HotShot Blog

For my first political diary, I turn to Cindy Sheehan. In case you fell off the face of the earth, she is the mother of a fallen soldier who camped outside Bush's Crawford estate demanding he speak with her. The media gobbled up the sensational story of a grieving mother demanding justice for her loss. It is truly a sad and pitiful story, and one would think that people of all political persuasions would have sympathy for Cindy Sheehan and her loss.

But that is not the case in George Bush's America, where the Elephant trumps all that is decent or right. For the last two weeks every chickenhawk pundit attacked and demonized this woman. Bill O'Liely, heroic saint that he is, said her behavior "borders on treasonous." Michelle Malkin claimed to speak for her son: "I can't imagine that Casey Sheehan would approve of such behavior."

Meanwhile, it's the left that holds vigils for injured and fallen soldiers. It's moveon.org and Democracy for America that sends care kits and flak jackets to the soldiers. It's the left that nominated a veteran for President in the past two elections.

I am confident the American people will eventually see through the conservative fake "support our troops" bullshit. After all, it's one thing to cheerlead a war by spending $1.50 for a magnetic bumper sticker. It's quite another to sacrifice your loved ones.

Apparently, it's easy to sabotage a conservative radio station. Milwaukee's WISN held an online poll to determine who their next morning show host would be. The DailyKos community freeped the poll so that a pro-choice Democrat would win.

Hilarious.

Radical cleric Patrick Robertson issued a fatwah yesterday for the immediate execution of Venezuela's democratically elected President Chavez. Said Robertson:

If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

Of course, the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," which is displayed prominently in many courthouses across the country, comes with the famous rider: "except when thou shall saveth $200 billion and keepeth fuel in thy SUV."

Update: Cleric Robertson has since apologized for his remarks, although he still calls for US forces to "take him out." Apparently, democracy is only holy and righteous when a conservative is elected.

The right wing venom against Cindy Sheehan grows ever more vitriolic. This sign is a testament to how disgusting, indecent, and frankly, anti-American these people are.

It's one thing to proclaim your support for Bush's war. It's quite another to libel a grieving mother for disagreeing with you.

Update: Even the freerepublic crowd felt the sign was offensive, so they asked the man to leave. He refused, so they had him arrested. Without any sense of irony, he claimed he had a right to freedom of speech.

Idiot.

Over the last four years, conservatives have held nearly absolute power over the federal and most state governments. The result: a failed foreign policy, exploding budget deficits, increased poverty, and the continued erosion of the basic foundations of society.

Americans are finally beginning to realize the failure of conservatism to address the challenges facing our society. A solid majority now conclude the war in Iraq was a mistake and that it has made us less safe. The economy continues to benefit relatively few, while real wages fall for most working Americans. And despite conservative rhetoric about fiscal discipline, spending has skyrocketed both on defense and non-defense items.

Even the Republican base is finally starting to peel away from the Washington establishment and voice dissent. Every major poll now shows Bush at or under 40% approval. The drop arose not from Democrats or Independents changing their mind, but from 10% of Republicans who no longer support their president. Republicans like this columnist who expresses outrage over the priorities of Washington Republicans.

There are two types of big government. There's big-government liberalism, in which the government administers broad-based entitlements (Social Security, Medicaid) and provides services collectively that individuals can't purchase on their own (police protection, roads, public parks, etc.). Has this vision suffered from excess and waste? Of course. But it has raised the standard of living for most Americans. The elderly can't buy affordable health insurance on the private market, and most individuals can't purchase their own personal police or fire protection. At the very least, big-government liberalism's heart is in the right place.

There's nothing good about big-government conservatism. It's an iron triangle of politicians, lobbyists and industry wallowing in the spoils of government contracting and favoritism linked to campaign contributions. The recipient of big-government liberalism is likely to be a 90-year-old who can't get out of bed, or a pregnant teen in need of pre-natal care. The recipient of big-government conservatism is a Halliburton executive or someone who lobbies on Halliburton's behalf.

Rundio's point is resonating across America in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It became clear over the past weeks how eliminating and defunding working government programs can have an egregious impact.

In fact, even before Katrina, national opinion has been shifting in favor of good government. Chris Bowers wrote an article back in February that the GOP base has grown to accept government programs. In the latest Pew study, only 46% of Republicans believed that government is always wasteful and inefficient, slightly less than the 49% of Democrats.

There is no indication yet that shifting attitudes will favor Democrats over the coming years. But one thing is clear. As E.J. Dionne and many other columnists now write, the era of Bush conservatism is over.

And so the Bush Era ended definitively on Sept. 2, the day Bush first toured the Gulf Coast States after Hurricane Katrina. There was no magic moment with a bullhorn. The utter failure of federal relief efforts had by then penetrated the country's consciousness. ... The source of Bush's political success was his claim that he could protect Americans. Leadership, strength and security were Bush's calling cards. Over the past two weeks, they were lost in the surging waters of New Orleans.

But the first intimations of the end of the Bush Era came months ago. The president's post-election fixation on privatizing part of Social Security showed how out of touch he was. The more Bush discussed this boutique idea cooked up in conservative think tanks and Wall Street imaginations, the less the public liked it. The situation in Iraq deteriorated. The glorious economy Bush kept touting turned out not to be glorious for many Americans. The Census Bureau's annual economic report, released in the midst of the Gulf disaster, found that an additional 4.1 million Americans had slipped into poverty between 2001 and 2004.

This country had forgotten that most government programs and services that we enjoy today were erected to solve problems that existed in the past. Social Security kept the elderly from starving on the streets. Food stamps and school lunch programs help ensure that children get adequate nutrition even if through no fault of their own they grow up in poor families. Medicare is the most popular insurance plan in the country.

Katrina served as a painful reminder of why we need these programs. With a solid majority now opposed to conservative policies, Washington will soon have to change its priorities.

I apologize if this entry is rather long, but there's a lot I've wanted to say about abortion.

First, we start with mainstream American thinking on abortion. Support for Roe vs Wade has fluctuated over the years, but has never enjoyed less than a majority support. SurveyUSA took a state-by-state poll recently surveying the attitudes on abortion within each state. The results may surprise some people. In only 10 states does the pro-life position enjoy outright majority support. These states are Utah, Louisiana, Arkansas, Idaho, Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Indiana. Furthermore, in only 15 states does pro-life gain more support than pro-choice. To get a better sense of things, I've colored an electoral map based on how each state would vote on the single issue of abortion. Red is of course pro-life and blue is pro-choice.

It is striking how blue the map is. Even at a state-by-state level, abortion rights are supported by a broad section of the country, with heated opposition arising primarily in the south and great plains. Even then, states such as South Carolina and Georgia would support abortion rights.

So if the majority clearly supports keeping abortion legal, why do pro-life forces seem to be winning the battle? There are several reasons I want to dissect.

First, the pro-life/pro-choice distinction cuts across party lines. Many wealthy Republicans are pro-choice, but place greater importance on economic issues at the voting booth. Analogously, many Democrats, especially Catholics, are pro-life but care more about poverty and war. According to a Quinnipiac poll, the numbers break down as follows on the question of whether Roe should be upheld.

A clear majority may support abortion rights, but it seems a chunk of that majority are Republicans who are fairly apathetic towards the issue.

Still, given this level of support, it is hard to imagine any anti-abortion zealot being elected. Here is where I think the right wing has triumphed. The Republican message is full of phrases such as "culture of life" that make their position sound more moderate and mainstream than it actually is. Additionally, they've been able to demonize more reasonable voices by tagging them to the horrendous sounding procedure "partial-birth abortion."

On the other side, activists seem to be blind to their losing fight. As Amy Sullivan writes, pro-choice forces seem hellbent on purging anything but the strictest rhetoric on abortion while shooting themselves in the foot in the process.

But the final straw came when Senate Democrats acted on this advice and recruited pro-life Democrat Bob Casey to run against Rick Santorum for Pennsylvania's Senate seat in 2006.

Pro-choice advocates lashed out. National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy called out Kerry and Dean by name, and declared: ''If that's what it means to have a big tent, if it means abandoning the core principles of our party, if it means throwing women's rights overboard like so much ballast...then I say let's keep the skunk out of the tent." ... The race appears to have become a test case for many in the pro-choice community. They would rather see Casey lose than defeat Santorum, perhaps the Senate's most vociferous abortion opponent.

As if to underline their point, NARAL took the unusual step of endorsing Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, a full year and a half before the 2006 election. The message was clear: a pro-choice Republican is always preferable to a pro-life Democrat.

It didn't take long for NARAL to regret the move. Less than three weeks later, Chafee voted to support the nomination of radically conservative judge Janice Rogers Brown. NARAL issued an angry press release, warning Chafee that they would be ''watching closely his future votes on judicial nominees, including...those for the Supreme Court." Now, of course, Chafee has announced he will vote in support of Roberts. Meanwhile, the pro-life Reid--exactly the type of Democrat these groups would see defeated if they had their way--has announced that he will vote against Roberts's confirmation.

It is patently stupid for NARAL to go after Hillary and other Democrats who have softened their rhetoric on abortion. Because when it comes time to actually vote, the Democrats have consistently stood for abortion rights. 22 Democratic senators voted against John Roberts, including the traitor Hillary and pro-life minority leader Harry Reid. Not one Republican did, including so-called "moderate, pro-choice" ones like Specter and Chaffee. Yet, NARAL continues to throw a temper tantrum on how Democrats are abandoning them. If pro-choice activists don't pull their collective heads out of their asses, we are going to lose this fight permanently.

Even though they believe Halloween is a sinful Godless abomination, right-wingers got quite a treat on Monday with the nomination of ultra-conservative activist judge Samuel Alito, aka "ScAlito." Scalito's dissenting vote on a case involving the Planned Parenthood v Casey precedent has made him a darling of the religious right movement.

The bright side of how the Miers debacle unfolded was that it was clear Republican Senators and right-wing activists derailed the nomination on ideological grounds. An up-or-down vote, something every Republican demanded on lower court appointees, was not afforded to a candidate for Supreme Court. The Democrats, along with possibly Specter, Chaffee, and Snowe, have a clear precendent on which to filibuster and block Scalito's nomination. Provided Reid can get his act together - and I have every belief he can - it will be a fight we will win. The American people are on our side (see my posting and this poll) on this. Given Bush's sub-40 approval ratings, there's no reason to worry of any political backlash.

As for a trick, the other big political news this week is the indictment of a top Bush official for intentionally unmasking the identity of a clandestine CIA operative for political gain. Some have celebrated the Bush administration finally being held accountable for an act of treason. But, as E.J. Dionne points out, it is the Republicans who have actually won here.

As long as Bush still faced the voters, the White House wanted Americans to think that officials such as Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney had nothing to do with the leak campaign to discredit its arch-critic on Iraq, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

And Libby, the good soldier, pursued a brilliant strategy to slow the inquiry down. As long as he was claiming that journalists were responsible for spreading around the name and past CIA employment of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, Libby knew that at least some news organizations would resist having reporters testify. The journalistic "shield" was converted into a shield for the Bush administration's coverup.

Rove and Libby testified last year. If they had been honest and truthful about their wrongdoings, it would have caused a huge scandal towards the end of a presidential campaign. It is likely to have been enough to push 2-3% towards John Kerry, thus electing him President of the United States. The coverup worked. Bush was reelected, and now he will be able to pardon Libby (and possibly Rove), thus eliminating any repercussions of their wrongdoing. Quite a trick indeed.

On Tuesday two very important governors races will be decided as voters in Virginia and New Jersey head to the polls. In New Jersey, despite the latest shenanigans by the Forrester campaign to spread lies about his opponent, Corzine will win handily. Virginia, on the other hand, is a dead heat.

The polling for the Virginia governors race puts Kaine slightly ahead of Kilgore. Rasmussen, who nailed the 2004 presidential election, has Kaine winning by 3 points. In a state where Republicans heavily outnumber Democrats, however, this is no guarantee of success, but it is certainly encouraging. The Kilgore campaign, terrified of a loss, are pulling out all the stops, including mailing a fake Democratic voter guide to suburban voters. The mailing urged people to vote for Russ Potts. On the back was small print saying "Paid for and authorized by Virginians for Jerry Kilgore." Dirty tricks, indeed.

If Kilgore wins, he has promised to slash taxes largely by eliminating a great deal of education funding. The idiocy of this should be clear. If we don't have good education in this country, it will not be possible for American workers to compete globally for good paying jobs. Kilgore will take a giant leap exactly in the wrong direction.

Furthermore, Kilgore is fundamentally hostile to many of the rights and liberties we hold dear as Americans. By that I don't mean abortion, although abortion could certainly be included as a privacy right. Kilgore stands on the wrong side of an ideological divide as to who should decide how we as Americans should live our lives. As a part of the conservative movement, Kilgore believes that government should have broad powers to legislate moral conduct, including matters of life and death.

Michael Schiavo recently spoke out about Kilgore's extreme views.

"I have seen firsthand what can happen when a governor disagrees with a single citizen. In Florida, Gov. Jeb Bush abused the power of his office in an attempt to replace my personal family decisions with his own opinions and political grandstanding," Schiavo wrote in a statement distributed by a Democratic consulting firm. ...

During the debate, Kilgore said he is "not going to agree to the forced starvation of any individual if that individual hasn't had a say." He said he would urge people to put their end-of-life wishes in medical directives.

"I don't think governors should use their PR grandstanding to intervene in these cases," Kaine replied, adding that disputes should be settled in the privacy of courts.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Personal matters such as these should be left up to families to dispute, not legislatures and governors, reason enough to support Kaine.

But a Kaine defeat has greater implications than simply setting Virginia back many years. Virginia will be a swing state in the presidential election of 2008, especially if Governor Mark Warner is the Democratic candidate or running mate. In addition, Virginia has a few competitive races in 2006 and 2008 that may be decided by voter turnout. As a Republican governor with a Republican legislature, Kilgore will be able to tailor and target the agenda to bring out the conservative vote next year and in 2008. We will likely see an anti-gay marriage initiative, anti-immigration legislation, and crusades against evolution, all designed to attract "values voters." Even though George W. Bush will fade into the dustbins of history, strategic initiatives such as these might keep the Republicans in power for at least another 7 years.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is sponsoring a contest for the "greatest idea since sliced bread." They are collecting submissions for how we can improve the economy and the lives of ordinary Americans through policy. A panel of judges will select 21 winners. The winners, in addition to seeing their idea be pushed at the national level, will win a cash prize of at least $50,000.

There is no entry fee. Anyone not a member of the SEIU can enter a submission. It does not have to be long and detailed; in fact, the submission limit is 175 characters. Instead, all they want is a simple, common sense idea that will make our country greater. Previous submissions are posted on the website, including my idea:

Short Term Loans to Reduce Poverty

We need a federally backed microfinance loan program. The idea is to give short term (3 months or less) low interest loans to people who have unexpectedly hit financial difficulties. This would keep people from falling into poverty due to unforseen circumstances, such as a car accident, layoff, or death in the family.

As it stands, many people who most need a loan are unable to get it because they do not have sufficient credit. This program would be implemented on a large enough scale where the small percentage of defaults can be largely financed by a low interest rate.

The implications for this program would reach beyond simply reducing poverty and reducing the need for public assistance. As just one example, one of the reasons that the number of late term abortions is high is that poor people often need to save money for the procedure. A short term loan program would ameliorate this problem.

I hope you will all partake in this exercise in little 'd' democracy.

The war in Iraq is still quagmire, the insurgency continues, more than 2,000 American soldiers and countless Iraqis have died, and a solid majority of Americans have concluded this war was not worth it. Disapproval ratings for the President and for Republicans in Congress have topped 60 and even 65 percent. Bush is now the least popular president since Nixon during Watergate.

In response, the Bush administration has decided it's going to get serious and change their strategy about fighting the war. Except I'm not talking about Iraq. The administration is more concerned with fighting a public relations war back home. Beginning on Veteran's Day, which is supposed to be a day to respect and celebrate our men and women in uniform, President Bush started a series of partisan speeches lashing out at anyone who dares to criticize the Iraq war. In his temper tantrum, he derided opponents as being unpatriotic and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Well Mr. President, it seems you just called a majority of the country traitors, since most Americans agree that you're a lying sack of shit that took us into an unwinnable mistake of a war.

In a more Orwellian sense of irony, Republicans are now running a full fledged campaign to demonize war opponents. They've set a media war room, led by a real-life traitor himself, Karl Rove. Not that there's really anything new about this. Every since Bush was elected, the Republicans have set up a permanent campaign operation designed to keep them functioning smoothly. Eventually, however, the American public figured it out, and now all the spin in the world won't save them.

The sad thing is that Bush probably could rally the country if he simply outlined a strategy and began to level with the American people. Instead of hiding behind catch slogans such as "win the war on terror" that even Republicans are tired of, he could give speeches detailing how we will help Iraq transition to sovereignty, what conditions must be met before we can withdraw troops, and when we can realistically meet those conditions.

Unless Bush actually changes course and outlines a plan, the Democrats are going to continue hammering the Republicans and rightfully winning the political battle. The media is finally started to move away from their loyal support of the GOP. Even the Iraqi leaders themselves want the United States to pull out.

For the first time, Iraq's political factions on Monday collectively called for a timetable for withdrawal of foreign forces, in a moment of consensus....

About 100 Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders, many of whom will run in the election on Dec. 15, signed a closing memorandum on Monday that "demands a withdrawal of foreign troops on a specified timetable, dependent on an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces," the statement said.

As Congressman Murtha said recently, the American people are light years ahead of politicians on this. So to Republicans, if you don't want to win, don't change anything you're doing and keep attacking your opponents as being unpatriotic. Because it's the surest way to lose your majority.

Now that I'm back from a two week vacation, there's a lot of events to catch up on. ScAlito hearings are coming up soon, Iraq is still a mess despite holding elections, Jack Abramoff has pleaded guilty, and the list goes on.

But one particular ongoing has really got me inflamed. King George has ordered the NSA to secretly spy on the telephone conversations of ordinary Americans without court approval. Now, the fact that the government is eavesdropping on phone calls arouses suspicion, but there may be a valid defense of the need to do so to prevent terrorism. I do not necessarily support this notion, but the eavesdropping itself does not anger me so much.

The real issue here is that there is already a law that governs telephone monitoring. The law requires that government agencies file a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a court designed explicitly to handle these cases that in general simply rubber stamps the requests. Simple procedure - can surely be done to fight terrorism.

However, Bush has ordered eavesdropping be done without seeking approval of the FISA court. Why bypass the system? WaPo has the answer:

Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House had tried but failed to find a way.

One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.

"For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap," said the official. "They couldn't dream one up."

So, the reason they couldn't go through the court was that the court requires a written reason for eavesdropping? Surely, "connected to suspected terrorist plot" counts as a reason. There are only two reasons to bypass the court.

First, the program could be monitoring anyone and everyone's phone calls to scope out any information. Not only would this be a gross invasion of privacy, it would be completely ineffective. The NSA would have to wade through millions of phone calls to find one between terrorists, who probably don't discuss plans over a non-encrypted phone line anyways.

Second, the program could encompass far more than anti-terrorism efforts. Republicans have shown a great propensity to label their opponents as traitors and terrorist sympathizers. Why not take action against these traitors? We already know (from Fahrenheit 9-11 for example) that anti-war groups have been labelled a terrorist threat and monitored by government agents. We also know that the White House keeps dossiers on more than 10,000 people it considers political opponents. What is in these files? Since it was a secret program with no oversight, the spying program could easily have been used to dig up political dirt for the Bush 2004 campaign, as well as hundreds of other Republican campaigns. Given Republican political operatives' Machiavellian tactics to win at all costs by spreading lies, it does not seem a stretch to use government tools at their disposal to maintain and expand their power.

Bush apologists will continue to proclaim that national security trumps all and that anyone who disagrees with them is a traitor. But to those conservative blowhards, I ask them how they will feel in four years when President Hillary Clinton uses the NSA to dig up evidence of Rush Limbaugh's drug abuse, O'Reilly's sexual harassment, or pry into the sexual practices of Republican candidates, many of whom have mistresses the public is not aware of. This is a police state can of worms that neither side should want to open up.

This isn't a "Dean is crazy" story, so the media won't report it, but here's an awesome blurb from the political world:

The Democratic National Committee raised more than $51M in 2005, a record for an off-year and twenty percent higher than the comparable period in 2003.

Dean's been kicking ass and taking names. The Democratic party has never raised so much money in an off-year, even when Clinton rented out the Lincoln bedroom (which incidentally Bush does as well now) or when Democrats controlled Congress and took millions in lobbyist money.

Better yet, this $51 million is clean money from small donors, not special interests seeking favors. Where the previous DNC chairman bent over backwards to woo big dollar donations, Dean has in fact gone out of his way to show them the finger. Case in point:

William W. Batoff, a Philadelphia real estate developer and longtime Democratic fund-raiser who backed President Bush in 2000 and 2004...claims he will help fund the Dems' congressional efforts but will boycott the national committee while Dean reigns.

In order to build a long term sustainable progressive infrastructure, the Democratic party cannot rely on donations from business interests that are fundamentally hostile to the values of the party. As we learned in the Clinton years, the temporary gains from passing corporate interest legislation (ex NAFTA) are more than offset by the long term damage to the party's public standing (ex the landslide defeat in 1994).

This is why Dean's revamping of party fundraising is so important. The $51 million raised this year is money that will pour in year after year whether or not Democrats are in power, as long as the Democrats stand up for their core values. It is incentive to do what they should be doing, not what a bigtime lobbyist wants them to do.

Of course, the Republicans will continue to vastly outraise the Democrats. They are men of business, and being in power they are exceedingly efficient at selling access and influence. But the Democrats don't need to outraise the GOP. They simply need to raise enough to spread their message everywhere. $51 million will go a long way toward that.

I've been watching the Alito confirmation hearings over the past two days, and I learned a lot. I learned about how a group of conservative Princeton alumni tried to keep women and minorities out of the school. I had a refresher course in how there are three branches of government and that Congress makes laws, not judges. I also found out that Alito is a family man.

But what I haven't learned about is anything relating to Alito's judicial views. He has simply refused to answer just about every question asked of him, other than on the completely noncontroversial principle of one man-one vote. Case in point today:

SCHUMER: And yet you said yesterday and I think you repeated today to Senator Kohl and maybe Senator Feinstein as well, but what you said yesterday was, quote, "I think that one person, one vote is very well settled now in the constitutional law of our country."

So you were able to answer on the basis of something as to whether it's settled, not being in the -- the words are not in the Constitution. But you were queried by a few of my colleagues and you had a different explanation.

Now, you said you can answer on the other issues because it's settled law; it's not going to come before the court.

So let's go over settled law a little bit.

In case after case, you have been telling us -- you have been comfortable telling us that certain cases are settled and yet you won't use that word with respect to Roe. You've done it in a host of other cases and issues. I'll read a few.

So, "I think that one person, one vote is very well settled now in the constitutional law of our history" in response to Senator Kohl.

"The status of independent agencies I think is settled in the case law." That was in response to Senator Leahy.

"But I do think that most of those commerce clause cases in the years preceding Lopez, the ones that come to mind I think are well settled precedents," reference to Senator Feinstein.

"I think the scope of immunity that the attorney has is now settled by Mitchell v. Forsyth, and that's the law."

So can you answer the question? Is Roe settled or not?

It's less of a concern which way you answer. I just would like you to answer the question.

You can say: Roe is not settled; Roe can absolutely be re- examined. I think a lot of people think that's the answer you want to give but it's controversial. And you may not want to give it because it's controversial, even though some of these other issues will come before the court.

Commerce clause cases will come before the court. Certain types of one man, one vote cases will come before the court. Certain types of administrative agencies will come before the court.

SCHUMER: So, why is it only when it comes to Roe, you can't tell us whether it's settled, whether it's not settled or how it is settled. And you can pick any formulation you want.

Other judges have commented on Roe being settled and Lindsey Graham pointed out -- he's not here -- but Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about her view and she still got a lot of votes on the other side of the aisle. Same might happen to you.

So, the question, Judge Alito...

(LAUGHTER)

The question, Judge Alito, is: Why won't you talk to us about Roe in terms of whether it's settled or not when you will about so many other issues, even issues that would come before the court?

ALITO: The line that I've tried to draw -- and I've tried to be as forthcoming as I can with the committee. I've tried to provide as many answers as I could. And, obviously, I'm speaking here extemporaneously in response to questions. The line that I have tried to draw is between issues that I don't think realistically will come before the court and on those I feel more freedom to respond. And one person, one vote is an example.

SCHUMER: Sorry to interrupt, but we have limited time. What about commerce clause? Raich came to the court a couple years ago. Raich has roots all the way back in Wickert v. Fillburn.

You talked about commerce clause cases being settled.

ALITO: Well, it depends on which commerce clause cases you are talking about. Certainly, the initial commerce clause cases that moved away from the pre-New Deal understanding of the commerce clause have been on the books for a long time.

Maybe I have been more forthcoming than I should have been in some areas. And, if that's the case in providing these extemporaneous answers, I can be faulted for that.

But the line that I have to draw, and I think every nominee, including Justice Ginsburg, has drawn, is to say that, when it comes to something that realistically could come before the court, they can't answer about how they would decide that question.

ALITO: That would be a disservice to the judicial process.

This is the Republican strategy now. Talk at length about meaningless points but never respond to an actual question. This is then combined with neverending praise from Republican Senators, who instead of asking questions, seem intent to criticize Democrats for doing so.

GRASSLEY: And I think several horses have been beaten to death, particularly on the other side. And you've been very consistent in your answers, and I thank you. And I think that that speaks to the intellectual honesty of your positions.

It's kind of like we're in the fourth quarter of a football game and you're the quarterback and your team is way ahead here in the fourth quarter and opponents are very desperate, trying to sack you and aren't doing a very good job of it. And they haven't hit you all day, now for two days.

And you're going to keep getting these last-minute Hail Marys thrown at you. So just bear with us.

I want to compliment you, first of all, before I ask some questions, and I just did, to some extent, about the consistency of your testimony, but I think it's been good. I think under very difficult circumstances you've handled yourself very well -- being responsive, forthright, thoughtful.

I sense in you a person that's very sincere. And, obviously, I don't know you except this appearance here and the small period of time we spent in the office. Seems like you have modesty, that's a breath of fresh air, demonstrating a command of and very much a respect for the law and the Constitution, of course.

GRASSLEY: And this is all stuff that we ought to be looking for in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton saying the role of the court -- or the Senate is to make sure that only competent people get on the court and that political hacks do not get on the court.

You are surely no political hack, and you are very competent. And that's been demonstrated with your fair and open-minded approach to your being a judicial person.

It is too bad that we are getting this misconstruing of your record or the answers, the claim that you have not written a single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job in your 15 years on the bench.

I have looked at a lot of opinions you have given, and it is just not true. Your record shows that you ruled in favor minorities making allegations of racial discrimination in employment not once, but in a number of cases.

The claim that you acted unethically in the Vanguard case is just not true. You did nothing improper and actually went beyond the rule to ensure compliance.

The claim that you would support an unchecked executive is just not true. Your record shows that you have repeatedly ruled against the government and that you have told us no one, including the president, is above the law.

The claim that you have ruled in a vast majority of time against the claims of individual citizens in favor of the government and large corporations is just not true. The reality, as I see it, that you have found in favor of the little guy in numerous cases but because of who was right and who was wrong, not just because you have a bias one way or the other.

GRASSLEY: Your critics are, I think, grasping at any straw to tarnish your record, and that's unfortunate.

Then, follow up the simulataneous praise of Alito and criticism of Democrats with trivial questions.

GRASSLEY: Judge Alito, in your opening statement you said -- and I hope I quote you accurately -- "No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law, and no person in this country is beneath the law."

You didn't go into detail about what you meant. I think it's quite clear above the law. But give us that diverse opinion, above the law versus beneath the law.

ALITO: Every person has equal rights under the law in this country, and that involves includes people have no money, that includes people who do not hold any higher or prestigious position, it includes people who are citizens and people who are not citizens.

Everybody is entitled to be treated equally under the law. And I think that's one of the greatest things about our country and about our legal system.

I can just imagine a followup: Judge Alito, do you eat babies? "No, in fact I would find that disgusting."

I would laugh off the ridiculousness of these hearings if they were not of paramount importance. Samuel Alito is going to affect the way Americans live their lives for the next 30 years or more. The Supreme Court in future years will hear cases on personal liberties (ex illegal wiretapping), end of life issues, origin of life issues, separation of church and state, and a whole gamut of new legal dilemmas caused by new medical, computing, and communications technology. These hearings should allow the Senate to carefully weigh the merits of Alito's nomination. Instead, the Republicans have made a mockery of the process, and in effect the Constitutional provision for advice and consent of the Senate.

I don't consider Bush to be a good leader. Good leaders don't insulate themselves from criticism. Good leaders acknowledge faults and mistakes. Good leaders change course when something doesn't work. Bush does none of these things.

Yet the opposing party is so inept, it's no wonder voters elected this buffoon to a second term. Case in point from the AP:

A Democrat who plans to vote against Samuel Alito sided on Sunday with a Republican colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee in cautioning against a filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee.

"I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."

She said she will not vote to confirm the appeals court judge, based on his conservative record. But she acknowledged that nothing emerged during last week's hearings to justify any organized action by Democrats to stall the nomination.

Alito is no Roberts. The man has a record of opposing civil liberties, workers' rights laws, and believes the President has unlimited authority to do whatever he wants during wartime. Here is a clear case where Democrats can step up to the plate and lead the country in a progressive direction by blocking the nomination of Alito. There is little doubt that when confirmed, Alito will reverse many of the major decisions that have shaped constitutional law over the past 50 years, including Roe vs. Wade. Yet, Feinstein refuses to fight back, choosing instead to make a token symbolic gesture of voting against Alito.

Real leaders would take initiative in fighting Alito. They would swarm the media, explaining to the American public that Alito is an ideological conservative with an agenda hostile to the interests of ordinary Americans. Instead of sitting back and watching how the polls go, they would actively try to move the public against conservative extremism. And even if the public sided with the Republicans, real Democratic leaders would fight Alito because it was the right thing to do.

But we have no leaders in Washington. And so the Supreme Court will be overtaken by extremist ideologues who will reshape American society and destroy our freedoms. All the Democrats will choose to do is sigh.

The filibuster failed. It wasn't even close: 72-25. The United States Senate today confirmed an openly right-wing ideologue to the Supreme Court. There is almost no one on either side that doesn't believe Alito will push the entire judiciary strongly to the right, nullifying many of the labor rights, women's rights, civil liberties, and other rights we enjoy in this society. In fact, that was the express goal of conservatives in nominating him.

Yet there was only token Democratic opposition. Sure, the final confirmation vote was 68-42, an almost party-line vote. But on the vote that mattered, the vote to invoke cloture, 19 Democrats broke ranks, including solid "blue-state" Senators Leiberman, Akaka, Carper, and Inouye. This was the full list of Democrats who voted for cloture:

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)

Spineless Democrats are certainly part of the problem, and I don't absolve them of their responsibility. But they are not the only cause of this monumental defeat. Conservatives have been organizing to take over the judiciary for the past 30 years. Pat Buchanan, during the Harriet Miers debacle, said that there were two big goals that spawned the conservative movement. The first was to defeat communism. The second was to move the courts in a decidedly conservative direction. That is why, he said, conservatives were furious with the Miers nomination. They felt this was their moment at last.

The New York Times ran an article yesterday about how long term conservative planning and hard work, since before I was born, led to this confirmation.

After the 1987 defeat of the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork conservatives vowed to build a counterweight to the liberal forces that had mobilized to stop him.

With grants from major conservative donors like the John M. Olin Foundation, the Federalist Society functioned as a kind of shadow conservative bar association, planting chapters in law schools around the country that served as a pipeline to prestigious judicial clerkships.

During their narrow and politically costly victory in the 1991 confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas, the Federalist Society lawyers forged new ties with the increasingly sophisticated network of grass-roots conservative Christian groups like Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs and the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss. Many conservative Christian pastors and broadcasters had railed for decades against Supreme Court decisions that outlawed school prayer and endorsed abortion rights.

During the Clinton administration, Federalist Society members and allies had come to dominate the membership and staff of the Judiciary Committee, which turned back many of the administration's nominees.

Real change has never been brought about by politicians, but by broad political movements. Going all the way back to our revolution, a relatively small group of extremists led an historic rebellion against one of the most powerful colonial armies of the era. Since then, all the major changes that shaped American society, such as the abolition of slavery, Prohibition, the New Deal, and civil rights, have all been borne of large-scale movements that did not rely on a few politicians.

We need to stop looking at recent failures of our Democratic leaders as the problem in and of itself, but rather as a symptom of a larger disease. We face a conservative machine that comprises grassroots groups, churches, think tanks, and media outlets, all of whom communicate and collaborate regularly. This behemoth is paired against a random assortment of left-wing interest groups and policy institutes who don't seem to collaborate at all.

Which leads us to the Alito defeat. Focus on the Family and the RNC asked members months ago to pressure their senators, especially red-state Democrats, to confirm Alito. Other than some clamor from People for the American Way, there was little from the left-wing side. I looked back through my email and couldn't find even a single email from our very own Democracy for America on Alito. Incredible. Not one email on possibly the most important battle of Bush's term.

It may be that these groups were waiting for the hearings to expose Alito's extreme views to America. But by the time the hearings rolled around, Alito was a done deal. The whole process seemed an exercise in futility. The Republican majority were just about unanimously in support of Alito. A few Democrats would probably support him too. Hence, the only media coverage centered around Alito's wife running out in tears.

What would a real progressive movement have done? To start, we would have had a nationally coordinated campaign that started as soon as Alito was announced. Organizations such as DFA, MoveOn, DNC, People for the American Way, NARAL, the Sierra Club, and unions would form a working coalition. This coalition would be led by a national team which then thoroughly researches Alito and forms a strategy and message. The message would be spread throughout blogs, emails, letters to the editor, phone banks, etc. Every concerned group, no matter how big or small, would be provided with a set of facts and what exactly they could do to stop Alito.

Instead, we had no nationally coordinated effort. Various groups did things here and there. At DFNYC, we were somewhat twiddling our thumbs trying to figure out what we could do. It wasn't that the interest wasn't there. We simply did not know how a relatively small locally focused group could do anything to influence Washington, especially given that we already had two strong Democratic senators.

I am sure other progressives throughout the country felt similarly disempowered. We were not part of any national movement to move the Senate our way. Despite this, with some effort by Kerry and Kennedy we mounted a last ditch effort to filibuster. By this standard we were enormously successful. We got 25 Democrats to vote against cloture, many or most of whom had already been on the record as opposing a filibuster.

In order to win in the future, we will need coordinated national efforts to persuade the American public that they share our interests. If we can shape the hearts and minds on the ground, the politicians and votes will surely follow. Because even a spineless Democrat will vote progressive if the polls and media point in a progressive direction.

I don't have much to say, but since Abhishek is not posting in his blog, I have to do something. So I am going to offer up this space to a 'guest opinion' from a dear high school friend of mine who is also a conservative. But he's not one of those creepy 'this is a Christian nation and should have Christian Law' conservatives, but more like a libertarian. And since I'm a libertarian too, I'm going to honor him by posting his 4 point solution to the immigration controversy in our nation. Disclaimer - i am not knowledgable enough to have my own opinion on this subject, so I am just posting someone else's.

1 - secure the border - what's the point of screening grandma at the airport if we can't even secure our borders? national security is a joke if just anybody can get into the country.
2 - raise immigration quotas - make them higher than the current quotas, but still less than the current sum of legals + illegals. why? ask my friend - he had a good reason but i forget.
3 - all current illegal immigrants are already here and this is their home so we shouldn't deport them - this is their home. grant amnesty to these immmigrant families, but do so on the condition that they take a course on american history/government and English language. Help them integrate into society and become legal residents/citizens.
4 - eliminate minimum wage, let the free market determine who comes here and who doesn't.

I probably didn't do my friend justice in describing his points, but i got them out there. I welcome any and all of you to leave remarks on comments - my friend reads this blog occasionally and may respond.

For those of you not in the know, on Tuesday of last week there were a string of elections throughout the country. Many states such as Montana and Virginia held primary elections for statewide races. California held a special election to replace disgraced Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham.

Special elections like this one are used by both political parties to test themes and strategies ahead of the fall elections. It is the best indicator of what will happen in November. Republicans spent $10 million to defend a seat in this heavily Republican area. Democrats ran a strong challenge.

So what happened? Democrat Busby lost 49.5-45.1, an 18% swing from the 2004 total of 58.5-36.5. Many eager prognosticators are pointing out that an 18% swing nationwide would result in Democrats winning 40-50 seats in the House in November.

But the real story is not a 18% swing, but the extremely low turnout. Turnout was less than half the turnout in 2004. Republicans are fed up and many of them stayed home. This would have been great for Democrats if they were able to turn out their base. Busby ran the same John Kerry-style campaign orchestrated by high level Democratic consultants. She avoided taking any important position or saying anything that might offend someone. She ran on corruption and competence and said as little as possible about the number one issue of the day: Iraq.

It is no surprise that Democrats did not care and stayed home on election day as well. Voters do not respond to uninspiring me-too followers. Both parties are searching for real leaders and not the caricatures that we have as Congresspeople today.

And that is why the Democrats will lose this fall. Despite all the advantages of the Republicans screwing up just about everything, I do not predict that we will win more than a few seats, probably short of a majority. It will be the biggest wasted opportunity ever.

I noted in this posting that the Democrats were taking no leadership on the issue of Iraq, which would be the single most important issue of the 2006 campaign. For months so-called party "strategists" had instructed candidates to ignore the war altogether to avoid being painted as weak.

But over the summer, a funny thing happened. Joe Lieberman, who had been the party's VP choice only 6 years prior, was soundly rejected by a majority of Democrats. There were other reasons for his demise, but the chief (and often sole) reason voters elected Ned Lamont as their candidate was Lieberman's unequivocal support of the Iraq debacle. The depth of the anti-war sentiment shocked the Washington establishment and sent a clear message to candidates running across the country. Oppose the war or lose.

Over the next several months, just about every Democrat spoke out against the war. Polls tilted sharply in their favor. By the end of October, Republicans abandoned their "stay the course" rhetoric, and Bush toured the country claiming that they were "constantly changing tactics" to win in Iraq. By then it was too late. Democrats swept both houses of Congress. In the House of Representatives, they won a larger majority than the Republicans ever had in their 12 years of power.

Despite these gains, I think an opportunity was missed. Many Democrats did not show true leadership. Rather, they simply benefitted from voters punishing Republicans. They did not articulate anti-Iraq positions until it became clear that it would be popular. As we look towards 2008, it is important that we find a candidate who inspires and leads this country in the right direction, not one who waits to see what the voters want and molds him/herself appropriately. That is the candidate who will win big and, more importantly, deliver a strong progressive America.