The Senate's drama queen

After failing once again to secure approval for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), crotchety old Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens threatened to go to the states of all the senators who opposed his drilling plan to tell their constituents "what you've done." I'm sure it was just more bluster from the self-described "mean, miserable SOB," but if it's not I imagine many senators would welcome such an opportunity to discuss federal spending priorities.

I'm sure the senators would love to point out to their constituents and Sen. Stevens how much of their tax dollars are redistributed to the state of Alaska. I'm sure they'd love to point out how Alaskans don't pay any state income taxes, but instead receive an annual payment from their state government. This year every man, woman and child in Alaska received $845.76 from the fund merely for breathing the air in the 49th state.

DC Clipmonkey has written before about how Alaska's welfare mentality contradicts the state's image as a land of rugged individuals. I guess it's just one more example of how we've entered an age of hypocrisy. Sen. Stevens embodies that hypocrisy like no one else- a "conservative" who binges at the government trough.

It's time for Congress to do its job

While many on the left are salivating over visions of impeachment hearings in response to the news of the president's domestic wiretapping program, it's important to acknowledge that the man's intentions, at least in this particular case, are not evil. Yes, he and Cheney do have some devilish designs on consolidating power within the executive branch. But if you had a friend who you knew was emailing Osama bin Laden, wouldn't you let the FBI know? I certainly would.

Clearly the administration overstepped its bounds. It should have at least sought the endorsement of those members of Congress serving on the intelligence committees before undertaking such a program. It should have even sought legislation that would have provided this authority. In fact, the refusal to seek congressional approval reveals a certain contempt or condescension toward the legislative branch and the American people.

As John Dean clearly laid out in his excellent book Worse Than Watergate, this administration has gone to incredible lengths to consolidate power in the executive. Maybe they felt they deserved such power or sincerely believed that it would not be granted by Congress. Considering that the administration has pretty much had its way with Congress for five years now, it would be surprising if such authority would not have been quickly provided, especially in the aftermath of 9/11.

Nearly half of Americans lack any trust in this administration. They are well-justified in this viewpoint. But there is no evidence that the administration has used this particular power to spy on Americans for political purposes. The administration certainly must be held accountable for spying on certain left-wing groups (including the Catholic Workers, a group this clipmonkey once considered joining) under other provisions within the law. That discovery warrants serious scrutiny. And we may find out about appalling excesses in the coming weeks, but until then this president deserves the benefit of the doubt. Many of his policies are loathsome, but he's no J. Edgar Hoover.

The real test now is what Congress will do next. Will it stage show hearings and express alarm while tacitly approving the surveillance program? Or will the Republicans in Congress finally fulfill their oversight role of the executive branch rather than continuing to serve as the pro-corporate, pro-Bush patsies they've been for the past five years?

The poor: Not a high priority for the religious right

This writer has repeatedly excoriated "Christians" who spend their time demonizing gay people while ignoring the concerns of poor Americans. It has always been a mystery to me how these folks on the religious right could be such activists around so many causes (evolution, gay rights, nominating judges, tax cuts) yet completely disregard Christ's teachings with regard to the poor. Well, in a Washington Post story this week, many of these fixtures of the religious right explained why they do virtually nothing about the issue of poverty in America- it's just not a high priority.

Money quote:

"It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important," said Paul Hetrick, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, Dobson's influential, Colorado-based Christian organization. "But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that."

Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian journal Sojourners and an organizer of today's protest, was not buying it. Such conservative religious leaders "have agreed to support cutting food stamps for poor people if Republicans support them on judicial nominees," he said. "They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They're being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical."

Thank you, Jim Wallis, for calling attention to this staggering hypocrisy.

(Some) candor from Bush

Dare I say it, but is President Bush starting to grow up? His childish refusal to admit mistakes during the first four years of his administration seems to have finally passed as this week he acknowledged that the prewar intelligence on Iraq was wrong and that the war itself has not been such great news for 30,000 dead Iraqis.

Of course, it was not a perfect week for Bush. He stated his belief that Tom DeLay was innocent on the charges currently pending against him, a comment that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid deemed a high-level act of jury tampering. News reports also revealed this week that the president has been trampling on the Constitution by authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals.

But these embarrassing instances aside, Bush did something else this week that has been extremely rare since he took office - compromise. On Thursday, he and torture enthusiast Dick Cheney gave up on their effort to retain the right of the CIA to torture detainees. Of course, loopholes abound in the president's compromise, but this is a step toward reestablishing our nation's traditional respect for human rights.

Are these signs that the administration is maturing? Compromising and speaking with candor are what adults do, but for the most part neither have been part of this administration's repertoire. With three painful years ahead under this regime, these actions offer a little hope.

Under the radar: Plumbing the leaks

Several weeks ago WashPo reporter Dana Priest uncovered the news that the U.S. government was detaining some Al Qaeda suspects in several Eastern European countries, away from the attention of the Red Cross and safely in that netherworld where torture and prisoner treatment standards are nebulous. This was alarming, but not surprising news as it's been well-documented that this administration supports the use of torture and has used a variety of means to enable other countries to practice torture on terrorism suspects.

The one surprising thing about this episode was not that it was occurring, but how Republicans reacted to it. Rather than condemning the use of secret prisons, Messieurs Frist and Hastert initiated an inquiry into how news of the detention facilities was leaked to the press. They expressed no outrage about the facilities themselves. Sadly, this is today's Republican Party- more concerned about protecting its leaders than doing what is right. Even the Wall Street Journal supports the Republicans' pro-torture agenda.

Howard Dean's at it again

Just when it seemed like the Democrats were on a roll that might carry them through November 2006, Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean recaptured the role of useful idiot for the Republicans. On a talk radio show early this week Dean commented, "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."

As with most of Mr. Dean's ill-timed statements, there may be some truth to this one. However, it was not a helpful comment and it ultimately depends on how you define winning. In fact, the best way out of Iraq may well be to simply declare victory and get out soon. If this is the case, Democrats and progressives who want us out should be shouting what a success the war has been. Although the country is a total mess, one could argue that we've already won- we've deposed Saddam, we've enabled the country to hold elections, we've enabled the Iraqis to govern themselves at least partially.

The problem with this latest statement is that it changes the subject from how poorly Bush is handling the Iraq war to are the Democrats treasonous naysayers? Howard Dean has made a significant contribution to the Democratic Party, but he should never have been chosen as its leader. Now he should step down and run for the Senate where he'll only embarrass a few hundred thousand people from the state of Vermont, not Democrats across the country.

In Bush's America, facts are for those who lack power

John DiIulio, President Bush's former director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said it best in a story that appeared in Esquire Magazine in January 2003:

"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

So it is with the news this week that political appointees in the Justice Department overruled the findings of a team of lawyers who unanimously concluded that the 2003 Texas redistricting plan, initiated by a certain indicted figure, was a violation of the Voting Rights Act. As we know, the plan was approved and five new Republicans were elected in Texas in 2004 singlehandedly increasing the Republican majority in the House.

Similarly, we learned several weeks ago that administration officials at the FDA had circumvented the agency's normal procedures to block Plan B emergency contraception from being available over the counter.

With this administration, the pattern is clear. There is no room for dispassionate policy analysis. Facts and data are merely for people who lack power. In this White House, there is only power and the will to exercise it.

Bring it on

As memos continue to leak out revealing the activist leanings of Judge Samuel Alito, it's becoming clear that this man could be the guy to overturn Roe v. Wade. Of course, he won't say it during the course of his hearings and he'll look like a sweet little puppy when DiFi confronts him over some of his Reagan era writings. But sooner or later, we are going to have to deal with the fact that the right-wingers on the court are determined to overturn the right to an abortion.

While this action may be devastating for women for some years to come, it's time to air this spat before the entire nation. A solid majority of Americans believe that women should have the right to choose. And another solid segment of the Republican Party supports it, too. But both sides have been allowed to hide behind hypotheticals for decades. It's time to stand and be counted. Should the state force a woman to have a child against her will?

This writer strongly supports efforts to reduce abortions from occurring in the first place, but at the end of the day, he would NEVER take away a woman's right to choose. Would you, President Bush, or you Chief Justice Roberts, or you soon-to-be Justice Alito? It's time to bring this discussion out in the open.