Wednesday, July 06, 2005

The Republican Fight Over the Court:  What's It All About, Alfie?   The White House is making ever-greater noises that they are feuding with the religious right over who the President's selection to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor should be.  I can only imagine two reasons for this:  one is that the President has his heart set on appointing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as Justice, and that he wants all the arguments with his fellow right-wingers stamped out before the nomination goes forward.  At the moment, I still think this is the more likely possibility.  For one thing, any Republican President is going to try very hard to prevent Roe v. Wade from being overturned, and thus causing abortion to be an issue on which pro-choice voters are as likely to decide their votes as pro-life ones.  As a Justice of the Texas courts, Gonzales ruled in favor of abortion, and would thus likely preserve the voting majority for choice.   I'd like to point out, without getting into the dubious issue of what their actual intent was, that Reagan appointed a pro-choice Justice, as did Bush the Elder.  If either President had wanted Roe overturned, it would have been. The other possibility, however, seems to grow more likely with each day the noise over this supposed controversy continues.  That is the chance that the President wants to nominate an ultra-conservative, and he is relying on carefully choreographed phony complaints by other extreme conservatives to convince the public and the Senate that his nominee is much less conservative than he actually is. If dwelling on that second possibility makes me sound paranoid, well, that's fair; I probably am.  It doesn't mean I'm not right. 8:06:34 PM    comment []

A Right Step Not Taken Far Enough   The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has begun running ads in 6 Republican Congressional districts attacking the incumbents for being in the pocket of special interests, and being ethically challenged.  This is fine.  This is good.  I am all for it.  And what's more, it is an attack that can be expanded upon.  Dozens upon dozens of Congressmen of both parties have committed ethical violations, even if only the late reporting of special interest-funded travel.  The unethical Congressmen's usual defense is that the ethics rules are confusing and arcane.  This is simply false.  The ethics rules are almost painfully simple. Here is an summary of the rules (see if it strikes you as unclear):  "The Code of Ethics for Government Service articulates broad ethical guidelines for 'all Government employees, including officeholders.'...Among other things, the Code stresses that any person in Government service should:  'adhere to the highest moral principles; give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; never discriminate unfairly by dispensing special favors; never accept favors or benefits that might be construed as influencing the performance of governmental duties; make no private promises binding on the duties of office; engage in no business with the Government inconsistent with the performance of governmental duties; and never use information received confidentially in the performance of governmental duties for making private profit.'" The problem is that these charges of ethical corruption on the part of a large and growing number of Republican Congressmen is perfectly true, but it will seem unconvincing as long as Democrats are unwilling to investigate Democratic as well as Republican Congressmen.  Some good Congressmen will be tainted along with the bad; but there is so much bad behavior, and the corrupting of Congress has led to such extremism and unwillingness to compromise on, or even think about, the issues, that Democrats should demonstrate their devotion to ethics is sweeping and complete.  They need to call for investigations of every Congressman who may have done something wrong; not some, not most, but every single one.  Tom DeLay faces serious, even grave, charges, and he will be investigated.  Nancy Pelosi faces much less serious charges, and they should be looked into as well. If Democrats continue to challenge the ethical situation in Washington, and are willing to challenge the bad apples in their own party, changes might just be made in Washington.  And there might just be a change of regime in the House of Representatives as well. 11:44:53 AM    comment []

Two Deaths   Admiral Stockdale, Ross Perot's 1992 running mate, is saying, "Who am I?  And what am I doing here?" in Heaven now. And the great British lyric playwright Christopher Fry, who wrote The Lady's Not For Burning, among others, passed on over the weekend, at the age of 97.  A quote:  "What, after all, Is a halo?  It's only one more thing to keep clean."  I'd think other potential problems with halos are the possibility of it banging into ceilings, or the light from a halo keeping you up when you want to sleep.  I imagine he has finally find out if he was right about the nuisance factor of halos. 9:10:24 AM    comment []

Quote for the Day, 7/6/2005   "Aristotle stimulates you.  He keeps you guessing...Take what he says about snake's legs--or lack of legs, rather.  He says snakes have no legs because, if they had any, they would have only two or four, and that wouldn't be nearly enough.  You can stay up all night figuring that one."   -Will Cuppy, How to Become Extinct, "Aristotle, Indeed" 4:48:38 AM    comment []