Let's do it without DeLay!

From the New York Times today:

“Representative John Tanner, a Tennessee Democrat, introduced a bill last week that would . . . create nonpartisan redistricting commissions in every state. The commissions would be prohibited from taking the voters' party affiliations or voting history into account when drawing lines. Instead, the bill would emphasize continuity of counties, municipalities and neighborhoods. The bill would also limit Congressional redistricting to once every 10 years.”

Here's a LINK to the full editorial.

And be sure to visit the topic on Rep. Tanner's web site.

Now, I don't reckon that my congressman, Joe Barton, will likely support this, but I'll bet a few of you out there have honorable, ethical, responsible representatives who will, if they hear from you!

Choose the cauldron?

The use of unwanted frozen embryos for stem-cell research (the basic importance of which which no one, not even George Bush, disputes) has some folks in a lather. According to the Associated Press, Majority Leader Tom DeLay has offered his opinion that "the embryonic research bill would force taxpayers to finance 'the dismemberment of living, distinct human beings.'"

The alternative? According to an essay found on enotes.com, an encyclopedia-style repository of information,

Embryos are usually destroyed by being thawed and allowed to resume their cell division until they can no longer continue to grow outside of a uterus because there is no nourishment, at which point they die. In some instances, they are plunged in a hot solution— termed “rapid thaw.” In both instances, the embryos are then discarded as biological waste.

Looks like Mr. DeLay and his followers have their work cut out for them.

Delicious scandal

Grover Norquist, the man who would " starve the beast ," the Bush buddy I love to hate, is now caught up in the Abramoff/DeLay connection! Read all about it here!

Almost gives me hope . . .

Advice and consensus?

The threat of removing the rule permitting unlimited debate is a threat to the very elegant nature of our Senate, which for so long has famously served as a cooling saucer to the oft-boiling brew that is the House of Representatives.

The fact that our founding fathers allocated two senators to every state despite enormous differences in population shows exactly what they intended -- to give the minority protection from an overreaching majority.

Both "consent" and "consensus" trace back to one Latin word, consentire, with but one definition in the American Heritage Dictionary, "to feel together"; I've no doubt, therefore, that the instruction in the Constitution requiring the "advice and consent of the Senate" contemplated consensus, and indeed consensus was the practice for over 130 years!

Americans who cherish the special democracy that we enjoy should stand squarely against the "nuclear option" and in favor of open debate.

Bring back Ike!

In the papers of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, we find yet another reason to wonder at how the party he chose as his own has turned . . .

[I]t is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything — even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. ... Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

A rose by any other name . . .

We've been hearing more and more often that the “insurgents” in Iraq are growing ever “more sophisticated,” and on NPR this morning that was reported again, as well as that they now have armor-piercing bullets and body armor of their own.

Our official position seems to be, also ever-more-often, that the “insurgents” are Saddam’s people — and at least one was heard recently speculating that this may have been Saddam's intent all along. However it is spun, it looks and smells like war, a whole different thing from just a pesky insurgency.

Since there doesn’t seem to be an abatement in sight, and since the attacks now are almost totally against Iraqis even more so than against the new Iraqi regime that we are supporting, isn’t it about time we admit we are once again in the middle of a civil war?

A better man

Ohio Republican Senator George Voinovich showed himself to be a better man when he stood up yesterday to the lock-step marchers in his party and proclaimed John Bolton to be "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." Link

John Bolton came to his confirmation hearings with a hefty record of bullying staff, manipulating intelligence, threatening CIA agents who disagreed with him, and generally wreaking havoc in sensitive situations during his tenure in the State Department. If none of that were relevant we still have his statement that “There is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along.”

Yet he told the committee considering his nomination that “If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this committee to forge a stronger relationship between the United States and the United Nations, which depends critically on American leadership.” Link

Yeah.

If you remember, the White House was going to visit with Sen. Voinovich on the topic after he delayed the hearing a couple of weeks ago; now the White House is spinning, spinning...

They say they are pleased that Mr. Voinovich has said he won't block the nomination from reaching the Senate floor. Sort of not mentioning that Mr. Voinovich has said he absolutely positively will not vote for the man.

The president needs to nominate a better man.

Spinacity

I want to call to your attention the letter in today’s New York Times signed by Al Hubbard, director of the president’s National Economic Council. He takes on columnist Paul Krugman, who said in his May 2nd column (a must-read!) that President Bush's plan to change the way Social Security benefits are calculated to increase would deliver a "gut punch" to the middle class.

Mr. Hubbard lauded the plan put forth by Robert C. Pozen (pointedly identified by Mr. Hubbard as a Democrat, though I don't know if it's true), who is apparently Mr. Bush's source and latest guru on matters of Social Security "reform." The president's man opined that Pozen’s plan “could be a model for reform,” that under it "lower-income workers would receive the fastest benefit growth of all. And everyone would receive greater benefits than today’s retirees.”

Well, yes, in the first instance, since lower-income workers would be the ONLY ones whose benefits were not cut, they would naturally receive the fastest benefit growth! As in: "Well, duh!"

And in the second instance, if you know the facts you know that payments to FUTURE retirees will exceed benefits paid to TODAY’S retirees in any event — even with the price-indexing adjustments that Mr. Pozen and the president want, but even more so under the existing, wage-indexed system.

Mr. Hubbard’s carefully crafted wording-to-deceive is one more example of the ongoing crime of spin. How long will Americans tolerate it?

Going nuclear

There is practically a consensus among reporters and pundits that Senator Frist’s stated determination to get judicial nominees confirmed at all costs is rooted in his intention to run for President in 2008. But I don't think it's as simple as that. Remember that when Dr. Frist beat out the competition for Majority Leader it was, as was widely reported, because he was Mr. Bush’s man.

That being the case, it’s fair to understand that it is Mr. Bush who intends to go nuclear if necessary to get what he wants — which should serve as a warning as we consider the challenges posed by Iran, Iraq, Korea, the UN, immigration, Social Security, energy, the environment and the deficit, just to name the obvious.