Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Blatham writes


No quarrel with this unless there is a hidden agenda lurking within it. We might discuss the merits or lack thereof of a policy of assumed equality that draws no distinctions beween black, white, polka dot or whatever and one that infers minorities are victims and incapable of helping themselves without government assistance. Both may be well intentioned. Is either racist?

Conservative Legal Group's Clout Growing By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer
Mon Jul 18, 2:41 AM ET

WASHINGTON - At a recent Friday luncheon, former Solicitor General Theodore Olson cast his eyes over a hotel ballroom crammed with lawyers and wryly welcomed "all of you Federalists who seem to have mastered the secret handshake."

"For those of you who just stumbled in off the street, it is my duty to advise you that you have stumbled into a right-wing cabal ?- you will never be the same again," the government's one-time chief courtroom lawyer deadpanned as chortles erupted from members of the Federalist Society.

The conservative group ?- which has no secret handshake and opens its forums to anyone ?- has plenty to be smiling about these days.

Founded by three law students in 1982 as a debating society, it now boasts a membership of more than 25,000 that includes prominent members of the Bush administration, the federal judiciary and Congress. Supreme Court justices, Cabinet members and other top Bush aides take regular turns at the society's podium.

Chances are good that the next Supreme Court justice will be either a member of the society or someone who has addressed the group.

Olson himself has been mentioned as a potential nominee. Newly confirmed appellate Judge Janice Rogers Brown, also mentioned as a possible future justice, was among those in the luncheon audience recently.

Others on President Bush's reputed short list include Federalist Society members John Roberts and Michael McConnell, both appellate court justices. Still others on the list have addressed the group, including appellate Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson, Emilio Garza, Edith Hollan Jones and Samuel Alito, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

While the society has no formal role in consulting with the White House, "the reality is, given the presence of Federalist Society members within the White House counsel's office and the Bush administration, they are playing a crucial role in selecting judges and likely justices," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a liberal Duke University law professor who has addressed the group.

Georgetown University law professor Mark Tushnet wrote in his book, "A Court Divided," that Federalist Society conferences serve as "something like the out-of-town preview of a Broadway show, where ambitious conservative lawyers strut their stuff."

"Appearing at Federalist Society events is one, perhaps the most important, of the ways in which a person who wants to get known as 'reliable' and promotable makes sure that his/her name gets put on 'the list'," Tushnet said in an interview.

Northwestern University law professor Steven Calabresi, a Federalist founder, said the organization has grown "beyond our wildest dreams. We really started it as a hobby and for fun, to add to the debate and discussion on campus." Law schools, he said, are largely Democratic in their orientation, so the Federalist Society took off as a countervailing forum for conservative ideas and networking.

"It really is kind of the hobby and extracurricular activity that took over my life." he said.

Not everyone views the organization in such an innocuous light.

The Institute for Democracy Studies, which says it examines "anti-democratic religious and political movements and organizations," calls the society part of "the infrastructure underlying the right-wing assault on the democratic foundations of our legal system."

The Federalist Society does no lobbying and takes no positions on public policies, but its sphere of influence is broader than mere debate. Its 15 "practice groups" bring lawyers together to develop strategy for litigators on issues such as civil rights, religious liberty and national security.

The society keeps a watchful eye on the American Bar Association with its monthly "ABA Watch."

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., frequently quizzes Bush's judicial nominees in the Judiciary Committee about their ties to the society. He has expressed concern that the group may have some sort of informal filtering role in the selection of judicial nominees.

"As we try to monitor the legal DNA of President Bush's nominees, we find repeatedly the Federalist Society chromosome," Durbin said at a 2003 hearing. "Why is it that membership in the Federalist Society has become the secret handshake of the Bush nominees for the federal court?"

As often as Durbin raises such concerns, they are quickly batted down by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record) of Utah, who says he's "darn proud" to serve as co-chairman of the society's Board of Visitors.

"These aren't just conservatives. These are top-notch lawyers all over this country, top-notch law students who are just sick and tired of the leftward leanings of our government, and, frankly, wanted to bring some balance," Hatch countered at one hearing. He added that the organization regularly invites prominent liberals to speak at its forums and debates.

It is a mark of the society's success that liberals have set out to duplicate the formula, founding the American Constitution Society five years ago as a kind of counterweight. Many liberals speak enviously of their competition on the right.

"They've been remarkably successful in bringing together various parts of the conservative movement," said Duke's Chemerinsky. "I only want the left to have its own Federalist Society."

___
Thought this was interesting.

I'm liking John Howard better by the day. Here's his response to a really dumb reporter today after the London bombings:



PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don't want to add to what the prime minister has said. It's a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here.

Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

PRIME MIN. BLAIR: And I agree 100 percent with that. (Laughter.)


http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_17_corner-archive.asp#070312

--------------------------

So, I'm just wondering. Since Bush can't run for President again, can we borrow Howard when Australia is done with him?

What Howard said are the facts, of course. I wonder why the detractors of the US/Oz/UK govts refuse to admit what he said is true.


Do they just hate losing so much that they'll say anything? They hate it so much that they'll put themselves at opposite ends from their own country and adopt statements and opinions that give preference to terrorists' agendas?

I really find it hard to give any credence to them for any good will lately.

Yes, they do:

I'm afraid I can't do much chiding in this instance. The subject is, at least in part, what Mehlman himself referred to - the southern strategy. The other issues too (voter intimidation, etc) are well enough documented.

Voter suppression is a campaign technique used undoubtedly by both parties in the US. Where it is employed with a consequence of a racial group being disadvantaged in casting votes, then that is racist in effect.

One could at least imagine a comparable example in the converse. If, say, Korean voters in California were overwhelmingly Republican, the Dems might initiate some strategy to confuse, trick, intimidate, or disallow Koreans to cast votes. Any such would be racist. But I know of no such examples. Does anyone?

The claim I have seen forwarded re Dems is a far more general (less available for statistical verification, if that is possible at all) claim which rides on the notion that social programs have weakened the spirit and initiative of African Americans, thus making them emotionally or financially dependent upon the Dem party - sort of 'racism through fostering eternal childishness'.

Though no small number of people believe something like this is 'true', the lack of means to determine it so ought to be faced. Likewise, one needs to look at the history of the propagation of "welfare queen" ideology.

But let's say that the southern strategy was clearly racist in effect, and that the black vote has been purposefully targeted for suppression in numerous districts under the tutelage of high level RNC operatives like Atwater and Rove. Even given that, one can't say that Lash or fox or tico or "Republicans" are racist. All one could validly claim is that racist policies and strategies have been put into play at the top levels of the RNC. I think the differentiation is very important.

As I mentioned earlier, I suspect the fact that black districts tend to have the lousiest voting machines isn't a consequence of any pervasive Republican strategy. I think it is a consequence of a still too pervasive institutional racism in the US, quite party neutral. (We have a similar problem in Canada involving native Indians, by the way.)

And here is one example of how Obama will be slimed when the time comes...
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/12213018.htm

AFL-CIO Splinters, Spooking Some Democrats By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer
36 minutes ago

CHICAGO - The AFL-CIO splintered on Monday, spooking some Democratic Party leaders and the ranks of organized workers, their futures in the hands of labor rebels who bolted the 50-year-old federation vowing to reverse the steep decline in union membership.

"Our goal is not to divide the labor movement but to rebuild it," said Andy Stern, president of the 1.8 million-member Service Employees International Union. He and Teamsters President James P. Hoffa said their unions would leave the AFL-CIO, paving the way for other unions to follow.

Their action drew a bitter rebuke from AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, who called it a "grievous insult" that could hurt workers already buffeted by the global economy and anti-union forces in Congress.

"The labor movement belongs to all of us," Sweeney said, "and our future should not be dictated by the demands of any group or the ambitions of any individuals."

The future of the labor movement could be greatly affected by the success or failure of Stern's effort to build a coalition outside the AFL-CIO that dedicates more money and manpower to recruiting union members while adjusting to demands of the global economy.

His Change to Win Coalition consists of seven unions, four of which boycotted the AFL-CIO convention: The SEIU, Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers and UNITE HERE, a group of textile, hotel and restaurant employees.

Labor officials expect the UFCW and UNITE HERE to leave the AFL-CIO later.

Those four unions represent one-third of the AFL-CIO's 13 million members. The SEIU and Teamsters alone account for more than $20 million of an estimated $120 million AFL-CIO budget.

Much of that money goes to Democratic candidates and to political operations that benefit the Democratic Party. Stern, Hoffa and their colleagues in the Change to Win Coalition pushed the AFL-CIO to shift focus from such political activity to recruiting new union members, contending that a growing union movement would naturally increase its political and bargaining power.

"They said no," Hoffa said at a coalition news conference held a few blocks from the AFL-CIO convention site. "Their idea is to keep throwing money at politicians."

Democratic politicians catch most of the AFL-CIO donations, one reason why party leaders worry about a weakened federation. The AFL-CIO also spends millions of dollars on programs that help get Democratic voters to turn out on Election Day.

Some Democrats said Monday they hoped the warring factions would come back together. Others suggested the competition would jolt organized labor out of its decades-old slumber.

"We're in uncharted waters," said Democratic consultant David Axelrod of Chicago. "Obviously, you have to believe a unified and coordinated effort is better than a disparate one and, obviously, the labor movement is a vital part of the Democratic coalition."

Some Democrats cast the breakup in apocalyptic terms. "It's the worst thing that could happen to us as a party," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic strategist with long ties to labor.

Others welcomed the challenge to the status quo. "The approach represented by progressive reform organizations like the SEIU represents the future ?- they grow in size, they have fresh ideas, they understand message in the media age, they connect with the middle class," said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane. "These groups are on the right side of history."

As for the effect on union members, Rebecca Knorr, a member of the Communication Workers of America who works as a directory assistance operator for Qwest, said of the split: "We agree on the same principles, but our leadership refuses to work together. ... The rank and file are the ones that are going to be hurt by this."

While this is the biggest rift in organized labor since 1938, when the CIO split from the AFL, supporters of the breakup note that labor made big gains when the two groups competed.

One of every three private-sector workers belonged to a labor group when the AFL-CIO merged in the 1950s. Now, less than 8 percent of private-sector workers are unionized.

Globalization, automation and the transition from an industrial-based economy have forced hundreds of thousands of unionized workers out of jobs, weakening labor's role.

A number of Democratic lawmakers made their traditional pilgrimage to the AFL-CIO convention, urging unity while being careful not to take sides in the fight.

"What divides us pales in comparison to what unites us," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., pointing to efforts to fight the Bush administration on behalf of union workers.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said business interests may think the divide will make organized labor vulnerable.

"We have news for them. It's not going to happen," he said to cheers. "Our unity is our strength. We will stand together and fight for working families."

After his speech, Durbin said it was too early to tell what impact the rift would have on the Democratic Party. "I hope the separation in our union family is resolved very soon," he said.

What are the chances of that happening? "I don't know," he replied.

A few blocks away, Stern and Hoffa dismissed suggestions that they would ever rejoin the AFL-CIO, though they said they wanted to work with the federation to bolster union membership.

"We've extended our hand and they have to decide whether they want to be successful or vindictive," Stern said.

Sweeney didn't hide his feelings. "This is a tragedy for working people," he said.

-----------
Hoo-ahhhhh!!!

The national mafia has finally lost steam.

Blatham--

The votes we're supressing are the duplicate and dead vote. The Dems can't have those anymore. Now without the blood money from the Unions and the duplicate and dead vote, the Democrat party is in dealignment. They will be replaced by something else--like the unions are doing now.

Sweeney has no one but himself to blame. The cause of this implosion is purely resentment of the way he's so cosely tied the AFL-CIO with the Democratic Party. The unions are as out of touch with the real world as the MSM/DNC, and just about as relevant.

The food workers and hotel workers unions are next and I bet they can't get out fast enough.

They've been extorting money from union workers and lining Hillary and Co's pockets.

I think a working family has better things to do with their money than send a bunch of slimy Democrats and their mistresses to Hawaii.

Seriously....This is going to HURT the Dems.

Probably not. It's a faily solid base not at all unlike the bubba vote for republicans..

At least the bubbas are grown-ups.

Yeah, you got me ther JustGiggles, If i've heard once I've 100 times the bubbas are the intellectual backbone of the republican party.

At least the bubbas have a backbone.

It's interesting that a person with your avatar (presumably a photo of the iconoclastic dys) might be mocking "bubbas."

And below, we have the White House, a paradigm example of High Bubba...

-cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners is GOOD

-using interrogation techniques NOT approved in the new Army manual is GOOD

-hiding prisoners from Red Cross people is GOOD

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201727.html

Dys is no bubba. And the avatar is a photo of Dys, no presumably about it. Isn't he adorable? Dys fits into no category except his own.

How to make America safe from terrorists...


We'll note that is Saudis, for gods sake!
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18177

He's definately not a bubba.

But his photo is ... rather good (keep the gun where it is, dys: I would never tell!). :wink:
(But Diane looks much better!!!)

I suppose, dys may be pigeonholed ... to the very best.