Yes, we're related

Harvey Kronberg's Quorum Report:

GRAND JURY ASSISTANT FOREMAN ACCUSES ROSENTHAL OF COVERUP

"If this was a truck driver from Pasadena, he would already have been tried and convicted," said Dorrell

Jeffrey Dorrell served as the assistant foreman of the Harris County Grand Jury that indicted Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina and his wife earlier today.

In a just-completed interview with Quorum Report, a furious Dorrell accused District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal of a political cover-up for refusing to pursue the just-returned indictments.

Hey, I'm just as in the dark as you are. Until the story hits the funny papers, you'll just have to buy it from Harvey.

The al-Qaeda wing of the GOP

What do you suppose the Right-Wing Noise machine would be blasting today if Mark Siljander happened to be a Democrat?

A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday on charges of working for an alleged terrorist fundraising ring that sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.

Mark Deli Siljander, a Michigan Republican when he was in the House, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about being hired to lobby senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

The 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying _ money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The charges paint "a troubling picture of an American charity organization that engaged in transactions for the benefit of terrorists and conspired with a former United States congressman to convert stolen federal funds into payments for his advocacy," Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein said.

Siljander, who served in the House from 1981-1987, was appointed by President Reagan to serve as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations for one year in 1987.

Siljander was one of the very first conservo-freaks elected to Congress, preceding the post-Reagan wave of ultra-right-wing extremists, led by LeRoy Gingrich, that took control of the House in 1994. The same brand of extremism that is so common today it's almost mainstream.

Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Tom DeLay? All Johnny-Come-Latelies compared to Siljander. No less domestic terrorists, however.

More about this traitor:

Once in Congress, he became one of the most radical wingers, someone who in today's Republican caucus would fit in. For instance, in1984 he unsuccessfully tried to amend a civil rights bill "to define the term ''person'' under the bill to include ''unborn children from the moment of conception.'" But back then, in the early days of the radical religious right's takeover of the GOP, he attracted a lot of attention, too much for some, so in 1986 plutocrat Fred Upton defeated him in a Republican primary, helped by the crazy news that Siljander had issued a tape recording to fundies asking them to "break the back of Satan" by fasting and praying for his victory.

Their prayers weren't answered. He lost, but Reagan cushioned his landing by appointing him a position at the United Nations.

And apparently al-Qaeda in America supports Duncan Hunter. Whooda thunk?

"Incidentally, I met Duncan Hunter in the Members Dining Room in the House about a year ago. I was having lunch with Rep. Hunter's old friend and former Michigan congressman Mark Siljander, and the three of us stood there in the middle of the dining room, along with two of Duncan's San Diego constitutents (one active military and one disabled in Iraq and recently relieved from active duty) and we all held hands and prayed together while other diners gave us curious glances. At that moment I knew that Duncan Hunter was the right man for the White House, and I doubt if he'd seriously considered running for president at that point. A man with the courage of his convictions; what a great asset for a leader."

I know I was moved by this story and reassured that Duncan Hunter is the right man for the Presidency! If we pull together we can help make this great man our next president!

Back to DHinMI for the executive summary:

Let's review. Mark Siljander was one of the original creations of the fundamentalist right wing. Had he won his seat from a less moderate area than Southwest Michigan, he might still be in Congress. Hell, he'd probably be in leadership. So he was shunted aside for a while, but he continued to move in the interconnected world of fundamentalist religion, rightwing politics, and lobbying and financial malfeasance.

In short, Mark Siljander is a archetypal radical rightwing politician. They espouse patriotism and fundamental values, but really, they're just ignorant, intolerant, greedy and don't care about America.

Any questions?

NV voters/debate watchers pick Edwards

Frank Luntz is the wildly gesticulating Republican pollster in this video snapshot:



You can purchase Edwards bumper stickers, signs, shirts and more at the website (but wait until this Friday, when it counts as part of the $7 million drive).

Congratulations Mittens!

You couldn't have done it without us.

Now your Democratic constituents expect you to speak out against Mike Huckaboob's ridiculous assertion that we change the Constitution into the Bible.

John Edwards, Nevada, and $7 million this Friday

First, it's a three-way tie in Nevada:

A new poll by the Reno Gazette-Journal shows a neck-and-neck three-way race among Democrats for Saturday's (January 19) caucus.


Barack Obama: 32 percent
Hillary Clinton: 30 percent
John Edwards: 27 percent

The poll was conducted Jan. 11 to Jan. 13 , with samples of 500 likely Democratic caucus-goers statewide by Maryland-based Research 2000. The margin of error is 4.5 percent.

A win in Nevada would be part of the Edwards re-emergence (I'd like to have been able to use "surge", but you know why I can't). The action plan is to break Ron Paul's online fund-raising record this Friday, the day before Nevada votes:

What I want to know is this: If Paul can do it, why can't Edwards? Edwards has far more support than Paul and he ought to be able to mobilize his supporters to attempt to set a new fund raising record. I don't know if Edwards has anything like this in mind but there is no reason his supporters can't embark on this on their own.

Care to help out?

I see we've touched a nerve

My SDEC account apparently upset one of my blog hermanos:

The blog coverage from the January State Democratic Executive Committee (SDEC) meeting this past weekend is weak. We have only heard from David Van Os and Open Source Dem about their disappointment over the failure of John Courage’s proposal to place language on the March primary ballot statewide, blaming the “First Spear Centurion” for inaction on a resolution that was introduced into the wrong committee. Courage’s proposed referendum is a great idea, and it is a terrible disappointment that the motion was brought to the wrong committee.

First of all thanks for the linky love, dembones. That might be a first (excepting our mutual Roundups and Wrangles).

But to his objection: it's always useful to understand why someone cries when the status quo is challenged. I don't know if he has a dog in this hunt or whether -- in the admonishment "quit bitching and get to work" -- he's only interested in playing schoolmarm. But it's obvious in his archives that paying attention to what the SDEC is up to isn't high on the posting priority.

Which is certainly fine with me; they've done excellent research on the T Don Hutto scandal and the toll road concerns and have been the leader in Williamson County reporting for quite some time.

But if he didn't like that last one, he sure isn't going to like this one, either:

This time the Chairman -- a combination of Caligula's Horse and Ceasar's Wife -- "referred" the motion to the Monsignor Ken MOLBERG legalism committee. This is one of two committees, the other is "Rulesmanship", where anything progressive or simply innovative goes to die. It got tabled there because Monsignor MOLBERG made it clear enough that "the Crown" (who knows who that is actually, certainly it is not the elected State Chairman, a spokesmodel, not a principal) did not want it on the ballot.

But then at the end every one of the Palace Guard on that committee did not just table it, they refused even a minority report. Actually, you cannot be on the so-called Nominations/Legal Committee without being a member of the Palace Guard. It is the party's main organ of self-perpetuation. In fact Monsignor MOLBERG gave John Courage a lot of time to make either a substantive or procedural case. John, a school teacher, was high on substance but zero on process.

Monsignor MOLBERG specializes in long drawn-out tedium. Not torture actually, but with the same result.

(When John brought his motion up again to the full SDEC it was in his usual well-intended but pitifully illiterate and narcissistic parliamentary style. Here's a clue, John: it is not just or even mostly about you or Zada.)

Then it got really funny, because the Chairman did not really know what to do either, then mumbled something about "out of order" and fled the podium, relying on a Palace Guard scrum, phalanx of pseudo-parliamentarians, and more of the mumbo-jumbo squad to cover his ass and come up with a bizarre motion to "sustain the chair".

That's the Tom Craddick analogy, for anyone who's been paying close attention. Continuing:

As usual, the actual Vice Chair (a minority, not a lawyer) did not vice chair. The elected chair, bypassing her, threw the hot potato to House Slave, Dennis Speight.

This is the Democratic Party, folks: our poor, pitiful minorities are pandered to relentlessly and used as decoration "inclusively". But the party is actually run by white male lawyers and really smart, but kinda mean, old women -- legal secretaries or what the Pentagon calls "gray ladies".

Finally the coup de grace was delivered in a moment truly reminiscent of the Craddick House: the Vestal Virgin of Rules marched in and delivered a "ruling" in support of the Chair, whatever it was he did exactly. Actually in the Texas House, some member of the SDEC, as surrogate for the chair, would have read the ruling/opinion of the parliamentarian. Parliamentary law is about self-government, not clerical intimidation and usurpation.

Let's wrap it up by coming 'round to echo dembones' point about party finance:

Finally there is the matter of party/campaign finance. This party has no actual party finance. It is "barefoot and pregnant" -- funded, in part, by the GOP Secretary of State in return for being subservient and fawning, especially in dealings with Hart InterCivic.

And it is funded by corporations, unions, PACs, and the DNC on conditions that it hire certain people, set aside seats on the SDEC and DNC for certain individuals, procure this or that for particular vendors, match corporate funds with campaign contributions, and apply the campaign contributions, or not, to races and consultants the corporate interests and PACs dictate.

Sorry, we do not need a "New Jesus" or even a new state chair.

We need an entire SDEC with a disciplined and proficient majority of Democrats who can build "a real party", not a ladies auxiliary for an Austin political establishment that is and has been washed up, utterly unequal to the challenges we face or opportunities we have.

Well, maybe we'll just have to settle for a new Chair.