Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Polls, Progressives, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Senate | Tags: Congress, Democrats, Fail, Florida, Hispanics, Judge Sotomayor, Judiciary, Lindsey Graham, Mel Martinez, Numbers, Republicans, South Carolina
Turning back to domestic politics for a bit, the GOP is failing to reap political benefits from opposing Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court:
Nearly a month after President Barack Obama picked her for the Supreme Court, Republican senators say Sonia Sotomayor isn’t serving as the political lightning rod some in their party had hoped she would be.
“She doesn’t have the punch out there in terms of fundraising and recruiting, I think — at least so far,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who most likely will be elected as the No. 4 Republican in Senate leadership this week.
[...]
“Right now, you don’t have the fever pitch you did over the filibuster,” said [Sen. Lindsey]Graham, a member of the Judiciary Committee. “It depends on how she does [at the hearings]. If she performs well, no. If she performs poorly, potentially, yes.”
“I don’t think she’s the kind of person that invites that kind of reaction,” said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) of the possibility of making major political gains over Sotomayor’s nomination. “I don’t think her judicial record warrants the ability to do that with her.”
Who could have imagined that an experienced, talented, highly-accomplished judge with a history of moderate, sensible decisions would turn out to be completely uncontroversial?
The GOP bungled this from the start. They only had two options–filibuster or let Sotomayor slide. It would have been extremely hard for them to filibuster; in fact, it’s likely Sotomayor will be confirmed by a wide margin.
Therefore, conservatives would have been smart just to let Obama have his nominee and avoid a political battle. Plus, going along with him on this one would have helped dispel the perception that the GOP is made up of kneejerk obstructionists; sometimes, a little bipartisanship can go a long way.
Instead, conservatives attacked Judge Sotomayor from the start, desperately grasping at one ineffective attack after the next, clearly lacking any semblance of a strategy. Now conservatives are being forced to eat their words as the likelihood of Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation looms.
It looks like Republicans have become completely politically tone-deaf. They obstruct for the sake of obstructing without giving a single thought to whether or not they can succeed; they waste political capital on battles they can never hope to win, and then pat themselves on the back for their self-defeating and ultimately pointless opposition. Once again, the GOP has failed to deliver; no wonder people are abandoning their party in droves.
UPDATE: Hispanics, especially, are abandoning the GOP in droves:
The latest numbers from the nonpartisan Research 2000 for Daily Kos find that only eight percent of Latinos view the [GOP] favorably, while an astonishing 86 percent view it unfavorably.
That’s a real shift from what were already pretty bad numbers from before the Sotomayor nominatino, when 11% of Latinos viewed the GOP favorably, and 79% viewed it unfavorably.
One of the big stories today is that Republicans are realizing that there’s no political percentage in fighting the Sotomayor nomination. It’s striking that Latino opinion about the GOP is dropping so fast, even at a moment when GOP opposition to Sotomayor appears to be flagging, as opposed to intensifying.
This continuing drop among Latinos, coming at a time when many party strategists recognize the party’s desperate need to broaden its appeal, only reminds us that not only are there few apparent upsides in opposing Sotomayor, there are potentially serious costs, too.
[Emphasis mine]
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Progressives, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights | Tags: Constitution, Democrats, Judge Sotomayor, Judiciary, Pappas v Giuliani, Racism, Republicans, Sonia Sotomayor
One of the prevalent anti-Sotomayor talking points on the right is that Judge Sotomayor uses race–not the letter of the law–to decide certain cases. This is the basis of the right’s ‘racism’ and ‘racialist’ attacks on Sotomayor–the assumption that she substitutes her background for the rule of law.
Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that Judge Sotomayor actually does that. Conservatives will point to the Ricci case, where Judge Sotomayor–along with two other justices–agreed with a lower court ruling that the city of New Haven could throw out an aptitude test for promoting firefighters on the grounds that the test they were used was racially biased. But their decision was hardly controversial–they upheld a lower court’s decision that the city of New Haven could correct systematic racial bias.
A more revealing case to look at here is Judge Sotomayor’s dissent in Pappas v. Giuliani. Thomas Pappas was fired from the NYPD when they discovered he was sending racist and anti-Semitic literature through the mail while off-duty. Sotomayor’s colleagues upheld the firing, claiming that Pappas’ racist speech was of public concern and, therefore, interfered with the operations of the NYPD.
But Judge Sotomayor dissented, claiming that the NYPD infringed on Pappas’ freedom of speech by firing him for what he did while off-duty. That’s right–Judge Sonia Sotomayor sided with a white racist on 1st amendment grounds, which hardly sounds like the actions of a ‘racislist’ judge to me.
Of course, we all know that the right’s talking points aren’t grounded in reality. But Pappas v. Giuliani blows a huge hole in conservatives’ attempts to portray Judge Sotomayor as some kind of racist radical or Latino supremecist. Judge Sotomayor is a fair-minded justice who puts the law ahead of everything else. In one case, she sided with a group of minorities; in another, she sided with a white racist. To me, that’s a pattern not of racialism, but of respect for the rule of law.
Filed under: Breaking, Conservatives, Government, House, Progressives, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine | Tags: Congress, Fail, Judiciary, Newt Gingrich, Racism, Republicans, Sonia Sotomayor
Newt Gingrich is walking back his smear of Judge Sotomayor as ‘racist’:
My initial reaction was strong and direct — perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice.
With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word “racist” should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted).
[Emphasis mine]
Hear that, Republicans? It’s the sound of your opposition campaign against Judge Sotomayor imploding.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Progressives, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights | Tags: Courts, Democrats, Judiciary, Racism, Republicans, Sandra Day O'Connor, SCOTUS, Sexism, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court
Let’s debunk some right-wing talking points on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, shall we?
Judge Sotomayor said that the appeals courts make policy! That proves she’s an activist judge!
While it’s true that Judge Sotomayor said:
All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made
She did follow that up with:
I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it.
“She’s not wrong,” said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. “Of course they make policy… You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy.”
[...]
Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, was equally dismissive of this emerging conservative talking point. “She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals… It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue.”
[Emphasis mine]
Sotomayor said that Latina judges are better than white male judges! That’s racist!
It’s true that Judge Sotomayor said:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Actually, the full sentence is:
Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Looks like we’re missing some context here; keep in mind that Judge Sotomayor was discussing race and sex discrimination cases when she made these remarks:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [Benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
[Emphasis mine]
Sounds a lot less controversial when you put everything in context, huh?
Many of Sotomayor’s rulings have been overturned upon appeal, which proves that she’s an inferior judge.
Actually, Judge Sotomayor’s record on reversals is far above average:
Over each of the last several terms, the [Supreme Court] has reversed 75% of the cases that have come before it.
[...]
Sotomayor’s decisions were upheld far more frequently than the norm. Apparently, out of the 380-odd opinions she penned while on the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court granted cert on just six. And of those six, Sotomayor was reversed on only three. That’s a .500 batting average
[Emphasis mine]
So while the Supreme Court reverses 75% of the rulings they review, they have reversed only 50% of Sotomayor’s rulings they reviewed.
Filed under: Conservatives, Media, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine | Tags: 2006, Maryland, Michael Steele, North Carolina, RNC, RNC Chair, Stupidity, Virginia
Ladies and Gentlemen, RNC Chairman Michael Steele:
The RNC’s first black chairman will “surprise everyone” when updating the party’s image using the Internet and advertisements on radio, on television and in print, he told The Washington Times.
I wonder if Steele knows that that political advertising on the internet, radio and television isn’t a new concept. Is he really hoping that putting out a bunch of ads saying the Republican Party isn’t as bad as you think it is will surprise anyone, let alone everyone? I’d be more surprised if the Republican Party didn’t advertise.
“There was underlying concerns we had become too regionalized and the party needed to reach beyond our comfort” zones, he said, citing defeats in such states as Virginia and North Carolina. “We need messengers to really capture that region – young, Hispanic, black, a cross section …
Look, people aren’t stupid–they can figure out if your party’s policies are good or bad for them. Finding minorities to read GOP talking points and/or run for political office won’t in and of itself win the Republican party minority voters, mostly because those voters know that the GOP’s policies are still bad for them.
And Steele should know that people vote on a lot more than just their race. I mean, he was defeated in his run for Senate despite being an African-American in a state with a sizable African-American population. You actually have to work to make people’s lives better in order to earn their support–having the same skin color or ethnic background doesn’t cut it, and it’s pretty insulting to assume that those are all minority voters look at.
We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-surburban hip-hop settings.”
Asked if this venture will be cutting-edge, Steele replied, “I don’t do ‘cutting-edge.’ That’s what Democrats are doing. We’re going beyond cutting-edge.”
First off, “urban” and “suburban” are completely different culturally–you can’t lump them together with a hyphen. More to the point, people tend to have a host of political concerns that have very little to do with what kind of setting they live in.
Second, I can’t think of anything less hip-hop than the Republican Party. I think certified public accountants and and corporate tax attorneys are more hip-hop than the GOP.
More importantly, does anyone realize that the Republican Party has, essentially, a walking gimmick as their chairman? Talking about making your party more “urban-suburban” and “hip-hop” aren’t going to fix anything; they’re band-aids that only paper over the GOP’s real problem: terrible ideas that very few people support anymore.
The problem isn’t the GOP’s advertising, it’s what that advertising is trying to sell. You can have the slickest ads and most well-crafted image in the world, but your sales will still be terrible if your product is garbage. Personally, I wonder how much time the GOP is going to waste focusing on the superficial garbage before they realize that it’s their product itself that needs to change.
UPDATE: Eric Kleefeld hits the nail on the head:
This sort of sounds like a middle-aged man talking to his kids, trying to his utter best to sound as if he’s cool.
UPDATE II: Behold the hip-hop GOP:
Nah, I take that back; that video’s still cooler than the hip-GOP will ever be.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Polls, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights | Tags: 1980, 2nd Amendment, Congress, Elections, Republicans, Ronald Reagan
Charlie Cook writes:
At a time when Republicans should be starting to think about how they can expand their party to reclaim those who abandoned it, the party is instead lurching ever more to the right, exacerbating its problems. Many people who watched the recent debate between contenders for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee came away thinking that the only memorable moments were when each candidate expressed love and devotion for Ronald Reagan and when all but one bragged about how many guns they own. Not to belittle the importance of Reagan’s iconic status or the Second Amendment, but when the only takeaways are about the importance of a political figure who last won an election a quarter-century ago and how big a person’s arsenal is, these guys are not hot prospects to chair the GOP’s Welcome Wagon, much less to lead the party out of its wilderness.
[Emphasis mine]
And TPM reports:
The Politico reports that South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson has publicly traced his political coming of age to the civil rights movement — that is, opposition to 1960’s busing policies. “Government reached into my life and grabbed me and shook me at the age of 15,” Dawson told a University of South Carolina audience in 2003.
The star of this particular show has been Chip Saltsman, who sent out a CD to committee members containing a song called “Barack the Magic Negro.”
[Emphasis added]
The GOP isn’t a big tent–they’re a pup tent, and they’re shrinking by the day.
In recent decades, the Republican Party has won by catering strongly to a certain demographic of voters–mostly lower-income, less-educated whites. They have become the Republican base and the GOP had electoral success by turning out huge numbers of those voters.
Now the GOP’s base is shrinking while the population of people maligned by the GOP in order to appeal to their base is growing. Therein lies the paradox–the GOP narrowed their focus to appeal to their base, but their base has become so small it no wins them elections (you can read more about that here).
The Republican Party’s problems aren’t cosmetic, they’re structural. The GOP will need to make major changes in order to make an electoral comeback; band-aids won’t work.
But almost no Republicans currently in office see this; they think hollow sloganeering and a facelift are all their party need. How many elections will the GOP effectively cede to the Democrats before they realize they, too, need to embrace change? Or will it take an entirely new generation of Republicans to get elected before the GOP realizes that the tactics which got them elected 29 years ago don’t work anymore?
Filed under: 2010 Election, Conservatives, Governors, House, Polls, Progressives, Race, Senate | Tags: Carol Shea-Porter, Congress, Jay Nixon, Jim Talent, John Lynch, Judd Gregg, Kenny Hulshof, Minnesota State Treasurer, Missouri Secretary of State, MO-SEN, NH-SEN, Numbers, Paul Hodes, Robin Carnahan, Roy Blunt, Sarah Steelman
In Missouri, preliminary polling–which should be taken with a huge grain of salt–shows Secretary of State Robin Carnahan edging out former Senator Jim Talent, Rep. Roy Blunt, and former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman in the race to succeed retiring Sen. Kit Bond:
* Against former Sen. Jim Talent, who narrowly lost re-election in 2006, Carnahan is ahead 47%-43%.
* Against Rep. Roy Blunt, who recently stepped down as House Minority Whip, Carnahan has a statistically insignificant edge of 45%-44%.
* Against former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman, who lost in the GOP primary for governor last year, Carnahan has a healthier lead of 47%-36%, but is nevertheless below 50%.
[...]
Carnahan is probably further ahead of her opponents than the numbers might indicate. Her lead among African Americans over Blunt and Talent is only 54-30. Early polling tends to underestimate black support for Democratic candidates. For instance when PPP first surveyed the Gubernatorial race in Missouri, back in July, Jay Nixon led Kenny Hulshof only 52-27 among black voters. According to the exit poll, Nixon ended up taking 90% of it to Hulshof’s 7. It seems reasonable to think that Carnahan will end up performing similarly with African American voters, which means she’s running pretty close to 50%.
Carnahan is neither a shoo-in for the primary or the general, but this shows that she would certainly be a strong contender in still-red Missouri.
In New Hampshire, popular Gov. John Lynch will not run against Sen. Judd Gregg in 2010:
Gov. John Lynch said today he will not be a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010.
Lynch, a Democrat, acknowledged speculation in political circles that he might challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg. He said he plans to focus on budget issues here in New Hampshire.
“I can tell you that although I don’t know what I’ll be doing in 2010, I’m not going to run for the United States Senate. So, that shouldn’t be a distraction as I continue to work on the budget.”
This is disappointing news–Lynch would have been a strong candidate, perhaps the strongest, to take out Gregg.
But there is a silver lining here–this opens the door for Reps. Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter to run. Between the two, Hodes polls better against Gregg than Porter, so he’d be my choice, but Hodes still trails by a bit too much.
Filed under: 2010 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, House, Iraq, Progressives, Race, Senate | Tags: 2010, Alex Sink, Allen Boyd, Congress, Dan Gelber, Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, Democrats, FISA, Florida, Florida Chief Financial Officer, Henry Waxman, House Armed Services Committee, House Ways & Means Committee, John Dingell, Kendrick Meek, Mel Martinez, Republicans, Roland Burris
Florida Congressman Kentrick Meek (D) will run to succeed Republican Senator Mel Martinez (R):
Democratic U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, who led the effort to put class-size limits in the state constitution, plans to announce his candidacy for the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, sources close to Meek say.
Meek would be the first major candidate to jump into the 2010 race to replace retiring Republican Sen. Mel Martinez. He plans to make the announcement at his Miami home.
Meek, 42, is beginning his fourth term in Congress. He sits on the powerful Ways & Means Committee, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. He served on the Armed Services Committee his first three terms. He also has a close relationship with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House leaders.
[...]
Meek’s announcement will likely be quickly followed by other candidates. Democrats considering a run include state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, U.S. Rep. Allen Boyd and state Sen. Dan Gelber. Gelber is likely to announce plans to run late next week.
[Emphasis added]
MyDD has more about Meek’s voting record:
Kendrick Meek’s voting record, according to Progressive Punch, puts him towards the middle of the House Democratic caucus, perhaps slightly to the right of center. Recently, Meek backed the more conservative John Dingell over the more progressive Henry Waxman in the battle over who would next chair the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, though that vote can in part be read as supportive of the seniority system rather than an ideological move. Looking at a couple more votes that garnered the attention of the netroots, Meek voted in favor of the 2007 Iraq War supplemental, putting him among a minority of House Democrats, but against FISA.
[Emphasis mine]
Meek isn’t as progressive as I would like, but he’s a fine enough Congressman and I’m sure he’d make a fine Senator.
Plus, since we don’t know who the candidates will be or what Florida’s political landscape will look like in 2010, it’s hard to judge who would be a better candidate than who. But there is definitely a pickup opportunity here, so I hope Florida Democrats play their cards right in the coming months.
And then there’s this:
If elected, Meek would be one of a small number of African-Americans in the Senate come 2011; upon his swearing-in, Roland Burris will be the only one in the 111th Congress.
Meek would also be the first African-American Senator from a Southern state since Reconstruction.
Filed under: Government, Governors, Progressives, Race, Scandal, Senate | Tags: Democrats, Harry Reid, Congress, Racism, Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, Roland Burris, Bobby Rush, Jesse White, Illinois Secretary of State
This needs to stop:
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) became Burris’ most vocal defender. He likened Senate Democratic leaders, who said they would not seat a Blagojevich appointment, to George Wallace and Bull Connor and warned Senate Democrats not to “hang or lynch” Burris. Tonight on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Rush went further, comparing the Senate’s refusal to seat Burris yesterday to one of the most violent chapters of the civil rights movement:
RUSH: It reminded me of the dogs being sicced on children in Birmingham, Alabama. That’s what it reminded me of.
The rejection of Roland Burris had nothing to do with race. Before Blagojevich made the appointment–even before we knew he would even make an appointment–all 50 Senate Democrats signed a letter pledging to oppose anyone Blagojevich appointed. That had nothing to do with race.
The Senate kept Burris out because he didn’t have a certification of his appointment signed by Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White. Yeah, they excluded Burris on a technicality, but the rule requiring a certification has been in place since 1884, and–as far as I can tell–was only violated once, in 1910. Burris wanted the Senate to break a rule that’s stood unblemished for 99 years and they refused, a decision that had nothing to do with race.
The one guy standing most in the way of Burris’ appointment to the Senate is Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, who is refusing to grant him a certification. This is White:
So the single largest source of Roland Burris’ problems is, like him, African-American. Does that put this racism nonsense to bed yet?
Look, the ‘racism’ talking point is just a cynical attempt by Bobby Rush and Team Blago to get their guy into the Senate. They know race has nothing to do with this, but they’re playing a whole deck of race cards in the hopes they can manipulate the situation and sling mud all over the Democratic caucus. Harry Reid and Senate Democrats bungled the Burris situation–badly–but it’s more than obvious their actions weren’t motivated by race.
Bobby Rush should be ashamed of himself for crying wolf and thus cheapening the struggles of those who have actually fought against racism.
Filed under: Corruption, Governors, House, Progressives, Race, Scandal, Senate | Tags: Bobby Rush, Congress, Democrats, Harry Reid, Illinois, Illinois Legislature, Illinois Secretary of State, Jesse White, Rod Blagojevich, Roland Burris
I have to say, Blagojevich’s selection of Roland Burris is almost brilliant.
Blagojevich picked someone not affiliated with any of Illinois’ political machines. He picked someone who isn’t a close ally of his. In fact, Burris has run against Blagojevich in the past, and he condemned Blagojevich’s pay-to-play scheme as “appalling.” In addition, Burris is the first African-American elected to statewide office in Illinois; he’s a distinguished public servant who has earned a lot of respect among Illinois politicians.
In other words, Blagojevich picked someone so sterling, so clean that he’s practically daring Harry Reid and the Democrats to expel him. In fact, Rep. Bobby Rush actually dared them to expel Burris:
There are no African-Americans in the Senate, and I don’t think that anyone, any U.S. Senator who is sitting right now would want to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate. I don’t think they want to go on record doing that.
[...]
Let me remind you that the state of Illinois and the people of the state of Illinois in their collective wisdom have sent two African-Americans to the U.S. Senate. That makes a difference. This is not just a state of Illinois matter … but indeed, by this decision, it has tremendous national importance.
I disagree with Rep. Rush. I don’t think that, if a Senate seat is won by a minority, it should always be held someone from that minority group. While I believe wholeheartedly in increasing the diversity of the United States Senate, America is a a democracy; we give people power because we think they will do the best job. In this case, Burris won’t be able to the best job; the taint of scandal and illegitimacy will hang over him for his entire tenure in the Senate.
Still, this puts Senate Democrats in a tough position. Under any other circumstance, Burris would be a fantastic choice. But these aren’t other circumstances. While Burris might be a good candidate with a strong record, he’s only going to the Senate because of Rod Blagojevich; that, in and of itself, disqualifies him. I just hope that Harry Reid has the spine to follow through with his promise to kick out anyone Blagojevich appoints.
UPDATE: Here’s a welcome sight–Harry Reid is showing some spine:
The Senate will not seat Roland Burris if Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich attempts to appoint him, a Democratic leadership aide said.
Majority Leader Harry Reid views Burris as “unacceptable,” the aide said.
Now, if only Reid was as willing to stand up to Republicans as he is willing to stand up to his fellow Democrats…
UPDATE II: Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White is saying he won’t certify Burris’ appointment, which would keep him from the Senate:
As I have previously stated publicly, I cannot co-sign a document that certifies any appointment by Rod Blagojevich for the vacant United State Senate seat from Illiois.
Although I have respect for former Attorney General Roland Burris, because of the current cloud of controversy surrounding the Governor, I cannot accept the document.
Of course, there’s some question as to whether White has the legal authority to defy Blagojevich. Here’s what Illinois law says about the Secretary of State’s role in appointments:
Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State:
- To countersign and affix the seal of state to all commissions required by law to be issued by the m Governor.
- To make a register of all appointments by the Governor, specifying the person appointed, the office conferred, the date of the appointment, the date when bond or oath is taken and the date filed. If Senate confirmation is required, the date of the confirmation shall be included in the register.
In other words, if White resists the appointment, this will wind up in court and it will probably be resolved in Blagojevich’s favor. The only way this appointment can be prevented–if it even can be prevented at this point–is if the Illinois legislature removes Blagojevich from office before White is compelled to certify the appointment.
We’ll just have to see how this plays out.
UPDATE III: President-elect Obama responds:
Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy
UPDATE IV: While Burris isn’t a strong Blagojevich ally, he is a supporter–Burris served as the Vice-Chair of Blagojevich’s gubernatorial transition team and has raised money for Blagojevich in the past.
Filed under: Breaking, Conservatives, Government, House, Media, Progressives, Race | Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Democrats, Department of Transportation, Diversity, Ray LaHood, Republicans, Secretary of Transporatation, Transition
There are reports that President-elect Barack Obama has chosen retiring Congressman Ray LaHood of Illinois to be his Secretary of Transportation.
Peoria Republican congressman Ray LaHood has been asked to be Transportation Secretary for the Obama Administration, a Republican source said today.
[...]
Among those LaHood maintained a friendly relationship with over the years is White House chief of staff- designate Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), whose aggressive style infuriated many Republicans but whom LaHood praised publicly for competence and pragmatism.
[...]
LaHood also has long been a favorite of reporters covering the Capitol for his willingness to say on-the-record what other members of Congress will only whisper anonymously.
He is a member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which determines spending on projects around the country, and a former member of the House Transportation Committee.
So LaHood’s appointment would increase the diversity of the cabinet in two ways, since LaHood is both a Republican and an Arab-American.
Progress Illinois has more on him:
So what can we glean about LaHood’s record on this issue? The moderate Republican has broken with his party over Amtrak funding, voting yes last summer to expand passenger rail service. In 2005, he told the Peoria Journal-Star that “we’ve got a good Amtrak system in Illinois and I don’t think we want to destroy it by talking about privatization.” In 2006, he received a 66 percent rating from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, a major transportation construction lobby. He also voted in favor of the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008, a bill to promote increased public transportation use that garnered string bi-partisan support. Other than that, we know very little.
As Ryan Avent notes, there are now two possible conclusions one can draw from the choice: either Obama doesn’t intend the DOT secretary to do the heavy lifting on his transportation policies or he doesn’t really care about transportation. During the campaign, Obama made some bold statements about transit and the energy economy, so I’m not convinced the latter has any merit. The former seems more plausible. In the meantime, we’ll just have to wait and see what LaHood has to say on Friday.
Filed under: Economics, Environment, Government, Health Care, House, Progressives, Race, Rights, Senate | Tags: Andrew Jackson, Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, Democrats, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, James Monroe, James Polk, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Ted Kennedy, USSR, Woodrow Wilson
In honor of the holiday I’m reposting one of my most popular posts, entitled Thank A Democrat:
If you’re not a wealthy landowner and you vote, thank a Democrat: Andrew Jackson got rid of laws that discriminated against working-class Americans by restricting voting to wealthy landholders.
If you’re a woman and you vote, thank a Democrat: Woodrow Wilson supported the 19th Amendment, which was passed and ratified during his Presidency.
If you have ever voted while between the ages of 18 and 21, thank a Democrat: Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed the 26th Amendment, lowering the voting age to 18.
If you never experienced racial segregation, thank a Democrat: Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which outlawed racial segregation in public schools and public places.
If you never had to take a literacy test or pay a poll tax to vote, thank a Democrat: Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, which outlawed literacy tests as a requirement for voting, as well as the 24th Amendment, which outlawed poll taxes.
If you earn a fair wage, get paid overtime and/or was never subjected to child labor, thank a Democrat: Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress passed the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, which set the first national minimum wage, created requirements for overtime compensation and outlawed child labor.
If you have ever received benefits through Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, thank a Democrat: Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress passed the Social Security Act, while Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid.
If you or your child has ever benefited from Head Start or SCHIP, thank a Democrat: Head Start was passed by Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress, while SCHIP was championed by Ted Kennedy and signed into law by Bill Clinton.
If you have ever worked in a clean, safe workplace, thank a Democrat: in 1970, the Democratic Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which created national standards for workplace cleanliness and safety.
If you or anyone in your family has taken time off work due to a serious illness, accident, or birth of a child, thank a Democrat: Chris Dodd championed the Family and Medical Leave Act, which required employers to provide paid time off for their employees due to sickness, injury or to care for a newborn child. The Democratic Congress passed FMLA, which was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
If you, your parents or your grandparents were helped by the G.I. Bill, thank a Democrat: the G.I. Bill granted veterans loans to pursue higher education and purchase houses, as well as providing unemployment benefits. It was one of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal initiatives, and it was passed by a Democratic Congress.
If you’re a woman who is paid as much as your male coworkers, thank a Democrat: Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, guaranteeing equal pay for workers regardless of their gender.
If you’ve never been discriminated against due to your age or physical disability, thank a Democrat: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act was passed by Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress, while the Americans with Disabilities Act was also passed by a Democratic Congress.
If you enjoy clean air and water, thank a Democrat: the Clean Air Act was passed by the Democratic Congress in 1963 and signed into law by Lyndon Johnson; the Clean Water Act was passed by the Democratic Congress in 1977 and signed into law by Jimmy Carter.
If you enjoy freedom and security, thank a Democrat: James Monroe established the Monroe Doctrine, which kept Europe interfering with the free Western Hemisphere. Andrew Jackson fought against the British in the War of 1812, engineering the American victory at New Orleans. James K. Polk rebuffed an invasion from Mexico and acquired the entire American southwest in the Mexican-American War. Franklin Roosevelt mobilized America to defeat fascism, turning the U.S. into a world superpower in the process. Harry Truman created the Marshall Plan–which stopped the spread of Communism in Europe– and he took the initiative in establishing NATO. John Kennedy stood up to the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis and in Southeast Asia. Bill Clinton negotiated the historic Oslo Accords between Israel and Palestine, and he helped to both end the violence in Northern Ireland and the genocide in Kosovo.
Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg. And, of course, this isn’t to say that other political parties haven’t helped people or made this country better. But I doubt there is anyone in this country who can reasonably claim that the Democratic Party has not made their lives better in some way, and I wanted to take some time to point that out.
UPDATED: Happy Thanksgiving from President-Elect Barack Obama:
Filed under: Government, International, Media, Progressives, Race, Terrorism | Tags: Al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, International, National Security Network, Richard Clarke, Terrorism
This image strikes fear into Al-Qaeda's heart.
Terrorism experts agree: Al-Qaeda is afraid of Barack Obama:
Experts agree that the release of a new tape by Al Qaeda’s second in command Ayman al-Zawahri indicates that Al Qaeda feels threatened and is on its heels after Obama’s resounding victory. President-elect Obama’s diverse background, along with his pledge to reverse many of the policies and approaches of the Bush administration on issues such as detentions at Guantanamo, torture and the war in Iraq has served to dramatically improve America’s image, especially in the Muslim world.
Counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke explained, “Most of all, by returning to American values the world admires, Obama sets al Qaeda back enormously in the battle of ideas, the ideological struggle which determines whether al Qaeda will continue to have significant support in the Islamic world.” Having thrived on the decline in America’s world image, the impact of Obama’s victory provides a direct challenge to Al Qaeda’s negative depiction of the United States. Additionally, Obama’s emphasis on shifting US attention from Iraq to Afghanistan represents a direct physical threat to Al Qaeda’s leadership. America’s improved global image and the new administration’s focus on Afghanistan threatens Al Qaeda and has led to what experts see as a confused, racist, and off-kilter response reflective of an organization on the defensive.
[Emphasis mine]
While George W. Bush pretended to scare terrorists, Barack Obama actually terrifies them.
UPDATE: More from the National Security Network.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Progressives, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Senate | Tags: 2008, Indiana, Obama-Biden, Race, Virginia
Some disturbing pictures from Indiana, posted by Dragon5616 at Daily Kos:
America is a beautiful country, hands-down the best in the world. But there’s some real hate here; something deep and ugly that Barack Obama’s candidacy has–for better or worse–dragged out into the light of day for all to see.
This reminds us that there are some people in this country who want to take us backwards–back to a time when using symbols like those was not only accepted, but encouraged. Some people want to take us back to a time where certain people couldn’t vote, either because the law kept them from the polls or because groups like the KKK forced them to stay home under the threat of certain death.
Now, electing Barack Obama won’t eliminate racism in America–I’m not sure anything can get rid of it completely. But it will go a long way toward showing everyone that hate isn’t acceptable in America anymore. It will go a long way toward marginalizing this type of extremism, toward exposing it for what it really is and pushing it out to the farthest, most distant fringes of American life.
I live in Virginia. When my state goes blue on election night, I’ll cheer, because the seat of the old Confederacy will have helped elect America’s first black President. And while that won’t kill racism in this country, it will be another nail in it’s coffin. One that is long, long overdue.
Never forget what we’re up against.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Interesting, Media, Progressives, Race, Senate | Tags: 2008, Andrew Sullivan, Obama-Biden, Race
Andrew Sullivan brings us this image from the campaign trail:
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Governors, Polls, Progressives, Race, Senate | Tags: 2008, Indiana, McCain-Palin, Numbers, Obama-Biden
From Ben Smith:
Confederate battle flag, Obama yard sign
That’s from formerly-deep-red Indiana, where Pollster has McCain at 47.5% and Obama at 46.4%.
6 more days…
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Government, Race, Rights, Scandal | Tags: 2008, ACLU, ACORN, Courts, Hypocrisy, Michigan, Race, Republicans, Rights
Only in Republican America
Now, on the one hand, Republicans are whining about ACORN’s non-existent ‘voter fraud’.
On the other hand, the GOP’s voter suppression program was just determined to be illegal by a U.S. District Judge in Michigan:
The American Civil Liberties Union is trumpeting a judge’s decision in Michigan which brings to a halt the practice of eliminating voters from rolls if their mailing address is found to be invalid.
[...]
The suit, filed by ACLU national and ACLU of Michigan, along with the Advancement Project, aimed to protect voters whose registration cards were returned to government offices by post as ‘undeliverable.’ Judge Stephen J. Murphy of the U.S. District Court of Michigan’s Eastern District concluded that the program of eliminating these voters from rolls is in violation of federal law.
The voter purge program, better known to elections integrity experts as ‘voter caging,’ is a long-storied GOP tactic employed against minority, student and low-income voters. In September, the Obama campaign filed a lawsuit in Michigan challenging the illegal tactic.
[...]
“More than 1,400 voters in that category have been disqualified so far in 2008,” reports the Associated Press. “The judge says it’s unclear how many cancellations actually are wrong but it’s a violation of federal law. Murphy says those people shouldn’t be prevented from voting if they can produce more proof of residency at the polls.”
“This program has a very detrimental impact in minority, low-income and student communities across Michigan,” claims an ACLU advisory. “These communities tend to be more transient and to live in multi-family housing.”
[Emphasis added]
And don’t forget these examples of typical GOP voter suppression:
- States’ Actions to Block Voters Appear Illegal
- Voter Intimidation at Drexel
- Vote-scam fliers target black neighborhoods
So Republicans are foaming-at-the-mouth over ACORN’s ‘voter fraud,’ even though not one fraudulent vote has been cast and it’s unlikely that any will be (for reasons explained here).
But at the same time, those same Republicans are using illegal tactics to purge thousands of duly-registered voters from the rolls. They’re also intimidating potential voters to keep them away from the polls on election day.
That’s the Republican Party for you–if they’re complaining about something, they’re probably doing that something themselves.
