The FISA debate is underway in the House of Representatives; you can watch it on CSPAN here.

The issue is whether or not to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies who helped the Bush administration spy on the American people without warrants, in violation of federal laws.

The current proceedings have been as follows:

1. The House passed an immunity-free bill, H.R. 3773
2. The Senate passed a bill with immunity in it, S. 2248
3. The Senate stripped out the text of H.R. 3773 and substituted in the text of S. 2248, then sent the amended H.R. 3773 back to the House
4. Conyers and Reyes have an amendment to H.R. 3773 (as amended by the Senate) that would strip out what the Senate put in (the text of S. 2248) and put in its place the new, immunity-free language.

The GOP is muddying the waters with their usual rhetoric and spin–they talk about patriotic companies doing their duty and keeping America safe by cooperating with the government’s orders.

Of course, ignore the fact that the government was breaking the law, and the telecomm companies went along with it. Ignore the fact that the domestic spying program hasn’t lead to a single terrorism-related conviction or arrest. And ignore the fact that these companies weren’t following the government and doing their duty–in fact, when the federal government didn’t pay their phone bills on time, the telecomm companies shut the wiretaps down.

The telecomm companies and the Bush administration broke the law, and now their enablers in Congress are resorting to tired fear-and-smear tactics to beat their critics into submission and to make themselves exempt from the law.

For centuries, our country has protected itself from threat after threat without stripping away our Constitutional rights. We protected ourselves from threats far greater than terrorism without stripping away everything that makes this country great. And in the end, accountability matters. Our rights matter. The law matters. And it’s time for the secrecy to end.

More as it comes…

UPDATE: They’re voting now on the Senate amendment. With 6:00 left in voting time, the yeas lead the nays 109-69.

UPDATE II: In another attempt to destroy oversight and prevent themselves from being held accountable, the Bush administration recently gutted the Intelligence Oversight Board, which was established in the wake of the Nixon administration to prevent the abuse of intelligence agencies and personnel.

On the House floor, with a minute left in voting, the yeas lead the nays 150 to 126.

UPDATE III: Voting just closed; the yeas lead the nays 161 to 139. The vote totals are still shifting.

UPDATE IV: Vote totals are still changing; right now, 196 yeas to 171 nays. Awaiting the final vote totals.

UPDATE V: Final vote totals: 213 yeas, 197 nays and 1 present. The motion denying retroactive immunity passes; a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

UPDATE VI: Here are the final vote totals on the bill. No Republicans voted yea, while a number of Democrats voted nay. The Democrats who didn’t vote in favor of the bill are below:

After 49 years as Cuba’s iron-fisted dictator, Fidel Castro is relinquishing power at the age of 81:

Fidel Castro announced his resignation as president of Cuba and commander in chief of Cuba’s military Tuesday, according to a letter published in the state-run newspaper, Granma.

[...]

“I will not aspire to, nor will I accept the position of president of the council of state and commander in chief,” Castro wrote. “I wish only to fight as a soldier of ideas. … Perhaps my voice will be heard.”

[...]

He also said he realized that he had a duty to prepare Cubans for his absence.

“My wishes have always been to discharge my duties to my last breath,” he said. “That’s all I can offer.”

Cuba’s leaders plan to elect a president within days. Castro’s brother, Raúl, the country’s defense minister, has been named publicly as his successor.

[...]

Although Raúl Castro has been named as his brother’s successor, the departure of the charismatic leader whose identity became inseparable from his revolution raises questions of how long his system can survive without him.

Raul Castro has signaled that he wants to make some modest economic reforms; his ambitions fall far short of move towards democratization that I (and many others) would like to see in Cuba.

Overall, I don’t expect much to change–Cuba will remain under an iron-fisted dictator who, like Fidel, will improve the people’s lives in some areas while continuing to oppress them in others.

Still, Raul Castro is nearly 77 years old. Within a few years, he too may also be unable to serve as the leader of Cuba. Once the Castros are gone, will Cuba go in a new direction? Will a young reformer step up to the plate and deliver that nation into the 21st century, or will the system Fidel built prove strong enough to endure without him?

Only time will tell. If Fidel taught us anything, though, it’s that isolating our adversaries is bad policy–it led Fidel to dig in his heels for nearly 50 years, engaging in brinksmanship with the United States at every opportunity.

Now, hopefully, the international community will take this opportunity to help Cuba nation modernize and reform, while taking every opportunity to provide assistance to the people of Cuba.

UPDATE: Some reactions:

Barack Obama released a statement on Castro’s resignation:

“Today should mark the end of a dark era in Cuba’s history. Fidel Castro’s stepping down is an essential first step, but it is sadly insufficient in bringing freedom to Cuba.

“Cuba’s future should be determined by the Cuban people and not by an anti-democratic successor regime. The prompt release of all prisoners of conscience wrongly jailed for standing up for the basic freedoms too long denied to the Cuban people would mark an important break with the past. It’s time for these heroes to be released.

“If the Cuban leadership begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change, the United States must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize relations and to ease the embargo of the last five decades. The freedom of the Cuban people is a cause that should bring the Americans together.”

John McCain, R-Ariz., also issued a written reaction to the media.

“Today’s resignation of Fidel Castro is nearly half a century overdue. For decades, Castro oversaw an apparatus of repression that denied liberty to the people who suffered under his dictatorship.

“Yet freedom for the Cuban people is not yet at hand, and the Castro brothers clearly intend to maintain their grip on power. That is why we must press the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally, to legalize all political parties, labor unions and free media, and to schedule internationally monitored elections.

“Cuba’s transition to democracy is inevitable; it is a matter of when — not if. With the resignation of Fidel Castro, the Cuban people have an opportunity to move forward and continue pushing for the moment that they will truly be free. America can and should help hasten the sparking of freedom in Cuba. The Cuban people have waited long enough.”

John McCain–once considered a maverick Republican–stood today with George W. Bush and the Roadblock Republicans by voting against a Congressional ban on waterboarding. Think Progress has more:

Earlier today, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a former prisoner of war, has spoken strongly in favor of implementing the Army Field Manual standard. When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding

[...]

John McCain: He was against waterboarding before he was for it.

[Emphasis Added]

This is just the most recent example of McCain’s shameful Senatorial conduct. A few days ago, McCain skipped a key vote on the economic stimulus package, which would have provided much-needed fiscal relief to millions of Americans, particularly the unemployed and wounded veterans. What was John McCain doing that kept him from casting this crucial vote?

He was attending a campaign rally.

The stimulus package was filibustered by the Roadblock Republicans, and McCain’s absence sustained their filibuster by one vote; the final vote tally was 59-41. John McCain was the only Senator to miss that vote. Missed votes are nothing new for Senator McCain–he’s missed 55.5% of Senate votes this term, making him the most absent Senator in Congress (except for Tim Johnson, who spent months in the hospital after suffering a brain hemorrhage).

It’s clear that John McCain is a maverick no more. McCain’s willingness to put himself ahead of his country shows that he can’t be trusted to be our next President. The last thing America needs is another self-centered politician who to puts himself ahead of the rest of us; in other words, the last thing America needs is another George W. Bush.

Which is exactly what John McCain is shaping up to be.

Image from The Huffington Post

In response to Sen. Ted Kennedy endorsing Barack Obama, the New York chapter of NOW sent out a scathing press release. CNN brings us more:

In a sharply critical statement, the New York state chapter of NOW took aim at Kennedy Monday for what it called an “ultimate betrayal,” and suggested the Massachusetts Democrat “can’t or won’t” handle the idea of Clinton becoming President of the United States.

“Sen. Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard,” said the statement. “Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few.”

“And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment!” the statement continues. “He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton.”

[...]

“This latest move by Kennedy is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation — to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a president that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.’”

Meanwhile, the national chapter of NOW sought to distance itself from the state chapter’s comments, issuing a statement Monday evening that praised Kennedy’s record with respect to women’s rights.

Can you believe that?

NYNOW is basically saying that if you don’t support Hillary Clinton, you don’t care about women0–it insinuates that if you’re a woman, a feminist, or just not a misogynist, you have to support Hillary Clinton. If you don’t, NYNOW implies that you’re either a closet patriarch or too weak to “handle the prospect” of a female President, or perhaps both.

This is identity politics at it’s worst. Identity politics is destructive and idiotic, and it reduces our candidates to one-dimensional caricatures representing their respective groups. It takes away everything a candidate has done, leaving behind simply everything a candidate is. It leads us to abandon judgment, experience, vision, and every other aspect of our candidates to focus on aspects of them that they had absolutely no control over.

There are plenty of reasons to vote for someone–vote for them because they have the best ideas; vote for them because they’ll do the best job; vote for them because they have the most experience; vote for them because they have the best vision; vote for them because of their leadership, etc. But don’t vote for a candidate because you’re part of Group X and they’re part of Group X, because that cheapens their candidacy hurts the democratic process.

Leave craven identity politics to the Republicans–we’re used to seeing it from them. But we’re Democrats–we’re supposed to choose the best candidate for the job regardless of their race, gender, religion, ethnic background or anything like that. We’re supposed to nominate great leaders regardless of their background, not because of it; we’re supposed to see more in a candidate than where he/she came from or what group he/she belongs to.

Because it’s not who we are underneath, but what we do that defines us.

It’s a busy day today, so let’s get into it.

In Reno, it’s going to be mostly sunny with a high temperature of 43 degrees; in Las Vegas, it’s supposed to be sunny with a high temperature of 52.

The press has already declared one winner–they have projected that Mitt Romney will win the Nevada Republican caucus. Here are the current results, via TPM, 3:30 PM EST:

Pollster showed Romney with a significant lead going into the caucus. He went on to win with an even more commanding victory than predicted, confirming that his success in Michigan wasn’t a fluke and cementing his position as a Republican front-runner.

Of course, that isn’t to say that the Nevada Republican caucus hasn’t had problems:

At least 40 Republicans got off on the wrong foot Saturday in their effort to attend the presidential caucus and some were pretty upset. “That’s it,’’ says Lois Kelly. “I’m getting ready to go for Obama I’m so fed up.”

The Republicans scheduled 12 of their precincts to cast their votes at the governor’s mansion. But two days before Saturday, they changed the location. And apparently the party was unsuccessful in notifying everybody of the switch.

More than 40 Republicans showed up at the mansion Saturday morning. There was a small sign outlining the switch but it didn’t give any directions to the new site of the Senior Center. And the sign could not be read from the street.

There was no one stationed at the mansion to re-direct the voter.

Debra Rodich, when informed by reporters of the switch, said, “We’re supposed to be the organized party.” She said she did not receive any notification of the change and she called the party “very arrogant.”

“This is very discouraging,” she said.

On the Democratic side, the caucuses has finished–we should have results soon.

Pollster shows Hillary Clinton with a lead over Barack Obama, though her momentum is downward-trending while his is upward-trending. The last Democratic poll out of NV was a Zogby survey showing Clinton with 45% and Obama with 39%, nearly within the margin of error. Nevada has never played a significant role in the early primaries before, so it’s hard to predict how this will play out.

In addition, the legal battle between the Nevada Culinary Workers’ Union and the Nevada Teachers’ Union has added an extra degree of complexity to the race. Shortly after the Nevada Culinary Workers’ Union–which encompasses most of the workers at Las Vegas casinos–endorsed Barack Obama, the Nevada Teachers’ Union–which hasn’t endorsed anyone, but whose leadership has individually endorsed Clinton–filed a lawsuit. The purpose of their lawsuit was to shut down 9 at-large caucus locations along the Las Vegas strip, which were set up to allow casino workers to caucus without having to return to their home districts. If someone proved they worked within 2.5 miles of the strip, they could caucus at the at-large sites. Yet, the caucus rules were set and made public months ago, so it didn’t make sense for them to wait so long to file a lawsuit, which was why their case was thrown out of court.

Obama used the attempt to keep Las Vegas workers from caucusing as a way to rally his supporters, particularly those in the Culinary Workers’ Union. Could this fight have soured some Las Vegas voters on Clinton? Could it have galvinized union support for Obama? We won’t know until the results are in, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this ends up playing a significant result in the Las Vegas caucuses.

Today is also the day of the South Carolina Republican primary. In Charleston it’s rainy with a high temperature of 40 degrees, while in Greenville it’s snowy with a high of 33 degrees.

Pollster shows McCain recently pulling ahead of Huckabee–corroborating this, SurveyUSA shows McCain with 31% and Hucbakee with 27%. On the other hand, ARG shows Huckabee with 33% and McCain with 26%, which could either be an outlier or an indication of recent momentum. No matter what, it’s clear that this one will be a nail-biter.

There has been a significant amount of dirty campaigning going on in the Palmetto State, a replay of the types of tricks that killed McCain’s first run for President. On on hand, though, SC’s large veteran and military population could help McCain, while their Christian conservative and Republican evangelical population could help Hucbakee–the results here may simply be a matter of turnout.

Both McCain and Huckabee need a victory here–Huckabee hasn’t won since Iowa, while McCain’s victory in New Hampshire was dampened by Romney’s win in Michigan. A loss in SC could seriously hurt either candidate, and only Florida stands between today and Super Tuesday for the Republicans.

So far, the SC GOP primary has been dogged with problems: voting machine malfunctions, voters being turned away from the polls and unusually low turnout. In response to some of these issues, McCain’s South Carolina State Director has released this statement:

“We have received reports from Horry County that voters are being turned away from the polls, because electronic voting machines are not working and paper ballots are not available. Some voters say they are being instructed to return at a later time. We are disturbed by these reports and hope that this issue is resolved immediately. We encourage any voters who were turned away from the polls to return again to their polling place this afternoon to exercise their constitutional right to vote.”

Today is going to be a big day for both parties, and I’ll bring you more as it comes out.

UPDATE: The results for the Nevada Caucuses are above, but CNN brings us this from South Carolina:

A top backer for John McCain’s presidential bid tells CNN the Arizona senator’s campaign is seeking a court order to extend voting in Horry County by one hour, after learning voting machines in this eastern part of the state were malfunctioning on primary day.

State Rep. Tracey Edge, R-Myrtle Beach, said the campaign was trying to find a circuit court judge to issue the ruling.

“We are seeking an order to extend the voting time, because of reported and publicized information that people were turned away from the polls,” Edge said.

All polls in the South Carolina Republican primary are scheduled to close at 7 p.m. ET. Complicating matters for McCain, the county has just one resident circuit court judge, who they have not yet been able to reach. McCain won Horry County when he ran for president in 2000.

It looks like McCain is trying to do two things at once–on one hand, it looks like he’s trying to pick up late voters by supporting electoral integrity; on the other hand, it also looks like he’s preparing for a loss by playing up allegations of voting problems.

These voting problems might raise significant issues going into the last hour and a half of voting time. We’ll have to see how this plays out, and if the McCain camp can find a judge to issue their order.

Do you remember what the Bush administration said when it came out that they were running a massive warrantless wiretapping program that spied on American citizens? Do you remember what they said when it came to light that they refused to get warrants for their spying program, even though they were required to by law? Even though the FISA court is extremely permissive–they have on turned down only a handful of warrant requests in its 30-year existence, and they let the government get a warrant up to three days after they’ve already started the wiretap?

They told us it was necessary for our safety. They said that they had to break federal laws and violate our Constitutional rights to fight terrorism, and that it was the only way to fight terrorism. They said the laws were outdated and inadequate (even though they never bothered to just go to Congress and ask them to change the laws).

And do you remember what the telecommunications companies said when it was revealed that they were complying with the federal government’s demands? Do you remember what they said when they gave the Bush administration access to confidential customer information, even though the government was breaking the law by not having a warrant?

They told us that they had to comply with the federal government. They said that they had no choice; that they couldn’t have said no. The telecomm companies told us they were doing their duty to keep America safe.

Well, turns out all of that was a lie. Think Progress brings us this story:

The AP reports that telephone companies “cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau’s repeated failures to pay phone bills on time,” according to Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine. The “FBI’s lax oversight of money used in undercover investigations” resulted in “telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence.”

So, the Bush administration’s domestic spying program was so important, so crucial to our safety that the agencies conducting the surveillance couldn’t even be bothered to pay their bills on time in order to keep the surveillance going.

And the telecommunications companies were so unable and unwilling to stand up to the federal government that they shut down significant portions of the program when the government didn’t pay up. Apparently, our laws and our Constitutional rights aren’t nearly as important to them as money.

Then again, this just proves what critics of the domestic spying program have been saying all along–that the program wasn’t important, nor did it make America safer. If it did, you think the FBI would have paid attention and paied their bills to keep their wiretaps active.

It shows that the telecom companies that went along with the Bush administration were perfectly able to stand up to the federal government and tell them “no,” had they so chosen. In fact, they did just that when it was money–and not their customer’s rights–on the line.

George W. Bush’s domestic spying program was a failed endeavor that didn’t result in a single terrorism-related conviction throughout it’s entire history. The Bush administration repeatedly and knowingly broke the law behind closed doors; when they were exposed, they turned the issue into a political bludgeon with which to attack Democrats as weak on terrorism.

So, what was the importance of the President’s domestic spying program? Apparently–besides government expansion and corporate greed–there wasn’t any at all.

I was watching C-SPAN today when I heard something I couldn’t hep but comment on. During an interview with the chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, a conservative African-American woman called in and stated “the Democrats have done nothing for me.”

The problem here is that statement is completely wrong–throughout American history, Democrats have done some exceptional things for this country, and we deserve recognition our accomplishments. So, if you’ve benefited from Democratic policies, make sure to 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 19^th 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 26^th Amendment.

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 24^th 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. 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.

George W. Bush and the Roadblock Republicans are intent on shutting down the Federal Election Commission before the 2008 elections. More from The Washington Post:

The federal agency in charge of policing the torrent of political spending during the upcoming presidential primaries will, for all practical purposes, shut its doors on New Year’s Eve.

The Federal Election Commission will effectively go dark on Jan. 1 because Congress remains locked in a standoff over the confirmation of President Bush’s nominees to the panel. As a consequence, the FEC will enter 2008 with just two of six members — short of the four votes needed for the commission to take any official action.

[Emphasis Added]

Here’s what that means for the upcoming elections:

Although the 375 auditors, lawyers and investigators at the FEC will continue to process work already before them, a variety of matters that fall to the commissioners will be placed on hold indefinitely. Chief among them are deciding whether to launch investigations into possible campaign finance violations and determining the penalties.

Seven presidential candidates have applied to receive public matching funds for their campaigns, but they may not be able to access the money until the FEC certifies their requests. That takes four votes.

The national political parties each anticipate an infusion of about $1 million from the U.S. Treasury to help pay for their national conventions. Releasing that money takes four votes.

And then there is a range of vexing campaign finance questions that hang in limbo: Can a firm that operates a blimp accept unlimited contributions to fly it over New Hampshire with Ron Paul’s name on the side? Can a senator use his campaign account as a legal defense fund? How will campaigns comply with the new law that requires them to identify the lobbyists who are collecting campaign checks on their behalf?

[Emphasis Added]

What’s holding the confirmation process up? The usual suspects, of course: George W. Bush and the Roadblock Republicans.

The conflict started when Bush nominated Hans A. von Spakovsky–who infamous for supporting right-wing voter suppression laws–to serve on the FEC.  Spakovsky supported the GOP’s Texas gerrymandering scheme, which redrew Texas’ Congressional districts to the benefit of Republicans and unseated 4 duly-elected Democratic Representatives in the process. In addition, Spakovsky supported legislation in Georgia to require photo identification for voting–a strategy that Republicans use to keep the poor (who are overwhemingly Democratic) from voting.

Simply put, Spakovsky is nowhere near moderate or independent enough to serve on the FEC; Senate Democrats realized this and, rightly, refused his confirmation. In retaliation for having their extremist nominee blocked, the Roadblock Republicans resorted to playing politics, blocking two Democratic nominees to the election commission.

This is nothing new–the Republicans are notorious for undermining our democracy through manipulating election laws and the voting process.  That’s why they’ve jumped at the chance to shut down the FEC–it’s good for the GOP if nobody’s looking over their shoulders and keeping them honest.  The remains of the DeLay-Abramoff network of anonymous donors, shady organizations and money laundering still exist–without the FEC, nothing keeps Republicans from restarting their illegal election machine.

Once again, the Roadblock Republicans keep our government from doing its job, putting their partisan interest ahead of the American people. We deserve honest candidates and transparent campaigns, yet–once again–the Republican Party is more than willing to stand in the way of clean elections.

Recently, Ron Paul broke the one-day fundraising record for a Republican Presidential candidate, raking in approximately $5.2 million dollars. Political Wire has more:

“Most of the donations were made over the Internet in what the supporters called a “money bomb” timed to coincide with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. The last fund-raising blitz, which took in 40,000 donations, was timed to coincide with Guy Fawkes Day, which commemorates a British mercenary who tried unsuccessfully to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605.” The record take means Paul will likely lead his rivals for money raised during the fourth quarter.

Paul’s supporters will tell you to “Google Ron Paul;” in light of his recent fundriaising success, let’s give that a shot and see what he actually stands for–Orcinus has the definitive account, and it’s nothing less than appalling:

• Ron Paul wants to deny women control of their own reproductive systems–despite calling himself a libertarian, he doesn’t seem to mind government intrusion when it comes to abortion. (H.R.1095 H.R.777 H.R.1548 H.AMDT.1003 (A024) H.AMDT.380 (A022) H.AMDT.312 (A011) H.R.4984). Not only that, but Paul wants to eliminate the legal distinction between a zygote and a person (H.R.2597 H.R.1094 H.R.776 H.R.392).
• Paul wants to prevent the federal courts–or even federal precedent–for being used by those who have been discriminated against due to religious beliefs or sexual orientation. His bills would also prevent cross-state recognition of gay marriage (H.R.300 H.R.4379 H.R.5739 H.R.3893 H.R.1547 H.R.4922 H.R.5078). He also wants to limit the court system’s ability to hear abortion cases (H.R.1545 H.R.1546 H.R.2875 H.R.3400 H.R.3691 H.R.15169).
• Despite claiming to be a libertarian, Paul opposes allowing people to express their freedom of speech by burning the American flag (H.J.RES.80 H.J.RES.82).
• Ron Paul wants to repeal workplace safety and health legislation, including the Occupational Health and Safety Act (H.R.2310 H.R.13264). And so much for giving power to the people–he wants to make it easier to decertify labor unions (H.R.694). In addition, Paul also opposes the minimum wage (H.R.2962) and wants to destroy Social Security (H.R.2030 H.R.4604).
• Paul opposes pro-democracy voting reforms, even after the disastrous 2000 election (H.CON.RES.48 H.CON.RES.443). He also opposes the motor voter laws, which make it easier for people–particularly poorer people–to register to vote (H.R.2139).
• Ron Paul wants to gut anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation (H.R.1247 H.R.1789) and eliminate corporate oversight (H.R.1204). For someone who seems to support giving power to the people, the only people he wants to help are the already-powerful.
• Paul wants to repeal anti-discimination laws (H.R.3863 H.R.5842 H.R.4982), as well as eliminating birthright citizenship (H.J.RES.46 H.J.RES.42), which is in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
• Ron Paul wants to repeal or severely weaken environmental protection legislation (H.J.RES.104 H.R.3735 H.R.4423 H.R.2504 H.R.7079 H.R.724), as well as promoting offshore oil drilling, building more oil refineries and mining for coal on federal land (H.R.2415 H.R.4004 H.R.393 H.R.4639 H.R.5293 H.R.6936).
• Paul, who portrays himself as pro-peace, opposes dismantling ICBM silos in the United States (H.R.1665 H.R.3769) and supports keeping the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court (H.R.1154 H.AMDT.480 (A010) H.R.4169 H.CON.RES.23 H.RES.416). He has also tried to limit the impact of international law on the United States (H.J.RES.1028 H.J.RES.492 H.CON.RES.49 H.R.4118 H.R.1658), going as far as trying to withdraw America from the U.N. (H.R.1146 H.R.1146 H.AMDT.285 (A038) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.190 (A024) H.AMDT.191 (A025) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.306 (A006) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.138 (A010) H.R.1146 H.R.3890 H.R.3891 H.R.6358 H.R.14788). In addition, Paul supports withdrawing the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (H.J.RES.566) and wants to re-establish U.S. ’sovereignty’ over the Panama Canal (H.CON.RES.231 H.RES.1410 H.R.2522).
• Paul wants to weaken our education system by using federal power to interfere with state efforts to improve standards for teachers (H.R.966 H.R.1706 H.R.4653).
• Once again pandering to the powerful, Paul wants to reduce the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans, including those who inherited their fortunes. In addition, he wants to disproportionately burden the poor and working clas by imposing a flat tax (H.J.RES.23 H.J.RES.14 H.J.RES.15 H.J.RES.45 H.J.RES.81 H.J.RES.116 H.R.5484 H.R.2137 H.R.1664 H.J.RES.23 H.R.6352 H.R.4569 H.R.15619). Paul also wants to force us to pay our income tax every month, eliminating withholding (H.R.1364 H.R.4855).
• Paul also wants to abandon the dollar, creating 50 state currencies instead (H.R.2779 H.R.3931).

So, I Googled Ron Paul, and I found a record of conservative, pro-corporate, reactionary policies that are to the far right of even the Republican Party. And keep in mind that I didn’t include some of Paul’s crazier aspects, like his obsession with the gold standard or his desire to “protect” American troops from wearing the insignia of the U.N. or any “foreign states.”

I don’t know what his followers see in him, but it seems that they have been taken in by Paul’s campaign rhetoric, which doesn’t match his record in Congress at all. Personally, I wonder if they would support him so vehemently if they followed their own advice and Googled Ron Paul. Either that, or this country has far more deep-pocketed right-wing extremists than I thought.

Here’s another round of news bites, bits and pieces of political news from across the web.

In 2004, thousands of Ohio voters were kept from voting in that year’s election. Ken Blackwell, Ohio’s Republican secretary of state, distributed the voting machines so that wealthy Republican suburbs had more than enough, while poorer Democratic inner-city areas were left with few machines and massive lines. At the end of the night, thousands of voters were turned away, some having waited on line for hours to cast their vote.

More than three years after that disastrous election, Ohio election officials have finally determined that their voting systems are fatally flawed:

All five voting systems used in Ohio, a state whose electoral votes narrowly swung two elections toward President Bush, have critical flaws that could undermine the integrity of the 2008 general election, a report commissioned by the state’s top elections official has found.

“It was worse than I anticipated,” the official, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, said of the report. “I had hoped that perhaps one system would test superior to the others.”

[...]

Ms. Brunner proposed replacing all of the state’s voting machines, including the touch-screen ones used in more than 50 of Ohio’s 88 counties. She wants all counties to use optical scan machines that read and electronically record paper ballots that are filled in manually by voters.

She called for legislation and financing to be in place by April so the new machines can be used in the presidential election next November. She said she could not estimate the cost of the changes.

It’s about time. A good number of our piecemeal voting systems need to be reformed, and hopefully this will be the first step in bring about some real change.

Moving on to the Presidential race, the Romney-Huckabee plutocrat-theocrat battle worsens, as Romney attacks Huck for criticizing Bush’s foreign policy, demanding that the former Arkansas Governor apologize to the President:

“But it’s very different to point out the mistakes that were made. The President’s pointed out the mistakes as well. And then to say the Bush administration, our President, is arrogant with a bunker mentality — that’s a completely different statement, for which Mike Huckabee owes the President an apology.”

Mitt Romney protects George Bush, which goes to show you that the plutocrats always protect their own. Of course, in response to criticism Huck flip-flops and backs down:

I didn’t say the President was arrogant. … I’ve said that the policies have been arrogant. … I’m the one who actually supported the President’s surge. I supported the Bush tax cuts, when Mr. Romney didn’t. I was with President Bush on gun control, when Mitt Romney wasn’t. I was with the President on the President’s pro-life position, when Mitt Romney wasn’t.

Still on the GOP side of the race, Joe Lieberman is going to endorse John McCain for President tomorrow:

Democratic and Republican sources say that Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut and fierce supporter of the war in Iraq, will formally endorse Sen. John McCain tomorrow in New Hampshire.

[...]

The move will heighten speculation that McCain might ask Lieberman to join his ticket.

[Emphasis Added]

I’m glad Lieberman is no longer a Democrat–he’s become an out-of-touch extremist.

Of course, this was expected–both Lieberman and McCain have always embraced George W. Bush’s war, so in that sense they’re ideologically identical. There’s also no doubt that Lieberman is eying the Vice Presidential slot, hoping to have another crack at getting into the White House. Fortunately for us–and unfortunately for them–the American people are sick of George Bush and his supporters, so I don’t think McCain-Lieberman will be going anywhere

To Connecticut’s Democrats: Thanks for giving this guy the boot. To the rest of Connecticut: You re-elected him, now you have to live with him. You really have to ask yourselves, would Ned Lamont have been this bad?

UPDATE: Texas Governor Rick Perry rewrites history:

“Rudy is a real fiscal conservative. He’s a bonafide Reagan Republican. George Bush isn’t and he never was,” Perry said on the videotape.

The Governor extolled Giuliani’s conservative credentials. But at the expense of President Bush, who Perry characterized as too big a spender — even during his days in Texas.

“George Bush was spending money,” Perry told the gathering. “George has never ever been a fiscal conservative.”

Sorry, Rick, but the Republican Party aren’t fiscal conservatives anymore–they gave up any claim to that title as soon as they got us into Iraq and dumped huge amounts of money into the federal bureaucracy. There may still be a few holdouts or posers like Rick out there, but the GOP’s leaders have shown that they could care less about spending the people’s money well.

And another thing, Rick–Reagan wasn’t a fiscal conservative, either. Remember, he tripled the national debt in just eight short years.

The Republican attempt to rewrite history is appalling and shameless. A few years ago they were touting George W. Bush as the second coming of Reagan, embodying everything the Republican Party believed in. Now that his approval is in the toilet, though, they’re trying to portray him as some kind of liberal Sorry, guys, but you elected him–he’ll be part of your legacy forever.

Finally, even with Two-Buck Huck’s surge, the GOP still hates their candidates:

A New York Times/CBS News poll last week found that none of the Republican candidates — not even the suddenly hot Mr. Huckabee — was viewed favorably by even half of Republican voters. [...]

[W]hat is worrying Republicans these days is that this tepid rank-and-file reception to the best the party has to offer suggests that the Republican Party is hitting a wall after dominating American politics for most of the last 35 years. Republican voters are reacting to — or rather, not reacting to — a field of presidential candidates who have defined their candidacies with familiar, even musty, Republican promises, slogans and policies. [...]

Richard Lowry, the editor of the conservative magazine National Review, said the field “has been less than the sum of its parts.”

To quantify this a bit, Richard Bond, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, noted data that showed a 17-point “intensity gap” between the Republicans and the Democrats looking ahead to the ‘08 campaign. “That is a monster number,” Bond said. “It shows that the Republicans are not fired up and it’s going to take a nominee who can clearly articulate a post-Bush vision for the country.”

To be sure, this could change once there’s a Democratic nominee Republicans can rally in opposition to. But what does it say about the modern Republican Party that they need a Dem to save their electoral chances?

In other words, the GOP is planning on picking one of their unimpressive candidates and then vilifying the Democrat, hoping to whip up just enough tepid support to keep their foot in the White House door. It’s a pretty poor strategy–in fact, that was basically the Democratic strategy in 2004–and I doubt it will get them anywhere. But don’t tell them that.

And that’s News Bites for this Sunday. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, and I’ll see you tomorrow.

I read this post from psericks at Daily Kos and I couldn’t help but get angry, considering that I’m a politically-active college student. The jist of it: Senator Clinton doesn’t believe that college students in Iowa should be allowed to participate in the caucus. This part captures my anger about this perfectly:

Using students as props at campaign rallies to ask planted questions does not count as engaging the youth vote.

Arguing that students aren’t caucus-goers and so their presence doesn’t count at public events does not count as engaging the youth vote.

Only setting up your campaign organization to reach out to students ten months into the election and shortly before the caucuses does not count as working hard to engage the youth vote.

And misleading students about, or discouraging students from, their fundamental right to participate in their communities does not count as engaging the youth vote.

This debate raises a bigger question: should college students be allowed to vote in the state where they go to college instead of the state they’re from?

To me, the answer is a resounding “yes.” It doesn’t make sense not to let them vote, and I have never heard one good argument against it. Let’s debunk some of the common justifications used to disenfranchise college voters:

1. College students aren’t from here. They should cast their vote where they live.

Where someone comes from is irrelevant–how many people are born in one place and end up in another? And I agree that people should vote where they live–of course, the argument here is over where, exactly, college students live.

Keep in mind that your average student spends 8-9 months per year on campus. They live there, they work there, they spend money there, they’re subject to the state’s laws and statutes. In fact, due to the amount of time college students spend on campus, you could argue that college students are affected more by the state they go to college in than the state they came from.

2. Students can’t vote here because this isn’t their “permanent address.”

This relates to #1, and it represents an argument over semantics that’s both misleading and dishonest. The “permanent address” line is used often to disenfranchise college voters, but it’s a loaded term that scares students from claiming their right to vote where they go to school. Rock the Vote explains:

As a college student, you have the right to vote from the residence that you consider “home,” including your campus residence. While by law you are only allowed to register to vote from your “permanent” address, the term “permanent” is confusing for students. Students can register to vote where they live during school.

[Emphasis Added]

3. College students don’t pay taxes–therefore, they shouldn’t participate in our elections.

First off, this is misleading. By “tax,” the arguers here mean income tax–because, last time I checked, a sales tax still counted as a tax. And college students contribute a significant amount of money to the state their college is in through sales taxes–thus, even if a student never holds a paying job during college, they’re still contributing tax revenue.

Of course, this is mostly moot when you consider these figures, from USA Today in 2003:

77% of undergraduates at four-year colleges and universities have jobs, and 26% work full time while in school, according to the American Council on Education.

[Emphasis Added]

The right wing–who never wins the youth vote–loves to disenfranchise young voters, but I’m disappointed to see this kind of behavior from a Democratic Presidential candidate.

Disenfranchising college students is a hypocritical position for any campaign to take, considering how much they rely on young people–campaigns use college students as seat-fillers and sign-wavers at events. They form student-based groups (like Students for Obama and Students for Hillary) to register students to vote, to spread their message, to engage young voters and to win over votes. They use students in photo-ops in order to make their campaign look vibrant and diverse. They use students as interns and volunteers to do the backbreaking legwork needed to keep a campaign running.

In short, college students contribute immensely to campaigns–it’s only fair that those campaigns don’t stop us from choosing where we want to vote.

Personally, I wonder if the Iowa members of Students for Hillary agree. I wonder how they feel about being told by Clinton that they’re cheating interlopers for wanting to participate in this historic primary. Honestly, the Clinton campaign should drop this nonsense, lest college students in Iowa–and elsewhere–turn out in droves…for another candidate.

Yahoo News reports on several days of rioting in France:

Riot police deployed late Tuesday across a north Paris suburb bracing for a possible repeat of youth riots that have left 120 police injured, as the government vowed zero tolerance for the “criminals” behind the violence.

For two nights running, young men have hurled petrol bombs and bricks at police, torching cars and buildings in the town of Villiers le Bel, where on Sunday two teenagers were killed in a motorbike collision with a police car.

[...]

Two nights of violence have left five buildings damaged by fire in Villiers, just north of Paris, including a tax office, a supermarket, a library and a nursery school, as well as 63 cars. Fifteen people have been arrested.

This is the event that sparked the immediate violence:

An initial investigation appeared to confirm the police version of Sunday’s incident, according to which the two teenagers — aged 15 and 16, neither wearing a crash helmet — were riding a motorbike that careered into their car.

But relatives of the two youths and some other local people appeared convinced that the police had caused the accident and fled the scene without treating the victims.

But these riots–like the 2005 riots– have a much deeper root:

Police and politicians say the French suburbs remain a “tinderbox” two years after the 2005 riots, which exposed France’s failure to integrate its large black and Arab population, the children and grandchildren of immigrants from its African colonies.

“This is no place for human beings to live,” said local resident Boniface Gabo, pointing up at his grimy tower block. “Make no mistake, every hundred kids who grow up here are a hundred lost kids.”

France has incredibly backwards immigration laws–unlike the United States, people who are born in France are not automatically citizens unless their parents are citizens.  Thus, there are a lot of people who were born and raised in France yet are considered illegal immigrants because their parents or grandparents were illegal immigrants.  There is an entire generation of second-class citizens who are as French as anyone else in the country, but who are legally barred from taking part in the only society they’ve ever known.

This isn’t just a French problem–much of Europe has issues with immigration and racism that aren’t being dealt with.  Immigrants are becoming vital to the economies of much of Europe–particularly considering Europe’s stagnant or declining birth rates–yet there is significant resistance to allowing those immigrants to integrate into society.  The amount of racism towards Arabs, North Africans and Muslims is absolutely staggering, yet countries continue to elect anti-immigrant zealots like Nicholas Sarkozy and the Swiss People’s Party who are just going to ignore–or exacerbate–the problem.

These is a timely warning to the anti-immigration zealots here in the United States. We have 12 million illegal immigrants in out country who we cannot ignore or throw out–denying them rights, pushing them underground, making them second class citizens, denying them jobs and places to live and a chance to become citizens is only going to make the situation worse.

Yet, I don’t think we’ll suffer the same fate as France–as we’ve seen throughout American history, second-class citizens don’t stay second-class for long–our sense of fairness and justice lead us to treat other humans with the same fairness and dignity each of us would like to enjoy, and it’s only a matter of time until our immigrant population are granted the path to citizenship that their hard work here has earned them.

[Fade in after question was asked]

Dodd: We cannot have litmus tests here–you start here, others will follow, you will lose balance on court. I’m pro-choice, wouldn’t appoint someone who would overturn Roe v Wade. Must know the person and their background, must know how they will vote. If someone pledges to uphold precedent at hearing and doesn’t, that’s offensive

Blitzer: Would you insist any nominee to Supreme Court must protect right to choose?

Biden: I presided over more SC justices than anyone in American history. I have taken on the ideologues–we have enough professors on the bench. I want someone who ran for dog catcher, when Bill Clinton asked me for suggestions for appointees we wanted someone who lived life, not an intellectual. Next appointee in my administration would be woman. I would not appoint anyone who did not understand 14th amendment provide right to privacy.

Blitzer: Again, short yes or no answer.

Richardson: Want diversity, but would ask nominee if Roe is settled law, ask if they support right to privacy, etc. Those would be judges I appoint.

Kucinich: Yes, I would have a litmus test on abortion. President has to do more–has to be a healer. I stand for prenatal care, postnatal care, child care, sex education, birth control. We need a healer in the White House

Clinton: They have to share my view about privacy. It is embedded in our constitution–what does it mean to have free speech or freedom of religion if you don’t have privacy? The answer is yes, and Senator Biden deserves plaudits, he knows this issue forwards and backwards. Need a President who understands the connections between branches of government and constitution

Obama: I would not appoint someone who does not believe in right to privacy. I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and great justices are those who look at the regular person. If we can find people with life experience who understand what it’s like to be on the outside, who hasn’t had the system work for them, that’s the kind of person we want.

Edwards: Wants recognition of privacy and Roe as settled law. Grew up in segregated south, important to have judges who understand courage and strength to fight for regular people.

Question from audience member Frank Perconte. Things in middle east are getting worse. If you get elected, you will preside over divided electorate–assuming you are elected, what message will you offer the country to unite all of us with you?

[My laptop battery is dying, so I may have to cut this short. I'll blog as long as I can]

Obama: If I didn’t think I could do it better I wouldn’t be running for President. I would convene an advisory meeting with Democrats and Republicans on national security issues, upholding a long tradition of ending our differences on foreign policy to protect America. Lost tradition because of polarization of Bush administration. Will say America’s back, and we will lead by shutting down Guantanamo, restoring Habeas Corpus, building schools in Middle East, talking to friends and enemies.

Blitzer: Senator Clinton, some say you’re too polarizing.

Clinton: I’m running to be President of whole country. People said I was too polarizing to be Senator– I reached out to everyone. You have to look to find common ground, and leaders must work to make it possible. We will not wake up day after election and be different people, but we must find common ground–I will work with Republicans as well as people who are not in public life. Let’s enlist the best we have in America to solve our problems

Biden: Start by ending the war. One of the ways you work in the Senate is building support–I’ve already done it. I would include Republicans in my administration. Republicans think war is a bad idea, foreign policy in shambles, and independents feel that way too. I’ve already brought them along. Don’t buy into the premise that Republicans don’t agree with us, they’re afraid to take on Bush.

Richardson: We talked about Iran, Iraq, other unfriendly regimes. The cornerstone of my foreign policy would be diplomacy and negotiation–all my life, as ambassador and envoy and governor, I’ve brought people together. I’d have middle east peace envoy, I would base a settlement on a 2 state solution for Israel and Palestine. I would deal with the issue of settlements and Jerusalem. I would talk to Syria and Iran. Leadership and diplomacy, and you have to be bold.

[Battery's gone, so I'm out. Great debate, everyone, and there's more live blogging at Daily Kos.]

From CNN:

The Senate late Thursday approved Michael Mukasey’s nomination for attorney general by a 53-40 vote despite controversy over the retired judge’s refusal to brand the terror interrogation technique of waterboarding as torture.

[...]

The nomination had been considered at risk after a number of Democratic senators opposed Mukasey because of questions that arose from his views on waterboarding and the president’s power to order electronic surveillance.

[...]

A majority of Americans consider waterboarding a form of torture, but some of those say it’s OK for the U.S. government to use the technique, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released this week.

More than two-thirds of the respondents, or 69 percent, said they think waterboarding is a form of torture, while 29 percent said they didn’t think so. Fifty-eight percent said they didn’t think the U.S. government should be allowed to use the procedure to try to get information from suspected terrorists, while 40 percent said they did.

Mukasey is the kind of nominee I figured the Bush administration would pick–an unknown career man without much of a record to speak of. His nondescript record meant he faced few roadblocks to confirmation, and now that he’s in office he’ll end up towing the administration line. Mukasey won’t do it as aggressively and flagrantly as Gonzales did, but he’ll still do it.

I’m disappointed his nomination wasn’t tabled in the judiciary committee–there were letigimate reasons to oppose him, particulalry his views on torture and domestic spying. He’s the nation’s top law-enforcement officer, and his job is to ensure that the administration complies with all laws–not just the ones they like. Torture is torture, and America should never tolerate it.

And not “torture” the way the Bush administration defines it, but torture as domestic and international law define it. The White House says they don’t torture because they’ve redefined what torture is. They can lock you in a concrete room with no windows for days, weeks, months, years on end. They can keep out sunlight and feed you at irregular intervals so you lose track of time. They can keep you awake for days on end, checking on you every hour to ensure you haven’t fallen asleep.. They can hood you and put you in restraints so you can’t move. They can chain you to the floor in stress positions for hours on end, cutting off circulation and causing agonizing pain. They can make your cell as freezing cold or burning hot as they want. They can drag you out of your cell every few hours to be waterboarded, to be tied down and have water poured down your throat for as long as they feel like doing it. And even if you get through it, you know they’ll be back in a few hours to do it all over again. They can do all of this and more for years on end. To the Bush administration and Michael Mukasey, none of that is torture because they say it isn’t.

(By the way, the traditional media tends to portray waterboarding as “producing the sensation of drowning.” That’s wrong–it is drowning. They pour water down your throat, and you drown– you just don’t die, if they do it right).

The most telling part of this is Mukasey’s supposed concession on waterboarding–that he’d enforce a Congressionally-mandated government-wide ban on the practice. Of course, he knows that Congress and the Roadblock Republicans are unlikely to ever pass such as resolution–even if they did, the President would surely veto it, and there’s no way half of the Republican caucus would vote to override that veto. It was a hollow promise, and what it shows is that Mukasey doesn’t think there’s any inherent problem with waterboarding–otherwise, he wouldn’t need a Congressional bill to ban it.

The United States of America, sadly, does torture. The administration refuses to call it as much, but that doesn’t change what it is. We have no reason to think that Mukasey will be in any way change that–I expect more of the same from the DoJ until January of 2009.

Meanwhile, there are a number of Senate Democrats I’m severely disappointed with.

The Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which prevents employers from discriminating against their employees due to sexual orientation, passed by the House of Representatives yesterday, 235-184. In a historic, bipartisan vote, 35 Republicans joined 200 Democrats in standing up for the basic  rights of millions of LGB Americans.

Of course, conservative bigotry was on display as Republicans pulled out all the stops, resorting to their familiar tactic of throwing up as many roadblocks as the House rules will allow to kill this bill.  I’m sure John Boehner and his gang were combing through the rules to find every possible procedural kink to put this bill down for good. In a last-ditch effort to kill ENDA, they claimed it would legalize gay marriage, an allegation pulled out of thin air–ENDA is an employer discrimination bill that has nothing to do with marriage.

That’s the GOP for you–if you can’t beat ‘em with the truth, lie.

Fortunately, their dishonesty and obstruction failed and ENDA passed. Representative Barney Frank, one of only two openly gay members of Congress, gave a passionate speech denouncing Republican obstruction and urging his colleagues to support the bill:

“But here’s the deal: I used to be someone subject to this prejudice. And through luck, circumstance, I got to be a big shot. I’m now above that prejudice. But I feel an obligation, to 15-year-olds dreading to go to school because of the torments, to people they’ll lose their job in a gas station if someone finds out who they love. I feel an obligation to use the status I have been lucky enough to get, to help them. And I want to ask my colleagues here, Mr. Speaker, on a personal basis, please don’t fall for this sham. Don’t send me out of here having failed to help those people.”

It’s a historic day, culminating a nearly thirty-year-long effort to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. Let’s all celebrate with some dancing.