Author: Limelite

And those figures I’m speaking of come from this CNN article in which we see there’s no news but bad news for George “Limbo” (How low can you go?) Bush and his Republican Cronies of Corruption.

Elections less than nine months away and, by contrast, things are looking rosier for Democrats as they behold likely voters responses to issues such as domestic spying, the Morass in Iraq, and just-feel-good-about- nonRepublicans.  Even the rainbow-like war against terror (Which color of war are we at today?) isn’t seen as such a Republican strength.

Let’s look at the numbers. . .
The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll was conducted over the weekend.

Only 32 percent polled said they thought Bush had a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq, while 67 percent said he did not.

Still. . .

Only 25 percent said Democrats had a clear plan — but 48 percent said Democrats would do a better job managing the issue, while 40 percent favored Republicans.

The American public doesn’t care IF the Republicans have a plan — they don’t wanna hear about any plan they may have!

. . .Democrats [have] a 16 percentage point lead over Republicans when registered voters are asked which party they will support in November.

C’mon Dems, run anybody for office; let no seat go unopposed, even in the blushingest of red states.  Buyers remorse is rampant among Kool-Aid poisoned voters.

Democrats drew the support of 55 percent of the registered voters questioned, while 39 percent said they would be vote for Republicans. . .(sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points).

Even a Diebold machine would have a hard time reversing those figures.

Republicans held a 4-point advantage over Democrats on dealing with terrorism, 45 to 41 percent. . .Democrats held a strong lead over the GOP, 53-38 percent, when asked which party would better manage the economy.

Well, DUHH!  Anybody seen a graph of the National Debt from 1993-present?  If it were a rollercoaster, there’d be no survivors.

. . .51 percent of Americans believed the administration deliberately misled the public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, while 46 percent disagreed. . .sampling error of 4.5 percentage points.

That 46% who disagree are probably stuck on the word “deliberately.”

If I were Andy Card, I’d be comforting Dubaiya (Yeah, that selling American port operations to the UAE idea probably influenced the polls.) like this, “Well, sir, it’s always darkest before it’s pitch black.”  You know, words Limbo Leader can understand.

The question is on all Progressives’ lips:  What can we — especially Democrats — do to find a mainstream issue that voters find unifying as well as appealing in a bi-partisan manner?  Is there one that coincides with the core beliefs of Democrats?  Is there an area where Republicans are clearly out of step with mainstream America and where Democrats can be seen as being in step?

The answer to all these questions may be found in the policy issue of Democratization, or the promotion of Democracy abroad.  President Bush and the neoconservative leading faction of the Republican Party seemingly have abandoned cooperative and co-equal diplomacy and substituted aggressive promotion and establishment of so-called democratic governments as their main foreign policy thrust.

The success of this plank in the Republican platform under the neocons and this president can be deemed remarkably unsuccessful.  One has only to look at the single and primary example — Iraq.  That is why Democratization is a superb issue on which to oppose Republican candidates.
With that in mind, how popular is this (failed) policy with the American Public and what might that mean for Democratic candidates who are looking for an issue that will unite the country and garner support in the upcoming election cycles of 2006 and 2008?

[ACKNOWLEDGMENT:  My main source for data to support the ideas in this diary is The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations report, “Americans on Supporting Democracy” of September 29, 2005.  The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR) is one of the largest independent, nonprofit international affairs organizations in the United States.]

[DISCLAIMER:  Crossposted at DailyKos and reprinted here with some editing.]

Many of us remember Bush’s State of the Union speech of last year when he committed the United States to an active democratization program aimed at ending tyranny, and supposedly a primary source ot terrorism, in our world.  All of us are aware of his and the Administration’s claim that the Iraq War was justified on the grounds of removing Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime and replacing it with a democratic alternative.  Our troops and untold thousands of Iraqi citizens have died and are dying for that “cause.”

But fundamental questions exist as to

whether democracy should be viewed as a universal value, whether the United States should universally promote it, and if so whether it should use coercive tactics such as military force.

What do your fellow Americans — the mainstream — think about these issues?  Do their opinions align with the values and positions of Progressive and Democratic candidates?  Can Democratic and Progressive candidates benefit from mainstream opinion in the upcoming elections?  Let’s look at specific questions and the responses to find out.

1.  Promoting Democracy with Military Force
A majority rejects the idea of using military force to promote democracy, whether by overthrowing dictators or threatening countries with military force if they do not institute democratic reforms.  55% oppose, 35% favor.

Only 27% said that “using military force to overthrow a dictator” “does more good than harm,” while a 58% majority says this “does more harm than good.

And a larger majority rejects the idea of the US threatening countries with military force if they do not institute democratic reforms.  And along party lines this issue broke down thusly:

Republicans deviated from the norm. A modest majority favored “using military force to overthrow a dictator” (52% in favor, 44% opposed). However, like the overall majority, a plurality of 48% said doing so does more harm than good (only 41% thought this “does more good than harm”). A majority of Republicans (59%) thought threatening countries does more harm than good as a method of promoting democracy.

Republicans are outside the mainstream on this very particular issue.  The American public is aligned with the Democratic Party.

2.  Iraq War
A large bipartisan majority says that establishing a democracy was not a good enough reason to go to war in Iraq. 19% overall said Yes, 35% of Republicans said Yes, 12% of Democrats said Yes.  74% overall said No, 60% of Republicans said No, and 86% of Democrats said no.  Obviously, the Democrats have a win/win position if candidates will announce their opposition to the Iraq Debacle amongst their own party faithful as well as among Republicans.  Additionally, Americans are educable when it comes to Adventurism to Promote Democracy.  72% indicate that they

feel worse about the possibility of using military force to bring about democracy in the future.

3.  Benefits of Democracy
Americans are not convinced that when there are more democracies the world is a safer place. Republicans are a bit more convinced of the benefits of democracy, but only by a few percentage points.  68% feel democracy may make the world a better place, but not necessarily a safer place.  This is important wording and the distinction should be emphasized by Democrats.  Furthermore,

The case that democracy undermines support for terrorism did a bit better but was not persuasive to a majority. 45% concurred that “democracies better serve the needs of their people and thus people in democracies are less frustrated and less likely to support terrorist groups.” A modest majority of Republicans (53%) however did agree with the statement. Overall 46% opted instead for the view that “people support terrorist groups because of their convictions, and having a democratic government is not going to change that.”

Democrats can probably make convincing arguments to win Independent voters (as well as some less ideological Republican ones) to the point of view that ideological convictions are a greater factor in creating terrorists than the presence or absence of so-called democratic governments, particularly in the Middle East where the vast majority of terrorists who are a threat to America derive.  Further, more Americans are not widely convinced (42%) that democratization will lead countries to become more friendly to the US.  Republicans are more optimistic (53% as compared to 38% of Democrats) on this score, but not overwhelmingly.

4. Democracy as a Priority in US Foreign Policy
In general, a majority thinks that promoting democracy should be a goal but not a top priority of US foreign policy.  This is a reasonable position that the Democrats should not shy away from adopting as their own.  Nor should they allow Republicans to label them as wishy-washy for doing so, since it is reasonable and in line with the reality of our 20th Century history.  No one disbelieves that America should be a “shining example.”  After all, before the Bush Adminsitration and neocon ideology corrupted our American democracy at home and perverted its expression abroad, this was a universally held American attitude.

This is an examination of but four of the related questions out of eight that are covered in the Report.  Other topics include:

* Promoting Democracy with Diplomatic and Cooperative Methods

A large majority favors the US promoting democracy through diplomatic and cooperative methods. . .However, a majority opposes using punitive or assertive methods for pressuring countries to become more democratic such as economic sanctions and supporting dissidents.

* Working through the UN

A large majority prefers working through the UN to promote democracy.

* Pressing for Human Rights

In contrast to more divided attitudes about pressuring countries to be more democratic, large majorities favor the US putting diplomatic pressure on governments to respect human rights, speaking out against human rights abuses, and encouraging other countries to do the same.

* Reservations about US Democracy

Some of the reservations Americans have about pressing countries to become more democratic may be derived from a lack of confidence that the US is an ideal democracy. Americans are clearly not satisfied with the level of US government responsiveness to the will of the public.

This last topic alone is tailor-made for Democratic candidates to build an important portion of their campaign on.  They and the Party would be wise to take up the issue of Democratization as both a foreign and domestic policy issue in the upcoming election cycles.  Now, candidates who will not shy away from coming out loud and proud in favor of the American mainstream when it comes to Democratization need to go out there and win on the basis of these points.  Sure, it’s not the only issue on which to campaign but it is a sure-fire winning issue that has broad appeal with voters.

All great performers know you gotta leave ’em laughing or leave ’em wanting more.  I don’t know if that holds true for politicians’ final thoughts delivered in their lame duck years.  But Governor Jeb Bush of Florida left the citizens with three of his usual themes ringing in their ears.

• Education
• Hurricane preparedness
• Tax cuts

. . .[Issues] he wants the Legislature to tackle this year: making high schools more relevant to students, improving the state’s hurricane preparation and cutting another $1.5 billion in taxes. Miami Herald 3/8/06

In November we’ll probably realize just who’s laughing and who’s fed up with Republican governance in Florida.
Bush dedicated nearly half of his almost half-hour speech to what he sees as his successes during his seven-year stint in Tallahassee.  

In education, he said, more children are reading at grade level, high school graduation rates are rising and minority students are making gains.

But he’s most proud of his tax-slashing stance.  

But the greatest economic achievement, Bush said, has been “the bold step” begun in 1999, when the Legislature cut $1 billion in taxes. Since he took office, the Legislature has cut $14.5 billion in taxes, he said, increased state revenues by 51 percent and expanded emergency reserves by 530 percent.

He includes other achievements in his coup belt as well.  

In social services, the budget for children and the elderly has increased by 140 percent. In the environment, the state has acquired 1.3 million acres of conservation land and is spending $3.2 billion to restore the Everglades.

But discerning readers want to know what went unsaid by the governor when he addressed the Legislature about the State of the State of Florida.  

He mentioned only briefly the need to reform the state’s storm-battered property insurance market, calling it a “vital issue” that legislators must “take on . . . for the sake of our state’s homeowners and economic future.

That issue just got a little more vital today when we examine some breaking news stories, viz.

* Poe Financial Group, the second-largest home insurer in South Florida, announces it will no longer sell homeowner’s insurance in the state.  Poe Financial Group includes Atlantic Preferred, Florida Preferred, and Southern Family insurance companies.  The latter will also cancel many homeowner and business policies as they come up for renewal.  That leaves Floridians with one choice, Citizens Property Insurance, the state-run pool of last resort, which is required to charge the highest rates in the state and is South Florida’s largest insurer.

Bush had nothing to say about the insurance debacle in the state, while acknowledging a $5.8 billion surplus in the state budget.  He refuses to agree to a state bailout of Citizens until “reforms” are undertaken.  

. . .some rate increases are likely for Citizens policyholders, said Randy E. Dumm, a business professor at Florida State University and member of the Legislative Task Force on Long-Term Solutions for Florida’s Hurricane Insurance Market.  “For a consumer it’s not a great story,” Dumm said.

• Looking at public education in Florida, we see that the rate of high school graduation is just under 72%, and according to Sen. Walter “Skip” Campbell, a Coral Springs Democrat,
  

  “We happen to be 50th in the nation in high school graduation rates under his regime.

• Unmentioned also, is the scandal surrounding Convergys, the private state employee management company operating the payroll and controlling employee information for Florida, which was privatized under Jeb Bush.  An investigation of possible identity theft is underway.
  

  . . .state employee personnel records were sent overseas for computer processing has mushroomed into a state-federal case with potentially criminal implications. Tallahassee Democrat 3/8/06

Apparently,

. . .two former employees of GDXdata Inc. had secretly sued their ex-employer, saying the company improperly sent Florida employee records to companies in India, Barbados and possibly China for some processing steps involving the People First system. People First is Gov. Jeb Bush’s biggest “outsourcing” project – a nine-year, $350 million deal with Convergys – and all employee records are supposed to stay within the country.  The plaintiffs said the company sought to cut processing costs from 6 cents to a penny per page by sending work overseas.

* And as for tax cuts, Democrats argue that they have led to spending cuts to education and are a gimmick benefitting the wealthiest Floridians and made palatable to the hoi polloi by creating a one-time $100 “rebate” to all Floridians.

The benefits of $14 billion in tax cuts passed during Bush’s tenure have not reached average Floridians, Rep. Anne Gannon, D-Delray Beach, said during a news conference in the Capitol. The median income in Florida has risen 16 percent since 1998, she said, but the state tax burden on residents has risen 17 percent. Fees have increased 52 percent; median home prices are up 55 percent, and state-imposed property taxes are up 23 percent, Gannon said.

The state now has “lower-wage jobs, higher costs and higher taxes and fees, neglected public schools, and fewer Floridians with health care,” said House Minority Leader Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale. Tampa Tribune

So, the State of the State of Florida may not be as rosy as the good-bye governor would have us believe.  Like the country, we seem to be limping along beneath a faux flush of economic good feeling.  Flash and mirrors on the surface, while underneath lies basic rot.

So you’re deeply committed to Progressive causes, have some computer and web skills, write well, maybe even snack on, day-dream about, and sip at the well of politics?

Why not get paid for your passion and go to work inside the system?  Below the break are a couple of jobs that might interest the activist in you.

From CQ Weekly, the online newsletter of The Congressional Quarterly, we find Capitol Hill jobs such as these:

ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR -- House Democratic committee office is seeking an online communications coordinator. Responsibilities include oversight of the committee Web site, management of an e-mail mailing list, and the rapid development of new online tools and resources. This position requires excellent writing skills, proficiency in Web site development tools, demonstrated design skills, and experience in communicating online. The ideal candidate is a creative and detail-oriented self-starter with strong ideas for expanding the office's online presence. Please e-mail a resume and cover letter to reform.min@mail.house.gov with the subject "Online Communications Coordinator."

COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR - Active Democratic New York City member seeks experienced, energetic communications director. Person will be on-the-record spokesperson for the Congressman, and help in framing his agenda. Candidates should have solid writing skills and significant on-the-record experience. A minimum of three years communications experience is required. Please send resume and one writing sample to boomer@mail.house.gov. No telephone calls, please.

*STAFF ASSISTANT - Senior Northeast Democrat seeks bright and energetic staff assistant. Candidates must have excellent phone etiquette and inter-personal skills, professional demeanor and a positive personality. Staff assistant's responsibilities include, but are not limited to, greeting guests, managing constituent mail system and performing data entry, scheduling Capitol and White House tours, taking constituents on tours of the Capitol, answering phones, processing flag requests and overseeing interns. Candidates must also have solid computer skills and ability to accomplish multiple projects in a quick, efficient, and accurate manner. Some Hill experience preferred (Interns ok). Knowledge of Capitol Correspond is a plus. Please submit a resume, cover letter and a list of references to: Apply.now@mail.house.gov.

*An asterisk indicates the first publication of a new opening. All other openings have been published previously.

These are but three positions, and only with Democrats and Democratic organizations.  Other job listings require more Capitol Hill experience, or policy expertise.  Positions are also open on the other side of the aisle.

If you think you can handle the fast-paced, high-pressured environment of national legislative politics and really want to get personally involved where decisions effect change are made, follow the link for more details.

Today’s Miami Herald leads

Is Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, being held here?

Army Maj. Jeffrey Weir, a prison spokesman, would neither confirm nor deny whether Mohammed was being held in Gitmo.  He went on to tease the press.

The answer, he said, will be available Friday in a raft of paperwork being released by the Pentagon.

Friday is when the Bush Administration must release Guantanamo Bay prisoners’ 2004-2005 status review hearings forms with the names appearing.

A captive facing conspiracy charges, when being questioned by the Military Commission judge, asked to be moved to a cell alongside the man known by his acronym “KSM.”

Speculation is that the monogram stands for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

We all remember that nearly three years ago to the day he was captured in Pakistan looking more like Rumpledstiltskin than a terrorist.

There’s no doubt KSM is a nasty piece of work.  Witness this bit of his biography.  

Mohammed also has been linked to the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000; Richard Reid’s foiled attempt to blow up an airliner with a shoe bomb in 2001; last April’s bombings at the El Ghriba synagogue in Djerba, Tunisia; and the Bali bombings in October. CNN, March 4, 2003

KSM has been a profligate stool pigeon, according to the Feds, and as reported in Time Magazine, beginning his singing career within two weeks of his capture.  

Other high-level al-Qaeda detainees previously disclosed some of the names, but Mohammed, until recently al-Qaeda’s chief operating officer and the brains behind the 9/11 attacks, has volunteered new ones. He has also added crucial details to the descriptions of other suspects and filled in important gaps in what U.S. intelligence knows about al-Qaeda’s practices.

The hapless and electronically inept captive who spilled the beans regarding KSM is Yemeni, Ali Hamza al Bahlul, 37, who

. . .is charged with conspiracy to attack civilian targets and commit murder, and allegedly made al Qaeda recruiting videos, including one ”glorifying” the USS Cole attack in 2000.

He allegedly also served as Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard around the time of the 911 attacks, and, according to his charge sheet, unsuccessfully tried to arrange a satellite link as bin Laden fled Kandahar, Afghanistan, to watch news reports about the attack.

Jose Padilla apparently had to apply in writing to become a terrorist.  Who knew?  In fact, “authorities” found a whole locker full of written applications in Afghanistan following the invasion in late 2001.

As the Miami Herald reports:  

A prosecutor produced the alleged document for the first time Thursday in Miami federal court, where Padilla pleaded not guilty to conspiracy charges that he was a recruit for a North American terrorist cell with South Florida links that aided Islamic jihad abroad.

His application included his d.o.b. and his nom de guerre, Abu Abdullah Al Mujahir.  However, fellow-terrorists liked to call him “the Puerto Rican.”
80 – 100 other mujahadeen aspirants’ “please let me join” documents were in the trunk.  And the government has an authenticating witness.  Allbeit one who was

convicted in an unrelated case who had once filled out the same Arabic “mujahadeen data form.”

Of course, Padilla’s defense is obvious and it’s the one his lawyers are taking.  No direct evidence exists that our guy actually filled the application out.  What?  Now it’s too embarrasing to be an al-Qaeda terrorist?  Ranks right up there with having filled out an application to flip burgers at Mickey-Ds?  And here I thought these guys were committed Muslim fanatics, willing to die for their cause.

Padilla’s seeming unwillingness to go down for his membership and his nonperformance of his jihad deed, the alleged plot to detonate a dirty nuclear device on US soil, approaches reasonable doubt as to him being a terrorist, don’tcha think?

On the face of it, he seems more interested in the dress-up factor and misperceived glamor surrounding bin Laden’s boys than anything else.  Not to excuse him, of course.  But for my money, Mr. Shoe-Bomber more entered into the spirit of the thing than Mr. Puerto Rican.  If I were on the jury, I’d find it darned hard to say guilty on the force of this new revelation.

Guess those thousands of hours of intercepted wire taps gleaned between 1993-2001 will have to carry the day.  Gawd!  What a boring trial this is going to be.

Tom DeLay and three other Texas GOP congressmen sent a letter to the Justice Department dated December 11, 2001 urging it to close the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe’s Livingston casino eight days after Jack Abramoff e-mailed a lobbyist associate

“We have to shutter Alabama Coushatta and fast.”  Houston Chronicle.

Abramoff was making huge sums from a competing tribe.  A DeLay spokesman claims the letter, on which DeLay’s signature appears first, was generated by the congressman because of his opposition to gambling in principle.

If that is so, shouldn’t we find DeLay firing off similar letters to the Justice Department regarding all Indain operated casinos in Texas?

(Also to be found at DailyKos)

Instead, we find him accepting $50,000 on behalf of a nonprofit organization on which he sits as a board member.  From whom?  The Mississppi Choctaws — another Abramoff (gambling casino) client.

Then gambling’s all right, as long as it’s not Texas Indians?  

The letter was consistent with efforts by Texas authorities and legislators to close the month-old casino.

But it also coincided with the efforts by Abramoff, on behalf of Indian clients in Louisiana, to shut down such Texas casinos.

GOP Reps. John Culberson of Houston, Kevin Brady of The Woodlands, and Pete Sessions of the Dallas area signed the letter along with DeLay.  

“This was a no-brainer. It was like opposing taxes or supporting free trade,” said Culberson, whose staff supplied a copy of the letter Tuesday in response to the Chronicle’s request. “Tom DeLay’s opposition to gambling was the same as mine and most Texans’ — it was instinctive and strong.”

But the timing of their letter didn’t occur until after an earlier Abramoff message.

“We need to get the (attorney general) arresting them RIGHT now. We need to get the pastors rallying right now. This is going to be the death of us,” Abramoff wrote in a November 2001 e-mail to Reed as the Alabama-Coushatta casino opened.

Oh!  So Abramoff was likewise appalled by exposing Christians to gambling in Texas, right?  Hardly!  

A former DeLay top aide, Tony Rudy, had joined Abramoff as a lobbyist on behalf of the Louisiana Coushatta Indians, who didn’t want Texas tribes cutting into their gambling business.

So, it’s a bit difficult to follow DeLay and his Texas GOP cronies onto the moral high ground where they’ve scampered in defense of their influence peddaling.

Further, as per Abramoff’s “request” we find that in the November 11, 2005 issue of the Star Telegram, former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed, boasts of choreographing the closing of the Tigua indian tribe’s casino in Texas.  And lookee here, another GOP politico smitten by religious scruple no doubt.  (Admittedly, there’s nothing in the story linking his actions to a payoff.):

In the Nov. 30, 2001, e-mail, Reed told Abramoff that 50 pastors led by Ed Young, of Second Baptist Church in Houston, would meet with Cornyn to urge him to shut down the Alabama-Coushatta tribe’s casino near Livingston, Texas. He said Young would back up the request in writing.

And completing the circle of fraud, bribery, corruption, and influence pedalling. . .

The previously released e-mails that showed in 2002 Abramoff and Scanlon secretly funneled millions to Reed to help fund the campaign to get the Tigua casino shut down. The lobbyists then persuaded the Tiguas to hire them to reopoen it.
<and>
Members of the Louisiana Coushatta tribal leadership testified last week that Abramoff used the threat of the Alabama-Coushatta casino in Texas to get more lobbying business from the tribe.

No doubt at the upcoming corruption trials of Republican defendants too numerous to mention, juries will be told that unlike in the OJ Simpson trial, the glove fits in each of their cases.

Imagine the possibility that within the next 90 days or less, several Republican power brokers will be former same.

Newt Gingrich thinks they should be formers.  Today’s Washington Post quotes the himself former House Leader,

“Unequivocally, the House Republicans need to select a new majority leader in late January or early February,” said Gingrich, who cited revelations in The Washington Post that a public advocacy group organized by DeLay associates had been largely financed by Russian energy interests.

If ever a blacker pot called out a similar kettle, I don’t know.  But. . .Ahh, I love the smell of foreign influence peddling in the (early) morning as I type.  Who else might feel the door striking their “derries” as they scramble to make themselves scarce?
Well, if not scarce, who’s trying to distance themselves from (himself another former) friend, the flipping “Flap-Jack” Abramoff who wishes to distance himself from himself by turning away from lobbying and toward singing?

None other than Speaker Jim Hastert (R-Ill) who is throwing wads of cash at some poor unsuspecting charity (Gee, I hope it’s a Christian one!) in an effort to divest himself of the tainted tens of thousands.  Somehow, I just don’t think it works like that.  If you take dirty money in exchange for favors then try to wash away its stain, does that make the favor go away too?

And if the politicos themselves aren’t running for the nearest charities or doors, then their minions will be candidates for the wolves waiting on the other side of the latter.  Folks like DeLay’s former deputy chief of staff, Tony C. Rudy, a named name in the court documents will be looking for the nearest exit.  

. . .10 monthly payments totaling $50,000 that went to the wife of an aide identified as “Staffer A.” In exchange, that aide, identified elsewhere as Rudy, helped torpedo Internet gambling legislation and a postal-rate increase, according to Abramoff’s plea agreement.

As for DeLay, it’s going to be hard for him to run away from either his acts or his history.  At least if the Democrats have their druthers.  

Even before the plea agreement was unveiled, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had circulated a 1997 quote from DeLay hailing Abramoff as “one of my closest and dearest friends.”

“Tom DeLay was majority leader of the House of Representatives,” said DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), “and Tom DeLay said Jack Abramoff was his best friend, nobody else.”

Unfortunately, Democrats may not be able to rejoice in the smug satisfaction that the Enemy is getting its come-uppance.  Those who aren’t in office may find themselves in something else.  And some Democrats in office may find themselves out of it as a result of their intimacies with Abramoff “dirty money.”  

[Abramoff] oversaw at the law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP a team of two dozen lobbyists that included many Democrats.  The biggest beneficiaries of campaign contributions directed by the Abramoff team included such high-ranking Democrats as then-Sen. Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (R.I.), a former head of the House Democrats’ campaign committee.

So, if you notice a cloud of dust rising ’round the Wedding Cake on the Hill, don’t be surprised if its kicked up by a herd of bi-partisan heels belonging to the embarrasssed who suddenly find themselves needing to spend quality time with their families.  Or elsewhere?

[Essentially same diary can be found at DailyKos.]

There are ways and then there are WAYS to ring in the New Year.  Why not have some fun and at the same time help Chef/Partner Morou  (Don’t you just love one-name celebrity wannabes?) and the folks at the swanky DC eatery owned (still?) by everybody’s favorite villain — and who knew. . . gourmet, Jack Abramoff — that wants to be “formerly known as Signatures”?  Can you help them find a new name?  Click and submit your suggestions at Signatures  Special Page.
That’s right, Signatures, as the WSJ calls it, is

“. . .DC’s Meeting Spot for Movers and Shakers.” Home to many of Washington’s most recognizable* political figures. . .

*Read right-wing.  Well, maybe Anne Coulter could get a square meal there.

Admittedly, for some of those movers, the only thing they’re being served these days are indictments.  But that’s all right.  Signatures prides itself on its museum quality collection of archival historical documents.  As they put it, “. . .historic artifacts and rare political memorabilia, which are available for purchase if you so desire.”  Sure, who wouldn’t want a signed copy of the arrest warrant on fraud charges that was served on Abramoff this year?

And what’s a New Year’s Eve without a soupcon of nostalgia?  Remember this diary by Kossack, Kargo X?

And what’s a New Year’s Eve without revisiting earlier predictions?  Here’s one from Kargo X’s diary.

Signatures, I predict, will become a major hub in the Abramoff investigation, and it will be the link to ethics violations by literally dozens of House Republicans.

Abramoff is probably wishing this very night, while his lawyers work out a plea deal in a Miami court, that he could give new meaning to the phrase “cook the books.”  He’s probably not alone in his wishful thinking.  I bet plenty of Republican Congressional figures are suffering indigestion over what Abramoff’s prepared to regurgitate.

So, have a good time at some scallawag’s expense and pick an appropriate name.  Oh, in case you’re wondering, my choice was “Stick a Fork in It.”  What’s yours?

“A novel form of government” is the phrase Hannah Arendt uses to describe totaltitarianism epitomized in the Soviet Union beginning with Lenin and reaching its apogee under Stalin.  Totalitarianism is a new government idea under the sun, having its origins in the 20th C.  During the Cold War, the United States positioned itself on the world stage as the arch-enemy of totaltitarianism.

Totalitarianism, as Arendt, the descripting political philosopher who defined it says, is a political institution that gains power by destroying all legal, social, and political traditions in a country.

Totalitarianism adapts an ideology of process (a never ending theoretical phenomenon) as its guiding principle rather than rules of law (a fixed set of guidelines based on known human behavior).  On the surface, the Bush Administration’s ideology, or “ism,” appears to be Terrorism.  As long as Bush and his henchmen can assert that terrorism is still threatening us, there can be no end to the so-called war against it.
My, how the times have changed.  The Soviet Union is no more, and in the 21st C., we have met the New Enemy.  It is us.

How did the USA become a modern near-totalitarian state?  By a single act of terror on 9/11 that created the conditions for creeping authoritarianism.  Where some saw tragedy, others saw opportunity.

As Jack M. Balkin (Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment Director, The Information Society Project at Yale Law School) characterizes the immediate aftermath of that date in his essay “Beware of Creeping Authoritarianism,” December 4, 2001:

(All emphasis mine)

In times of fear, authoritarian impulses are less constrained and people feel less able to complain about them. After all, no one wants to be thought unpatriotic when the country is in such grave danger. And when there is no check on government officials certain of their own rectitude, the temptation for them to act unilaterally and arbitrarily becomes irresistible.

Balkin describes how the post-9/11 political atmosphere is akin to the Cold War era.  

Little by little, the basic elements of procedural fairness that keep democratic governments from acting arbitrarily are being chipped away. No apology is offered for these actions. Those who seize power always feel perfectly entitled to it. Instead, they blame their critics for failing to recognize the seriousness of the situation or for being soft on terrorism — in the past other critics were blamed for being soft on communism.

Similarly Arnedt schools us to understand that arbitrary power, unrestricted by law, wielded in the interest of the ruler and hostile to the interests of the ruled uses fear as its main tool to subjugate its citizens, and seeks to operate in secrecy.  These are the hallmarks of tyranny.

Thus we have come to the present un-pretty paradox.  A president who declares himself fully justified in using illegal electronic surveillance on the citizens of the country whose Constitution he supposedly upholds and at the same time seeks renewal of the infamous Patriot Act.  On the one hand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

. . .actually authorizes some forms of surveillance without FISA court approval order for up to one year, but such surveillance is subject to specific statutory limits, the most of important of which is that there must be “no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.”

    <snip>

    FISA further specifically makes it a crime to “engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.”  Balkinization Blog

Unfortunately,

. . .the NSA is intercepting communications involving “U.S. persons” — citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens — without any judicial warrant or any approval from the FISA court. That is expressly prohibited by FISA (50 USC 1802(a)(1)(B)).

On the other hand, Bush scolds Congress for failing to reenact the Patriot Act, which he doesn’t seem to need anyway since he has the authority to do whatever nearly everything in the Patriot Act under Article II of the Constitution.  Plus

Congress has already (in the Authorization to Use Military Force [in Iraq], AUMF) authorized the President not only to do whatever it takes to defeat Al Qaeda, but also to ignore any preexisitng legal restrictions.

So, why do Bush even need the Patriot Act?

Further, Professor Balkin rightly asks, “Why didn’t the NSA simply get approval from the FISA Court — which would have made these interceptions entirely legal?”

The press and the blogosphere have their theories.  Kevin Bass, a FISA expert says

. . .the administration might have thought it did not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant. Bass, a Washington lawyer who worked on intelligence matters during the Carter administration, speculated that U.S. authorities might have seized a computer or a phone that was used by an Al Qaeda operative.

    “The scuttlebutt is they were then using all the links or phone numbers they found,” Bass said. “It certainly sounds reasonable to say, ‘We are targeting people with links to Al Qaeda,’ but it may be just a list of phone numbers,” he said. “That probably wouldn’t satisfy the FISA court.”  LA Times

John Aravosis & friends at Americablog posit another theory.  The Bush Administration  

. . .may be targeting US journalists and that may be why Bush never got it cleared by the court and is worried about it coming forward now.

President Bush himself offers us a hypothetical scenario that he wants to “save us from.”

“We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives.”  CNN

But I say it is a political move by the Bush Administration to replace what used to be this country’s representative democracy with a version of neocon totalitarianism, or at the very least, tyranny.  It is a straightforward naked grab at Power for the sake of Power in order to perpetuate the self.  A kind of DNA Imperative of the Far Right.  It is an attempt to replace the idea of Constitutional government with the ideology of patriarchal Judeo-Christian Theocracy.

Having created a miasma of fear, having flogged it to death with color-coded terror alerts and oft-repeated references to 9/11, having disregarded law, having arrogance in abundance, President Bush executes audacious power grab after audacious power grab.  In doing so he demonstrates his contempt for the Law, the Constitution, Congess, the American people, and world opinion.

[Crossposted at Daily Kos]