loaded thoughts

Rearrange deck chairs, or flee the sinking ship?

2006-03-28T21:00:00.000-08:00

From the National Journal (courtesy of Daily Kos):

Republican pollster Jan van Lohuizen, in a memo written for RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, warns that if members of Congress try to drive a wedge between themselves and Pres. Bush, it'd be akin to adding weight to an anchor. GOpers are "W Brand Republicans" whether they like it or not. And van Louhizen, who has polled (often secretly) for the Bush White House under the RNC aegis for years, is worried about low turnout.

Emphasize mine.

Granted, I'm no Republican, but it seems to me that identifying one's self as a charter member of the G-Dub fan club would be like tying yourself to a sinking anchor.

More power to them, I say.

Government to Local Businesses:

2006-03-27T14:02:00.000-08:00

'Get prepared for a bird flu pandemic.'

Businesses retort back:

'That's your job, now give us some more tax breaks.'

Monkey Wrench Gang?

2006-03-21T21:33:00.000-08:00

I'm down with it. Ain't like the dems can accomplish anything by other means.

Enough, already

2006-03-21T19:27:00.000-08:00

I'm tired of blogger jacking up my posts by cramming paragraphs into one continious globular mass. I've tried firefox and w.blogger, with no luck. Any other bloggers out there with a suggestion?

(EDIT) Whaddaya know, I figured out. Now I just need to fix all the double returns and other formating nonsense in my previous posts.

No protection from religion?

2006-03-21T19:08:00.000-08:00

Alan at idablue has a thought-provoking post about bill SJM 119 currently moving through the legislature. The bill supports restricting the federal courts from ruling over the separation of church and state, and includes the following nugget:

...the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Emphasis mine.

Granted, the bill doesn't actually apply to Idaho. It's intent is to encourage Congress to pass the Constitution Restoration Act (which is the original source of the quote above.)

I had a hard time getting too worked up about all this, but than again, I'm no constitutional lawyer, and the implications of legal jargon often escape me. But Brandi, bless her little misguided heart, snapped me out of my somnolence. Here's what she had to say about the measure:

"I think its important that our Constitution protects the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion."

What? The Constitution doesn't protect me from religion? I thought that was purpose of separating the church from the state... so the powers of the government couldn't be used to coerce or punish me for my lack of religious faith.

I've noticed a lot of dumb things come out of Brandi's mouth (I refer you to the email she sent to her followers after she called House Speaker Bruce Newcomb a "bitch"), so I didn't get too worked up, until Bryan Fischer approvingly quoted her. Even then, the thought of the feds backing up the church seemed a little extreme, so I emailed Jack Van Valkenburg at the ACLU of Idaho and asked him to lay it out for me. He graciously took time out of his busy day to write me back:

"...the freedom 'of' religion isn’t protected, and can’t be protected, unless the government is prohibited from promoting the religion of the majority over that of the minority. Religious liberty requires the separation of church and state."

That makes a lot more sense. This isn't about defending religion, it's about establishing a state-sanctioned religion - diminishing other religions in the process.

Are you ready for Uncle Sam to tell you which God is the right God?

Brandi vs. Newcomb update

2006-03-20T11:56:00.000-08:00

Brandi sent out another email today, elaborating on her version of events last week at the Capitol Building:

Statement from Bill Sali regarding Speaker Newcomb
Recap of Brandi's Meeting with Bruce Newcomb
Recap of Brandi speaking at Christian Attorney's Luncheon
Brandi heads to Ireland
Brandi's Blog is now set up with an RSS feed and XML feed

Dear friend,

Statement from Bill Sali regarding Speaker Newcomb

Many of you received my e-mail last week regarding the disappointing meeting I had with Bruce Newcomb. He is on the record with the media as saying, "I heard Brandi holler to Bill Sali that the Speaker is a real b***." This is a complete fabrication by the Speaker, and it is simply not true. He has also denied that he used profanity in the closed door meeting with between he and I. The Speaker is not giving an accurate description of what happened. I assure you that at no time did I lose my composure or reduce myself to his level by using profanity. I would never jeapordize my role as a representative of the pro-life community or the important legislation by being disrespectful to Mr. Newcomb.

Here is a statement from Rep. Bill Sali on 3/17/06:

"I was sitting outside the house floor at approximately 1 p.m. on Thursday afternoon when Miss Swindell and Speaker Newcomb came out of a close door meeting. Speaker Newcomb immediately went to the House floor. At no time did I hear Miss Swindell shout or use profanity. Miss Swindell did not appear to be angry but was visibly shaken and in shock. For the record I did not hear Miss Swindell say anything disrespectful nor did she used profanity, and this is consistent with what I know of her character."

Recap of Brandi's Meeting with Bruce Newcomb

On a positive note, my meeting with the Speaker has created momentum down at the State Capitol. We had many credible sources that said the Speaker was planning on stalling two important pieces of legislation - Parental Consent and Informed Consent (also known as A Woman's Right to Know). The Supreme Court has upheld both pieces of legislation.

We also know that there have been many pro-life interest groups and pro-life lobbyists that have been trying to meet with the Speaker for several weeks and have not been granted a meeting. That is why 6 other women and myself felt it was important to send out a press release requesting a meeting with the Speaker.

A state representative working on this legislation requested an Attorney General's opinion on Jan 25 for both proposed bills. For some reason, there seemed to be a delay in receiving an opinion from the Attorney General as well. Within 24 hours of my meeting with the Speaker the AG handed down his opinion on both the Parental Consent and the Informed Consent legislation. We are now working to move this legislation forward.

Again, we are calling on Speaker of the House, Bruce Newcomb to move these important bills forward in the legislative process. It is important to the people of Idaho, and again, both Parental Consent and Informed Consent have been upheld by the US Supreme Court.

Barbara Gough, who is the director of Post-abortive outreach for Generation Life will be lobbying for this legislation while I am in Ireland.

Recap of Brandi speaking at Christian Attorney's Luncheon

I had a great opportunity to speak at the Christian Attorney's luncheon last week. It was awesome to share my experiences in Washington DC and here in the state of Idaho. We had a good discussion on South Dakota's ban on abortion and how that will impact Roe v. Wade. I enjoyed their feedback and it was very encouraging to see so many life-affirming attorneys.

Brandi heads to Ireland
In just a few days, I will head to Ireland to be a keynote speaker at the 4th annual International Pro-Life, Pro-Family Conference held in Dublin, Ireland. I have the privilege to be leading a delegation of 20 Americans to this amazing, international conference. Expected conference attendance is over 5,000, so I am looking forward to connecting with a large group of energized, motivated young people from across the world.

In fact, Alive!, Ireland's Biggest free paper with a circulation of 300,000 features my photo and an article about my involvement in the conference and my work with Generation Life.

I will be speaking along with some other great speakers. I encourage you to check the conference brochure out at: Conference Brochure at: http://www.brandiswindell.org/CONF_IRELAND_2006.pdf
Press Release at: http://www.brandiswindell.org/Conf_PR_01.pdf

One of the other keynote speakers is Bobby Schindler, the brother of the late Terri Schindler Schiavo. Read about our involvement in the conference on my website at: http://www.brandiswindell.org/news.asp?id=4

Maybe it wasn't such a hot idea...

2006-03-19T12:31:00.000-08:00

Reason Online (via atrios)has a fascinating peek into the minds of many who helped establish conventional wisdom during the buildup to the war.

The contributors were asked if they originally supported the war, if they've since changed their position and what they think the U.S. should do now. I found many of the replies fascinating, and others were simply jaw-dropping. Christopher Hitchens, for example, demonstrated he's still visually examing his prostrate:

1. Did you support the invasion of Iraq?

Yes: I was an advocate before the fact, not a supporter.

2. Have you changed your position?

Not in the least: I wish only that Saddam had not been able to rely upon Russian and French protection and the influence of oil-for-food racketeers and other political scum.

3. What should the U.S. do in Iraq now?

The United States and its allies should continue to stand for federal democracy, while making Iraq a killing-field for jihadists and fascists and a training ground for an army that will need to intervene again in other failed state/rogue state contexts.

Everything is going to plan

2006-03-19T03:10:00.000-08:00

Rumsfeld has an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post, and apparently everything is going as planned in Iraq. Now if only those terrorist sympathizers would just shut up:

Some have described the situation in Iraq as a tightening noose, noting that "time is not on our side"and that "morale is down." Others have described a "very dangerous" turn of events and are "extremely concerned."

Who are they that have expressed these concerns? In fact, these are the exact words of terrorists discussing Iraq -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his associates -- who are describing their own situation and must be watching with fear the progress that Iraq has made over the past three years.

I've been echoing those sentiments, and I served in the U.S. Army during the early 90's. You calling me a traitor?

Pull your tail from between your legs, dammit.

2006-03-19T00:27:00.000-08:00

Digby has an insightful post pricking the bubble of democrat defeatism which swelled after Sen. Feingold proposed censure over Bush's disregard of FISA oversight. I won't paraphrase it, other then to say it deals with the foolishness of listening to beltway democrat consultants, because he lays out the case much better than I could.

However, in the comments, one poster displayed a disturbing
roll-over-and-die mentality that clings to many democrats:

OK, I'll try again (fruitlessly, I'm sure) to explain why going whole hog
after Bush on censure is a bad political move. Let me say first that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING AFRAID OF GETTING HURT BY TAKING BUSH ON. This is a strawman that keeps getting repeated over and over by otherwise smart people.

Feingold is proposing to censure Bush not over his general idiocy,
or over lying about the war. It is about the FISA wiretapping scandal. This is important because, as a minority party without a bought-and-paid-for media apparatus, we have a very limited ability to talk to general voters. Very limited in time, and very limited in scope. And meanwhile, average folks who don't follow politics require seven or eight or even more "hits" before anything penetrates. We therefore have to be very careful what messages we choose to transmit, and we need to limit them severely. One is best. Two maybe. Any beyond that and we're just killing ourselves by never allowing anything to make a dent.

Recent polls have established, over and over, that the
messages of Bush as incompetent, as a liar, and as someone who doesn't care about average folks, have now penetrated somewhat. They are real weapons in our arsenal, and the margins are huge in our favor. Whereas the FISA case is marginal: Maybe a plurality on our side, maybe not, depending on the poll. Even if we talk about nothing except FISA, the best we can hope for is that we will reconfirm how awful Bush is for about 40%, reinforce how great he is for about 35%, and probably get dismissed by the rest, who have no strong opinion on the subject to begin with. That's a loser, at least compared to continuing the attack on Katrina, WMD's, the war in general, Cheney's cluelessness, and other great themes with which the vast majority of the country agrees. Remember, the FISA case is not about Bush as clueless or incompetent (our best themes). It is only marginally about Bush as liar. It is mainly about Bush as lawbreaker, which is a completely new theme which we don't need.

So it really has nothing to do with being scared of Bush. I can agree (and I do) with you that pushing censure will do no harm. But the point is, it will also do no good. Or very little. And it will suck up oxygen and space that our more effectiveattacks need to survive and do their work.

ColoDem 03.19.06 - 12:04 am

It's a long and detailed arguement for sticking to the plan formulated by beltway democrat conventional wisdom. Unfortunately for ColoDem (and fortunately for us) most Americans don't live within the beltway. I posted a response at Digby's site, but still feel the need to rant. This is the part of ColoDem's post that got me fired up:

Feingold is proposing to censure Bush not over his general idiocy, or over lying about the war. It is about the FISA wiretapping scandal. This is important because, as a minority party without a bought-and-paid-for media apparatus, we have a very limited ability to talk to general voters. Very limited in time, and very limited in scope. And meanwhile, average folks who don't follow politics require seven or eight or even more "hits" before anything penetrates. We therefore have to be very careful what messages we choose to transmit, and we need to limit them severely. One is best. Two maybe. Any beyond that and we're just killing ourselves by never allowing anything to make a dent.Recent polls have established, over and over, that the messages of Bush as incompetent, as a liar, and as someone who doesn't care about average folks, have now penetrated somewhat.

Yes, people think bush is incompetent, and a liar who doesn't care about average folks. But they didn't gain that realization from the democrats. They tuned out the democrats, thanks to the "bought-and-paid-for media apparatus." However, people still have an awareness of their surroundings, no matter what the media tells them. I'm not discounting the impact of media massage, I just don't think it's omnipotent.

Folks are not as stupid/apathetic/clueless as ColoDem and others insinuate. Yes, I agree they're not political junkies who follow national trends closely. They're average folks who sense what is going on around them. I work a blue-collar job in one of the reddest states in the nation, and trust me... people are getting pissed/disheartened/fearful because of what they see with their own eyes. NOT because some smarter-than-thou democrat impregnated their brain with a sound bite.

It's time for wouldbe leaders to put their ears to the ground, listen to the growing outrage... and grow some intestinal fortitude. One become a leader by leading... there's no other option.

Feingold is leading. Now get out of his way.

Who you callin' "bitch?"

2006-03-17T18:27:00.000-08:00

This Brandi vs. Newcomb thing has been great. Nothing like watching a poorly planned right-wing media hit operation fall to shit.

Randy Stapilus has Newcomb's side of the story, via the Lewiston Morning Tribune

“She called me a bitch. I didn’t know the speaker of the House could be a bitch.”

The sheer ineptness is awesome. Not such a good idea to ambush a powerful figure who's nominally on your side.

The fissures are beginning to widen among the conservatives.

Message for the opposition party

2006-03-17T18:17:00.000-08:00

Jame Hamsher at firedoglake spells it out for beltway dems too chicken to stand up with Feingold:

So let me speak in a language that even the dullest, the most remedial, most thick-witted Democratic consultant can understand.According to a new Rassmussen poll:
"Initially, 22% of Democrats had a favorable opinion of him while
16% had an unfavorable opinion. However, knowing he advocates censure, Feingold's numbers within his own party jumped to 52% favorable and 14% unfavorable."
Every day that goes by and the party leaders do nothing but carp about an investigation that will never happen they are single-handedly delivering the loyalty, dollars and activism of the base over to Russ Feingold.
Are we communicating now?

Math is bad

2006-03-17T13:07:00.000-08:00

Apparently salmon don't exist if you refuse to count them. According to the Washington Post, Craig zeroed out the funding for the Fish Passage Center, the research center tasked with tracking endangered fish in the Columbia River.

PORTLAND, Ore. -- In a surgical strike from Capitol Hill, Sen. Larry E.
Craig (R-Idaho) has eliminated a little-known agency that counts endangered fish
in the Columbia River.
The Fish Passage Center, with just 12 employees and a
budget of $1.3 million, has been killed because it did not count fish in a way
that suited Craig.

Apparently it's payback on behalf of hydroelectric interests.

Last summer, a federal judge in Portland, using data and analysis from the Fish
Passage Center, infuriated the utilities. He ordered that water be spilled over
federal dams in the Snake River to increase salmon survival. Shortly after Judge
James A. Redden issued his order, Craig began pushing to cut all funding for the
Fish Passage Center.

Craig seems to be quite the water-carrier for the hydroelectric industry - at the expense of our salmon:

Salmon math has clearly riled up Craig, who in his last election campaign in
2002 received more money from electric utilities than from any other industry
and who has been named "legislator of the year" by the National Hydropower
Association.

Betsy Russell has more...

2006-03-17T11:21:00.000-08:00

on the flap between Brandi and Speaker Newcomb.

Brandi banned from House chambers?

2006-03-17T07:11:00.000-08:00

Well, that didn't go very well. Here is an email Brandi sent out yesterday to her supporters after a disappointing meeting with Speaker Bruce Newcomb.

Dear Friends,
Unfortunately, Speaker of the House Bruce Newcomb has told Idaho women and
concerned citizens to "shut up and sit down," as those were his first words in a
meeting with Brandi Swindell earlier today. Below you will find partial
information regarding what occurred. We will send out another update soon.
Speaker of the House Verbally Abuses Brandi Swindell in Meeting. Brandi
Swindell disappointed that Speaker Bruce Newcomb used profanity. Speaker of the
House used profanity rather than discussing important issue surrounding pro-life
legislation. Speaker refused to meet with entire group of six women. A
representative for the speaker said he only had time to meet with one person.
Group of women asked to reschedule the meeting for Friday or the first of next
week in order to accommodate Mr. Newcomb's schedule. Speaker Newcomb's
representative said to take the meeting now. Brandi Swindell was chosen as the
representative. Brandi went in to represent the group of women that included two
mothers of daughters, two teenagers, a post-abortive woman and a college
student. Brandi had intended to ask the speaker if it was possible to reschedule
the meeting to include the entire group of women. The women had written down
comments about the legislation that they wanted to convey to the speaker of the
house and which Brandi would share if the meeting could not be rescheduled.
Brandi was led by the speaker into his office The door was slammed shut. Brandi
was told to sit down and listen. Mr. Speaker's first words were "This is bull ..
" Mr. speaker refused to discuss or listen to the important issues.
Brandi Swindell states, "It is very disappointing that an elected official
in a position of legislative leadership would be so unprofessional and lack
sophistication to treat concerned citizen of Idaho, and more importantly a group
of Idaho woman, with such utter disrespect and actually use profanity. My
sincere hope was that the Speaker of the House would give his assurance that he
would do his best to move forward pro-life legislation that is important to the
citizens of Idaho. Unfortunately, Mr. Newcomb is ending his last term as Speaker
of the House with the use of profanity and verbal intimidation. These tactics
should never be used - especially not in the Idaho State Capitol."
The Speaker has also banned Miss Swindell from the House chambers. Brandi
is contacting her attorneys and considering the possibility of litigation as it
appears Mr. Newcomb is abusing his authority. Brandi had a pre-scheduled meeting
with a State Representative about a completely different topic. Miss Swindell
was being escorted by the Representative to the House chambers when she was
stopped and told that Speaker Newcomb had banned her from the House chambers,
3rd floor. It is unclear how long that will last.
(edit: Chris at liberalidaho beat me to the punch, and his blog formatted the email much better than mine.)

What's this all about?

2006-03-16T21:21:00.000-08:00

BOISE – U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, received more than twice as much money in donations from people in the U.S. Virgin
Islands than from his home state last year, according to the Federal
Elections Commission.

Why would the U.S. Virgin Islands be interested in Crapo?

Apparently it's about tax shelters.

WTF are you talking about?

2006-03-16T19:09:00.000-08:00

Our very own home-grown rising star in the abortion wars issued a media alert announcing a press conference at the Capitol Building today. The purpose?

Generation Life is concerned that Speaker of the House Bruce Newcomb may consider stalling pro-life legislation. Speaker Newcomb's actions could potentially harm the women of Idaho if hearings are delayed on Informed Consent also known as a Women's Right to Know in the legislature.

I assume she’s referring to Rep. Sali’s aborted anti-abortion measure, which he pulled the same day he introduced it into committee. Sali said it needed further legal review, which isn’t a bad idea, since the courts tend to swat down Idaho abortion restrictions as soon as they pass. Has something to do with constitutionality or somesuch.

I also like this tidbit from Brandi’s press release:

"It is important that the women of Idaho not be treated as second class citizens and that they are given complete information and facts about the abortion procedure. The Idaho legislature and Speaker Newcomb must make time for the women of Idaho. It is our hope that Speaker Newcomb would not play politics with women's lives.

Pot calling the kettle black much?

John Aravosis says it better than I ever could...

2006-03-14T23:46:00.000-08:00

over at americablog.

From the Daily Show

2006-03-14T22:19:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of atrios:

I got mugged the other day... and this bum was beating me with a bottle. And I said, you know what? I'm going to sit back and wait for him to accidentally hit himself with the bottle. Sure enough, he did! I mean, I was unconscious, but I think I won that battle.

Any resemblance to democrat leadership?

Wanna know why democrats are called wimps?

2006-03-14T18:38:00.000-08:00

Cuz they get punk'd... regularly.

Sen. Russ Feingold introduced a measure to censure Bush over his illegal domestic surveillance program. And not one democrat exhibited the guts to stand alongside him. And Feingold, to his credit, is letting them have it:

I’m amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president’s numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide. … Too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In the face of this, they’ll say we’d better just focus on domestic issues. … [Democrats shouldn’t] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question the administration, you’re helping the terrorists.

When I first learned of Feingold's move towards censure, I assumed it would be Senate Majority Leader Frist who would block it from a vote. Nope, he didn't have to. The democrats, apparently frightened of... I don't know, voter backlash (?), decided to punt the measure instead. Instead of pushing back while Bush is on his heels, they wring their hands and cluck about perceptions.

HELLO! What are you waiting for?

Let's review the facts at hand, shall we?

Bush's poll numbers are swirling down the toilet bowl. Fellow republicans are beginning to distance themselves as they worry about midterms in November. Bush completely screwed up on the Dubia port deal, beating his personal best for incompetence (trying to put his personal lawyer on the Supreme Court). The port deal exposed huge fissures within the republican monolith, destroying their myth of party unity.

Our government has grown to record size, as has our deficit. Thanks to Bush, conservatives can no longer beat the drum about smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Bush betrayed those ideals.

So why is it so inconceivable to consider rebuking the president for breaking the law? It's an open and shut case. His only defense is claiming he's above the law.

The republicans only needed a stained dress. Just imagine what they would have done to Clinton if they had the case the democrats now possess.

The democrats in D.C. better learn quick to catch up with the American people, because we're way ahead of them on this. Their D.C. insider consultants can't help because they don't have their ears to the ground, and they're missing the discontent among the unwashed masses.

Kos has the powerpoint version of the case against Bush. (edit: and once again, blogger thinks I should be doing this stream-of-consciousness style)

Thank you...

2006-03-14T18:08:00.000-08:00

To Chris at liberalidaho.org and Sara at f-words for adding me to their blogroll. I would also like to thank Kyle at appleogue.net for his inexplicable mention.

Finally I would like to thank Dan Savage (editor of Seattle's The Stranger and creator of the raunchiest sex column I'm aware of) for providing me with my 'oh shit' moment of the week when he mentioned my blog at impeachthemotherfuckeralready.com.

Ya'll are making me blush.

Ain't that sweet.

2006-03-13T21:16:00.000-08:00

Has the prodigal son returned to the fold?

A small step in the right direction

2006-03-12T20:03:00.000-08:00

Sen. Feingold rocked the boat this morning when he announced he would introduce a resolution to censure Bush regarding his illegal domestic surveillance program.

"The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable," Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press in an interview

However, Feingold’s seemingly quixotic effort probably won’t amount to much, since Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can easily block the measure from ever hitting the floor - despite Bush’s love for up or down votes.

Personally I think it’s time to impeach the motherfucker already, but I guess something is still better than nothing.

And, as could be expected, the republicans didn’t waste anytime striking back:

"The signal that it sends, that there is in any way a lack of support for our commander in chief who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that is making our homeland safer, is wrong," Frist said told "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos.
GOP political analyst Mike Baker went further: "Feingold is obviously oblivious to the US Constitution. He claims the president broke the law yet where's the president's due process that Feingold so quickly bestows on terrorists detained in Guantanamo?"

That's a great idea, Mike. I'm all for getting this man some due process by throwing him in front of a judge. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be any mechanism in place to accomplish that, so I guess we're left with censure (or ITMFA).

And what's with Frist's use of "our commander in chief"? I had a commander in chief for three years while I was in the U.S. Army, but once I got out, it went back to just plain ol' president. Maybe I'm overly-sensitive to civilians draping themselves in military themes (poseur), but I think it's an important distinction that has somehow been lost over the past five years.

(edited to add: Despite the evidence above, I do know what a paragraph is. Blogger just likes to randomly cram all my shit together sometimes ;)

Crony Culture

2006-03-11T18:55:00.000-08:00

Wow, I thought I was cynical and jaded enough to view this administration's actions without blinking an eye. But apparently not. A 28 year-old with no security experience, other then serving as George's personal travel agent, has just been promoted to be the next executive director of the Homeland Security Advisory Committees.

Guess Bush wasn't kidding when he warned it would be a mistake to misunderestimate him.

Here's the job description, according to govexec.com:

Douglas L. Hoelscher is the new executive director of the Homeland Security Advisory Committees and the "primary representative" of department Secretary Michael Chertoff in dealing with more than 20 advisory boards. Among them is the Homeland Security Advisory Council, which includes such high-powered figures as Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, former Lockheed Chairman Norman Augustine, and former Defense and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger.

Hoelscher has no management experience, a review of his professional credentials shows. He came to government in 2001 as a low-level White House staffer, arranging presidential travel, according to news reports. He earned $30,000 a year, salary documents show.

This doesn't sound like a job you hand to a security amateur with only a bachelor's degree in political science. According to Hoelscher's predecessor, he will be expected to hold his own when dealing with "titans in their fields."

A department statement said that Hoelscher will provide "strategic counsel" to Chertoff and represent him before the committees. In so doing, Hoelscher will be contending with formidable voices in U.S. policy-making from the private sector, state and local government, and academia.

Members of the boards are "titans in their fields," said Daniel Ostergaard, Hoelscher's predecessor. At 34, Ostergaard is young, too, but he is a former Coast Guard officer with two master's degrees, one of them from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. One group that Hoelscher will be coordinating with is the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, which includes top executives from BellSouth, Boeing, and Microsoft.

I suppose it's possible that Mr. Hoelscher is a young prodigy, with inherent insight into the security challenges facing the U.S. But seriously, how likely is that? The only (evil) genius in this administration I'm aware of is Karl Rove... and even he's been off his game lately. *cough* Dubai port deal *cough*

I don't get it, unless they need a patsy to take the fall after the next scandal... and there's always another scandal just around the corner with this bunch.

Nah, it couldn't be that.

Edited to add:

Or perhaps they just got sloppy in their practice of appointing people who couldn't stand up to corporate interests if their life depended on it.

Poo-Flinging Pundits

2006-03-10T14:25:00.000-08:00

The Neurolux message board is a motley collection of disaffected Boise scensters, bored cubicle workers and anti-social troglodytes... "pleasant atmosphere," my ass. It's usually rude and brutal, and a place where the good and moral fear to tread.

It can also be viciously funny. Most of my friends visit the site, though you'd be hard pressed getting them to admit it. And despite the reputation, suprisingly erudite conversations can erupt out of nowhere, though what I'm about to show you isn't one of them.

The following thread popped up after the latest news on Bush's ever shrinking popularity hit today. So without further ado, I give you the Poo-Flinging Pundits...

Subject: Your leader
From:
Email:
Date: 10-Mar-06

Bush's Approval Rating Falls to New Low
Haha. Fuck that guy.

Subject: RE: Your leader
From:
Email:
Date: 10-Mar-06

Take me to your lizard.

Subject: RE: Your leader
From:
Email:
Date: 10-Mar-06

If the president were a sex act, there would be no reach-around.

Subject: RE: Your leader
From: Godfrey Turdburgler
Email:
Date: 10-Mar-06

^And no lube.

Subject: RE: Your leader
From:
Email:
Date: 10-Mar-06

and be one enormous good ole boys gang bang. Everyone gets a turn! YEAH!

Subject: RE: Your leader
From:
Email:
Date: 10-Mar-06

Don't forget the donkey punches.

Yup.

Hell if I know...

2006-03-09T18:51:00.000-08:00

but it made me laugh.

Is it just me?

2006-03-08T18:23:00.000-08:00

Or is Randy Stapilus calling Rep. Bill Sali a chickenshit?

And how should we punish the harlots?

2006-03-08T17:52:00.000-08:00

The stage has been set for an assault on Roe v. Wade in South Dakota, and both sides are girding for the battle. But Digby and Atrios are raising an important question - Just how, exactly, do conservatives plan to punish women who seek an abortion (assuming Roe v. Wade is overturned).

It appears they haven’t the slightest idea, and they don’t appreciate the question.

MATTHEWS: No, really. This is what the whole issue of abortion is and where all the B.S. comes into this argument. Are you willing to say that you would put a woman in prison for having an abortion?

TOOMEY: Chris, I‘m not sure what the penalty would be. I‘m saying...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Well, say what you want it to be.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: You said it should be banned. Would you please stand up for what you believe?
TOOMEY: That‘s right.
MATTHEWS: If abortion is wrong and it‘s a crime and it‘s murder, tell me what the punishment should be.
TOOMEY: And I‘m telling you that there should be legal action taken against the doctor who performs it.
MATTHEWS: And?
TOOMEY: And we‘ve got to think through what we would do with regard to the woman.
MATTHEWS: What would you like to do?
TOOMEY: But, Chris, that doesn‘t change the fact
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: You are running for the United States Senate.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: And you‘ve said we ought to get rid of Roe v. Wade and you said that abortion should be banned in Pennsylvania, but you won‘t tell me what the penalty should be.
TOOMEY: That‘s right, Chris. Look, we can take things one step at a time. I think that the constitutional decision was invalid. It‘s perfectly OK to believe that these justices made up a right that doesn‘t exist in the Constitution without deciding exactly what the penalty should be under all circumstances.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: You want to make up a law without a penalty. It‘s a crime without a penalty. I‘ve never heard of such a thing.

Atrios sums it up perfectly:

People seem to have no problem with the notion of punishing women for, say, doing drugs or drinking alcohol during pregnancy so I can't quite accept that they would have a problem with holding a woman responsible for terminating her pregnancy.

Is the segregationist spirit still alive?

2006-03-08T15:13:00.000-08:00

Nicholas Collias at the Boise Weekly interviewed the anonymous gay rights activists who spread the 'heterosexuals only' signs through out downtown Boise and the Capitol Building on Monday.

The intent was to echo the segregationist signs common in the South until the Civil Rights movement.

You can find many overt images of text-based discrimination. I'm from Texas, and one point in Texas, people older than me would have seen signs in bars and stores saying, "No Mexicans." My parents are from Massachusetts, and my mother's family, because they're Irish, would gladly tell you there were signs saying, "No dogs and no Irish." There is a broad history of that kind of discrimination in this country. This is a time when you'd think we'd be all past that, but the Legislature has just operated in that historical model.

The signs obviously struck a nerve, as most were removed by mid afternoon (which is a shame, perhaps wheatpaste is in order next time).

The underground group called on straight allies to stand up and speak out against the proposed constitutional amendment, if only to defend their gay family members (I have a gay relative, chances are you do too). So in that spirit, here's my stance:

Personally, the entire thing pisses me off. Too many reasonable people are willing to buy the homophobic right's talking points on this issue. Gay marriage will not lead to beastiality. That's just ridiculous. And don't tell me about the bible. There's no consensus among the various demoninations on this issue... and I stopped listening to the church a long time ago anyways.

White people learned that de-segregated drinking fountains slaked their thirst just as well as the segregated ones. Now we need to learn that gay marriage works just as well as straight marriage. I mean, c'mon... judging by divorce rates, the bar is set pretty damn low.

Wedge Issue Redux

2006-03-07T19:51:00.000-08:00

The LA Times had an interesting article today on Canyon County's application of the RICO statute to sue businesses who hire illegal workers.

The all-Republican county commission has filed a racketeering lawsuit against four big businesses in the area, charging that they deliberately hire illegal workers.

The spectacle of the county's political leaders taking its businesses to court has touched off a bitter local debate. But it has also put Canyon County, a largely Republican community of about 160,000, at the forefront of an emerging national effort to use racketeering laws to crack down on illegal immigration by seeking damages from employers.

You can read the story here (registration required).

The suit was dismissed by a federal district court, but has been appealed to the 9th Circuit.

However, there are suspicions that one of the targets, a meatpacking plant owned by Swift & Co., closed its doors due to the racketeering charges. The official explanation referred to restrictions on Canadian beef imports, but many locals think the company decided the price of doing business in Canyon County was too high.

It's a horrible lawsuit," said Maurice Clements, a former state legislator and farmer. "Swift closed their plant, the other three companies — God, I hope they don't leave. They provide a huge market for farmers in this area.

The article also drew more attention to Commisioner Robert Vasquez, Congressional candidate and provocateur extraordinaire in the immigration debate.

I admit it, I’m a little puzzled by this tactic. On one hand, it provides the perfect opportunity to stir up racism and xenophobia among voters, a proven technique for getting conservatives elected. But on the other hand, it forces republicans like Vasquez to target their financial allies - corporations eager to exploit vulnerable populations for cheap labor.

I don't get it.

(Painting by Richard Haynes)

UPDATE:

One mustn't forget Vasquez's willingness to cozy up to racists. The Press Tribune reported on this back in 2004:

CALDWELL -- Canyon County Commissioner Robert Vasquez said Tuesday he is willing to work with a self-proclaimed racial separatist in his fight against illegal immigration.Last week, an Arizona newspaper published an article about the background of Virginia Abernethy, chairwoman of the Protect Arizona Now national advisory board, of which Vasquez is also a member.
Abernethy shared her views in an interview for the East Valley Tribune."I'm in favor of separatism -- and that's different than supremacy," Abernethy told the newspaper. "Groups tend to self-segregate. I know that I'm not a supremacist. I know that ethnic groups are more comfortable with their own kind."
(Hat-tip to Sam and Leo at ICAN)

One, Two, Three, Four, We Want a Culture War

2006-03-07T12:27:00.000-08:00

Nothing like a good wedge issue to divide Americans and divert their attention from more pressing matters.

Republican efforts to ban gay marriage seem to be bearing fruit as a guerilla group of gay activists (and I mean that in a good way) launched a P.R. counter-offensive.

The Statesman reports the anonymous group tacked "heterosexuals only" stickers throughout downtown Boise and the Statehouse yesterday. The tactic appears to be an effort to throw some gasoline on the fiery debate regarding gay marriage (for the record, I think all people have the right to marry the person they fall in love with).

Idaho voters will be forced to decide whether to add a constitutional amendment to the State Constitution banning gay marriage in the Gem State (lucky us). If the proposed amendment sounds like a waste of time, that's because it is. Current law already prohibits gay marriage.

So why waste time and energy on a redundant piece of legislation? Because republicans know there's nothing like a good wedge issue to divide the American people. That's why these initiatives are popping up all over the U.S. With critical midterms approaching in November, they need to do everything they can to fire up the base. That means renewed attacks on gays and illegal immigration... issues guaranteed to flame the passions of your typical cultural conservative.

If those republican voters forget about the train wreck that is our administration, so much the better.

Now here's some good stuff

2006-03-06T18:00:00.000-08:00

A couple days ago, Jane at firedoglake posed a rhetorical question challenging the pro-life movement's commitment to human life:

"If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you can only save a petri dish with five blastulae or a two-year old child, which do you save?"

The question was intended to make wingnut heads explode, and explode they did once Mike Stark at callingallwingnuts applied Jane's theory to the real world.

Mike called up Andrew Wilcow's talk show on WABC and posed the question to one of right wing radio's rising stars. Wilcow took the bait, and hilarity ensued.

In an excellent display of wingnut meltdown, Wilcow danced furiously around the question while throwing every ad hominem attack he could think of at Stark.

Classic.