Liberals’ 12-Step Program Begins…

The first step is to admit you have a problem.

Even Mainstream Media (MSM) is “rethinking how it covers politics” but it looks like they’ve got a lot to learn.

The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious. If that transformation is now allowed to run off the rails, the new rationale could prove to be as hollow as the original one.

President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a “free and peaceful Iraq” that would…

According to a Washington Post story, and parroted in the comments section of a previous post, Democrats are taking the Wayback Machine to 1968 to give Republicans a dose of “I told ya so.”

Just one problem. The 1968 filibuster of Abe Fortas is much different than today’s Democrat Minority tactics.

Abe Fortas had already been confirmed as a judge. An opportunity the Minority party Democrats haven’t afforded to Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, etc.

In addition, 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats opposed the elevation of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to the position of chief justice of the United States because there was an ethical concern that Fortis had taken money from the Wolfson Foundation, which had been funded by tainted money, and he was receiving an astronomical sum for a few moments of lecturing at American University. An ethical scandal taking place while he sat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Wolfson Foundation was run by Fortas friend and former client, Louis Wolfson, who was convicted of violating Federal securities laws and spent time in prison.

But most importantly, the Fortis filibuster was not aimed to derail a final vote. It was to enable further information to be elicited since the scandal was unfolding.

The Democrats were also involved in the filibuster, and President Johnson withdrew the nomination.

There wasn�t any final effort by a Senate minority to prevent a vote. It was the President who chose to withdraw the nomination.

Fortas ultimately resigned from the court under public pressure and congressional scrutiny, including a threat of impeachment. He was the first justice to do so.

When a television station hires a weatherman with Tourettes Syndrome, which federal law applies?

The Americans with Disabilities Act, which forbids discrimination in hiring based on a disability, or, FCC Regulations which forbid the broadcast of indecent or profane programming during certain hours.

Beginning April 14, 2005, all lighters will be prohibited as carry-on items. Up to four (4) books of safety matches are permitted as carry-on only. Lighters and Matches are always prohibited in checked baggage.

An Iraqi insurgent group says it shot down a commercial helicopter that crashed near Baghdad on Thursday - and that it shot dead the only survivor. The Islamic Army posted a video on the internet purporting to show the wreckage, and the shooting.

I’m sure they’ll be waiting anxiously for their winning notification.

Patrick Haab Acted Lawfully - Charges Dropped

And justice prevails again.

Maricopa County Attorney AndrewThomas declined Thursday to prosecute an Army reservist who acknowledged having held seven Mexican men at gunpoint at a southwestern Arizona rest stop. Sgt. Patrick Haab did not commit a crime and was making a lawful citizen’s arrest when he detained six illegal immigrants and the man smuggling them, Thomas said at a news conference. Thomas said that after a complete analysis of the issues involved and the applicable law, “prosecution is not appropriate.” … Thomas’ office said Arizona citizens have the right to make a citizen’s arrest if either a federal or state felony offense has been committed in their presence or if a felony has been committed and the citizen has reasonable grounds to believe the person he intends to arrest has committed it.

For full disclosure, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas is a Republican. I only bring that up to say, for Patrick Haab’s sake, thank God he wasn’t a Democrat.

Related
We Must Protect This House
We Must Protect This House II
We Must Protect This House III

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, an Ohio Democrat who sits on the House ethics committee, took a 2001 trip to Puerto Rico that was paid for by a registered lobbyist firm � an apparent violation of the chamber’s ethics rules � according to documents that she filed with the House clerk. (Hat tip: Michelle)

Of course, she denies it all.

Miss Williams declined to provide The Washington Times with any evidence to support her assertion and refused to have either the lobbying firm or the group she says actually paid for the trip provide any documentation to prove her claim. In addition to the travel disclosure form, which was filed two weeks after Mrs. Jones’ return and bears her signature, the lobbyists also were listed as the trip’s sponsor in the financial disclosure forms she signed and filed at the end of the year.

Denials seem to be enough proof when the scandal involves Democrats, even when there is documentary evidence signed by the violator. But simply make an accusation about a Republican and two forms of ID, a blood test and a sacrifice of one’s first born still won’t minimize the press coverage.

I wonder why Nancy Pelosi isn’t holding hourly press conferences about Stephanie Tubbs Jones…

Also on the Vieques trip with Mrs. Jones, who was on the ethics committee at the time, were Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and other House members.

Oh.

“Smith Dawson was put on the form in error,” Jones spokeswoman Nicole Williams said. “The invitation came from Todo Puerto Rico con Vieques. They hired Smith Dawson to handle logistics for the trip.” …

House rules specifically bar “registered lobbyists” from paying for trips by members. Private groups, such as Todo Puerto Rico con Vieques (TPRV), which opposed the Navy’s bomb-testing site on Vieques, are allowed to fund trips. …

Local press reports at the time described TPRV as an “anti-U.S. Navy” organization founded to oppose the Navy’s use of Vieques. The group is not officially listed as a registered lobbyist in House records.

Well, as long as they’re just treating members of Congress, who have the ability to enact legislation to support their cause, to a nice trip to the Carribean and not “lobbying” for anything…

I bet what happened here is that this trip was bought and paid for by the lobbyists for the purpose of lobbying and Pelosi and the others were smart shady enough to know not to put the name of the registered lobbyist on the forms… and Stephanie Tubbs Jones was just too ignorant to understand how the game is played. Great, now she’s ruined it for all the “appearance-of-being-ethical-only-when-others-are-looking” Democrats. Good job.

But the quote of the day goes to…

Leon Buck, chief of staff for Mrs. Jackson-Lee, initially said he had no record of his boss going on the trip. Told about her appearance in Vieques press reports at the time, he then dismissed the story. “This trip is four years old,” Mr. Buck said. “I’m not sure why this is even relevant.”

Nice try. Next time you try to lie and coverup for your boss, make sure there aren’t press reports about her, moron. Besides, we need get back to focusing on that eeeeeeevil Tom DeLay and his EIGHT year old trip.

I guess relevancy is a sliding scale with Democrats.

Update: For Pelosi, it now appears turnabout is fair play. (Hat tip: Matt)

On the judicial nomination issue and the Democrats’ filibuster thereof, one thing is clear… Democrats just don’t understand our government. The Constitution specifically addresses the issue of judicial nominations in Article 2, Section 2:

…and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States…

So what is “advice and consent”?

ad�vice: recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct.
con�sent: to give assent or approval.

So it’s up to the Senate to give recommendations regarding the President’s decision or course of conduct and then to give assent or approval. How does the Senate give its collective recommendations, decisions, assent or approval? By voting.

Throughout history, that vote has been a simple majority: 51%. If 51 Senators speak on the issue, it’s considered that “the Senate” has spoken. There are specific instances referenced in the Consitution when more than a simple majority is required, but judicial confirmation isn’t one of them.

So what are the Democrats saying by filibustering the judicial nominations? They’re saying the Constitution isn’t good enough. They’re saying that “the Senate” hasn’t spoken unless at least 60 Senators say so. Effectively, they’re telling America’s 295 million citizens who have ELECTED each and every Senator that comprises the current Senate that a handful of Senators represented by a small segment of the overall population can re-write the centuries-old rules just because they say so.

This is the same party that constantly roles out the “disenfranchisement” language. Well, here’s your disenfranchisement. A majority of Americans voted in such a way that we happen to have Republican majorities in each house of Congress. Now a small handful of extremists on the Left are telling the majority that they don’t have the power to act on behalf of their constituents, but rather the small segment of the population represented by the extreme liberals get to make up the rules as they go because “it’s not fair” that they’re not the majority party.

This is the same, tired rhetoric from the Left. They want a utopian society where nobody wins and nobody loses… of course, they only want this when they’re not in power. When liberals are in power, watch out, it’s majority rule, the rest be damned!

But now a handful of Democrats, tired of the extreme wing of their party acting like jackasses, is seeking to end the nonsense (hat tip: Mark).

Democrat Senator Ben Nelson, … who is working on a bipartisan compromise to end the filibuster of judicial nominees, said he believes that his party�s practice of blocking confirmation votes on controversial nominees has put him and fellow Democratic centrists in politically difficult positions. Nelson … suggested that a few Democrats in so-called red states might be relieved should the prospect of filibustering the president�s nominees be eliminated. …

Nelson has suggested to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and his own party�s leadership a proposal that would automatically discharge judicial nominees from the Judiciary Committee after a certain amount of time if the panel failed to vote on them. Under Nelson�s proposal, after another set period any senator could then call nominees discharged from committee to the floor for a confirmation vote. The proposal would be implemented as a permanent change to Senate rules.

Now there’s democracy in action. Give the minority the ability to offer its advice and consent (or disapproval) and then move to vote. If “the Senate” thinks the nominee is sufficient, it will vote to confirm. If “the Senate” doesn’t think the nominee has what it takes, it will vote negatively.

Democrats love to paint the picture that when they don’t have all the power that somehow their minority status was obtained by something other than the legitimate processes of a Democratic Republic.

Today, the Republicans control certain areas of the government BECAUSE AMERICAN CITIZENS VOTED THAT WAY.

Just because you don’t get your way everytime doesn’t mean your voice (and that of your constituents) isn’t being heard. Trust me, we hear you loud and clear… and that’s probably the reason you’re not in power.

UPDATE: You will undoubtedly hear the Democrat talking points surrounding a filibuster of Richard Paez in 1999, like the one posted in the comments section of this post. The Left is pouncing on it like Michael Moore on a twinkie. But what these liberals are failing to recognize is that Richard Paez’s nomination was being held up by a DEMOCRAT filibuster. Ted Stewart was a former aide to Orrin Hatch and was nominated by President Clinton on July 27, 1999. Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon were both also nominated, but because of the filibuster against Stewart, their confirmations were delayed. For what it’s worth, Paez was ultimately confirmed. And now Democrats want to project their own prior bad behavior onto Republicans because it fits their current line of bullshit.