aTypical Joe: a gay New Yorker living in the rural South
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Again: why no anti-abortion amendment?
One year ago I quoted Andrew Sullivan:
The Senate Republicans have vowed to push their anti-gay marriage amendment, even though it won’t stand a chance of getting the necessary 67 votes. The point is political and rhetorical. They are trying to build momentum, raise money, and keep the cause of banning same-sex unions alive. So why not push an anti-abortion amendment instead? They have one such amendment on hand. Both proposed amendments are allegedly against judicial meddling. Both will fail. But one deals with a much graver issue, by the religious right’s reckoning - an immense loss of human life, rather than the grave evil of two human beings committing to one another for life. So why this priority? Surely, abortion is a more important matter than same-sex marriage - even for the religious right. Or is it?
One year later I still wonder, is gay marriage even more important than abortion to the Religious Right? Really?
Monday, February 06, 2006
Abortion, compromise & me
I’ve written twice before in favor of Will Saletan’s argument for what I see as an abortion compromise. A commenter here has made me rethink. So I read the full exchange between Will & Katha Pollit of the Nation, and a good bit of the commentary that’s gone on around them, both at Slate and in the blogosphere. It’s the kind of debate I’d like to see more of. But in the end I still find myself in agreement with Will: “It’s time to shake up this debate. It’s time for the abortion-rights movement to declare war on abortion.”
Will says that he and Katha agree on most of the issues. I agree too:
1) It’s better to avoid an unwanted pregnancy than to have an abortion. 2) We need more birth control and realistic sex education. 3) We need emergency contraception to be widely available over the counter. 4) Men must take more responsibility through condoms, etc. 5) Parents should talk to their sons about condoms. 6) Women have the right to choose to bear no children. 7) We should respect women’s ability to make these decisions for themselves. 8) We’d both press health insurers to pay for birth control if they pay for Viagra, and we’d “ask stern questions about how that male pill is coming along,” though I might leave the sternness to you. Also, I’ll concede 9) we won’t get to zero abortions. “As few as possible” gets the point across well enough.
The problem is, of course, that in his argument Will says, “It’s bad to kill a fetus.”
I accepted that statement but not for any moral reason - I do not agree that life begins at conception or that a fetus is a person with rights equal to or greater than the mother. I accepted it because the women I know who have been through abortions have had a difficult experience. I’d even go so far to say it was a bad experience. And I’m not at all sure that we can ever make it a good experience.
Read the rest of "Abortion, compromise & me" in the extended entry.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
More damaging pandering in the guise of toughness
Remember last year when the Georgia Parole Board - THE GEORGIA PAROLE BOARD for crying out loud! - proposed reducing mandatory sentences and allowing earlier parole for convicts including sex-offenders? I asked then, “have you met any parole officers lately? They’re not the liberal elite!”
Of course it was defeated. Another victory for retributive justice - still the thinking man’s vengeance if you ask me. Well this week we’ve topped ourselves here in Georgia. We’re going to have the biggest, baddest, toughest sex-offender law on the nation whether it’s effective or not:
The Georgia House declared war Thursday on sex offenders who prey on children, passing mandatory 25-year sentences for some crimes and requiring lifetime electronic monitoring for the worst violators.
The bill, which its sponsors say could lead to the nation’s toughest sex offender law, passed 144-27 after nearly four hours of contentious debate.
It’s harshest on attacks on children, mandating a minimum 25-year sentence for a new crime of aggravated assault with the intent to rape a child under 14. Kidnapping a child in that age range also carries a sentence of 25 to 50 years.
That “with intent to rape” is a little vague if you ask me. How exactly do we prove that? Does anyone know how many children “under 14” are raped in Georgia? It’ll cost $1 billion over 10 years to implement and what do we get?
“You’re going to mandate building prison beds, and when you do that, you’re going to take away monies for education and schools,” said state Rep. David Lucas (D-Macon). “And I will tell you right now jails at their best are not better than schools at their worst.”
Critics also pointed out that the bill could punish some teen offenders as harshly as it would adults. Teenagers 13 through 16 who are tried in adult court for serious violent felonies of rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated child molestation and aggravated sexual battery would face a mandatory sentence of at least 25 years. The current penalty for such teens is at least 10 years.
State Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield (D-Atlanta) criticized a change that she said removed a judge’s discretion to grant first-offender status to some suspects 21 and younger.
“What we’re doing is unduly harsh, I believe, for the juveniles,” Benfield said. “I do not believe it’s appropriate to sentence a 17-year-old to 25 years minimum mandatory in prison for aggravated assault with the intent to rape. There may be a case where that would be an appropriate sentence, but let’s let a judge decide.”
Ah, yes, what we get is we criminalize the kids we’re claiming the bill will protect. I spoke with a family therapist yesterday who is gathering data on adolescence and pleading with elected officials to stop hurting these kids.
I’m so blue today because I believe it’s futile. This bill hurts our culture and hurts our society and does not protect us but it hurts Georgia’s young people most. And as with the Bible bill, these legislators are hard-pressed to vote against stiffer penalties for child molesters. Even as they have to know it does nothing, nothing at all to solve the problem. In fact I believe it makes it worse.
Bible study in the classroom: I take it back
In two posts I said let’s try Bible study in the classroom. What’s happened to the bill in Georgia since then has made me aware of my naïveté and now I’m embarrassed by it; I regret my hopeful optimism.
Public high school students could learn about Jesus and study the Bible in state-funded courses under a bill approved 50-1 by state senators Friday. [...]
Senate Democrats - led by Tim Golden of Valdosta, Doug Stoner of Smyrna and Kasim Reed of Atlanta - introduced a bill early in the session that would have allowed the state Board of Education to add an elective academic course on the Bible’s influence on literature, art, music, culture and politics.
Sen. Tommie Williams, the Republican majority leader, grumbled that Democrats had stolen an idea he had been pushing for years. This week, Williams (R-Lyons) submitted a substitute bill requiring the state board to adopt two new high school electives: one on the history and literature of the Old Testament and one devoted to the history and literature of the New Testament. [...]
“You cannot ignore the political element of this type of legislation,” [former Republican legislator, now CEO of an Atlanta political media firm, Matt] Towery said. “Certainly, the Republicans would not want to [lose] a fundamental tenet of their platform with Democrats being the only ones offering legislation.”
Political maneuvering continued Friday as the full Senate considered Williams’ bill. Democrats, including Golden, Stoner and Reed, attempted to replace Williams’ bill with their version, which they said was better crafted to fit within constitutional guidelines. But when that amendment failed, they joined in passing the Republican measure with Sen. Regina Thomas (D-Savannah) dissenting.
It’s as if the Dems walked right into the trap. Clearly, once they offered up their bill, they could not then “vote against the Bible.” The measure now requires that schools use the Bible as the text. To which I still say, which Bible?
I applaud the Democratic efforts but yes, yes, yes, I get it now. The Religious Right does want their religion taught in the schools and will take nothing less. And, as with Intelligent Design where the truth behind the alleged science was revealed in court, this may well end up in court too. When it does, I won’t be supporting this bill because of its clear agenda.
Which means it all winds up as a meaningless gesture whereby politicians can make claims and suck-up to their constituents while accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Medicare drug program: the cost benefit ratio
The Newshour looked at the troubled start of the Medicare Prescription Drug program last night. Here, more fun with numbers. How many people are covered at what cost? The quote is from Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a nonprofit organization that advocates for healthcare consumers:
It was interesting during the news clip, Sen. Santorum said and Mark McClellan said during the hearings, that there are 24 million people who are getting drug coverage under this program.
In point of fact, there are only 3.6 million Americans who are now getting drug coverage who didn’t have it before. The other 20 some odd million were getting coverage through Medicaid, there were about 6 million people getting coverage through Medicaid, you had about 7 million people who had coverage through their previous employer, you had about 3 million getting coverage through the Veterans Administration, about 4 million who were getting it through managed care plans.
So in totality, this program has only added a little over three and a half million people, and this is for a program that cost $700 billion over ten years.
I’d quote the response but it made no sense to me so I’ll let the self-correcting blogosphere take care of that.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
The tale of two t-shirts…
...and my First Amendment preview post.
WaPo looks at a tempest in a t-shirt:
The drama in cotton unfolded when Sheehan, who received a spectator ticket from Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey (D-Calif.), took her seat and unzipped her jacket, revealing her antiwar message. Sheehan’s son, Casey, was a soldier who was killed in Iraq in 2004.
A Capitol Police officer spotted the words, pointed to her and yelled, “Protester!” Sheehan said. “He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat, and roughly . . . shoved me up the stairs,” she said, adding that she was handcuffed, taken away, fingerprinted and booked.
That was before the speech.
About 45 minutes into the speech, an officer asked Beverly Young to step outside, where he told her: “We consider you a protester” because of her shirt, she said.
She said she angrily challenged officers to explain what law she had violated, and they threatened arrest.
Threatened arrest? Cindy was hauled out in hand-cuffs and arrested. Young was not. I’m with http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002357.htm” target="_blank">Brad on this one:
Both T-shirts were in support of our troops. Both shirts made a political statement of sorts. One woman was arrested, the other was not.
In fact, the other was not even asked to leave until after the speech had already started. After Sheehan had been arrested and after the authorities knew they had a politically sticky situation on their hands. All of which begs the question of whether Mrs. Young would have been asked to leave the chamber at all, had not Sheehan’s arrest occurred previously.
(That promised First Amendment post is still coming. Teaser preview: it’s been bought and paid for by corporate media and, like Fair Use, is effectively out of reach for the individual. How many among us have the deep pockets to fund a First Amendmet fight? Especially since the courts are the culprits who handed over the First Amendment to corporate media in the first place!)
SEE ALSO: The self-correcting blogosphere.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Will & Katha on abortion
Last week, on the 33rd anniversary of Roe, I pointed supportively to a Will Saletan argument that pro-choicers should “wage war on the abortion rate and focus on birth control and sex education.”
Katha Pollit replied in an article in The Nation, Prochoice Puritans, “that ‘anti-abortion moralism’ would hurt women and abortion rights.”
Today Will answers Katha:
You doubt that the pro-life movement will support a campaign to reduce abortions through birth control, since so many pro-life activists oppose birth control. I agree. I’m not trying to form a coalition with the pro-life movement. I’m trying to form a coalition with the public. Any pro-lifer who wants to join us is welcome. Anyone who doesn’t will learn that preaching against birth control is a lot lonelier than preaching against abortion.
Both of us are pro-choice. Morally, it’s clear from your writing that abortion troubles me more than it troubles you. I don’t think I can change your mind about that. But politically, I’d like to persuade you and other pro-choicers that the path I’m recommending will serve women and their health better than the path you’re defending.
Anyone who cares about the abortion debate should read the whole exchange.
RELATED: I see my support of Will’s position as similar to and consistent with my support for teaching the Bible in the public schools.
Monday, January 30, 2006
The $1,000 popcorn maker
Michael Bérubé’s academic freedom speech included a passing reference to “the thousand dollar popcorn makers that have now replaced $700 hammers as the symbols of waste and fraud in the Pentagon’s purchasing system.”
Here’s his source:
A retired Army Reserve officer complained to the Pentagon’s fraud hot line last year that the Defense Department had overpaid for kitchen appliances, paying $1,000 for popcorn makers and toasters and $5,500 for a deep-fat fryer that cost other government agencies $1,919.
Although he provided a four-page spreadsheet showing 135 cases of higher prices, the Defense Department dismissed his tip without checking with him. [...]
At issue is a multibillion-dollar Pentagon purchasing program that uses middlemen who set their own prices, instead of buying directly from manufacturers or going out for competitive bids.
Called the prime vendor program, it was the object of a Knight Ridder investigation that found that the Pentagon had paid prime vendors higher prices for 102 of 122 pieces of food equipment than the government did to contractors outside the system. For example, Knight Ridder found that the Pentagon had paid $20 apiece for ice cube trays that retail for less than a dollar.
NSA data miners
Robert X. Cringely details what he thinks is most likely going on with the NSA and FISA from a guy who used to work for the NSA. I suggest you read the articulation - “they’re using social network analysis...to identify people of interest...[before applying] for a FISA warrant and start actually intercepting” - this is his conclusion:
So what we have the NSA doing is probably data mining, calling records in order to identify the people they want to order intercepts on. They are doing it without warrants because they like being sneaky, don’t think they could get past the FISA court a warrant for 100 million calling records, and because the FISA law from 1978 probably doesn’t distinguish between a pen-trap and an intercept.
If that’s really the case, this doesn’t sound quite as bad as we’ve feared. I feel better thinking that they are culling calling records rather than listening-in to my conversations. And it makes a lot more sense, from a pure technical capability standpoint.
So why couldn’t they just tell us? Why couldn’t they have simply amended the FISA law to take such activities into account? Because they like to be sneaky, tend to distrust even the people who pay them (that’s us), and because they for some reason think that the bad guys won’t figure this out for themselves.
For the record, I absolutely, positively, 100% completely want my government to do data mining. I don’t want 20th century law enforcement in a 21st century world. How it is regulated/administered/overseen (Cringely’s “tell us...amend the FISA law") is what matters to me.
Bonus quote, Jobs and Disney: “It’s the start of a grand amalgamation based around a combination of content, technology, and networking, and I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see it end as a single huge company five years from now with Jobs at the helm.”
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Barnes’ Bush volunteered to go to Viet Nam
Andrew Sullivan points to Fred Barnes drinking the Karl Rove Kool-Aid on the Diane Rehm Show:
DR: What about the president’s own service in the military?
FB: Well, he didn’t shirk. He joined the national guard. At one time, it’s reported--I don’t know whether--I have not myself personally confirmed this--that he volunteered for Vietnam and was turned down. He volunteered--
DR: Turned down?
FB: He was a flier. Well, he wasn’t in a unit that would get him over there or something. It’s been, it’s been widely reported--
DR: Fred, where’d that come from? I’ve never heard that before.
FB: Oh sure. What? That he’d--
DR: That he volunteered to go to Vietnam.
FB: He volunteered for Vietnam duty and didn’t get there. I don’t think I’m making this up.
DR: Can you cite me some evidence on that?
FB: I thought it was quite widely known.
DR: Never heard that one before.
FB: Really? Well, I’ve heard it many, many times.
Barnes is out flacking his the-president-has-no-warts-at-all book. Read John Dickerson’s review.
Back-door draft continues
Volunteers enlist and sign a contract thinking they know when they’ll be home. But some are compelled to stay for up to an additional 18 months:
The U.S. Army has forced about 50,000 soldiers to continue serving after their voluntary stints ended under a policy called “stop-loss,” but while some dispute its fairness, court challenges have fallen flat.
The policy applies to soldiers in units due to deploy for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Army said stop-loss is vital to maintain units that are cohesive and ready to fight. But some experts said it shows how badly the Army is stretched and could further complicate efforts to attract new recruits.
It sounds like we’re overextended to me. Yet we continue expelling volunteers through Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Let’s try Bible study in the public schools II, the argument
I really didn’t get too specific in my support yesterday. Today I point to these two paragraphs from the same story. The Right calls it a political ploy:
“Their proposal makes them modern-day pharisees,” State Senator Eric Johnson of Georgia, the Republican leader from Savannah, said in a statement. “This is election-year pandering using voters’ deepest beliefs as a tool.”
Saying he found “a little irony” in the fact that the Democratic sponsors had voted against a Republican proposal for a Bible course six years ago, Mr. Johnson added, “It should also be noted that the so-called Bible bill doesn’t use the Bible as the textbook, and would allow teachers with no belief at all in the Bible to teach the course.”
To the Right I say, of course we can’t require the teacher to be Christian or that they use the Bible. If we do, which denomination? Which Bible? I think most reasonable people will be pleased to have the Bible taught, and understand that it can’t be their Bible or their denomination.
To the Left I say - and most especially to my friends who reject this notion so flat-out - that the Bible has to be the most significant book ever written. (I’m game for teaching that other big important book, the Koran, too.) And I’m not big on denying the impact of Christianity on the world. To not teach it seems something of a distortion to me.
To all those who say it’s about separation of church and state, I say separation is fine and good; exclusion appears to be what we’re talking about. We’ve accepted case law rulings cascading down on us and, you may recall, I’m not all that fond of rolling over and accepting case law. (I’ve got a good First Amendment post in me; it’s coming.)
There is a political component to this (interesting to watch the Christian Right say the Left is playing politics with religion) but that’s not why I support it. I live in the buckle of the Bible Belt. I like and respect these people, and they like me. I believe the religious right is reachable. And given that I believe we are a closely divided not deeply divided country - on religion too - persuading just a few to vote our way is a winning strategy.
And when we win, I want to live with my Christian neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance.
BTW, Howard Dean supports it too, “I think teaching the Bible as literature is a good thing.”
Friday, January 27, 2006
The Hamas win
I’m not nearly so cataclysmic as some are at the Hamas win - I’m not optimistic either - but of all there is to quote from I pick Timothy Noah in the Slate Political Gabfest podcast last night:
Fareed Zakaria wrote a very good book that I wish President Bush had read addressing this very question and he argued that the first thing you need in order to bring a state into the 21st century is not democracy, it’s civil law. Once you have a civilized society then you can have a democratic society. If you have an uncivilized society then it could vote for terrorism and that’s basically what happened here.
The contrary view - that acting as a democratic ruler will leaven the elected terrorist and this is all just a process they must go through - was voiced by Robert Kagan, senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, on All Things Considered tonight, “I remain to be convinced of what the short-term risks actually are… I’m inclined to see it as a positive development.”
I could argue point by point, but I’ll let that to others and instead point to Russia as an example. A disaster I expect will worsen still, see this from The Future of Freedom.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Google’s turn to the dark side
John says It’s like watching little Anakin grow into Darth Vader:
I have a ton of respect for all that the Google folks have done and aspire to do, and they can dress the decision up in whatever way makes them comfortable, but this is just wrong to the bone, a capitulation that is anti-everything the Net and the communications revolution is supposed to represent.
[C]ompanies do have to follow the laws of the countries they operate in. For those in the US and elsewhere to say Google shouldn’t follow Chinese laws is hypocritical if they are not forcefully demanding that Google not follow other laws.
To avoid this hypocrisy, I’d like everyone upset about the Google move in China to also start protesting that the governments of France and Germany should not require Google to remove Nazi or hate sites.
Good point. Me, I wonder what would Fareed Zakaria say? That’s because I completely buy into his political reforms follow economic reforms optimism for China. Freedom is coming; personal liberties are expanding; even if not on our American timetable and to our American liking.
Life is compromise. For today, I understand and accept Google’s move.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Santorum’s “me, me, me culture”
Ask not what Santorum can do for you:
Santorum: We have a culture right now that doesn’t say serve, that doesn’t say don’t think about yourself. It says me, me, me. It’s a very self-absorbed, me centered, excessive popular culture. And yet we have brave men and women who are willing to step forward because they know what’s at stake. They’re willing to sacrifice their lives for this great country. What I’m asking all of you tonight is not to put on a uniform. Put on a bumper sticker. Is it that much to ask? Is it that much to ask to step up and serve your country?
Huh? That’s not the culture talking, that’s the self-absorbed chickenhawk politician running for office. Don’t serve just put on a bumper sticker! Good God!
Here’s a telling list of those politicians, preachers and pundits who have and have not served. For why I haven’t served, see chickenhawks and me.
Via Crooks and Liars.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Reed’s resilience
The AJC reported over the weekend that Ralphie paid for the good crowd he got at the annual gathering of the Christian Coalition of Georgia:
His Republican campaign for lieutenant governor sent an e-mail to supporters this week offering to pay the $20 entrance fee and - for out-of-towners - an overnight stay in a hotel.
Reed campaign manager Jared Thomas characterized the offer as routine. “Certainly, we want our grass-roots people to be well-represented,” he said.
Given the evidence and publicity surrounding his dealings with Abramoff, I’m struck by the resiliency of his ongoing support. There’s apparently more Abramoff associated troubles to come from a Texas investigation.
Meanwhile, the Christian Coalition he once headed is in debt and being sued by creditors including a mover and its direct-mail firm.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Hillary’s upstate success reconsidered
Marisa Katz in the New Republic calls Hillary’s upstate strength in NY a myth:
Although the junior senator from New York hasn’t said anything yet about a return to the White House, a run appears likely. And, in anticipation, her champions are making upstate their best defense against doubts about her “electability"--a term popular with Democratic primary voters last time around. But, before the Hillary-can-do-it-because-she-did-it-upstate narrative gets any more airtime, it’s worth pointing out its fatal flaws. Namely, upstate New York is not that conservative. Clinton hasn’t done all that well here--in fact, she lost the region in 2000 and remains a highly polarizing figure. And, when she has won people over, it’s been through retail politics at a very local level. Ultimately, if she’s going to do well as a presidential candidate, she and her advisers must accept that her Senate campaign doesn’t count as a dress rehearsal. She’s going to have to bring something else to the national stage. [...]
The upstate voters she has won over she courted with retail politics: showing up in small towns, becoming fluent in the most parochial of concerns, and delivering federal dollars. In a region that historically hasn’t seen much of its senators, she has been omnipresent. Zogby says it’s these repeat visits that have done the most to expand her support base. “Presence is so important to upstate voters,” he says. “The psychology is: If you pay attention to us, we’ll give you support.”
But retail politics don’t translate well nationally. “Obviously, you can’t do a listening tour in all twelve zillion counties,” says Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in Poughkeepsie, though he suggests that the same skills are useful during primary season.
I’m not persuaded. Remember, I think we’re closely divided not deeply divided.
I stand by my view that the way for her to win is to, right after re-election as senator, set up an exploratory committee and launch a listening tour that is the exact national replica of the one that won her first senate election. Maybe even start with a swing through the South.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Santorum thinks again
November Santorum: “The K Street project is purely to make sure we have qualified applicants for positions that are in town. From my perspective, it’s a good government thing.”
January Santorum: “Well, I don’t know what you mean by Senate liaison to the, quote, ‘K Street Project.’ I’m not aware of any Senate liaison job that I do for the K Street Project.”
Plantation politics
Hillary says the House is run like a plantation.
The White House calls Clinton’s attack out of bounds.
Atrios invites journalists to click this link and have fun.
John hones the list.
UPDATE: Ann Coulter hypocrite.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Reed between the lines II
Ralph in the WaPo today:
[A] torrent of e-mails revealed during the investigation [show] a side of Reed that some former supporters say cannot be reconciled with his professed Christian values.
“After reading the e-mail, it became pretty obvious he was putting money before God,” said Phil Dacosta, a Georgia Christian Coalition member who had initially backed Reed. “We are righteously casting him out.”
Among those e-mails was one from Reed to Abramoff in late 1998: “I need to start humping in corporate accounts! . . . I’m counting on you to help me with some contacts.” Within months, Abramoff hired him to lobby on behalf of the Mississippi Band of Choctaws, who were seeking to prevent competitors from setting up facilities in nearby Alabama.
In 1999, Reed e-mailed Abramoff after submitting a bill for $120,000 and warning that he would need as much as $300,000 more: “We are opening the bomb bays and holding nothing back.”
In 2004, when the casino payments to Reed were disclosed, Reed issued a statement declaring “no direct knowledge of their [Abramoff’s law firm’s] clients or interests.” In 2005, however, Senate investigators released a 1999 e-mail from Abramoff to Reed explicitly citing the client: “It would be really helpful if you could get me invoices [for services performed] as soon as possible so I can get Choctaw to get us checks ASAP.”
One of the most damaging e-mails was sent by Abramoff to partner Michael Scanlon, complaining about Reed’s billing practices and expenditure claims: “He is a bad version of us! No more money for him.”
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Not one Democrat took Abramoff campaign money
There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican, every person under investigation is a Republican, every person indicted is a Republican.... There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money, and we’ve looked through all those FEC reports to make sure that’s true.
Atrios on Deborah Howell in the WaPo:
Ombudsing is hard.
Democrats took no Abramoff campaign money. None.
Taking money from Indian tribes is not in and of itself illegal or unethical. Indian tribe money is not implicitly dirty money.
Taking money from Indian tribes who were bilked and cheated by Abramoff does not mean that you yourself are guilty of bilking or cheating those tribes.
This stuff is not complicated. It’s very simple. People working in Washington for a long time certainly undertand these things. Why they pretend to not understand them is a mystery.
UPDATE: More from Media Matters.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Why the netroots do not like Hillary
Within the world of progressive activists, from the viewpoint of the working and middle class progressive activists, Hillary Clinton is seen as hopelessly aligned with the establishment activists, with the insider activists, with the wealthy activists, with the well-connected activists, and with every possible progressive activist “elite” you can possibly imagine. Is it thus in any way surprising that the activist base, which is largely on the outside looking in, generally does not harbor much positive feeling toward her? The progressive activist base considers the progressive activist elite to be the main culprit in progressives losing power around the country. We keep losing, and we blame them. Thus, why should it be a surprise to anyone that we dislike the person who is viewed as their primary representative? We literally hold her, and what she represents within the world of progressive activism, to be responsible for the massive progressive backslide that has taken place over the past twelve years.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Reed between the lines
In Slate’s list of the figures most likely to face trouble from Jack the flipper, this is what they had to say about Ralph Reed:
The former executive director of the Christian Coalition is running for lieutenant governor of Georgia and sprinting away from Abramoff. Reed received millions from Jack and his partner in order to wage “grass-roots” anti-gambling campaigns. The problem for Reed is that his work against the evil money-rollers was paid for by other gambling interests eager to get rid their competition. Reed said he didn’t know he was being paid by gambling interests. E-mails suggest that he did.
You can learn a lot about a person from his sense of humor. Take, for example, this so far unnoticed gem in Ralph Reed’s correspondence with Jack Abramoff (pages 52-53). It took place on April 11, 2001, as Reed was mounting a campaign for the chairmanship of the Georgia Republican Party:
Reed writes:
“Jack, would you be willing to contribute personally to my state chair campaign? This race is costing me $50-100K, and i’m asking my friends to help.”
Abramoff responds:
“Sure. Give me the name of the entity.”
Reed deadpans:
“The actual committee is “The Reed Family Retirement and Educational Foundation.” It is a 501(c)(3). The address is 200 Bay Drive, Grand Cayman, BCI, R59876.”
Abramoff:
“Ha ha ha. Make sure you get me the proper committee name.”
After Reed responded with the real name ("Reed for Chairman"), Abramoff wrote:
“Seriously, I’ll get you the $10K this week or next from a source which owes me money.”
The “source,” you’ll be unsurprised to hear, was the Mississippi Choctaw. In early April, the Choctaw cut a $150K check to the American International Center, one of the fake foundation slush funds Abramoff had set up with Michael Scanlon. On 4/12/01, Abramoff wrote to his assistant instructing $10K of the $150K check to be sent on to Reed’s campaign (see page 54).
Meanwhile, the same poll that found Purdue chugging along in the race for governor, has Reed falling behind his Democratic challenger.
The ethical Will
George Will today:
Before evolution produced creatures of our perfection, there was a three-ton dinosaur, the stegosaurus, so neurologically sluggish that when its tail was injured, significant time elapsed before news of the trauma meandered up its long spine to its walnut-size brain. This primitive beast, not the dignified elephant, should be the symbol of House Republicans.
Yes, one should not taint all of them because of the behavior of most of them. Why, perhaps half a dozen of the 231 Republican representatives authored none of the transportation bill’s 6,371 earmarks—pork projects. And now among House Republicans there are Darwinian stirrings, prompted by concerns about survival. [...]
Liberals practice “K Street liberalism” with an easy conscience because they believe government should do as much as possible for as many interests as possible. But “K Street conservatism” compounds unseemliness with hypocrisy. Until the Bush administration, with its incontinent spending, unleashed an especially conscienceless Republican control of both political branches, conservatives pretended to believe in limited government. The past five years, during which the number of registered lobbyists more than doubled, have proved that, for some Republicans, conservative virtue was merely the absence of opportunity for vice.
James Joyner, “indeed...the Democrats could dust off the Contract With America and run on it this year.”
SEE ALSO: Hward Kurtz, this is a real test for conservative commentators.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Purdue’s prospects
Kos says it’s not looking good for Democrats in the GA Gov race:
Rasmussen. 1/5. MoE 4.5%. Likely voters. (No trend lines.)
