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.
April 7th, 2005
The night that elected Republicans decided to intervene in the PRIVATE/PERSONAL matter of Mrs. Schiavo’s end-of-life decision, Republicans distributed a talking points memo citing the political advantages that Mrs. Schiavo’s tragedy presented for the Republican party’s efforts to mobilize their fundamentalists base:
Of course, considering the tragic magnitude of the situation and the equally momentous miscalculation by Congressional Republicans, including President Bush, in choosing to intervene in the private family matter, their blatant political pandering backfired. Accordingly, Republican supporters immediately moved to question the authenticity of the “GOP talking points memo” on the Schiavo tragedy. As always, Republicans were successful in getting some mainstream media shills to go along with the Republican assertion that the memo was a fake. Now, however, the author of the memo has stepped forward and, surprise, surprise: the memo was written by a Republican lawyer working out of Senator Mel Martinez’s (Republican - Fla.) office.
The Washington Post has the story:
The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the senator said in an interview last night.
Brian Darling, a former lobbyist for the Alexander Strategy Group on gun rights and other issues, offered his resignation and it was immediately accepted, Martinez said. [Article - Thursday, April 7, 2005]
For more on the “GOP talking points memo,” which Republican’s circulated hoping exploit the Schiavo tragedy, see Jerome Armstrong’s post on MyDD.
March 29th, 2005
As the author points out below, in contemporary America we’re adverse at confronting extremists and don’t belive that our homegrown fundementalists present a danger; however, as you’ll read below, at the very least, the exploitation of Mrs. Shiavo’s tragedy should serve as a warning to pay attention.
March 29, 2005
What’s Going On?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people’s beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.
We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous.
But it’s also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence.
Before he saw the polls, Tom DeLay declared that “one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America.” Now he and his party, shocked by the public’s negative reaction to their meddling, want to move on. But we shouldn’t let them. The Schiavo case is, indeed, a chance to highlight what’s going on in America.
One thing that’s going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo’s parents, hasn’t killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.
Another thing that’s going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right.
Everyone knows about the attempt to circumvent the courts through “Terri’s law.” But there has been little national exposure for a Miami Herald report that Jeb Bush sent state law enforcement agents to seize Terri Schiavo from the hospice - a plan called off when local police said they would enforce the judge’s order that she remain there.
And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.
The religious right is already having a big impact on education: 31 percent of teachers surveyed by the National Science Teachers Association feel pressured to present creationism-related material in the classroom.
But medical care is the cutting edge of extremism.
Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available. And let me make a prediction: soon, wherever the religious right is strong, many pharmacists will be pressured into denying women legal drugs.
[...]
The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel. There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk.
America isn’t yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren’t sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.
[For the complete column click here - free subscription required]
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 23rd, 2005
I’m a bit reluctant to proceed with this, as I know that a lot of people do not want to appear to be “confrontational” nor “insensitive to/dismissive of” the religious values that many of our fellow citizens hold. However, we — the American public — should now be extremely mindful of what’s taking place and, too, of the nature of the debate that a certain faction of — let’s be honest — the Republican party has foisted onto the national stage. Before going on, let me be clear about one point, reasonable American’s of virtually all political stripes agree on one thing: the Terri Shiavo tragedy is a PRIVATE FAMILY MATTER in which the federal government should’ve never interfered in — PERIOD.
Reasonable Americans need to be FULLY aware about the nature of the federal government’s actions — at the behest of a vociferous faction — in deciding to interfere in this private family matter. Moreover, we should not be timid nor reluctant in confronting those that would jeopardize our system of laws, plurality (religious, ethnic, etc.) and federalism. Now, this may sound merely as an academic concern; however, it is through a series of small, incremental actions that policies and our national direction can be changed — interference in the tragic Shiavo case is such an example.
Now, to demonstrate that my concern — and the concern of others — is shared across party lines, here’s what Republican Representative Christopher Shays has said on this matter:
“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.”
