of GOP thinking?
“Influential elements of the Republican Party reject the notion of separation of church and state, and would like to see the US declared a “Christian Nation.”
I maintain that no influential element of the Republican Party rejects the notion of separation of church and state.
I maintain that no influential element of the Republican Party rejects the notion of separation of church and state.
To continue in Bernard’s vein: are you saying that the Texas GOP does not reject church and state, or that the Texas GOP is not influential? In the more general case of “evangelicals” — quotation marks there because I’m not really sure how, or even if, that group is defined — which way does this break?
“I don’t believe there is a separation of church and state.”
Tom DeLay.
But since you are trying to establish a fascistic pattern I will defend the idea that lobbyists who closely ally themselves with one side tend not to get what they want when the other side wins. In the 1970s and 1980s, Democrats were ruthless in exactly the same regard.
Except that that’s not what the K Street Strategy is all about; it’s not about making sure that lobbyists who closely ally themselves with the Democrats don’t get what they want, it’s about pressuring lobbyists to *not work with the Democrats at all*.
And if you want to assert that this is just like what the Democrats did when they controlled Congres, I suggest you read this post by Mark Schmitt.
> The problem with things like Q3 is they exhibit little historical knowledge about Congressional norms.
Historical knowledge about Congressional norms is a good thing. In fact since you obviously have some perhaps you can help me with some research that I’m having trouble with (Kevin Phillips won’t return my calls either). I’m fascinated by the 104th – 108th, particularly the 108th, but I’ve somehow accumulated a long list of things to look for precedents for in the Dem-controlled Congresses (particularly the fat years of the mid 50s through late 70s). Here’s a few you could probably help me out with without breaking a sweat. Just a couple of examples for each bullet point would be good — I don’t want to take up too much of your time.
1) The Nick Smith business. Indictments and convictions not needed, just a credible scandal.
2) The deliberate holding open of votes.
3) The repeated censure (admonishment whatever) of a house majority leader.
4) Impeachment proceedings.
5) The creative use of House and Joint committees to prevent minority access to bills prior to vote.
6) Deliberate and explicit introduction of religious language into legislation, like the Const. Rest. Act I mentioned earlier. I’m having particular trouble with that one 😉
All armchair historians of congress are welcome to help BTW. Many hands make light work…
radish: here’s a precedent for holding votes open: ” Back in 1987, Republicans went ballistic when then-Speaker Wright held a vote open for a then-record extra 15 minutes. Dick Cheney, at the time a Wyoming representative, termed the move “the most arrogant, heavy-handed abuse of power I’ve ever seen in the 10 years that I’ve been here.”” The Medicare bill was held open for three hours while the House leadership rounded up the necessary votes.
Kevin Drum had a rather nice summary of a three-part article in the Boston Globe on this subject, radish. It includes a lot of context and precedent (or lack thereof) for the acts in question.
hilzoy, Kevin Drum remarks in his summary that “Democrats did this once in 1987 and Republicans screamed foul, even though that vote was held open for a mere extra 20 minutes and was due to an odd mixup, not a desire to bludgeon holdouts into changing their votes.” [Emphasis mine.] Do you know what he’s talking about there?
Anarch — don’t know what the vote was, but it was probably the same one I referenced above. The Globe series is excellent, as is the article I just linked, which contains a lengthy discussion of current practices by the GOP Congress, and a comparison to their Democratic predecessors.
Slight threadjack here, but given the discussion about separation of church and state, I think this article by Bruce Bartlett is huge.
This is circulating on livejournal, and I thought it well worth passing on: