Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Prop 2 garners Supreme endorsement
At least according to Charlie Howard, the Texas House representative from Sugar Land:
"What we're doing, we are saying, here is a law we are going to follow. It happens to be God's law".
You may see it for thine own eyes by clicking here (link will carry you to TexansFORMarriage.org and their embedded Windows Media Player will begin).
Let me simply say that the separation of church and state is a good thing for both religion and government. And you can support the separation of church and state by voting AGAINST Prop. 2.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Cheney polls two points below adultery
Bob Harris via This Modern World:
As you’ve no doubt heard, Bush’s approval rating has fallen to 35. Maybe America is starting to realize that secret prisons and endless war aren’t really the best government we can possibly hope for.
Dick Cheney, in the same poll, has a 19 percent approval rating.
How low is 19 percent?
According to previous surveys (scroll down in the link), that’s two points less popular than cheating on your spouse and seven points behind corporal punishment in schools.
Dick Cheney is now comfortably nestled deep in what can be politely called lunatic territory. As I’ve been pointing out for years, twenty or thirty percent of Americans believe any insane thing you can imagine.
Dick Cheney is now 18 points behind the number of people who believe alien beings have secretly contacted the U.S. government.
Friday, November 04, 2005
"Do you suppose we could get Bush a BJ..."
"Do you suppose we could get Bush a blowjob so that he can be impeached?"
Considering that a majority of Americans polled now believe he should be, maybe soliciting an oral favor won't be necessary.
Pictured: Rick Perry and Greg Abbott (can't tell which is which)
...and their GOTV volunteers, who will be appearing in Austin tomorrow.
From the man who will defeat Greg Abbott next November:
On November 5, the hooded bigots of the Ku Klux Klan will descend on Austin to march in support of the passage of Proposition 2. These masked shock troops of hate do Texans a favor in exposing the real meaning and significance of the proposed amendment in all its shining glory. There could be no greater barometer of what is really at stake in the vote on Proposition 2. The Klan does not show up anywhere unless it is to support bigotry and hate. Never before has the Klan shown up to support passage of a proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution, because never before has there been such an organized attempt to enshrine the Klan’s brand of hate in the noble charter of liberty and democracy of the people of Texas.
The Bill of Rights of our Texas Constitution of 1876 is one of the greatest charters of individual human rights on the face of the earth. Every Texan who loves our state should be personally offended at this disgusting effort to use it as a forum for the propagation of hate. I know that I am.
Every Texan should also be appalled that the lawyer who has the greatest responsibility to defend the Constitutional rights of the people of Texas, the state Attorney General, instead allies himself with the prophets of hate, as Attorney General Greg Abbott does in his public letter of October 27, 2005, in support of Proposition 2. I know that I am, and I know that Texans are entitled to a lawyer for the people who understands that every Texas citizen should have equal legal respect as a 100% equal part owner of our Constitutional democracy.
The world will be watching Texas in the vote on Proposition 2. Fellow Texans, let’s show the world what we’re made of. Take a stand against hate. Take a stand against the Ku Klux Klan. Take a stand against politicians who ally themselves with the Klan. Take a stand for liberty and democracy. Show the power of Texans’ support of our Constitution. Show the power of your vote. Vote down Proposition 2.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
A squabble over Prop 2 among Republicans
Mr. (name redacted),
We have no association with, nor control over, the KKK. I think the fact that we have been working partners with such as Pastor Blackwell, Pastor McKissic and the Cornerstone Baptist Church shows that in itself. To equate the KKK’s idea of white supremacy with the RPT standing for traditional marriage is ludicrous. Thank you for your comment and for representing to me the Harris County GOP Precinct (redacted).
Jennifer Sykes
Assistant to the Chairman & Executive Director
Republican Party of Texas
And to that, this:
Dear Ms. Sykes:
Thank you for your response to my message of October 31, 2005, although I am a bit surprised to receive such a stern rebuke. I neither stated nor implied that the Republican Party of Texas has any "association with, or control over," the Ku Klux Klan. I did not "equate the KKK's idea of white supremacy" to the RPT's position on Proposition No. 2. You falsely accuse me of both of these things merely to characterize me as "ludicrous"—not a very respectful attitude toward a fellow member of the GOP.
Over 1100 rights flow automatically from the legal state of marriage. Not long ago, we watched Britney Spears walk down an aisle in Las Vegas with an Elvis impersonator officiating and obtain all 1100 of these legal rights for a marriage she later termed "a joke"--a marriage that lasted only 55 hours. If "traditional marriage" is in jeopardy in this country, it seems to me that the good Republicans of Texas should perhaps look in their own back yards before setting out to blame the decline of traditional marriage on homosexuals.
Many Republicans feel that gay Texans pay their taxes and should be entitled to the same legal rights as everyone else. Many Republicans feel that passing laws to deprive one group of citizens of constitutional rights to which they would otherwise be entitled harks back to the days of segregated waiting rooms, all-male juries, laws against interracial marriages, and "whites-only" drinking fountains—all ideas which were vigorously supported by the KKK, but now lie "in the ash heap of history," to borrow Ronald Reagan's colorful phrase. Many Republicans feel that this is not the direction Texas should be heading in the 21st century. Most of all, many Republicans are offended by the presumptuousness of GOP leaders in taking for granted that all Republicans are in agreement on this issue.
While your desire to distance the GOP from the KKK is understandable, the KKK's alignment with the GOP on this issue is not coincidental. Flies are drawn to garbage wherever it may be found. Proposition No. 2 was motivated by an animus toward gay people and the bald arrogance of declaring that heterosexuals shall be forever superior to homosexuals through policies of law.
Declaring groups of people to be unworthy of the same rights as others is something the KKK knows a lot about. The GOP's pretensions of self-righteousness and its harrumphing about how different the GOP is from the KKK have a very hollow ring in the context of Proposition No. 2.
(name withheld)
GOP Chairman, Harris County Precinct (redacted)
(address withheld)
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Harry gave 'em hell.
In a move worthy of a Wild West gunfight, Minority Leader Harry Reid changed the political landscape on a dime, and cleaved the Republican talking point brigades into shards and splinters. This move was political brilliance on more fronts than I can count. ...
- First, obviously, it forced the Senate to agree to finally investigate the massaged and/or bogus Iraq War intelligence, after stonewalling the investigation for over two years.
- Second, it shows the American people that the Democrats are serious about the Republicans' ongoing dismissal of critical national security matters, even if Republicans like Frist and Roberts have proven over the last two years they aren't trustworthy or responsible about pursuing them. And that Democrats are also dead serious about the Iraq War, and investigating any frauds or manipulations used to send us into the quagmire.
- It absolutely nails the Republicans to the wall on Plamegate. President Bush, the Senate, and now the entire nation knows that senior administration official Scooter Libby, chief of staff to the Vice President, was the first administration official to leak the name of a covert CIA agent to the press, in retaliation for her husband's political stance. And we now know that Rove was the second, and that the two had some conversations as to Plame's status and what they were telling reporters about it.
And yet Bush didn't fire either one of them. He allowed Libby to resign after being indicted for obstructing the further investigation into the White House leaks. And Rove remains by his side today, while the investigation continues.
Today, by demanding a response to Senate obstruction efforts, Reid squarely brought the national discourse back to the ongoing now-criminal obstruction efforts in the White House -- a criminal obstruction that had in the last days been made into a talking point praised by Republicans as a Republican victory over the investigation. And it masterfully highlights the fundamental dishonesty of a Republican Senate with no intentions of getting to the bottom of either of them. Frist squealed like a stuck pig at even the mere thought of having to discuss either matter.
Go count a few more of the fronts.
David Sirota has some questions to which he wants answers. He's been asking those same questions for quite awhile now.
The Democrats are going to the mattresses on this, and on "Sloppy Seconds" Scalito. The GOP heads are exploding.
Hell of a "Boston Legal" episode last night on the subject, too.
It's on. Pop the corn.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Damned liberal media again
FITZGERALD: I would have wished nothing better that, when the subpoenas were issued in August 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005. No one would have went to jail.
Had Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, and the other members of the media who were manipulated by the assistants to the President and Vice President testified when they were issued the subpoenas, then Scooter Libby would have been indicted in October 2004.
That would have made Bush's re-election more than a little unlikely.
John Kerry would be President, the Senate and/or the House would likely be under Democratic control, and the current Supreme Court nominee most certainly would not be a Fascist.
Not to mention Stephen Breyer as Chief Justice.
Just sayin'...
Update (11/2): Susan has much more.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Alito, but maybe also Luttig
Bush spent the weekend at Camp David huddled with Miers, who remains his White House counsel and is therefore in charge of the judicial selection process, along with Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., who originally advocated Miers as the first choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As the three talked, White House officials contacted prominent conservatives to test the reaction to various candidates.
One group consulted was the Concerned Women for America, whose decision to oppose Miers last Wednesday became one of the final blows to help kill the nomination. Janet M. LaRue, the group's chief counsel, said it received a call from the White House on Saturday and liked what it heard.
"Alito and Luttig have always been at the top of our list," she said in an interview. "We think either of them would be a supreme pick. There isn't a thing stealthy about them. They've got a long, proven record of constitutional conservatism."
Other conservatives yesterday also embraced Alito, in particular. "Alito, Luttig -- all these people are solid conservatives," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said on CBS's "Face the Nation." On CNN's "Late Edition," Gary L. Bauer, president the conservative group American Values, described his criteria for a Supreme Court justice and added, "Certainly, Judge Alito fits those characterizations."
A judge on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's.
"That is not one of the names that I've suggested to the president," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told "Late Edition" on CNN. "In fact, I've done the opposite. I think it would create a lot of problems."
Reid said Bush would be making a "mistake" were he to settle on a hard-liner simply to appease the far right in his party, especially after conservatives' wrath undermined Miers' nomination.
Yes. A big mistake.
Ten reasons to oppose gay marriage
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of outlandish, immoral behavior. As Senator John Cornyn has pointed out, people may even choose to marry their pets, because box turtles have legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4) Marriage is a fundamental institution and cannot be expected to be revised on the basis of societal whim. After all, women are still property, blacks still cannot marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Heterosexual marriage will be damaged if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour, alcohol-induced, impulsive marriage would be devastated.
6) Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the citizens of an entire country. That's why there is only one religion in America.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why our nation has expressly forbidden single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will alter the foundation of society for the worse; we could never adapt to new social mores. This is similar to the way our society has failed to adapt to automobiles, the service-sector economy, and longer life spans.
Be sure to vote against proposition 2.
Friday, October 28, 2005
"Official A"
Why is "Official A" the only person not identified by name or title in the indictment?
On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife.
Why the secrecy around the identity of "Official A"? Why the deference to his anonymity? What's going on with "Official A" that isn't going on with anybody else?