Cornyn Stays the Course on Judicial Nominees

The Senate is gearing up for another bitter fight over judicial nominees, in response to the latest list of judges submitted by President Bush for consideration during the Senate's lame duck session. In what has been described as a "sop" to the president's conservative base, Bush has renominated six judges previously blocked by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary committee as being too conservative for the federal bench.

The White House on Wednesday submitted Terrence Boyle of North Carolina and William James Haynes II of Virginia to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Michael Brunson Wallace of Mississippi to the 5th Circuit in New Orleans; Peter Keisler of Maryland to the District of Columbia Circuit; and William Gerry Myers III and Norman Randy Smith, both of Idaho, for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.Everyone except Keisler has generated intense opposition from Democrats.Under Senate rules the nominations must be resubmitted after Congress takes an extended break, as was the case this year for the 2006 election.

Why would the president choose to resubmit judges who couldn't reach the floor before the elections? Because he's a uniter, not a divider, meaning after the thumpin' Republicans just took at the polls, he's trying to shore up support among his conservative base by uniting them with tired rhetoric about activist judges. Apparently, that old cunard still works for some.

"I think if the president is concerned about his legacy, he will continue to nominate the judges he promised in his campaign speeches in 2000 and 2004," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on Family Action, a Christian group started by James Dobson. "If those nominees are obstructed, I think the American public needs to see the Democrats in action."

Prominent among the list being submitted is

...attorney Michael Wallace, who is nominated for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which hears cases from Texas.

Wallace, a Biloxi attorney and former aide to conservative Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., received a rare "unqualified" rating from the American Bar Association.

To be fair, based on the president's previous choices in public servants, the Bush administration obviously considers the whole issue of competency to be a bit overrated. I'm sure Judge Wallace would do a "heck of a job."

Senator John Cornyn, who really should take a look at his poll numbers before taking too much comfort in Kay Bailey's win, had this to say regarding the latest round of nominations.

"It is my hope that with the election behind us, the Senate could move forward in a bipartisan manner," said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

It seems, however, that despite their bipartisan rhetoric on election night, some of my Democrat colleagues seem intent on continuing their record of obstruction when it comes to the president's nominees."

So Cornyn, who felt that the public had sent a clear "message of change" with the midterm elections, intends to apply that lesson by.....refusing to budge an inch. Apparently, "stay the course" doesn't just apply to Bush's failed Iraq policies. Blogger James B. Shearer dryly notes a silver lining in the judicial debate.

"Well if you like pointless demonstrations of “resolve” this is good news. At least unlike Bush’s Iraq policy it won’t get people killed."

Texas Republicans Still Running from Reality on Iraq

Sometime last spring or summer when Karl Rove and the Bush administration decided that staying the course was the best spin to put on Iraq, perhaps there was still some thought that the government propaganda about winning the war and building a democracy would be enough to cover the awful truth on the ground. It doesn't matter that our own military was telling us the present looked perilous and the future could get really ugly, really quickly. With journalists confined to the green zone, and the public beginning to tire of the whole mess, perhaps they thought they could pull it off.

But that was before the wheels came off and sectarian violence in Iraq once again became front page news. Alright, "stay the course" is no longer the Republican mantra, but other than semantics, nothing has changed. The administration still has no plans for a troop drawdown, no idea how to quell the sectarian violence, no definition for victory and no intention of admitting the truth. In the face of the recent meltdown, the Republican candidates' grim determination to keep uttering nonsense about "winning" is supposed to be viewed as being resolute. Actually, such obstinancy only serves to reinforce the reality that they cannot be trusted to manage the mess that they created or to level with the American public about our limited options. This is political posturing at its worst.

But listen to these Texas incumbents discuss the current situation in Iraq. In response to challenger Gary Page's plan to withdraw troops to a safe distance, where they can act as a deterrent force, Republican Kenny Marchant, representing Texas Congressional District 24, states:

"....such a plan would create "total chaos." "It would promote civil war and promote the insurgency," said Mr. Marchant, 55. "Our presence there is still needed and necessary for them to get new democracy."

And in District 26, incumbent Michael Burgess responded to the idea of withdrawal by saying any retreat would "embolden enemy fighters."

Well, you have to applaud Mr. Marchant for wanting to avoid "total chaos," but to Iraqis facing the daily barrage of kidnappings, bombings and beheadings that account for life as they currently know it, the choice of adjectives must seem irrelevant. As for democracy, the Iraqis had free elections and approved a constitution. At what point does that give them the right to demand an end to our occupation, which over two-thirds of its citizens currently support?

To the question of whether withdrawal would embolden enemy fighters, with 100 U.S. soldiers dead already this month, military engagements increasing on the Afghanistan border, and militias roaming unchallenged in the streets of Baghdad, isn't that already fait accompli? Iraq, formerly the cradle of civilization, now in the midst of an escalating civil war, is a breeding ground for terrorism that threatens the entire region. In the meantime, lives are lost and fortunes are made, and true solutions are still months away.

The irony is that if the Democrats win Congress and close the gap in the Senate next month, they will have to take a leading role in winding down this war. One can be certain that no matter what the outcome, and the options do not look good, forcing Democrats to make all the hard choices in Iraq will give Republicans the perfect cudgel going into the 2008 elections.

The Waterboy

The following letter to the editor was printed in the Denton Record-Chronicle on August 19, 2006 [reprinted with permission of the author].

If Congressman Burgess as­pires to an acting career, as William Trantham quips (DR-C, Letters, Aug. 10), instead of auditioning for Slackers, Part II, he might consider a staring role in a sequel to The Waterboy.

This seems more consistent with his present experience — carrying water for the Bush ad­ministration and kindred special interests.

Such adulation is evident in his facile correspondence to middle- and working-class constituents who offer citizen input.

This correspondence generally starts with the most generic and embarrassingly simple recapitulation of the issue about which the constituent has written and concludes with a summary of and enthusiastic praise for the Bush administration’s position on the issue.

Oddly, while Michael Burgess may spend little time thinking about the average citizen’s views, he always notes that he is grateful that we have shared our thoughts with him.

I guess it’s just nice to know what the “rabble” thinks. I wonder if his more generous, special-interest contributors (the minority who provide disproportionate financial power to his campaign) get comparable treatment.

While I can’t suggest a single reason that Mr. Trantham may want to vote for the incumbent, I believe his Democratic challenger, Tim Barnwell, is an extremely capable and diligent opponent.

What’s more, he is likely less beholden to special interests and more able to truly represent the people of District 26.

Although Mr. Trantham and I differ about movie casting for Congressman Burgess, we seem to share the hope that he will find more suitable work in the not-too-distant future.

Arnold Collins,
Denton

Let's help Burgess find his true calling. Click here to vote for Tim Barnwell in the Progressive Patriots Fund. (He'll get a $5000 campaign contribution if he earns the most votes in this poll.) It's the last day to vote and he needs your support. Get used to putting a check by Tim's name. It'll be good practice for this fall.

[Disclaimer: I volunteer for the Barnwell campaign. Join me.]

All You Need to Know About the Paris Hilton Tax Cut

The Republicans believe that there is no problem facing Americans that a tax cut for the wealthy can't cure. Any crisis, it seems, justifies a tax cut. The response to the 9/11 attacks? Tax cut. Facing war in Iraq? Tax cut. As Tom DeLay noted at the time, "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes."

Last fall the Senate Republican leadership decided that the appropriate response to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina was to reward the ruling class yet again, this time by eliminating the estate tax. But public censure over such a brazen and callous move in the face of a national tragedy, coupled with general disgust at the emerging incompetence of political leadership from the White House on down, actually moved Senator Frist to reconsider. The estate tax bill was shelved, awaiting a more auspicious time.

That time, apparently, is now. And perhaps the timing has less to do with a better opportunity than the perceived lack of it going forward. What chance would such a bill have if the House or the Senate lost Republican majority in this fall's election? So, with the pending marriage amendment as cover, the Senate is considering re-introducing Jon Kyl's bill, dubbed "Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act" by it's sponsors, and the "Paris Hilton Tax Cut" by Michael J. Graetz and Ian Shaprio in their book Death by a Thousand Tax Cuts.

The Senate debate is crucial, because the measure has always been blocked by Democrats in the Senate. The House version, H.R. 8, passed with 99% Republican support, including proud co-sponsors Rep. Ralph Hall and Kenny Marchant. But no one in the House has been a bigger supporter of the repeal of the estate tax than Congressman Michael Burgess. Burgess promotes the fallacy that the estate tax is responsible for the liquidation of businesses and family farms. It would take an entire separate post to to do justice to this argument, but here's the take-away:

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 65 farms and 94 family-owned businesses in the entire country would have owed any estate tax in 2000 if the $7 million exemption level that will take effect in 2009 had been in place back then. And the American Farm Bureau could not cite a single family farm that has ever been lost because of the estate tax, according to The New York Times.

The logic of cutting this tax truly cuts at the heart of the idea of a progressive tax plan. Some of business' biggest scions are behind this legislation, including the Waltons, billionaire heirs of Sam Walton.

Eighteen families, including the owners of Nordstrom Inc., The Seattle Times Co., Mars Inc., Koch Industries Inc. and Wal-Mart Inc., that stand to save $71.6 billion in taxes are financing lobbying efforts to repeal the estate tax, according to a study by two groups....
Wiping the estate tax off the books would mean about $1 trillion in lost revenue for the government between 2010 and 2019, according to private and government estimates.

Every time the Bush administration wants to reward the rich patrons who pull their strings, they trot out tired arguments about economic stimulus and the virtues of the free market. Every time they want to cut benefits for the rest of us, they point with justified alarm to the economic state of our government.

The bottom line as far as I am concerned is that we just cut $4.8 billion in Medicaid in February 2006. The President said this just absolutely needed to be done. Yet, right after that, he signed a bill that cut income taxes by $70 billion on dividends and capital gains, and now wants to cut an additional $25 billion per year by repealing the estate tax. All of this being done at a time when our national debt is approaching $10 trillion. Who elected these people?

And if all this weren't enough to convince you of the lunacy of eliminating the estate tax, consider these facts:

House Democrats have released a report detailing the effect that a repeal of the tax would have on the estates of oil company executives and members of the Bush cabinet. According to the report, estate tax repeal would save the estate of Vice President Cheney between $13 million and $61 million, and would save the estate of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld between $32 million and $101 million. The family of retired ExxonMobil chief Lee R. Raymond would receive a $164 million windfall.

What more do you need to know?

Bush Relaxes Air Quality Standards

August, 2003- The Bush administration on Wednesday exempted thousands of older power plants, refineries and factories from having to install costly clean air controls when they modernize with new equipment that improves efficiency but increases pollution.
In a major new revision to its air pollution rules, the Environmental Protection Agency will allow up to 20 percent of the costs of replacing each plant's production system to be considered "routine maintenance" that doesn't require costly antipollution controls, according to agency documents obtained by The Associated Press.

April 2006- The President Is Directing EPA Administrator Steve Johnson To Use All His Available Authority To Grant Waivers That Would Relieve Critical Fuel Supply Shortages - As He Did After Last Year's Hurricanes. Under Federal air quality laws, some areas of the country are required to use a fuel blend called reformulated gasoline. This year, we are undergoing a rapid transition in the primary ingredient in reformulated gas - from MTBE to ethanol. State and local officials in the Northeast and in Texas worry that supplies could run low. To ensure that there are not needless restrictions to get gasoline to the pump, the EPA should be able to meet the request of officials seeking to waive local fuel requirements on a temporary basis. If Administrator Johnson finds he needs more authority to relieve the problem, the Administration will work with Congress to obtain the authority he needs.

white house hustle

White House Press Secretary (and son of Texas gubernatorial hopeful Carole Keeton Strayhorn) Scott McClellan has announced his resignation from the post. McClellan has served as Press Secretary since the resignation of his predecessor, Ari Fleischer, in July 2003. Bush complimented McClellan's "class, integrity" and gestured that it would be "hard to replace Scott."

In the same vein, a senior administration official has announced that infamous advisor Karl Rove will no longer oversee policy but will move to a senior advisor post where he will be in charge of "long-term strategic planning." The deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Joel Kaplan, will take Rove's place in policy development.

These personnel changes could be those warned about by the new White House Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten. After Andrew Card's resignation and Bolten took the position, he promised to "refresh and re-energize" the Bush administration and issued an ultimatum for administration officials: if you want to go, leave now.

A HuffPo commenter from New Hampshire asks that we get the former Iraqi Minister of Information for McClellan's replacement, because "at least [Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf] was entertaining during his obvious lies." More realistically, perhaps the Bush administration will actually find a White House Press Secretary that can lie to the media without squirming.

Enemies List

If the NSA sweeps you up in it's net for expressing your dissent against the Bush administration's policies, you'll be in good company. The following letter from Michael Smith was published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in the letters to the editor section of the December 30, 2005 edition. In light of the continuing saga on NSA wiretapping, we thought it was worth revisiting.

Dear President Bush,

Can you please place me on your enemies list? Is there a form I can download or something? I'm quite sure that there is an enemies list. Nixon kept such a list of U.S. citizens who he felt were a danger to his administration, and your views on dissent seem to be comparable to his. If we question you, we're giving aid and comfort to the enemy, right? If we criticize your war, we're traitors, right? If we check out the wrong books from the library, you'll know about it. If we call the wrong people, the NSA will know about it. So there's bound to be a list, and I don't want to be left out.

Read the entire letter at Michael's Notes.

Dallas Morning News Reports that Incomes Decrease

When Republicans and Bush tell us that the economy is striving, are they just talking about the Anderson Ranch crowd? The Dallas Morning News reported that according to the Feds, average incomes, after adjusting for inflation, decreased a drop of 2.3 percent in 2004, when compared to 2001 data. During the Clinton years, average incomes soared by 17.3 percent. It also reports that the gap between the very wealthy and other income groups widened from 2001 to 2004. I guess that is why Bush and Republicans want to give the rich more tax breaks while sending jobs of average Americans off shore. When Americans in the middle and bottom groups realize what Republicans and the Bush crowd are doing to their livelihood, maybe they will start voting based on issues that really affect them. And if they say security against terrorists, selling out our ports to a country with ties to 9/11 is hardly a decision from a Republican government concerned with our safety.