Thursday, March 06, 2003

Thanks Ralph… …Nader that is.   Here is the only editorial concerning the disgraceful display Thursday night that you need to read, from a website that you should read every day: MWO   Read it. Think about it. Forward it to your friends.   BUSH FAILS TO JUSTIFY WAR OF CHOICE "We Don't Need Permission" Delivers Series of Disconnected, Memorized Soundbites Solidifies Reputation as Arrogant Incompetent   The unelected fraud indicated in his press conference that he will initiate a war immediately after submission of the next inspection report, and is unwilling to allow additional time of even a few days or weeks for Saddam Hussein to disarm - despite that there is no imminent threat from Iraq in that short period.   If that turns out to be the case and no amendment for a final timetable is accepted, George W. Bush will have shown he is obsessed with "teaching a lesson" to an irrelevant, insane individual against whom he has a personal vendetta - even though that exercise will mean the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqi children and American servicemen, will yield no additional security for the American people but will likely instead further endanger us, and will further erode the US's credibility worldwide.   If the choice is between allowing an additional week or two for disarmament but no war, and tolerating an obstinate Saddam Hussein during that time at no additional risk, why not accept a final timetable?  Bush refused to answer that question satisfactorily, even though it was asked repeatedly by reporters.  Instead, he responded to the question each time it was asked with the non-sequitur: "He's had twelve years."   Why dodge the straightforward question?  Because there is no rational answer if Bush intends to reject all such proposals.   If Bush invades without accepting a final proposed time limit for compliance, one that enables other countries to join the US in sanctioning force, he will have confirmed everything suspected all along by his critics here and around the world:  that he intended from the beginning to attack Iraq; that his "diplomatic efforts" were therefore conducted in bad faith; that his intent all along was to feign interest in diplomacy, but ultimately thumb his nose at the international community and destroy the UN.  Continued and fortified inspections are optimal, but a refusal to compromise even on setting a deadline will leave no doubt about Bush's intentions from the beginning.   (Bush hopes everyone forgets that the original resolution was intentionally and universally deemed "open to interpretation" with regard to what would happen if inspectors reported a lack of cooperation. Unilateral military action is not authorized, and all who were acting in good faith would regard a final timetable as reasonable under such a vague resolution.)   Bush spoke of the UN's relevance.  But should an attack take place without a final warning and without UN approval, he will have demonstrated that, in his mind, "relevance" depends not on members' willingness to support the US in reasonable endeavors and not on the value of the organization to peacekeeping - but on whether or not there is agreement with himself, right or wrong.  Such a revelation should be of no surprise to anyone, except those duped by the media for the last two years regarding George W. Bush's character.   Regardless of what final events lead up to the inevitable war, however, most of the diplomatic damage is done and will be irreversible for decades.  Bush is about to roll the dice and wag the dog in hopes perpetual war will give him his first presidential victory in 2004.  He couldn't care less who or how many it endangers or kills.   What an embarrassment.  What a disgrace.   Question of the evening:   "What went wrong that so many governments and people in the world now not only disagree with you very strongly but see the US under your leadership as an arrogant power?"   Terry Moran has been noted in the building.   8:53:43 PM

Who’s the Loser? By any estimate it has to be the rambling empty-headed frat-boy we saw tonight.   Imagine, not only the last elected President but also the last leader of your own party (i.e., one who is not a mere figure-head) debating weekly about events that you can’t even answer questions about coherently?   CBS is certainly going for ratings with this move (although they made sure to try and insure themselves from winger wrath by adding Dole).   Imagine the potential response – don’t you think this county is hungry for an adult discourse after two years of Resident “dead or alive” and his media lackeys?   Clinton and Dole Agree to Debate on Weekly '60 Minutes' Segment By BILL CARTER Bill Clinton and his opponent in the 1996 presidential election, Bob Dole, are teaming up to revive the commentary segment "Point-Counterpoint" on "60 Minutes."   Mr. Clinton and Mr. Dole have contracted to provide 10 debate segments, beginning Sunday night. The commitment does not extend beyond the end of the television season in May, but if the format is successful CBS will try to continue it next season, CBS executives said.   Don Hewitt, the executive producer and creator of "60 Minutes," said the segment would not use the "Point-Counterpoint" title. Instead it will simply be called "Clinton/Dole" one week and "Dole/Clinton" the next week.   "When you've got a name like that, you don't waste it," Mr. Hewitt said.   Mr. Clinton and Mr. Dole said yesterday that they were looking forward to the opportunity to provide the kind of thoughtful commentary that has been missing from the superheated and often shrill discourse that dominates much of television news. "I see this as an opportunity to try to have a really civil debate that enlightens people on the issues," Mr. Clinton said.   Mr. Dole said the two men expected to "have some fun" but also get into the issues that are roiling the country. "We have differences," he said. "We went at each other hard in 1996."   Mr. Clinton emphasized that the two men have a great deal of respect for each other. "I think Bob's a patriot," he said. "I admire him."   "60 Minutes" has not used the "Point-Counterpoint" segment regularly since 1979, when its most famous participants, Shana Alexander and James J. Kilpatrick, ended a four-year run. But it was always among the most-talked-about segments of the program, television's most successful newsmagazine. It even inspired a famous parody, the Dan Aykroyd-Jane Curtin combination on "Saturday Night Live" which always had Mr. Aykroyd referring to Ms. Curtin as "Jane, you ignorant slut."   Mr. Hewitt said that the new plan called for the debater who delivered the first argument that week to pick a topic and write a 45-second script, which would be faxed to the opponent. The response will also be 45 seconds. The first debater will then get 15 seconds to rebut, followed by a final 15 seconds from the opponent.   The old "Point-Counterpoint" segments were a full minute longer, Mr. Hewitt said, but he said attention spans had shortened since then.   He said he would insert the Clinton-Dole segment in the middle of the program after the second reported piece, rather than at the end where the original "Point-Counterpoint" resided. Andy Rooney will still close the program with his commentary.   The addition of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Dole could provide a spark for the program's ratings. After a two-decade run in the top 10, "60 Minutes" has slipped out of the top tier, and has lost about a million viewers in the last year.   Mr. Hewitt, 80, who has come under increasing pressure to find ways to attract viewers, agreed in January to step down as executive producer after next season. He will remain as a paid emeritus news division executive until he is 90.   Mr. Hewitt approached Mr. Clinton after reading accounts that he was being wooed to start a syndicated talk show.   "I knew that was baloney and he'd never do that," Mr. Hewitt said. "I also knew his positions are too established for you to put him on by himself. He couldn't be Eric Sevareid."   But he said he thought that a slot on "60 Minutes" would carry the prestige Mr. Clinton required as a former president, and that matched with a countering point of view, Mr. Clinton's appearances would be welcome by viewers.   Mr. Hewitt contacted Mr. Clinton's lawyer, Robert B. Barnett, who has been fielding numerous proposals for Mr. Clinton's services from various news media.   Mr. Clinton was indeed interested, though he said yesterday, "I thought about it for several weeks." He was concerned, he said, that he not be put in a position where he would be viewed as mounting a political challenge to the current administration. "I'm not running for anything," he said.   But he said he concluded that he had been able to give speeches to all kinds of groups that included Republicans and Democrats, addressing issues and helping "explain why people have different points of view." And he decided he might have a chance to do the same thing on "60 Minutes."   Mr. Hewitt said he suggested to Mr. Clinton that he could have a second career in television: "I said to him, `Who wants to be an ex-anything? This is your chance to be Edward R. Murrow.' "   Mr. Clinton also has longstanding ties to Leslie Moonves, the president of CBS, and that also helped conclude the deal.   Mr. Dole's name came up, Mr. Hewitt said, after some discussion about possible partners for Mr. Clinton. The two former adversaries have become friendly in recent years, and they were co-sponsors of a fund-raising effort for families of victims of the 9/11 attacks.   Mr. Dole has already had a taste of a television career as a spokesman for a number of products, including Pepsi and Viagra.   He said yesterday: "My reaction was a little different from the president's. I was excited about the idea right away."   Coincidentally, Mr. Dole recently hired Mr. Barnett to be his lawyer. That meant that CBS had only one party to deal with in negotiation the contracts.   No financial details of the deal were disclosed. "Salary was not a big issue," one executive involved in the negotiations said. "This is not about big money. It was not like the book."   Mr. Clinton received a $12 million advance from Knopf for his memoir, which is due out in the fall of 2004.   Beyond being former opposing candidates and former heads of their respective parties, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Dole share something else in common: both are married to serving United States senators.   Asked whether that might affect their television commentaries, Mr. Dole said: "It may. Wait until the first one's over Sunday night and we may find out."   Mr. Clinton said, "We may come home and find out we've both been ordered off the air."   8:45:04 PM

Pick Your Autocrat… …the difference being that the Pope doesn’t pretend to be anything but god’s representative on earth (or something like that, at least for Catholics) whereas Bush pretends to represent us when in reality he behaves as if he is God’s chosen one.   Can’t say I feel much sympathy for conservative Catholics since in reality they tend to choose “cafeteria style” whenever it suits them - just like their liberal brethren - it just so happens that they’ve benefited from having one of the most conservative popes in office for the last couple decades.   The truth is there aren’t very many “true” Catholics anymore – if by true you mean those who actually cede all moral authority wholly to the Church and its hierarchy. In this respect Catholics and Catholicism has been “protestantized” – meaning that their adherents tend to treat it as a sect, reserving the right to exercise independent judgment concerning matters that should be dogma. I’m not saying this is good or bad – just a fact not limited to liberals or conservatives.   The differences between Catholics and protestant sects now seem to hinge on issues of identity and to a lesser degree on the emphasis upon ritual and faith. This rift within Catholicism merely highlights these facts by demonstrating the degree to which even self-described “Catholic conservatives” are anything but if it is their ideological ox that is getting gored.   Catholics Debating: Back President or Pope on Iraq? By LAURIE GOODSTEIN McLEAN, Va., March 5 — As Ash Wednesday dawned gray and misty over St. John's Parish, 12 Roman Catholics set off after the 6:30 a.m. Mass, as they do every weekday, for coffee, fellowship and argument at a nearby Starbucks.   No scones or pastries today, they told the servers at the counter. Pope John Paul II asked all Catholics to fast and pray on Ash Wednesday for peace, especially in Iraq. The ash still dark on their foreheads, the parishioners offered a prayer before downing their caffè lattes.   On the prospects of war with Iraq, almost all of them find themselves in a bind: as conservative Catholics, they follow the pope, but as conservative Americans, they support the president. They, like many other religious Americans, are more deeply indecisive and ambivalent than their religious leaders appear to be.   The pope has repeatedly appealed to world leaders to avoid a war, and today a papal envoy, Cardinal Pio Laghi, carried the message directly to President Bush. Last week, Catholic bishops in the United States issued their third antiwar declaration of the last four months.   "Read the pope's last statement," said Brian J. Doherty, 44, a union official and outspoken antiwar voice at the session. "Our Holy Father said we are on our way to giving in to the logic of war. He warned us about falling into this trap."   Charles R. McCarthy, a corporate lawyer who is 64, quipped, "We may go to war with the Vatican, who knows." He added somberly, "I am for this war, but I'll tell you, we are on shaky ground ecclesiastically."   Religious leaders of nearly every denomination and faith have condemned an American attack on Iraq. Only the Southern Baptist Convention and some evangelical and Pentecostal leaders have rallied behind the president. Jewish leaders are deeply split.   In religious journals, seminaries and informal discussions like this coffee after Mass, the prospect of a pre-emptive attack on Iraq has set off an intense debate among people of faith over whether such a war would qualify as a "just war" in Christian teaching.   "The rest of the world sees us as a big bully," said Lucas Gallegos, 80, a retired pastry chef who travels frequently to Europe to teach his craft. "But if we can come out of this and show the world that we didn't go in there to conquer and take the spoils, but to bring about peace, then we will show that it was a just war."   The regulars at the coffee circle here range in age from 32 to 84; most are men, and while many work as lobbyists or government staff members across the Potomac River in Washington, there are also two union officials, a retired dermatologist and his daughter, a teacher. They are members and daily communicants in a conservative parish in the conservative diocese of Arlington, one of only two Catholic dioceses in the United States that still bans altar girls.   Polls have shown that while many American Catholics revere the pope, they disregard church teaching on issues like birth control and the death penalty.   The principles of a "just war" were first developed by St. Augustine in the fifth century and expanded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th. For a war to be considered just, it must meet the following criteria: have a just cause, meaning that it confronts a danger beyond question; be declared by a legitimate authority acting on behalf of the people; be driven by the right intention, not ulterior economic or other motives; be the last resort; be proportional, so that the harm inflicted does not outweigh the good achieved; and have a reasonable chance of success.   Today and Tuesday after dawn Mass, St. John's parishioners settled into velveteen club chairs at Starbucks and whittled down the just war principles until the point of contention was reduced to whether an attack on Iraq was a pre-emptive offense or defensive.   Several argued that in an age of biological warfare and nuclear weapons, the traditional understanding of just war theory had grown obsolete and was due for revision.   "You have already seen the damage that can be inflicted, and that was 9-11, so what more convincing do you need?" William C. Doherty Jr., Brian Doherty's father, who is 76 and retired from working in the labor movement said at the Tuesday session.   Mr. McCarthy, the lawyer, said, "Kind of Crusade-like, isn't it?"   On Tuesday morning, the group was joined by their pastor, the Rev. Edward C. Hathaway, who has been in the parish for three years. His father was a Navy pilot and his two older brothers went to the Air Force Academy, he said, "So maybe I'm more trusting" when the commander in chief says war is necessary.   He asked questions and floated the notion that war could be seen not as a pre-emptive strike, but a continuation of the Persian Gulf war, which was never completed because Saddam Hussein failed to disarm.   He told the group that the pope is not a pacifist, but said he was not surprised at the pontiff's interventions to prevent war.   "You're never going to hear the Holy Father say, go to war. You can wait forever to hear that," Father Hathaway said.   At that, Bill, 37, a government relations specialist who would not give his surname for fear of his employer's disapproval, said, "I expect the Holy Father to pray for peace, and the U.S. Marines to bring it about."   Last Sunday, the homily at St. John's was delivered by the Rev. Cosmas R. K'Otienoh, a Kenyan priest serving as a pastor in residence. He lost friends in the bombing of the United States embassy in Nairobi and moved to the Washington area only to experience the terror of Sept. 11 from a Metro train.   However, he gently suggested that although the American goal of ridding the world of a tyrant is noble, it may not justify the risk of harming Iraqi civilians, of whom "50 percent are 15 years and younger."   Afterward, Father K'Otienoh said, about half the parishioners who responded thanked him, but the other half said he was misguided.   He said in an interview that he understood the mixed reception.   "On the one hand they take the teachings of the Holy Father very seriously, and on the other hand, there is this actual threat, particularly after Sept. 11, that has put people on edge, and I can understand those fears," Father K'Otienoh said. "It's a tall order for many Catholics to say, let's listen to the Holy Father."   8:34:56 PM

Moral Clarity   Whoa!   Remember that moral clarity displayed by the Resident?   Stunning!   You think he would have expected to get a question or two about North Korea (he got only two). What were his answers?   I’ll let Josh Marshall deliver the punch lines: Question number two tonight in the president's news conference was on the North Korea crisis. The answer was depressing. And the message was clear: we have no policy. The president wants help from the Chinese, South Koreans, Russians, Japanese, etc. etc. etc. Can anybody help? Does anyone have a policy we can borrow? Does anyone have another question? Next question.   Here's the quote of the day from today's Nelson Report ...   It would be difficult to exaggerate the growing mixture of anger, despair, disgust, and fear actuating the foreign policy community in Washington as the attack on Iraq moves closer, and the North Korea crisis festers with no coherent U.S. policy. We get the phone calls and e-mails from all over this Administration, Capitol Hill, the think tanks, and even fellow scribblers. We've never seen anything like it, and we've been here since 1966.   This is a bad situation, getting worse. And the unavoidable truth is that we don't have a policy and because of that we're letting it hang. -- Josh Marshall   At about a quarter-to-nine the president got a straight-up question. I don't have the transcript. But it was basically: Are we willing to allow the North Koreans to become a nuclear power? Are you starting to get concerned? (This is the "red-line" question.) As I heard his answer it was: "It's an issue. I'm concerned." He then went on into a miscellany about diplomacy and allies. -- Josh Marshall 8:11:18 PM

Even Iraq-Hawks Are Having Second Thoughts… …given how bumbling and inept has been the Bushies stage-managing of their already-made decision in favor of a “splendid little war” in Iraq.   Yep, ol' Resident “ AWOL during Viet Nam” thought Iraq would be a cake-walk to election in ’04 but instead it has provided a window for people in this country to see how the rest of the world (read: people not spoon-fed propagandistic pablum by a jingoistic press) thinks of the Resident’s “reasoning process.”   Could Iraq be the cigar that explodes in Bush’s face?   If so he won’t be alone because it will be the rest of us left holding the bag (and the bill) - occupying a hostile nation of rightfully angry enemies dedicated to eradicating our “crusader state.” Not to mention the goodwill and diplomatic capital destroyed in the process of bullying the world and bombing a nation incapable of threatening us back to the stone age.   Give a quick read to Chris Suellentrop's piece from yesterday on Ken Pollack. Here's one of several good passages ...   Six months after The Threatening Storm's publication, however, Pollack's book reads as much like an indictment of the Bush administration's overeagerness to go to war as it does an endorsement of it. A more appropriate subtitle for the book would have been The Case for Rebuilding Afghanistan, Destroying al-Qaida, Setting Israel and Palestine on the Road to Peace, and Then, a Year or Two Down the Road After Some Diplomacy, Invading Iraq. In interviews and op-ed articles, Pollack himself still supports the war, saying that now is better than never. But it's fair to say that his book does not—or at least not Bush's path to it.   This point goes too often unmade. -- Josh Marshall   8:04:45 PM

Your Media at Work Yep, here’s a telling insight into how the egos and personal needs of today’s celebrity media drives the nation's discourse.   Of course, Lloyd Grove is no muckraker whose aim is to uncover the double-standards of the “Cadillac conservatives”; he’s a “gossip columnist” – enough said.   But he does provide some laughs for us today… and while he informs us of the “Doc’s” seminarian past he also managed to omit that both media celebs “Doctor” McLaughlin and Pat Buchanan were speechwriters for Nixon.   That “librul” media…   (thanks to altercation for link)     Doctor McLaughlin's Trash Talk By Lloyd Grove Tuesday, March 4, 2003; Page C03   Mild-mannered Mayor Tony Williams is feuding with shouting head John McLaughlin, who devoted much of last weekend's "McLaughlin Group" and all of "John McLaughlin's One on One" to trashing the D.C. government and suggesting that home rule be suspended.   "Shame on you, John McLaughlin," Hizzoner scolded yesterday, as he branded McLaughlin's home rule idea "patronizing and insulting." The mayor's comments were in a news release issued to rebut the former Jesuit priest's televised claims that last month's snowfall "paralyzed the nation's capital for days," and that Washington is beset by crime, corruption, budget deficits and "an avalanche of calamities, mostly man-made, afflicting . . . al Qaeda's number one world target."   Yesterday Williams's communications director, Tony Bullock, told us he thinks he knows why McLaughlin slammed the mayor: Immediately after the blizzard, city officials didn't grant the TV host preferential treatment when minions for "Dr. McLaughlin," as they refer to their boss, repeatedly phoned and demanded that a snowplow be deployed to McLaughlin's residential street in the pricey Massachusetts Avenue Heights neighborhood.   "Is Dr. McLaughlin a medical doctor? If so, we might have dug him out for a medical emergency," Bullock said sarcastically. He added that "One on One" producer Matthew Faraci -- whom he derided as "McLaughlin's chief twit" -- kept phoning city officials "to dig out the good doctor's driveway." Faraci told us he phoned once or twice. But Bullock continued: "Dr. McLaughlin jumped up and down to have special accommodations for him at a time when we were transporting the police officers and medical personnel for people who needed emergency attention. This was an astonishing fit of petulance and personal pique."   McLaughlin, who complained yesterday that he personally had to shovel snow blocking a four-wheel-drive vehicle that was to take him to his Feb. 20 taping downtown, told us that policy concerns, not pique, prompted his attacks on Williams. "We had that ['One on One'] show on the boards for months," McLaughlin said, though he acknowledged that the timing was a direct consequence of his snow troubles.   On "The McLaughlin Group," panelists Tony Blankley and Eleanor Clift answered the host's blasts with a stout defense of the District's snow-removal performance. And panelist Pat Buchanan noted, "John, what I conclude is that they did not dig you out until Friday, is that correct?"   7:59:09 PM

While Nukes Are Obtained, Bush Vacillates This just makes me ill…   A true threat to our nation and to our allies grows more dangerous by the day…   And the Resident who is so willing to invoke 9/11 (which occurred in part due to his own lax attitude towards security issues) simply does nothing because it may infringe upon the time allotted to his dynastic conquests.   A Resident who when asked tough questions ducks and hides behind “ I took an oath to defend the US” can’t even defend us from North Korea?!?   Ask yourself this – what if this happened under Clinton? What would the media heads be saying then?   Sometimes it’s hard to figure who is a worse threat to this nation’s well-being – the wing-nuts in the GOP or their enablers in the media…   Democrats Fault White House Efforts on North Korea By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, March 6, 2003; Page A13   Senate Democrats accused the Bush administration yesterday of failing to stem North Korea's nuclear threat, even as White House officials said they were using all available diplomatic avenues to block the communist nation from developing nuclear weapons.   In a news conference with former Clinton administration officials, several senators suggested that President Bush had essentially acquiesced to North Korea's drive to develop a nuclear bomb.   "The White House continues to sit back and watch, playing down the threat and apparently playing for time," said Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.). "But time is not on our side." Other speakers included former defense secretary William J. Perry, former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright and former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger.   Perry described Korea as "the most dangerous spot in the world today."   "We cannot wait this out," Perry said. "In a few months, the North Koreans will have five or six nuclear bombs. That fundamentally changes the situation."   Later in the day in a Senate floor speech, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said: "I am increasingly alarmed that this administration's military and diplomatic fixation on waging war with Iraq is serving to overshadow and possibly eclipse the mounting crisis in North Korea."   White House officials said they were determined to halt the development of nuclear weapons despite published reports, including one in The Washington Post, saying the administration and several Asian governments were resigned to North Korea's developing nuclear arms. The reports suggested the administration primarily was seeking to prevent Pyongyang from selling nuclear material abroad.   Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said the United States and its allies were working "to make certain that there is a denuclearized [Korean] peninsula. And that's why we're working so hard on this, and why we have called directly and publicly for North Korea to dismantle its nuclear programs."   Fleischer declined to say whether the administration would consider the reprocessing of fuel in a North Korean reactor crossing "a red line."   "But, obviously, what is important here is for North Korea to recognize the damage it is doing to itself, the economic harm that it brings on its own people, who are among the poorest and the most isolated and the most hungry in the world, as a result of a country that diverts its few resources away from the people and toward the military," he said. "And what's important is that they dismantle the program, that they not engage in further provocative or reckless actions."   Tensions between the United States and North Korea escalated this week after North Korean jets intercepted and shadowed a U.S. reconnaissance plane over the Sea of Japan.   7:45:23 PM

Resident Speaks… …or at least strings together three worlds at a time while fumbling badly to run out the clock.   Really, have you ever seen a more pathetic performance?   No, not the supposed “most powerful man in the world” unable to articulate a coherent thought or utter an even remotely plausible answer to the - really not at all difficult - questions. Although that was truly pathetic – like a school kid meandering along - start stop start stop - until he thinks to toss in a few memorized lines (that are irrelevant to the point) and then finish up like he answered the question or even said anything of rational meaning.   No, I mean the media applauding him afterward for not collapsing into a quivering, thumb-sucking fetal-position.   And how did you like the pretense that “Bush hasn’t decided for war yet”?   But of course the whores (integrity bought and paid for) in the media merely said “thank you, may I have another.”   Truly, it is scary to see how inept and shallow the current resident is.   But even more frightening that he has such little regard for the public that he continues to mouth lies concerning “al Quaeda-like” operations and obfuscations concerning “weapons of mass destruction” – an obfuscation designed wholly to blur the issue of what weapons Iraq may have and how dangerous to us they may be. He can’t admit Iraq’s nuclear program is kaput but yet somehow has time to throw verbal bouquets to North Korea?   But the most frightening and scariest thing of all is to see all the courtiers in the media bend and twist the “truth” to accommodate whatever tune comes down the pike from this illegitimate resident, this dangerous, and ignorant man of privilege. 7:37:08 PM

Dems Finally Clue In Yes, that’s right, it seems that the Dems in the Senate have finally figured out what the rest of us have realized for far too long: that the GOP doesn’t play fair with judicial nominations.   While the GOP had virtually slowed confirmations to a trickle during the last six years of the Clinton Admin they turned around and cried foul when the Dems actually increased the pace of confirmations during the period of time when the Senate was under Democratic control during the last two years.   Not content with that – of course! – the GOP has now decided to try and push for even more extreme and partisan appointees – to fill vacancies that should have been filled years before under Clinton but were not.   Finally the Dems have shown a little backbone and given the GOP a small taste of its own medicine. It should do more – it should filibuster every nominee until all the Clinton nominees that were deep-sixed by GOP stalling and delaying tactics are re-appointed, or at least until a popularly elected president occupies the white house.   Democrats block Estrada nomination - - - - - - - - - - - - By JESSE J. HOLLAND March 6, 2003  |  WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Republicans failed Thursday to break a Democratic blockade on Miguel Estrada's nomination for a federal appeals court judgeship, dealing President Bush his first major defeat since the GOP won control of Congress last November.   *The 55-44 vote after four weeks of ethnic-tinged debate was five votes short of the 60 needed to end what had evolved into a Democractic filibuster against Estrada. Bush nominated him two years ago to become the first Hispanic on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.   Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the GOP will try again later to break the filibuster but added that the Senate will turn to other business in the interim. Frist would have to file a motion two days ahead of any new vote on Estrada.   The D.C. circuit - which decides important government cases involving separation of powers, the role of the federal government, the responsibilities of federal officials and the authority of federal agencies - currently has four Democratic appointees and four Republicans.   Only one judicial nominee has ever been stopped through a Senate filibuster: the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice in 1968. President Lyndon B. Johnson withdrew the nomination after the Senate rejected cloture.   Republicans say they will not withdraw Estrada's nomination.   "If we need to, we will vote on cloture again and again," Frist said. "Let me be clear: the majority will press for an up and down vote on this nominee until Miguel Estrada is confirmed."   Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota warned that future votes will have the same result.   "The vote will not change regardless of how many votes are cast," Daschle said. "We feel strongly as a caucus and will continue to hold our position as a caucus." Only four Democrats broke ranks: Sens. Zell Miller of Georgia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida and John Breaux of Louisiana.   Democratic Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, missed the vote.   Frist, R-Tenn., said forcing a vote - even an unsuccessful one - would make Democrats go on the record. Attempts to persuade Democrats to end the filibuster have failed, he said, but public pressure might make them change their minds.   "I have to rely on my only alternative now," Frist said Wednesday. "That is to generate a vote so that people in this body - and indeed, the American people - can know where each member stands."   Democrats have been getting pressure from conservative Hispanic groups to confirm Estrada, who would become the first Hispanic on the Washington, D.C., court. Republicans hope the battle over Estrada - a 41-year-old Honduran immigrant who graduated from Harvard Law School, served in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration and practices law - will help win Hispanic votes for their party.   Democrats insist they will not allow a final vote on Estrada until the Washington lawyer answers more of their questions in a public hearing or the White House releases Estrada's working papers from his time at the Justice Department solicitor general's office.   "We have simply asked that Mr. Estrada fill out his application for this lifetime employment as every other one of his predecessors has," Daschle said Wednesday.   The White House refuses to release the information or provide Estrada for another public hearing. Instead, it has offered to make Estrada available for private meetings with senators and have suggested Democrats talk to Estrada's past employers.   Hispanics are the nation's largest minority, at 37 million, and make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, Census Bureau estimates showed in January. Many Democrats reject claims that the Estrada battle would cost them votes, saying they support policies on education, immigration and other issues that Hispanics favor.   7:01:11 PM

Why Now? You might be asking yourself that question about a lot of questions, like “why war now,” “why privatize Medicare now,” “why object to blocking judicial appointments now” but in this case I meant the phrase with regard to “why a (p)residential news conference now?   After all this Resident has only held seven press conferences in over two years – and a far from fun-filled two years at that. His drive for war has been on for at least as long and yet he has never felt the need to address the press with regard to it… why now?   I think the following story has a lot to do with why Resident “I don’t read polls” has suddenly decided to actively re-enlist his fans in the fourth estate for the war case:   Poll: unnamed Democrat leads Bush The "as-yet-unnamed" Democratic presidential nominee has a slight edge over President Bush, according to the latest national Quinnipiac poll.   Almost half of those surveyed -- 48 percent -- said they would support the Democratic candidate, while 44 percent said they would vote for Bush. The poll of 1,232 registered voters, conducted Feb. 26-March 3, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.   Among those identified as independents, 46 percent favored the Democratic Party nominee while 39 percent chose the Republican president.…   Overall, Bush's job approval was at 53 percent, with 39 percent disapproving. Only 9 percent said they were "very satisfied" with the country's direction, while 26 percent were "very dissatisfied."   6:50:31 PM