At a time when eight out of ten Republican presidential wannabes don't mind condoning torture on national television, this should come as no surprise:
The American Civil Liberties Union announced yesterday that it will sue a Boeing subsidiary, alleging that the company helped the Central Intelligence Agency with "the forced disappearance, torture, and inhumane treatment" of three men the government suspected of terrorist involvement.
"This is the first time we are accusing a blue-chip American company of profiting from torture," said ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner, who spoke about the case, filed in federal court in San Jose, Calif., at a news conference in New York.
Since at least 2001, Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., of San Jose, "has provided direct and substantial services to the United States for its so-called 'extraordinary rendition' program, enabling the clandestine and forcible transportation of suspects to secret overseas detention facilities where they are placed beyond the reach of the law and subjected to torture and other forms of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment," the suit alleges.
And folks wonder why so many people around the world dislike Americans.
Pelosi explained that Democrats should be the party of ethics, that appearances count, that dealing forcefully with Jefferson's scandal would help everyone else in the room. "You didn't elect me emperor or queen," she said. "You elected me leader."
The Democrats overwhelmingly voted Jefferson off the committee. And in November, Americans voted Democrats into the majority, citing corruption as one of the issues that soured them on the GOP.
Today, after becoming the first Democratic speaker in 12 years and the first female speaker in the history of the House, Pelosi will offer a comprehensive package of ethics reforms, a down payment on her pledge to run "the most ethical Congress ever."
The class of 41 freshman House Democrats has selected a registered lobbyist to form its political action committee, in what ethics watchdogs and Republicans are calling a contradiction of their promise to end a "culture of corruption" in Washington.
The custodian of the Democratic Freshmen PAC is William C. Oldaker, 65, whose most-recent lobbying clients include the oil industry, the tobacco lobby, pharmaceutical industries and American Indian gambling interests. Mr. Oldaker also has been removed from several Democratic PACs over conflict-of-interest concerns. [...]
Nonetheless, some campaign-finance watchdogs say the connection shows the new Democratic majority is not pursuing ethics reform as forcefully as promised on the campaign trail.
"Isn't the point to avoid even the appearance of impropriety?" said Naomi Seligman Steiner of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, when asked about Mr. Oldaker's involvement in the PAC. "We're not any more comfortable with it this year than we were last year."
In an attempt to combat the regulatory monster that is DC, CEI has a new viral concept out there that's somewhat interesting. Here's the Washington Post take on it:
It was inevitable. In the Internet age, interest groups seeking influence in Washington are joining presidential candidates in discovering a new electronic tool to press their agenda: YouTube.
"Send your underwear to the undersecretary'' urges the actress in the Competitive Enterprise Institute's stinging 66-second anti-regulatory video posted on YouTube, a free video-sharing site that is a subsidiary of Google. The video blames a 2001 Energy Department rule for an energy-efficiency standard that it says has made new models of washing machines more expensive while getting laundry less clean.
The underwear video illustrates what other advocacy groups are finding out: YouTube is a cheap, creative way to get a message to a potentially vast audience. This slow migration is in addition to more traditional lobbying approaches, such as direct mail, Web sites and scripted phone calls to federal officials.
Government mandates for higher efficiency are almost always accompanied by claims that the higher prices they cause will be more than offset by their alleged savings from lower energy costs. But that raises a fundamental question—if these new technologies are so good, then why do we need laws to force consumers to buy them?
And of course, here's the YouTube video in question:
Sheehan Calls it Quits, Takes Swipes at the Democratic Party on the Way Out the Door
Love her or hate her, Cindy Sheehan has certainly been the most prominent public face of the radical protest arm of the peace movement. And now she's calling it quits -- taking a swipe at the Democratic Party as she exits the public stage. In a DailyKos blog posting entitled "Good Riddance Attention Whore," Sheehan wrote what may end up being her political epitaph. Here are some of the noteworthy lines from the posting:
Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such "liberal blogs" as the Democratic Underground. Being called an "attention whore" and being told "good riddance" are some of the more milder rebukes. [...]
The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a "tool" of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our "two-party" system?
However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the "left" started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of "right or left", but "right and wrong." [...]
Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don't find alternatives to this corrupt "two" party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. [...]
Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.
The first I heard of Sheehan was years before she was in the public spotlight; she used to write articles at LewRockwell.com. Since then, she's certainly been a polarizing figure. While many love her, even people adamantly opposed to the Iraq War dislike what they see as her shrill and radical approach to implementing political change.
Whatever one's feelings for Sheehan are, she's certainly made a difference and the front pages of our newspapers will be a little more boring in the coming days.
Democrats Tackle K Street But Forget Their Favorite Lobbyists
Let's open a new topic for weekend discussion. Perhaps in an effort to distract attention for capitulating to Bush on the supplemental appropriations bill, House Democrats are trying to appear tough on lobbying reform:
Under strong urging by Democratic leaders, the House on Thursday voted to bar lawmakers from accepting gifts, meals or trips from lobbyists and to require disclosure by lobbyists who round up campaign donations and "bundle" them together for members of Congress.
Passage of the two measures was a partial step toward fulfilling the Democrats' pledge to run a more ethical and open Congress. To achieve it, party leaders had to overcome a rebellion by colleagues who say the changes are going too far and might hamper their ability to raise campaign funds and land well-paid lobbying jobs when they leave Congress.
Rejection of either bill would have embarrassed top Democrats, whose caucus is split between new members who campaigned on a clean-up-Washington theme and veteran members wary of changing a political system that has served them well.
I know a few libertarians who would outlaw lobbying because of its corrupting influence. I know others who would remove all lobbying restrictions because of the First Amendment implications. I take a middle road on the issue, thinking that full financial disclosure is the best solution. At least the taxpayer will be able to see if his/her congresscritter provided the best legislation money can buy. (Disclosure: My opinion may be tainted by the fact that I've spent countless hours trying to influence legislation, many of them face to face with legislators. Additionally, my wife has recently received financial compensation for the same.)
One issue which the Democrats don't want to address is government lobbyists. Here's the important overview provided by National Review:
Government keeps getting bigger, even though most Americans would like it to shrink. One big reason is that taxpayer dollars are being used to lobby directly against taxpayer interests. While ordinary Americans are busy working, their hard-earned tax dollars are being used to pay lobbyists who are fighting for higher taxes and bigger government.
Taxpayer-funded lobbying groups descend on Washington and state capitals every time legislation to limit the size, cost, and intrusiveness of government is under consideration. Such lobbying efforts may go largely unnoticed, but they are a significant barrier to the enactment of pro-growth, limited-government policies.
State governments, local governments, public universities, transportation authorities, and public water utilities spent an astonishing $132.7 million on federal lobbying in 2006, up 148 percent from an already sizable $53.6 million in 1998. Across this entire period, taxpayer-funded lobbying of Congress totaled at least $875.9 million.
The largest spending increases for lobbying were made by local governments and public universities. Local-government lobbying of the federal government jumped 193 percent (from $20.3 million to $59.5 million) between 1998 and 2006. Public universities increased their spending on federal lobbying efforts by 213 percent (from $10.1 million to $31.7 million) in that period.
Making matters worse, a loophole in congressional rules states that if you are a lobbyist for a government entity, you are exempt from the Senate's $50 gift limit and the House's gift ban. Taxpayer-funded lobbyists can give any gifts they want, without limit or disclosure requirements. The perplexing assumption seems to be that lobbyists working for private companies are inherently suspect and should be strictly limited, whereas taxpayer-funded lobbyists are inherently virtuous.
I'd love to see a coherent Libertarian consensus regarding lobbying policy. What elements would you all like to see put into a lobbying reform bill?
Remember how the state of Alabama Homeland Security Department got zapped by bloggers for decribing many libertarian-leaning people as terrorists? Alabama's largest newspaper just picked up the story. Here's my take on the subject in the Birmingham News:
That's too broad a description, said critics.
"By the Web site standards mentioned, opposition to gun control laws and excessive taxation makes one a terrorist. Insisting that we adhere to the Constitution makes one a terrorist," said Stephen P. Gordon, political director of the Libertarian National Committee.
"Lawfully demanding that the federal government protect, as opposed to usurp, the individual rights outlined in the Bill of Rights makes one a terrorist. The two groups of people who most typify the description I just provided are our Founding Fathers and Libertarians. It seems that Alabama Homeland Security would incarcerate Madison, Washington and Jefferson at Guantanamo Bay, if they had that option," he said.
As previously predicted, the supplemental appropriations bill passed. Complete with pork. Absent any timeline for withdrawal of Iraq. Aside from the pork angle, the AP subtitle sums it up in one sentence: "Congress Bows To Bush And Approves Billions For Iraq War Without Troop Withdrawal Timeline."
We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.
A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels. The development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq's legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.
The draft bill proposes a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some U.S. Democratic lawmakers have demanded, and would require the Iraqi government to secure parliament's approval before any further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007.
It's also worth noting that the Iraqi lawmakers have a bit more courage than our own legislators.
Pork for War: Congress to Oppose the Troops and Reject the Taxpayers
In yet another move of "bipartisan cooperation," it's looking like the eventual resolution to end the debate over the supplemental appropriations act will neither support the troops or the taxpayers. Here's the media wrapup from U.S. News and World Report:
Media analysts are casting the Democrats' decision to pass an Iraq spending bill without a pullout provision as a win for the White House. MSNBC's Hardball, for example, said "after weeks of refusing to back down to the White House, today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did just that." NBC Nightly News reported, "The Democrats will argue they took a tough stand here, but the reality is that facing a veto threat, they backed off." USA Today describes the Democrats as "flinching," the New York Times calls "the decision to back down" a "wrenching reversal for leading Democrats," and the Washington Times titles its front-page story "Democrats Capitulate On War Funds."
In what could be bad news for the Democrats, their concession to the White House has angered anti-war activists and lawmakers, who are now expected to oppose the legislation. In a bizarre turn, the Washington Post notes even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she "was so disappointed" that she might actually vote against the bill. In fact, it's becoming apparent that GOP votes will be needed to pass it at least in the House. The Los Angeles Times recounts that when House Democratic leaders "presented the plan at their weekly caucus meeting, freshmen and members of the Out of Iraq Caucus complained vociferously." And "antiwar groups that stood behind the Democrats as they pressed for a withdrawal also expressed disappointment. 'It is remarkable that they can't stand up to President Bush and his war,' said Susan Shaer, Win Without War National co-chairman." The Washington Times quotes Rep. Lynn Woolsey, California Democrat and co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, saying, "It's the president's legislation, not the Democrats." Sen. Russ Feingold, "one of the chamber's loudest antiwar voices, called the benchmarks 'toothless.'" Said Feingold, "There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action."
Here's the bottom line: The most likely outcome will be that the war will continue as before and that taxpayers will have to cough up an estimated 17-19 billion dollars in pork unrelated to Iraq for the privilege of seeing more of our sons and daughters die needlessly.
Additional Bipartisan Cooperation to Violate Basic Privacy Rights
"They" said things would be different if Democrats won control of Congress. Once again, that proverbial "not a dime's worth of difference" is rearing it's ugly head. Here's the overview, from C-Net:
The U.S. Congress is poised to create a set of massive new government databases that all employers must use to investigate the immigration status of current and future employees or face stiff penalties.
The so-called Employment Eligibility Verification System would be established as part of a bill that senators began debating on Monday, a procedure that is likely to continue through June and would represent the most extensive rewrite of immigration and visa laws in a generation. Because anyone who fails a database check would be out of a job, the proposed database already has drawn comparisons with the "no-fly list" and is being criticized by civil libertarians and business groups.
All employers--at least 7 million, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--would be required to verify identity documents provided by both existing employees and potential hires, the legislation says. The data, including Social Security numbers, would be provided to Homeland Security, on penalty of perjury, and the government databases would provide a work authorization confirmation within three business days.
With a mental picture of a mom-and-pop dry cleaner (with no computer in the shop) I used recently, this move would clearly be bad for small business. From the Washington Times:
"It shows no experience in the practicality of running a business," said Jerry Howard, chief executive officer of the National Association of Home Builders, a trade group for the home-construction industry.
Many small-business owners do not have computer capabilities for verifying workers' immigration status, he said. Construction projects would be delayed as the employers wait for the government to authorize employment, he said.
"Our feeling is that it would increase costs of doing business dramatically," Mr. Howard said.
It's no surprise that the IRS wants to put their feet in this door, too. From FoxNews:
Naturally, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is allowed to enter this worksite enforcement fray. A unit would be established within the IRS Criminal Investigative office to focus on businesses that employ people not authorized to work in the United States. Financial penalties would be vastly increased for employers who "fail to file correct information returns."
Overall, penalties for hiring or continuing to employ illegal aliens would be stiff ("knowing or with reckless disregard that the alien is an unauthorized alien.") Civil penalties range from $5,000 per illegal worker, up to $75,000 for repeat violators (meaning having been fined more than twice). Federal contractors who violate the law would obviously be debarred.
The bottom line is that Congress can't devise a rational immigration policy, so in an attempt at "bipartisan cooperation" they have decided to stick it to small business owners. Simultaneouly, they are throwing all of us into another gigantic database. The proposal is a civil liberties nightmare which President Bush ironically suggests "upholds the great American tradition of welcoming those who share our values and our love of freedom."
It looks like Alberto Gonzales may soon be the latest in the list of former Attorneys General. Should Gonzales resign, he'll be joining the ranks of well-loved people like John Ashcroft and Janet Reno.From the Washington Times:
Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has not called for Mr. Gonzales to resign, but said the growing pressure from Democratic and Republican lawmakers who are demanding Mr. Gonzales' departure may force President Bush's longtime ally from office.
"Votes of no confidence are very rare," Mr. Specter said during an appearance yesterday on CBS' "Face the Nation." "Historically, that is something which Attorney General Gonzales would like to avoid. I think that if and when he sees that coming, he would prefer to avoid that kind of a historical black mark."
As a former targeted U.S. Attorney, LNC Rep. Bob Barr stated in a Rolling Stone exclusive interview that the Gonzales role in the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys doesn't rise to the level of illegal activity, but he thinks...
...it's highly improper. Not unlawful. A president can remove a U.S. Attorney for whatever reason. They serve at the pleasure of the president. But what's happening here it's extremely troubling because it errodes the public's confidence in the integrity and impartiality of our federal justice system - which is perhaps the most important component of upholding the rule of law. People have to have confidence in that system that it is fair and impartial. The public has a right to know if U.S. Attorneys are in fact being fired for partisan, political reasons.
Perhaps our Attorneys General would be a bit more popular if they spent more time upholding the Constitution - instead of defending torture, Gitmo and the Patriot Act.
Is Human Trafficking Becoming a Significant Problem in the US?
If the allegations are accurate, this is a pretty upsetting story:
Federal prosecutors charged a wealthy Long Island couple on Tuesday with keeping two Indonesian domestic workers as virtual prisoners in their home for more than five years under conditions they called "modern-day slavery," beating one severely and paying them very little.
The couple, Varsha Mahender Sabhnani, and Mahender Murlidhar Sabhnani, 51, who the authorities say run a multimillion dollar perfume business from their home in Muttontown, pleaded not guilty to the charges at their arraignment here before Magistrate Judge Kathleen Tomlinson of United States District Court. They were charged under a federal law that makes it illegal to force someone to work under threat of violence.
According the the report, "one of the women, identified only as 'Samirah' in court papers, was seen wandering near a Dunkin' Donuts shop in Syosset on Sunday morning, wearing only pants and wrapped in a towel. Her face was bruised, and when shop employees tried to communicate with her, she made gestures of slapping herself and uttering what sounded to them like the word 'master,' prosecutors said."
Reportedly, one of the the victims was found in a closet and they were hidden when outsiders visited. They were forced to work long hours and given little food.
"Mrs. Sabhnani was also charged in the papers with having cut Samirah with a knife, burned her with cigarettes and subjected her to a series of tortures, in one instance forcing her to eat many hot chili peppers."
While I've not seen any reputable numbers about the amount of people being held in such situations in the United States, I have been seeing an increasing amount of media coverage of the topic.
Is domestic human trafficking becoming a more significant problem in the US? If so, what should we do about it?
The Senate just defeated the Iraq timeline proposal. From the LA Times:
The Senate today handily defeated a measure to effectively end most U.S. combat operations in Iraq by next April, but the 29 senators who voted for the amendment represented the highest number yet that have united behind a proposal to force President Bush to bring home American troops.
The plan by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did not garner nearly enough votes to pass. Sixty-seven senators -- 47 Republicans, 19 Democrats and one independent -- opposed the proposal.
Their amendment won the votes of 28 Democrats and one independent. But support for the Feingold-Reid measure -- which followed a similar House vote last week -- provided another indication of how public pressure to end the war has pushed congressional Democrats to embrace once politically taboo plans to challenge Bush's management of the war.
I'm almost ready to predict the eventual final outcome will be what Bush initially requested, more-or-less. They'll drop some or most of the pork, the additional war funding will be provided, and there will be no clear cut timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.
What are your best guesses for the shape of the final passed version of the supplemental defense appropriations bill?
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is prepared to spend an unprecedented $1 billion of his own $5.8 billion personal fortune for a third-party presidential campaign, Ralph Z. Hallow will report Tuesday in The Washington Times.
Such a race has the potential to significantly modify the world of presidential politics. Keep in mind that Ross Perot only spent a very small fraction of the amount Bloomberg is considering spending.
There is talk in several sectors about a possible Bloomberg/Hagel or Hagel/Bloomberg independent ticket. Bloomberg played it down a bit, but didn't rule it out. Keep in mind that Hagel has some personal money, too.
"I think he was probably joking," the mayor told reporters. Mr. Hagel "speaks his mind. ... He's not happy with the same things that I'm not happy about."
One might assume that one of the key issues would be the Iraq war. Aside from issues, there are other very interesting elements about this potential campaign, such as ballot access. Would Democrats do to Bloomberg as they did to Nader in 2004? Would Republicans who assisted Nader in 2004 suddenly start challenging Bloomberg petitions?
Of course, there are incredible campaign finance issues which would see the light of day. With Bloomberg prepared to spend as much as both the GOP and Democratic candidate together, he will be putting the candidates of both major parties at a financial disadvantage. How will the Democrats and Republicans react to not being able to effectively compete for fundraising dollars?
The other obvious question is what would the impact be for other third party and independent campaigns -- especially for the eventual Libertarian Party nominee?
While I certainly understand the need of the military to keep some things secret, it seems they are going way to far with this one.
The Defense Department will begin blocking access "worldwide" to YouTube, MySpace and 11 other popular Web sites on its computers and networks, according to a memo sent Friday by Gen. B.B. Bell, the U.S. Forces Korea commander.
The policy is being implemented to protect information and reduce drag on the department's networks, according to Bell.
"This recreational traffic impacts our official DoD network and bandwidth ability, while posing a significant operational security challenge," the memo said.
Something tells me the reason has more to do with protecting information than reducing bandwidth drag.
According to this website, the state of Alabama says we are. Here's a snippet:
The Alabama Department of Homeland Security (ALDHS), established in June of 2003, has recently constructed a website that defines Domestic Terrorists as those who oppose gun control and a strong federal government.
Under the heading "Anti-Government Groups", the site displays a flag that is widely considered one of the first symbols of American patriotism and reads, "In general, these terrorists claim that the U.S. government is infringing on their individual rights, and/or that the government's policies are criminal and immoral. Such groups may hold that the current government is violating the basic principles laid out by the U.S. Constitution..."
The page from the site to which he refers has now vanished, but here's the archived version.
Chris Brunner wrapped up his blog posting this way:
In short, if you oppose gun control, taxes, military intervention, most of our national debt being held by foreign nations, or just a large federal government, you might be a terrorist!
The very idea that those who value their personal rights and liberties are being labeled terrorists by the State of Alabama is not only absurd and egregiously offensive, it completely contradicts the ideals our federal and state governments were founded on! The people of Alabama should be outraged!
Not only should the people of Alabama be outraged, but Libertarians across the country should, too.
Reason has a great article on the hate crimes legislation. Here's the background:
"Hate crimes have no place in America," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi boldly declared last week, "no place in a nation where we pledge every morning 'with liberty and justice for all.'" Pelosi was urging her colleagues to approve a bill aimed at violence motivated by hostility toward members of certain designated groups.
According to Pelosi, then, the "justice for all" mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance means equal opportunity to be a crime victim. It certainly does not mean equality before the law, which the hate crime bill sacrifices by treating perpetrators of the same crime differently because they hold different beliefs.
The bill, which the House passed and President Bush has threatened to veto, expands the federal government's involvement in prosecuting bias-motivated crimes by eliminating the requirement that victims be engaged in a federally protected activity such as voting. It also adds four new bias categories (gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability) to the existing four (race, color, religion, and national origin).
It's a good read about a topic we can expect to hear debated for the next few months.
Liberty just ran an article written by John Hospers, one of the founding members of the Libertarian Party and our first presidential candidate. Here's a snippet:
Political activist David Nolan founded the Libertarian Party of Colorado in 1971, in a meeting in his living room in Colorado Springs with his associate Pip Boyles. Later he sent letters to a few hundred people who had shown interest in a nationwide get-together of libertarians and the possibility of organizing a national party. He invited all members of this undefined group to meet on a June weekend in 1972 in the Radisson Hotel in Denver - an ordinary middle-class hotel, with a big ballroom in which meetings could be held. Nolan had no idea how many people would show up. Fewer than a hundred people did.
I had attended some meetings of the recently formed California Libertarian Party in Los Angeles - just a few dozen of us who met to discuss issues. We were encouraged that a national meeting was being organized, and some Californians were among those assembled in Denver the following June. Bill Susel, who had got me into the California Libertarian Party, insisted that I make the trip to Denver too. On arrival, I found that the interests of the group varied considerably, but we shared a contagious enthusiasm for the task. Anyone visiting the Radisson Hotel today could have no conception of the atmosphere of excitement and anticipation that pervaded the ballroom during the convention.
Hospers also provided some insight into how he received an electoral vote in his race for president:
It was quite a surprise, of course, and we kept the secret. On the appointed day in December, Spiro Agnew as vice-president fulfilled his constitutional duty by announcing the results of the election - the votes for Nixon, then the votes for McGovern, and then, apparently to his own surprise, he read, "and one electoral vote for John Hospers as president and Theodora Nathan as vice-president" (of course, he didn't know her nickname, Tonie).
For those of you interested in the history of the libertarian movement or the Libertarain Party, it's a must read.
Here's the latest from a series of polls indicating the President's approval ratings:
President George W. Bush's approval rating has fallen to 28 percent in a Newsweek Poll released on Saturday, an all-time low for Bush in that survey.
Nearly two out of three Americans -- 62 percent -- believe Bush's recent actions in Iraq show he is "stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes," Newsweek reported. Just 30 percent think Bush's execution of the Iraq war demonstrates he is "willing to take political risks" to do what's right.
Bush's unpopularity may also be casting a dark shadow over Republican chances for keeping the White House in 2008. Democratic front-runners lead potential Republican contenders in head-to-head match-ups across the board, the poll suggests.
Apparently, there is a political price to be paid for the continued decline:
Republicans in Congress are increasingly worried that their stalwart support of President Bush's Iraq war policy may cost them dearly in next year's elections. Should their solidarity crack, it could boost Democrats' efforts to start troop withdrawals.
GOP lawmakers have marched in virtual lockstep with Bush so far, supporting his troop increase, an open-ended war commitment and other policies that have grown increasingly unpopular. Privately, some express fears that their loyalty might lead them over a political cliff in 2008, when they hope to reclaim the House and Senate majorities they lost last year.
For now, there's little overt evidence of such wavering, and many Republicans say it's too late to uncouple their party's near-term fate from the war's outcome. When the House voted May 2 to sustain Bush's veto of a bill that would have imposed redeployment deadlines, only two of the chamber's 201 Republicans abandoned the president.
So what is the White House doing to prevent this hemorrhaging? It looks like they'll appoint a War Czar. I wonder if the braniacs at the White House have ever looked up the derivation of the word Czar, or have any clue that the American people are opposed to empire building. With this clueless mentality of GOP leadership, it's no wonder that Bush's ratings continue to drop while the Republicans continue to poise themselves for additional political loss in 2008.
Ann Woolner had an interesting column at Bloomberg.com today. While the mainstream media (and much of America) seems titilated about the "Washington Madame" and the politicians who are likely to be exposed, Woolner has us take a look at a much more sinister form of prostitution in the nation's capitol.
Prostitution comes in many forms, especially in Washington. A prostitute is someone "who sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose," according to the second definition given in the American Heritage Dictionary.
Add to the items for sale one's position of influence, and you can see that prostitution runs rampant in Washington.
Lawmakers sell help to contributors. Policy makers tilt policy toward powerful constituencies. Officials run their corners of government to serve the White House instead of the general public.
Why stop with the Washington madam in our hunt for the illicit?
After pointing out a few administration insiders who she accuses of influence peddling, she closed with, "this administration would do far more good by cracking down on those who pervert American government for their own political or commercial purpose."
Unlike the Republican Party, Libertarians think everyone (gay and straight, male and female, black and white, etc.) should enjoy equal protection under the law. Unlike congressional Democrats, we don't think that certain politically favored groups should receive special benefits or protections. Unfortunately, it looks like Democrats will push a "hate crimes" bill through Congress today.
While the LP Platform doesn't spcifically mention hate crimes legislation, it's clear from the excerpts below that our position is consistent with the common sense that most Americans employ:
Repeal any state or federal law assigning special benefits to people based on marital status, family structure, sexual orientation or gender identification.
Repeal all laws discriminating by gender, such as protective labor laws and marriage, divorce, and custody laws which deny the full rights of each individual.
One wonders what additional special classes congressional Democrats may wish to protect next. A possibility involves the current example of the $67 million lawsuit over a missing pair of pants. In this case, an attorney is suing a local drycleaner for damages and emotional distress. If small business owners start attacking lawyers, will their Democratic congressional cronies feel the need to add trial attorneys as another "protected" class of American citizens?
As most of you are aware, stand-up comedian Doug Stanhope had declared his intention to run for president as a Libertarian Party candidate. He's now dropped the race, primarily because of campaign finance reform laws. Since the Washington Times was first mainstream source to pick up the story, here's their angle:
Stanhope says he is withdrawing from the race because of Federal Elections Commission rules that prevent him from discussing his political views while simultaneously earning an income from his comedic performances.
In an email to supporters, Stanhope writes: "For all of our false optimism, forced enthusiasm and the tireless effort of a small team of close friends, we couldn't get past the wall of bureaucracy."
"The idea that I could run an effective campaign rested on the fact that I tour constantly for a living and have a built-in audience and media wherever I go. FEC rules would not allow for me to campaign at paid gigs while also retaining a personal income from those shows."
The way I understand the story, because Stanhope's comedic activities operate under a corporate entity, the FEC won't even allow him to even bring up a platform or political position during his stage performances.
If this standard was applied equally to all candidates, I'd guess that Obama, Edwards and Clinton couldn't mention political issues from the Senate floor.
For years, Libertarians have called BCRA the Incumbency Protection Racket. It's called the Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act for a reason.
One wonders if Senator McCain will renounce the McCain-Feingold Act now that the FEC has eliminated one of McCain's competitors in the presidential race.
Stanhope was scheduled to appear on Howard Stern to officially announce his campaign tomorrow. Now he'll have to explain why the Feds won't let him run for office.
It shouldn't be up to the Republicans and Democrats who serve as FEC commissioners to determine the LP presidential candidate. That's our job and why we will be holding our national convention in Denver.
Four years ago today, President Bush gave his "Mission Accomplished" speech on board the USS Abraham Lincoln.
Please help me out with this one. I'm still confused about aspects of the original mission, such as Saddam's ties to bin Laden and WMDs. Another part of that mission was to take out Saddam. Saddam is no longer around, but we are. If the mission is accomplished, why are we still in Iraq four years later? Or will there be a perpetual new mission to ensure that we remain bogged in the quagmire?
Libertarian National Committee, Inc. - 2008 - Privacy Policy Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee -- 2600 Virginia Ave, N.W. Suite 200, Washington D.C. 20037 -- 1-800-Elect-Us Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee
