April 9th, 2005
Republicans, drunk with power, aim to remake the entire federal government into a tool serving conservative interests. As we’ve seen, since the conclusion of Mrs. Schiavo’s tragedy, Republicans are mounting an attack on courts, vilifying and even making veiled threats against judges. Tom DeLay, the majority Republican leader, released this statement regarding judges recently: “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.” Of course, we’ve also seen other Republican elected officials following Tom DeLay’s cue, and making similar threats of their own; and, now, it looks like we’re about to see an escalation of the attacks against judges and courts — that is, against the Constitutional principle of Separation of Powers.
According to the Washington Post (article -April 9, 2005), the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration recently organized a panel to discuss “Remedies to Judicial Tyranny” and to explore charges leading to the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy :
This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo’s parents; Alabama’s “Ten Commandments” judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope’s funeral.
The Schlafly session’s moderator, Richard Lessner of the American Conservative Union, opened the discussion by decrying a “radical secularist relativist judiciary.” It turned more harsh from there.
I suppose that Dana Milbank, the author of the Washington Post article, was recalling this:
[L]awyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, “upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law.”
And this:
Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his “bottom line” for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. “He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: ‘no man, no problem,’ ” Vieira said.
The full Stalin quote, for those who don’t recognize it, is “Death solves all problems: no man, no problem.”
When he wrote that things “turned more harsh from there.”
Conservatives and their Republican minions are growing tired and desperate at their in inability thus far to fast track the implementation of their socially conservative agenda; and, therefore, their wails and veiled threats against judges are likely to grow louder over the upcoming months. Sure, the base of the socially conservative movement welcomes the attacks on judges, and don’t mind being portrayed as extremists — even radicals — because they believe that they’re doing it all for a good cause. However, moderate Republicans are, I think, beginning to realize that they made a deal with the devil when when they partnered with the fundamentalist faction of their party. So, the question for us is, how do we exploit this? How do we reach out to these so-called moderates, while simultaneous underscoring that while the Republican leadership sides with the extremist base of their party, the issues that we all care about — Iraq, Social Security, etc. — are ignored and pushed off of the Congressional agenda?
As Kos has already pointed out, I believe that our talking point on this issue is the principle of “Separation of Powers,” something we all learned about in high school history and understand from those days. We, Democrats and Progressives, stand in defense of the principle of “Separation of Powers,” while Republicans work to destroy the Constitution with their attacks on Senatorial proceedings (i.e., ending the long history of debate on the Senate floor) and, now, with their frontal attacks against the courts — a co-equal branch of government.
Senator Harry Reid, of course, has already framed the situation along the lines of protecting the principle of “Separation of Powers,” when the Democratic leader announced that Senate Democrats would vigorously defend the system of “checks and balances.” With that in mind, whenever there’s an opportunity the “Separation of Powers/Checks and Balances” meme should be repeated to reinforce Senator Reid’s point; because this is a way of presenting the fight over the judges in a way that people understand and get.
March 24th, 2005
Candidates of BOTH political parties often attend church gatherings and are sometimes invited to speak from the pulpit; however, when they do, candidates of BOTH parties do not use that opportunity to make a blatant political statement — that is, they don’t attack or advocate one policy position or another. Now, clearly, this is a subtle distinction, since it goes without say that if a candidate of a given party is up at a pulpit, then most congregants can reasonably assume that there’s some sort of tacit endorsement being made. However, as I posted earlier from this article, what some activist fundamentalist Republican legislators are proposing goes beyond merely giving the church the ability to make “tacit endorsements.” Instead, what these Republican legislators are seeking is to completely obliterate the Church/State divide that has served our nation so well for over 200 years — which is what’s made us the most successful pluralistic democracy on earth. More specifically, the proposed Republican legislation would permit the clergy to ACTIVELY endorse candidates, and to ACTIVELY engage in other common political activities.
Now, from our current vantage, it may seem alarmist to suggest that we’re in the brink of a Theocracy; however, as an example, let’s acknowledge, as many have already pointed out, that the only reason why the federal government intervened in Mrs. Shiavo’s tragedy is because Republican politicians deemed it necessary to satiate the demands from the religious fundamentalists base within their party. Again, it’s not just some lone voices in the woods that are opining this; Republican Representative Christopher Shays said as much:
“My party is demonstrating that they are for states’ rights unless they don’t like what states are doing,” said Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. “This couldn’t be a more classic case of a state responsibility.”
“This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy,” Shays said. “There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them.”
Additionally, while we fight against Islamic terrorism, we’ve been engaged against fighting fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Iraq; and, too, our nation continually points at the perils of fundamentalism in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, it appears that while we fight abroad, some are perfectly happy and willing to institute our own brand of fundamentalism here are home. I, for one, cannot believe that the parallels are not being widely and publicly discussed. Finally, keep in mind that this is not about denying anybody their free speech right: the fact that our entire nation is enthralled by this tragic case is a clear example that no one’s free speech rights have been obstructed. Instead, the concern here is that adopting the fundamentalist tenets/values of one group puts in PERIL and UNDERMINES our pluralistic representative-democracy — basically, there’s a bunch of us living in our lovely country, with different religions, values, etc. and, if the arbiter between these groups (i.e., government) adopts one group’s fundamentalism over another’s, we run the risk of having a lot unhappy folks (running around questioning the legitimacy of the entire system). I’d hate to live in that type of society, and sincerely hope that we can avoid it.
March 23rd, 2005
Again, further background on the forces that have compelled the Republican party, which is in full control of the federal government, to intervene in this case (from Reuters):
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Christian evangelicals, a key component in President Bush’s Republican Party, believe the case of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo may help inject new life into their long campaign against abortion.
“The right-to-life issue has been with us for over 30 years but never has it dominated the news headlines day after day as it is doing now,” said Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.
Republican leaders and President Bush had little choice other than to respond to Christian evangelical demands on the Schiavo case or risk alienating a crucial part of their political base, political analysts said.
[...]
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian Family Research Council, said the furor over Schiavo was the direct result of years of campaigning against abortion.
[...]
Writing in the Wall Street Journal last Friday, conservative columnist and former White House speechwriter Peggy Noonan set out the stakes for Republicans.
“The Republican Party controls the Senate, the House and the White House. The Republicans are in charge. They have the power. If they can’t save this woman’s life, they will face a reckoning from a sizable portion of their own base. And they will of course deserve it,” Noonan wrote.
In campaigning for Schiavo to live, some Christian conservatives, including Sheldon and James Dobson who heads the influential Focus on the Family organization, also argue against the notion of a “right to die,” even in cases when an individual clearly states his own wish not to prolong life.
“I don’t believe in a right to die. I think that God is in control of our destiny,” Dobson said recently.
March 21st, 2005
How important a factor is quality of life to the Terri Shiavo tragedy? Or is absolutism the only item that some people care about? That is, quality of life doesn’t matter, as long as her body can be maintained functioning by any artificial means necessary. And, of course, there’s the other issue, how much intrusion by the federal government should we permit into what is an extremely personal matter, best resolved by the immediate parties involved?
Finally, do keep in mind that the only reason why certain groups (in the federal government and elsewhere) are focusing so intently on this one case is because they belive that they can score political points — given the “circus” they’ve created around what should’ve been a private matter. This, unfortunately, is the sad truth.
For instance, note that while other cases (i.e., 03.15.05 – Texas infant removed from life support with backing of Texas law) are ignored by the federal government and the media, Shivo’s tragedy garnered a special Congressional session. Again, the only reason why this occurred is because the party in control of Congress believes they can politicize the issue, and thereby score political points with their supporters. Back to the Texas law mentioned above, Texas Futile Care Law, the law was signed into the books by then governor George W Bush (after reaching a compromise and in consultation with the National Right to Life organization — [article]).
Interestingly, at the heart of the Texas Futile Care Law, cited above, is this rationale:
“(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).”
In other words, if the patient can’t afford to pay for treatment, and if no other hospital is available to take the patient, the hospital can seek to refuse treatment — including life support. (Which is exactly what’s occurring in this other Texas case.) Now, if the party in control of Congress and of the White House truly cared about the issue, and not merely about scoring political points with their supporters, why aren’t they calling for special sessions to step into this and other cases as well?
November 30th, 2004
You may have seen this already; if not, the below are points that we, Democrats, should be thinking about very seriously — especially as the party’s leadership is apparently considering doing more of the same, that is, being “more moderate”.
——————————————————
Insanity is continuing to do the same things over and over again and expecting a different result.
—
XI
—
Conservatives have spent the last 40 years getting clear about the values they represent. They have even developed a “family values” brand to represent a framework that coheres traditional prejudices around prayer in school, gun rights, restricting abortion, and restricting gay rights.
—-
XII
—-
By contrast, liberal or “progressive” groups and Democrats have spent the same period of time defining themselves against conservative values, even “morality” in general.
—-
XV
—-
Candidates who intend to win should no longer hire consultants who repeatedly lose. Those who counsel caution when dealing with the indifferent, the disaffected, and the undecided do not understand American history. Consultants who advise their clients against offering a clear and compelling vision in fear that it will be attacked should find themselves without a home in the Democratic Party. The sooner they retire, the better.
—-
XV
—-
Democrats serious about returning to majority status must:
- Retire any leader who believes that we are currently on a winning path that simply needs more money and effort.
- Define and articulate a coherent set of values of our base, and be willing to lose those allies who do not share these values.
- Fight battles, win or lose, that define and advance our values and expand our political base.
——————————————————
See the complete list of articles here:
http://www.3nov.com/images/november3-big.gif
