World Forums

Dezzi

Bring it. I'll be popping in and out but by Monday I'll be here more attentively.

"I'm alluding to your "desire to delve in the depths of degenerate""

There was no Belmont Street in Fedor Dostoevsky's St.Petersburg, though he knew a thing or two about mentally sick dezzis, who nowadays think there is a "depth"about them:)

But his tortured soul was possessed by evil spirits as well. What's your excuse and what's "Belmont Street", which you brought up before I mentioned your depravity?:)

Matey

The article.


Can't find it. Basically it was describing the way European countries with large Muslim populations are going to be recruited more and easier for fundamentalists sects. Whether or not Democracy starts to surface in the ME, it will still be fought by the fundamentalists of Europe for generations to come. It was a bit chilling.

Here's a little something about Chavez that came to me today...As I said before, we cannot afford to ignore Venezuela or for that matter - the whole of SA. Rummy escelates the rhetoric here:

Pentagon Chief Escalates Threats against Venezuela

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/AUK503A.html

Question, Mate...

What's your "active" or "reserve" status these days? I know I asked you before, but I forgot....If I remember correctly, you were in the clear?

My cousin, a Marine who served in the Gulf War, recently lucked out and was sent to Fort Leonardwood to train new recruits for 18 months. He doesn't feel so lucky as he has to be separated from his wife and kids (plus he now gets military pay instead of his regular job's wages (cop), but he does understand his good fortune in avoiding deployment to Iraq. Apparently, he knew his number was getting called (like everyone else's) and he volunteered before the Marines placed him wherever they wanted. He's pissed as hell....35 years old....two kids and a wife....policeman for the last 10 years....now he'll be drilling future grunts for a year and a half for half the pay.

Still, I have repeatedly reminded him of his good fortune many times over. He understands, but he isn't jumping for joy. I feel sorry for those kids that will be facing him as thier drill seargent. He's a mean S.O.B. anyway....add this to his current state and he's the drill seargent from hell.

Are you "out" for good, or can the Army get their hands on you?

just curious.

Dezzi

I'll elaborate tomorrow. Right now all I have time for is pinpoint acid exchanges of insult. I'm in the doghouse with the wife...if you know what I mean. Computer time is precious.



Since you said your latest like a gentleman, I'll spare you my current ammunition restriction. Tomorrow I'll be back, safe at work from the haranguing of my wife.

Let's hope you're not out of the army for good.

Mate to Iraq!!!!!!!

Zeus is a genius

Leonid wrote:"I'm alluding to your "desire to delve in the depths of degenerate""

There was no Belmont Street in Fedor Dostoevsky's St.Petersburg, though he knew a thing or two about mentally sick dezzis, who nowadays think there is a "depth"about them:)

But his tortured soul was possessed by evil spirits as well. What's your excuse and what's "Belmont Street", which you brought up before I mentioned your depravity?:)

But what did Dostoyevsky say about the mentally sick Sklarovs? Or were those addressed by Chernyshevsky?

Well, since Berko-commie claims he knows a lot about Russia, why wouldn't he read them? LOL

Really, why wouldn't he? Or, perhaps, as one Leonid Sklarov must know, even without an inquiring mind one would have had to read both in a Soviet highschool as warranted by the curriculum?

Even if one does not open another book for the rest of one's life...

But you already knew that, didn't you?

That Berko reads googlerized versions of books? Certainly. Bye, dumbo:)

I am sure, Google was a reading aid back when you were in school? Next to abacus?

You seem to try to exit too prematurely. Stay a while. Expose yourself. As usual...

Dezzi

My Inactive Reserve Status expired in 2000, as I was obligated for 8 years after my official discharge from the active duty US Army in 1992. Unless there truly is something catastrophic, I don't expect to ever again serve on active duty. Let's hope not.

Interestingly enough, I was recalled to go to Kosovo in 1998 or so. I remember calling my branch officer and requesting that they take me off the list, explaining that I hadn't been in the military for a long while; that I would take a severe pay cut; would suffer career consequences; and that some Reserve Captain in Georgia would probably love to go in my stead. My branch officer laughed, concurring with my views and I was left free to continue on with my life.

Of course, Kosovo was a peace-keeping mission and there was no shortage of eager reservists. Iraq is a whole different situation, as this is real combat with significant casualties. Nevertheless, I absolutely would have answered the call if it ever came during my obligatory Inactive Reserve status. I always answered the call when I was on active duty...going to Korea and reporting for Desert Storm. As you know, I volunteered in Croatia.

However, I wouldn't have even bothered asking for a deferment if my call came today, as I would understand that Iraq isn't Kosovo. My conscience is clear about evading the latter, but the former calls for fighting men to do what they signed up to do. As I told you long ago, this is part and parcel of duty, honor, and country.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for people who answer the call. I feel for your cousin, but as you noted, it could be worse and he could have been in a Military Police unit in Iraq. I feel for our soldiers in this mission, as we're essentially playing a game of attrition against an uncoventional insurgent. We're going to keep taking casualties as long as we're in Iraq...and our men know it.

Again, I would hate to have to fight this kind of war. To no small degree, this is why I will continue to support our troops, on the sheer basis of respect and admiration.

Dezzi...On Pope John Paul II and the War in Iraq

You asked me to reconcile that the Pope was against the war in Iraq. Fine. I didn't agree with the Supreme Pontiff in the specificity that the US should not invade Iraq. I felt that American Intelligence had information that the Papacy did not. I also felt that the Papacy, although correct in its overall general sentiment against war, was hardly ever going to explicitly ratify a conflict between a predominantly Christian coalition against a Muslim nation in today's times.

There was not the least a bit of geopolitical pragmatism in the stance of the Vatican: invoking the ideal of peace and refraining from giving Muslims any reason to really suspect a so called Anglo-American Crusade.

To be sure, I won't sugar-coat it: even if I agree with the peaceful idealism of the Vatican...however, because I understand that all people and countries do not act with peaceful idealism...I disagreed with Vatican suggestions not to invade Iraq. And yes, the Pope supported armed intervention in Bosnia and Timor, so there is some precedent for him to advocate force. We just didn't agree on this one.

I do take some comfort in that the Pope and Vatican, seeing the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, now urges unity and cooperation in helping that country move ahead and prosper. Hence, if you want to hold me to account for my Catholicism and allegiance to the Pope, then let me reciprocate and ask you to heed his call for working together to now help Iraq.

Indeed Dezzi, I agree with the Pope on the vast majority of issues, especially when it comes to core doctrine. Do you? Are you going to attend any Pro-Life rallies? Are you going to act in favor of preserving the sanctity of a male-female marital union?

Or do you invoke the Pope only when he happens to echo something suitable to your agenda?



All this being said, in my life, I have known no finer individual than Pope John Paul II. For me and what I profess to be...a Catholic, an American, a Croatian, a descendent of Judeo-Christian tradition...he was the embodiment of living a life of the highest moral proscription. He simply hammered back against the so called progressive humanist forces that strive to reduce human life to an empirical quantity.

Like I said, all in all, I embrace everything he preached...certainly far from any ideal...but I fear we won't so easily replace this juggernaut of a human being. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, even many atheists...they all were impacted by his life.

I simply will miss him.

Instapundit

SANDY BERGER UPDATE:


Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to federal investigators. But for lying after stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives -- in an apparent attempt to alter the historical record on terrorism, no less -- former Clinton national security adviser and Kerry campaign adviser Sandy Berger will get a small fine and slap on the wrist. He will pay $10,000 and get no jail time. His security clearance will be suspended until around the end of the Bush administration -- meaningless for a career Democrat like Mr. Berger. It makes us wonder who at the Department of Justice is responsible for letting such a serious offense go virtually unpunished.

While on the subject of lying...

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS ... .reporter/

White House reporter's credentials questioned
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A New York congresswoman asked the White House to explain Wednesday why a man who worked for a news Web site owned by a GOP activist was able to obtain White House press credentials under an assumed name.

James Guckert, who reported from the White House for the Talon News Service under the name "Jeff Gannon," announced he was quitting the business "in consideration of the welfare of me and my family."

"Because of the attention being paid to me, I find it is no longer possible to effectively be a reporter for Talon News," he said in a statement posted Wednesday on his Web site.

In a letter to President Bush, Rep. Louise Slaughter, a Democrat, questioned why Guckert routinely received credentials for White House news briefings.

Slaughter linked Guckert's case to recent revelations that two conservative columnists who supported Bush administration policies had received government money.

"It appears that 'Mr. Gannon's' presence in the White House press corps was merely as a tool of propaganda for your administration," Slaughter wrote.

The White House had no comment.

The House and Senate press galleries declined Guckert's request for credentials in 2003.

Julie Davis, chairwoman of the Senate press gallery's executive committee, said Guckert could not demonstrate any separation between Talon News and GOPUSA, a Republican consulting group.

Both organizations are run by Bobby Eberle, a Texas GOP activist. Many Talon News articles also appeared as news releases on the GOPUSA Web site, said Davis, a reporter for The Sun newspaper of Baltimore, Maryland.

In a statement on the Talon Web site, Eberle referred to "Gannon's" resignation and said, "I understand and support Jeff's decision."

Slaughter said she was writing at the request of senior editors of the Niagara Falls Reporter in her Buffalo-area district.

The newspaper ran an open letter questioning "how a partisan political organization and an individual with no credentials as a reporter -- and apparently operating under an assumed name -- landed a coveted spot in the White House press corps."

During White House press secretary Scott McClellan's regular briefings, Guckert routinely offered administration-friendly questions.

He became the focus of liberal and media Web sites after Bush called on him during his news conference January 26.

Guckert asked Bush how he could deal with Democratic congressional leaders "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality."

Guckert told The Washington Post in an article published Tuesday that his political leanings were "admittedly" conservative "and that point of view is not represented in the briefing room at all."

"Call me partisan, fine, but don't let my colleagues off the hook," he said. "They're partisan too, but they don't admit it."

Slaughter said ideology had nothing to do with the dispute.

"It doesn't matter whether he's a conservative reporter. The question is, is he a reporter?" she said.

She told CNN that she believed the White House gave Guckert credentials to get a friendly questioner into the room during White House briefings.

"I don't want to be fed propaganda from this White House," she said. "I don't want people to be paid to give it to me. We deserve the facts, or this democracy will suffer."

Last month, conservative commentator Armstrong Williams apologized for not disclosing that his company had received $240,000 from a public relations agency hired by the Department of Education to promote Bush's No Child Left Behind education overhaul.

Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher also apologized to her readers for not disclosing a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help create materials used to promote Bush's $300 million initiative encouraging marriage to strengthen families.

At the January 26 news conference, Bush said he disapproved of such practices and wanted them to stop.

"There needs to be independence," he said.

"All our Cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying ... commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet," Bush said. (Full story)

HHS later disclosed that a third conservative columnist, Mike McManus, had received $10,000 to promote Bush's marriage initiative, according to an Associated Press report. His weekly column appears in about 50 newspapers.

Several congressional Democrats have introduced a bill to stop what they termed taxpayer-funded "covert propaganda campaigns" that violate a provision included in annual appropriation acts since 1951.

Under the new bill, dubbed the Federal Propaganda Prohibition Act of 2005, the prohibition on propaganda would become a permanent part of federal law.

Federal agencies would also have to notify Congress about public relations, advertising and polling contracts, and the funding sources of all federally funded public relations materials would have to be disclosed.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/p ... 20308/1002

Democrats decry Burns' link to lobbyist


WASHINGTON — Democrats are hammering Montana Republican Sen. Conrad Burns over his ties to a Washington lobbyist accused of cheating American Indian tribes out of millions of dollars.

The Montana Democratic Party this week called on Burns to return campaign contributions he received from wealthy casino tribes when they were clients of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his business associate, Michael Scanlon. Federal disclosure reports show that Burns received $150,090 from six tribes when the two men represented them from 2000 to 2004.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee and multiple federal agencies are investigating allegations that Abramoff and Scanlon, a public relations consultant, collected more than $66 million in fees from seven Indian tribes and gave them little in return.

The Montana Democrats' demand comes on the heels of their request earlier this month that the Senate Select Committee on Ethics investigate whether Burns violated ethics rules by using his influence to help get one of the tribes — Michigan's Saginaw Chippewas — a $3 million federal school construction grant in 2003. Burns is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee's Interior subcommittee, which is in charge of funding Indian programs. He wrote a letter to the Interior Department requesting the money for the tribe, despite questions about its eligibility.

Shortly after Congress awarded the grant, Burns' former chief of staff, Will Brooke, went to work for Abramoff.

"Senator Burns carried Jack Abramoff's water on a very important bill," said Brad Martin, executive director of the Montana Democratic Party. "Montanans have a right to know."

The committee has not yet announced whether it will take up the Montana Democrats' complaint.

Burns' spokesman, James Pendleton, said his boss was not influenced by Abramoff and the Saginaw Chippewas' $36,000 in donations. In a letter to the Senate ethics committee, Burns' lawyer Cleta Mitchell said the senator pursued the school construction aid at the request of Michigan Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, both Democrats, and Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, a Republican.

Pendleton said the money will not be refunded to the tribes because it has already been spent. One of the campaign accounts that received the bulk of the tribal donations was shut down as a result of the 2002 campaign finance reform law, he said.

"(Burns) is not being investigated," Pendleton said. "The Democrats are doing this purely because he's up for re-election.

"It's disgusting that we're 19 months away from the election and they're already slinging mud."

Montana's senior senator, Democrat Max Baucus, and its only House member, Republican Dennis Rehberg, also received donations from Abramoff's tribal clients. Federal campaign reports show Baucus received $7,000 from three of the tribes while Rehberg received $18,000 from five tribes and Abramoff.

The seven tribes and Abramoff wrote checks totaling more than $3 million to dozens of political candidates and political committees between 2000 and 2004, campaign records show.

Neither Baucus nor Rehberg has been accused of doing favors for Abramoff or his clients. And neither plans to return the funds received.

"It's spent," said Erik Iverson, Rehberg's chief of staff. "Denny is on a two-year election cycle and we just started the new cycle for 2006, so we're looking ahead and not behind."

"Jack Abramoff had nothing to do with these contributions (to Baucus)," Baucus spokesman Barrett Kaiser said. "These tribes are sovereign nations and they supported Max because of his career-long record of leadership on behalf of Native Americans."

It's too early to say whether Abramoff's troubles will rub off on Burns, political analyst Stuart Rothenberg said.

On Thursday, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee released a poll of 602 likely Montana voters surveyed March 3 to 7 that shows Burns with a 49 percent approval rating. The poll was conducted by Democratic pollster Paul Harstad and has a 4 percentage point margin of error.

In December, an independent poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research on behalf of Lee Newspapers gave Burns a 64 percent approval rating. That survey of 625 Montanans also had a 4 percentage point margin of error.

"A lot can happen between now and November 2006," Rothenberg said. "I'm sure people in politics know who Jack Abramoff is, but 99.5 percent of the free world has never heard of him and never will."

De Lay in hot water:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/polit ... Bbn91mbwCg

Political Groups Paid Two Relatives of House Leader
By PHILIP SHENON
Published: April 6, 2005
ASHINGTON, April 5 - The wife and daughter of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, have been paid more than $500,000 since 2001 by Mr. DeLay's political action and campaign committees, according to a detailed review of disclosure statements filed with the Federal Election Commission and separate fund-raising records in Mr. DeLay's home state, Texas.

Most of the payments to his wife, Christine A. DeLay, and his only child, Dani DeLay Ferro, were described in the disclosure forms as "fund-raising fees," "campaign management" or "payroll," with no additional details about how they earned the money. The payments appear to reflect what Mr. DeLay's aides say is the central role played by the majority leader's wife and daughter in his political career.

Mr. DeLay's national political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, or Armpac, said in a statement on Tuesday that the two women had provided valuable services to the committee in exchange for the payments: "Mrs. DeLay provides big picture, long-term strategic guidance and helps with personnel decisions. Ms. Ferro is a skilled and experienced professional event planner who assists Armpac in arranging and organizing individual events."

Mrs. Ferro has managed several of her father's re-election campaigns for his House seat.

His spokesman said that Mr. DeLay had no additional comment. Although several members of Congress employ family members as campaign managers or on their political action committees, advocacy groups seeking an overhaul of federal campaign-finance and ethics laws say that the payments to Mr. DeLay's family members were unusually generous, and should be the focus of new scrutiny of the Texas congressman.

Mr. DeLay, whose position as majority leader makes him the second-most-powerful House member, has offered a vigorous public defense in recent weeks to a flurry of ethics accusations from Democratic lawmakers and campaign watchdog groups, including charges that he violated House rules on travel. The executive director of Americans for a Republican Majority and a major fund-raiser for the committee were indicted in Texas last year on charges of illegal fund-raising, and prosecutors there have refused to rule out the possibility of charges against Mr. DeLay in the continuing inquiry.

In recent weeks, public interest groups have called on the House ethics committee and the Justice Department to review lavish, privately financed overseas trips for Mr. DeLay and his aides, including a 1997 trip to Russia that was underwritten by a conservative education group closely linked to a powerful Republican lobbyist who often boasted of his influence with the majority leader.

The payments to Mr. DeLay's family have continued into 2005; the latest monthly disclosure filed by Americans for a Republican Majority shows Mrs. DeLay was paid was paid $4,028 last month, while Mrs. Ferro received $3,681. Earlier statements show that the two women received similar monthly fees from the political action committee throughout 2003 and 2004.

Mrs. DeLay has been involved in her husband's political career and his fund-raising operations in Washington and Texas. In an interview in 2003 with Roll Call, a newspaper on Capitol Hill, a spokesman for Mr. DeLay explained Mrs. DeLay's role as "the final signoff of Tom's travel schedule, what events he attends and what his name appears on."

Mrs. Ferro has also helped manage Mr. DeLay's charity operations. Financial disclosure statements filed by Mr. DeLay's House campaign committees, which are separate from Americans for a Republican Majority, show that Mrs. Ferro and her political consulting firm, Coastal Consulting of Sugar Land, Tex., received $222,000 from 2001 through last year, reflecting her role in the re-election campaigns.

Although there has been no suggestion from prosecutors that Mrs. Ferro is under investigation by the grand jury in Austin, her records were subpoenaed in the inquiry, which is focused on the fund-raising activities of Texans for a Republican Majority, a state political action committee modeled on Americans for a Republican Majority. Mrs. Ferro received about $30,000 in fund-raising and consulting fees from Texans for a Republican Majority, the committee's records show.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Apr5.html

A 3rd DeLay Trip Under Scrutiny
A six-day trip to Moscow in 1997 by then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was underwritten by business interests lobbying in support of the Russian government, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the trip arrangements.

DeLay reported that the trip was sponsored by a Washington-based nonprofit organization. But interviews with those involved in planning DeLay's trip say the expenses were covered by a mysterious company registered in the Bahamas that also paid for an intensive $440,000 lobbying campaign.

We don't travel unless we're paid for it!

I've said this myself a million times

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ate_judges

Reid Accuses GOP of Arrogance on Courts

WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats on Tuesday said Republican criticism of the federal courts following Terri Schiavo's death showed an "arrogancy of power" that is leading to a Senate confrontation over filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees.

"If they don't get what they want, they attack whoever's around," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "Now they're after the courts, and I think it goes back to this arrogancy of power."

<skip>

But Democrats are focusing on comments by two Texas Republicans, Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who gets no vote on judicial nominations since they are the purview of the Senate.


"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," DeLay said after Schiavo died last week.


Cornyn, while criticizing a different judicial decision, wondered Monday if frustration against perceived political decisions by judges "builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence, certainly without any justification."


A DeLay spokesman said he was merely referring to potential future action in Congress. And Cornyn said his remarks had nothing to do with the Schiavo case or with what DeLay said.


"I'm a former judge myself and I've made clear that attacks against judges are never justified," said Cornyn, who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

NYT Plays Numbers Games With DeLay

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

A blog!!!!

Captain's Quarter's thinks:

Don't get me wrong. I think the practice itself is a problem, one that we should pressure our representatives to end. It can lead to back-door corruption far too easily. However, for the Times and the Left to jump all over DeLay as unethical and singular in this practice is dishonest, ignorant, and transparently partisan

Oh, it's wrong, but pleeeease you bad angry wolves of the Times and the Left, leave Tom De Lay alone!!!!

We done wrong but don't criticize us!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _judges_dc
Frist Says Courts in Schiavo Case Acted Fairly
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republican leader Bill Frist said on Tuesday that courts had acted fairly in the Terri Schiavo "right-to-die" case, differing sharply from a vow of retribution by his House of Representatives counterpart, Tom DeLay

"I believe we have a fair and independent judiciary today," said Frist, now trying to resolve a battle with Democrats over judicial nominations that threatens to tie his chamber into knots. "I respect that."

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=564 (a blog)

Hannity on Pope: “Wild-Eyed Liberal Loon”
Conservatives are attaching themselves like barnacles to the legacy of Pope John Paul II, portraying him as an ideological soulmate of President Bush. Of course, they haven’t always felt that way – especially when the Pope was opposing the President’s policies. Here’s Sean Hannity, from January 2003:

COLMES: …And before you respond, let me just put up what the pope says.

“No to war,” says Pope John Paul II. “during his annual address to scores of diplomatic emissaries to the Vatican… ‘War is not always inevitable,’ he said. ‘It is always a defeat for humanity.’”

Are these a bunch of wild-eyed liberal loonies?

HANNITY: Yes.

o'Reilly, not to be otdone:

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=576
O’Reilly on Pope: “Saddam Enabler,” “Detached from Reality”

O’Reilly Then:

“John Paul has sent his emissary, Cardinal Pio Laghi, to tell President Bush that attacking Iraq would be ‘unjust’ and ‘immoral.’ That’s like sending Sister Mary Theresa to tell Eminem to stop cursing…Humanistically, [the pope] is one of the many Saddam enablers.” (3/15/03)

“I believe also that John Paul is naive and detached from reality. If America does not lead an attack on Iraq, once again, Saddam remains in power and is free to use his anthrax and other terrible weapons as he chooses. … Summing up, Jacques Chirac is our enemy, and the pope, well, I don’t know what to think.” (3/12/03)

“John Paul II recently came out and said that any war against Iraq would be ‘immoral.’ Back in the ’30s, Pope Pius XII actually supported Hitler politically, at least in the beginning of his rise when Pius was stationed in Germany.” (3/8/03)

O’Reilly Now:

“I do know that I’ve studied this pope as well as I’ve studied anybody. And I can’t find anything, anything that this guy didn’t walk the walk. You know, right down the line. Nobody’s perfect, but this guy was close in his personal behavior and the way he conducted himself.” (3/31/05)

wow, at least I was consistent in opposing what Pope John Paul II stood for and gave him props for being a consistent and principled opponent.

http://www.aim.org/guest_column/2831_0_6_0_C/

I'd imagine those original sculptures brought great shame to Churchill's family as it was his cousin, Clare Sheridan who sculpted them in the first place :-S

Love that picture:)

Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for not sending Sandy Berger behind bars. People get convicted for much less.

Republicans should be ashamed for having Tom De Lay.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/06/ ... index.html

Lawmakers face Schiavo issue again
While a few lawmakers sought to punish the federal judges who rebuffed their hastily passed law aimed at getting Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted, most tried to put some distance between their action in March and what's on their plate this month.
<skip>
Her death sparked intense rhetoric among lawmakers. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas suggested an impeachment case could be made against judges who rebuffed Congress' will.

"That to me should be of concern to Democrats and Republicans regardless of how you feel about the issue," said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania.

However, other Republicans, chastened by polls showing that a large majority of Americans disapproved of Congress inserting itself into the Schiavo case, said both parties should back off from any efforts to take further action.
<skip>
"I don't think there's a groundswell up here to take this issue and federalize it," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina.

Added Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Oregon: "I'm not for things that go after judges. They're an independent branch of government. We need to respect that."

Republicans facing unexpected intraparty conflict (3/31/5)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/ ... index.html
Stem cell swap (exerpt)
The untold story is that a vote swap of epic proportions was behind this development.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert agreed to schedule the vote for this summer only after Rep. Michael Castle of Delaware, leader of a small band of liberal House Republicans, threatened to withhold votes on the closely contested budget resolution just before the recess began.

Hastert asserted he was not yielding on stem cell research to save the budget, but that was the reality inferred by shocked conservatives.

The stem cell swap changes the climate on an issue menacing Republican solidarity. With Hastert removing the House roadblock, legislation funding human embryos for medical research could pass both the House and Senate despite opposition from Republican leaders and the White House.

Bush almost certainly would have to cast his first veto.

Hastert gave the green light to Castle and his associates March 16, the day before the House voted on the budget. No press conferences or news releases heralded the event.

The New York Times

A House Divided, and Strong
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: April 5, 2005


We're living in the age of the liberal copycat. Al Franken tries to create a liberal version of Rush. Al Gore announced his TV network yesterday. Many Democrats have tried to create a liberal Heritage Foundation.

The theory is that liberals must create their own version of the conservative pyramid. Conservatives have formed their foundations, think tanks and media outlets into a ruthlessly efficient message machine. Liberals, on the other hand, have been losing because they are too fractious, too nuanced and, well, too freethinking.

Much as I admire my friends on the left for ingeniously explaining their recent defeats without really considering the possibility that maybe the substance of their ideas is the problem, I have to say that this explanation for conservative success and liberal failure is at odds with reality.

Conservatives have not triumphed because they have built a disciplined and efficient message machine. Conservatives have thrived because they are split into feuding factions that squabble incessantly. As these factions have multiplied, more people have come to call themselves conservatives because they've found one faction to agree with.

In the early days of National Review, many of the senior editors didn't even speak to one another. Whittaker Chambers declared that the writings of Ayn Rand, a hero of the more libertarian right, reeked of fascism and the gas chambers. Rand called National Review "the worst and most dangerous magazine in America."

It's been like that ever since - neocons arguing with theocons, the old right with the new right, internationalists versus isolationists, supply siders versus fiscal conservatives. The major conservative magazines - The Weekly Standard, National Review, Reason, The American Conservative, The National Interest, Commentary - agree on almost nothing.

This feuding has meant that the meaning of conservatism is always shifting. Once, Republicans were isolationists. Now most Republicans, according to a New York Times poll, believe the U.S. should try to change dictatorships into democracies when it can. Meanwhile, 78 percent of Democrats believe the U.S. should not try to democratize authoritarian regimes.

Moreover, it's not only feuding that has been the key to conservative success - it's also what the feuding's about. When modern conservatism became aware of itself, conservatives were so far out of power it wasn't even worth thinking about policy prescriptions. They argued about the order of the universe, and how the social order should reflect the moral order. Different factions looked back to different philosophers - Burke, Aquinas, Hayek, Hamilton, Jefferson - to define what a just society should look like.

Conservatives fell into the habit of being acutely conscious of their intellectual forebears and had big debates about public philosophy. That turned out to be important: nobody joins a movement because of admiration for its entitlement reform plan. People join up because they think that movement's views about human nature and society are true.

Liberals have not had a comparable public philosophy debate. A year ago I called the head of a prominent liberal think tank to ask him who his favorite philosopher was. If I'd asked about health care, he could have given me four hours of brilliant conversation, but on this subject he stumbled and said he'd call me back. He never did.

Liberals are less conscious of public philosophy because modern liberalism was formed in government, not away from it. In addition, liberal theorists are more influenced by post-modernism, multiculturalism, relativism, value pluralism and all the other influences that dissuade one from relying heavily on dead white guys.

As a result, liberals are good at talking about rights, but not as good at talking about a universal order.

If I were a liberal, which I used to be, I wouldn't want message discipline. I'd take this opportunity to have a big debate about the things Thomas Paine, Herbert Croly, Isaiah Berlin, R. H. Tawney and John Dewey were writing about. I'd argue about human nature and the American character.

In disunity there is strength.

In my last column, I mangled the contents of Sulmaan Wasif Khan's paper. It's true that Donald Zagoria was one of the independent writers whose perceptions about China were far more accurate than the C.I.A.'s. But it was Allen Whiting who correctly predicted China's willingness to improve relations with the United States in the early 70's.

Actually, not a bad article.

However, I would press home not the fact that liberalism originates from the government. That gives an impression of government giving birth to liberalism, which would be nonsense.

Democrats had been, pretty much, a ruling party for the most of the 1970 - 1995 era. Even if White House had been occupied by a GOPnik. Democrats never felt the need to defend themselves. They were strong, they did not need a media support. Now, they have to learn to do that. They will and, soon will triumph.