The Savage Republican

Senatorial Glass Houses

A friend pointed me to this information over at the National Rebublican Senatorial Committee website. It indicates that 40 out of 45 sitting Democratic Senators have taken money from Jack Abramoff or his clients. Now the NRSC is stating that they retrieved the information from the Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, (access is for members only), Political Money Line and the IRS website.

I found some of the numbers listed to be troubling, and that is putting it mildly. Here are a few notable examples and how much (according to the NRSC website):

Byron Dorgan(D-ND) Received At Least $79,300
Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least $14,000
Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least $29,550
Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least $29,830 and
John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least $98,550

Notably absent from this list is our soon to be former Senior Senator, Mark Dayton.

Now I am not naive enough to think that there are no Republican senators on this list, however a visit to the DSCC website did not reveal any similarly detailed information. It simply listed 5 Republican Senators....Senators that we already knew about.

What we know now, via public records, is that a lot of people on both sides of the aisle took money from either Jack Abramoff or his clients. By now, we have all seen the list (in pink and blue) that shows a supposed "vast" number of Republicans who took Abramoff money. As I said here the smart party is going to propose some real campaign finance and lobbying reform. The party that is not serious about it is going to go to on Wolf Blitzer's program and say "we never took money from Abramoff, only his clients" as if there is a difference! Whatever!!!!!!

In discussing this issue a wise woman asked "My question is, "Which of them sold their votes for favors, and who merely accepted the donations without performing favors and selling out?" Two different animals in my book." and she is absolutely correct. That is where the difference lies.....who took the money and sold out and who didn't!

Here is my challenge to any Democrats that are reading this blog. Find me a source that says that 90% of the sitting Republican Senators took money from Abramoff or his clients. You can send it to me at the address LadyLogician at hope4america (dot) net.

But know this readers , contrary to the protestations of the DNC Chairman, taking money from Jack Abramoff clients who are giving money to you at Abramoff's direction, is the same as taking money from the man directly! So Ms. Pelosi......bring on the investigation! But make sure your house is in order or you could end up being taken down by your own myopia!

Good intentions, Abramoff and the Republican leadership

I had a conversation today with Captain Ed from Captains Quarters Blog . We talked about a number of things including a very worthwhile project regarding a WWII veteran and trying to correct a 62 year injustice that he has suffered. More on that in a few weeks. We also briefly talked about the Abramoff scandal. And I related the sum and substance of my blog entry and repeated to him that the only reason that influence is bought is that there is influence to buy. Enforce the 10th Amendment, keep those cretins in Congress true to their oath of office (and by the way kids, a Congressman is either a Representative OR a Senator...Congress includes BOTH houses- Senate and the House of Representatives), keep the chief resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave true to his oath of office and all that influence buying goes away.
So, when I see the Blogosphere calling for reform of the lobbyists (see Captain Ed's top entry), I say don't go halfway. Don't amputate half of a gangrene arm. Don't expect that what you've proposed will really work. To use Thoreau, don't cut at the leaves, chop at the roots!

Abramoff fall-out starting

Many opined (in the days following the Abramoff plea agreement) that we were going to see affirmation of the "culture of corruption" charges that the Democratic leadership has leveled at the Republican Party. Well, according to this article in todays Washington Times (free registration required) that charge may have been greatly exaggerated.

" Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation's opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican. "

Now I fully grasp that this is the "opening phase" of the investigation, but I find it telling that the ranking member that is implicated is none other that Nevada's Harry Reid! Not Tom DeLay, not Bill Frist, but Harry Reid the Senate Minority Leader.

Much hay has been made about the so-called Republican "culture of corruption". I think that the most correct assessment is the culture of corruption that permeates Washington DC. The country has reached a cross-roads. It is imperative that one party take the lead in reforming the way business is done in DC. If the Republicans are smart, they will be the ones to take the lead. That will pave the way to success in November. Will it happen? It will if the American people demand that it happen. Are you up to the challenge dear readers?

The Alito Hearings

I have been trying (as best as I can given a work schedule) to follow the Alito hearings over the last three days. Thanks to the Internet, I can catch up on a lot that I have missed. For those who, like me, have to work during the hearings, this website has been a godsend. I plan to write about some of these transcripts as time allows, but following the transcripts is a great way to see what is going on.

You know things are bad (for the Dems) when even your most stalwart supporter, the New York Times, is admitting that you’re not getting the job done.

“Judge Alito's default impulse frequently seemed to be to try to give a direct response to the senators' often rambling questions.”

Rambling is an understatement. For the most part, when the Democratic Senators had their 30 minutes to “ask questions” they spent the majority of that time bloviating! Senator Leahy spent 18 of his 30 minutes talking, Senator Kennedy spent 24 of his 30 minutes speaking (he ended up needing an extension of his time because he was rambling so much) – as did Senator Biden,. All of which made Senator Leahy’s comments (at the beginning of his time) even more ironic;

“So glad you survived yesterday listening to us. Now we have a chance to hear you.”

While the Senators asked a number of questions that were based on actual decisions (they mentioned Doe v. Groody and Baker v. Monroe Township) but when they realized that they could not get him on the issues, the attacks turned personal! During the questioning this afternoon, Mrs. Alito left the chamber in tears after listening to Senator Graham gallantly apologize to the nominee for his compatriots horrible behavior!

Prior to that, Senator Kennedy (momentarily forgetting that he was not even the ranking DEMOCRAT much less the ranking member of the committee) threatened to hijack the committee in order to hold up the meetings in order to get yet MORE documentation. Senator Kyl (speaking on Hugh Hewitt’s program moments ago) seemed to think that this breach of decorum was mostly to play to the TV camera’s and have his recorded moment for the base at People for the American Way.

I used to think (naively) that when it came to doing “the people’s business” that partisan politics would somehow get put aside….that the “world’s greatest deliberative body” would not stoop to such lows (as personal attacks on nominees) but as I saw today, I was sadly mistaken. Senator Schumer, in his haranguing remarks late this afternoon, made it decided clear that the Democratic partisans have no interests in doing what is best for this country. While I am sad that my naïve views of the Senate have been so brutally crushed, I am glad to see that it happened now, in the build up to the 2006 elections. The people of the country have got to be horrified at this turn of developments in DC. Hopefully they will do the right thing come next November!

UPDATE: Captain Ed has a great post today about the McCarthyesque tone that Senator Kennedy's line of questioning took. It is a must read!

McCain/Feingold Too Lax! Federal Prison, Here I Come!

Reviewing my post below, I now find out that I am now open to spending two years in a federal prison plus face a heavy fine .
It is now a federal crime to "annoy" someone either on the web or in an email without disclosing your, or my, true identity ( article here ). Not libel. Not threaten. Annoy.
This prohibition is buried in the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act" (always glad to see that Violence Against Men is OK as far as the Senate is concerned. And what did ever did happen to "equal protection under the law"? Obviously an outmoded concept...along with federalism).
Yup. Annoy someone and not use your name, off to Leavenworth you go!!
And if you want to see how this piece of Senate sausage is made, go here ,click on either item 5 or 6 and just read the section titles and see how your money is spent, and see the reach of the Imperial Congress and agreed to by GWB.
Had enough yet?

30,000 Terrorist Weapons Seized! Community Thankful for Feds Alertness!

The ever vigilant Federal Government took possession of 30,000 weapons in Minneapolis yesterday in a sweep through our little community that certainly found us napping, but not the always alert Feds and the FDA!
These nasty little instruments of terror, disguised as loaves of bread, were improperly labeled according to a small and recent change in the labeling commandments from the front line defense from terror, the Food and Drug Administration.
I can't tell you how relieved I am knowing that taxpayers money is so well spent as this action evidences. This brave engagement proves that all the issues I thought were pressing are now obviously well under control.
I also noticed that another potential local perpetrator of terror has ONLY SIX people who do nothing but check label compliance. My lands, what is this capitalist thinking? I would hope that the FDA immediately demand that ALL employees be trained in spotting label non-compliance. Immediately I say!!!
We all know that label non-compliance and gluten intolerance is eroding the Republic. And I am saddened to find that this insidious activity and threat has been found here in the heartland. But, I'm quite encouraged, even elated to see that our brave federal officials are on the ball and not to be trifled with!
Now that label non-compliance and gluten intolerance have been firmly addressed and the bakery community put on HARD notice, I can only hope and wish that shoelace length discrepancies will now be in the Federal crosshairs!
(Information in this article found here in Prairie Pravda).

Saw this at The Corner this morning.

PREDICTION [Jonah Goldberg]
This exchange from CNN yesterday will come back to haunt Howard Dean:
BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?
DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.
BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.
DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...
BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?
DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

I would laugh, except that I heard Ember Reichgott Junge (former DFL State Senator) spout the same talking points yesterday on "At Issue with Tom Hauser" (a local political talk show). Unfortunately it was not the last time I hear that yesterday either. They think that they can spin this, but it is not going to work. The American people are not that stupid! They can see through the spin and the distortions.

What media bias????

An email was forwarded to me today. The email was from the Media Research Council and it was decrying the "bias" in reporting on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Media bias, you say???? NOOOOOOOO it can't be so.

Oh wait a minute. I missed this screed in Boston Globe.

"IN THE 1998 movie ''Pleasantville," Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon play typical '90s kids who are inadvertently transported into the unreal reality of a 1950s sitcom. They use their '90s values to teach the sitcom world some lessons about diversity and tolerance.
Today many people have a stylized, ''Pleasantville" vision of the pre-Roe era in which I grew up. They imagine fondly that almost all families had a Daddy at the office and a Mommy in the kitchen; that almost all family relations were well-ordered and unthreatening; in short, that life looked like ''Leave It to Beaver" -- and that, with a few legal adjustments, it could do so again."

OHMIGOSH!!!! We have a WHAT???????? Here are a couple of those stylized "Pleasantville" visions....

Short Term Physical Dangers: An abortion is an unnatural, invasive act on the female body. The cervix is not meant to be forced open. The uterus is not meant to be scraped and vacuumed empty. Women can experience immediate physical problems related to their abortions.
Infection: Infection is the most common abortion complication. It can easily occur if any placental or fetal material is left in the uterus. Lacerations or other injuries to the uterine wall can also lead to infection. Women who have an abortion while infected with chlamydia have an especially high risk of getting pelvic inflamatory disease, which can lead to infertility.
Perforations : Common abortion procedures involve inserting sharp tools into the uterus. Women can suffer cuts or perforations of the uterus or bowel, which can lead to blood poisoning and even death. (And a hospital may report the cause of death as blood poisoning, and not as a botched abortion.)
Cervical Damage: During normal childbirth, the cervix - the lowest muscle in the uterus - softens and slowly stretches open to allow the baby to be born. The cervix is not prepared to be forced open earlier in the pregnancy. Stretching the stiff cervix muscle to insert tools or remove fetal parts can tear and weaken the cervical muscle, especially in a first pregnancy.
Others: Other side-effects of an abortion can include excessive bleeding, hemorrhaging, endotoxic shock, fever, and vomiting.

And those are just the some of the short term damages.....

Meanwhile, a vast majority of the country feels that there are certain reasonable restrictions. If a child/teen-ager wants to have an abortion, the parents should be notified that their daughter was undergoing a surgical proceedure (anything invasise like this is technically a surgical proceedure). After all, if a child needs a parent's permission to get her ears pierced, it is only reasonable that a child should need parental involvement for an abortion. If a woman seeking an abortion is married, that her husband be told that she is having the proceedure. No permission is being sought! Simple notification. No abortions should be committed in the final trimester of a pregnancy unless finishing the pregnancy would severely harm the mother's health. There is some debate on this. Thanks to medical technology, a baby that is 8-10 weeks premature can live, but it will require intensive care. If that is the case, should the baby be delivered and if they are, who will pay for the expensive care that this child will require?

No one wants to return to the days of unsafe back alley abortions Ms. Michelman. Neither is Judge Alito out of step with "mainstream America". That honor belongs to people like you who insist on supporting abortion on demand.

Calling all Constitutional Law Professors!!!!!

There is a dire lack of Constitutional knowledge in the Senate and that needs to be corrected. How can I say this? I say this based on the build up to the beginning of today's confirmation hearings for Judge Alito.

Think I am exhaggerating? This is from Senator Leahey's (the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary committee) opening remarks today:

"No President should be allowed to pack the courts, and especially the Supreme Court, with nominees selected to enshrine presidential claims of Government power. "

The Constitution says flat out that the President was ABLE to appoint judges as openings came available. When Bill Clinton was President, he was able to put a former ACLU lawyer (Ginsberg) and a former staffer to Senator Ted Kennedy (Breyer) on the Supreme Court. Both are distinguished jurists, however, everyone knew going in exactly what their political temperment was and how it matched up with President Clinton. Why were there no concerns then about "packing the court"?

Speaking of the distinguised Senior Senator from Massachuesttes, what did Senator Kennedy have to say in his opening remarks?

"When he was before this committee in 1990, applying for a job to the circuit court, he promised under oath that he would recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard, the mutual fund company in which he had most of his investments. But as a judge, he participated in a Vanguard case anyway, and has offered many conflicting reasons to explain why he broke his word."

There is nothing in the Constitution that says one must recuse themselves from a case that involves your mutual funds, and there is even precedent to the contrary where a lower court judge ruled in a case against a different mutual fund company that the judge owned shares in (I have to look up details on the case as I just heard it on the radio).

This is what Senator Joe Biden had to say (in his opening remarks) on the Roe debate:

"The fundamental question here (ed talking about abortion rights) is will you continue to support that consensus – or will you seek to reverse it as at least two, and possibly as many as four of our sitting Justices would like to do? "

Senator Diane Feinstein said (I am looking for a link to this quote as well) that unless Judge Alito would guarantee her that he would "never touch Roe" that she would not vote for him. Excuse me Senator, you know better than that. A judicial nominee is expressly unable (the Ginsburg precident) to comment on specifics on ANY case that may come before him or her in the court!

It is depressing. These people are supposed to "know better".

Judge Alito, to his credit, promised that he had no agenda and that he would not prejudge any case coming before him. Too bad we can not say the same thing about the Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Every now and then...

Every now and then, Pravda on the Mississippi surprises me. This was one of those times. This story was in the Faith & Values section of yesterdays paper.

"What's in a name? U.S. military chaplains and Christians offering public prayers are being forced to consider that question as they are discouraged, and in some cases prohibited, from praying in the name of Jesus."

The author is speaking about Navy Chaplain Lt. Gordon J. Klingenschmitt who was on hunger strike after being transferred off of his ship because he refused to follow an order to quit praying "in Jesus name". To the commanding officer who made that order, I have one little question...What part of the First Amendment are you unclear on?

The establishment clause of the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

There is another case that was mentioned in the article. Apparently a US District judge has ruled that it is illegal for Christian prayers to be offered in the Indiana House of Representatives. I like how the author of the article put it...

The establishment clause of the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Yet the above-mentioned cases do establish a preference for non-Christian faiths and non-religion over Christianity, and most certainly prohibit free exercise...

...Why? Because praying in the name of Jesus is not form or fashion, but essence. It is a fundamental function of the faith itself that transcends religion and rests on relationship. Just one of many scriptures on the topic illuminates why: "There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

While I normally do not feel that this kind of thing is something government should do, it is obviously something that is long overdue. Then, after the President signs the executive order (protecting the rights of military chaplains to pray in Jesus name) I think it is time for someone to look into ways to remove Judge Hamilton from his seat. If this judge can't understand what establishment is (and is not) then obviously he needs to go back to Con Law. Maybe Hugh Hewitt will let him audit one of his classes...

I will let the Strib have the final word on this...

"Leave Jesus out of my prayer and deny the person on whom the faith is founded? Absolutely not. The name and person of Jesus -- his life, crucifixion and resurrection -- is the essence of Christianity, the how of my prayer. "

Amen and AMEN!!!!!

The Savage Republican

Local Attractions

Favorite Links

Previous Posts

Archives

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Senatorial Glass Houses

Friday, January 13, 2006