CT Blue ›

House passes acceptable FISA bill

Friday, March 14, 2008

No telecom immunity and no Congressional authorized pass for Bush lawbreaking.

Joe Courtney on the right side of this. Some of the Dems who voted against it did so because they opposed any spying.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism | | Comments (0)

Designed to fail

Friday, March 14, 2008

A guiding principle of the conservative faith is that government fails at all it tries to do. When they get in power, they prove that theory in spades, at least for times when they are in power. The latest example from the New York Times:

After months of watching a growing credit crisis made worse by steadily eroding home prices, the Bush administration responded on Thursday with the outlines of a plan that officials emphasized is meant more to prevent future crises than to address the current one.

The plan, which relies primarily on state regulators and private industry to tighten their oversight of financial markets, calls on states to issue nationwide licensing standards for mortgage brokers. (Emphasis added)

Not to detract from the overall stupidity of the proposals, but the one I’ve emphasized takes the cake. The last time I looked there were 50 states. The federal government is proposing that each state adopt identical standards to regulate an industry which, shall we say, appears to affect interstate commerce. Wouldn’t federal regulation make more sense?

But that would be letting facts get in the way of ideology, and Republicans don’t do that sort of thing. They’d far rather expose the country to more financial skullduggery than allow the federal government to succeed at anything-other than torturing and wiretapping, that is.

Filed in Bush, Economics | | Comments (0)

Double standards

Thursday, March 13, 2008

I’ve written a lot about the double standard that the media applies to Democrats, who are routinely savaged for things for which Republicans get free passes. But there appears to be an even more pernicious set of standards applied to black Democrats.

Barack Obama has been forced to disassociate himself from Louis Farakhan, with whom he was never actually associated. We are now being told that it is not sufficient that he merely disassociate himself from remarks made by his now retired pastor, apparently more must be done. Media Matters reports the following colloquoy from Good Morning America in which co-anchor Chris Cuomo interviewed Obama campaign adviser and Christian ethics scholar Shaun Casey:

CUOMO: But is there a responsibility as a candidate for president to associate yourself, certainly as a spiritual adviser, with ideas that are consistent with your campaign? Senator Obama saying his campaign’s about moving away from divisive politics, from sniping and attacks, and then to say your spiritual adviser is a man who says America should be damned, that it is to blame for 9-11, that Farrakhan deserves an award for epitomizing greatness? Does that go together?

CASEY: I think he’s repudiated that very clearly. If you had any evidence that, in fact, that Senator Obama had embraced those views, we would have seen that in the piece. But the fact that you didn’t have any video of Senator Obama embracing those views; in fact, he’s repudiated those views, I think it’s very clear. I mean, it’s interesting to me, you haven’t vetted Hillary Clinton’s pastor’s sermons; you haven’t vetted President Bush’s pastor’s sermons; you haven’t vetted John McCain’s pastor’s sermons. So you’re not holding them to that standard, which I think is very interesting.

Casey’s point is so well taken. When John McCain kissed the ass of John Hagee to get the endorsement of that multi-bigoted person, the press found it sufficient that McCain merely disassociated himself from any comment Hagee may have made that it was inconvenient for McCain to be associated with, while all the while trumpeting how proud he was of the endorsement itself. McCain sought out the blessing of Jerry Falwell, who also said that America was to blame for 9-11, but McCain has not been required to do more than disassociate himself from those views (if that). The point has not been made that when one actively seeks the endorsement of an individual, one is in effect endorsing that person.

The subtext of all this is that all black politicians are responsible for each and every statement that any black supporter (and often any black person, period) makes, even if they don’t seek or embrace that person’s support. Not only that, it is insufficient that they condemn specific opinions of that person, they must condemn the person. This is a condition never imposed on Republicans, only rarely imposed on white Democrats, but always imposed on black Democrats.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (1)

Groton Appreciation Dinner Tomorrow

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Tomorrow at 6:00 PM the Groton Democratic Town Committee will be hosting a dinner to recognize the contributions of two loyal Democrats, Dee Harrell and John Wheeler, at the Pipefitters Hall, 873 Poquonnock Road in Groton (naturally).

Dee has been on the RTM as a member from the 1st District since the dawn of time. She has been a member of the Town Committee for just as long. Unlike many long time members, she shows up for meetings, helps with fundraisers, and works at the polls. She is a mother, grandmother and great-grandmother and an all around wonderful person. We’ll be honoring Dee, but we’ll all also be remembering her late husband Howard, who also worked tirelessly for the Democrats.

John Wheeler hasn’t been an active member of the Groton Democrats for as long as Dee, but in the years since 2003, when he ran for Town Council, he has worked tirelessly to elect Democrats here in Groton and to the state and national offices in the even numbered years. For years he served as the treasurer of the Town Committee. I can testify to the long hours of work and aggravation that particular job entails.

Both of their families will be turning out for the occasion. I don’t know how big John’s family is, but Dee’s is big enough to fill the hall, so there’s sure to be quite a crowd there. Most of the Groton Democrats who read this blog will have received an announcement in the mail, but if you haven’t, come anyway. Suggested donation is $25.00, which will ultimately go toward paying for the headquarters we’ll be using to re-elect Joe Courtney, Andy Maynard, Lisa Wright and Ted Moukawsher, as well as elect the next president, whoever he or she may be (but not John McCain).

There aren’t two people on the Town Committee who deserve recognition more than Dee and John and we’re hoping we’ll have a big crowd to show our appreciation.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Why won’t Congress listen to Mark Klein?

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

When Chris Dodd tried to stop telecom immunity, Harry Reid failed to honor his “hold”, a procedural move that he has allowed Republicans to make time and time again. Many wonder why. The Democrats have flaunted their impotence by subpoenaing White House officials who blow them off without consequences (the recent lawsuit has been assigned to a judge who has made a living out of protecting Republican outlawry, on and off the bench). Yet, strangely, the Democrats have failed to listen to a willing witness who has the goods on Bush and the telecoms. Neither house of Congress, either the Senate that has already sold out, or the House that claims to be against the concept of immunity, has listened to the man who exposed this scandal in the first place. Again, one must wonder why. Could it be that the Democrats just aren’t that interested in offending their corporate masters?

His name is Mark Klein. He tells his story here. He’s obviously disgusted with the Democrats, and you can’t blame him. (Via Boing-boing.tv)

(The Verizon Commercial adds an ironic touch, doesn’t it?)

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Democrats | | Comments (0)

No politics here, just move along

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Old friend Steve Fournier concisely sums up the back story to the public humiliation of Eliot Spitzer:

Brothers at the bar Charles Schumer, Michael Mukasey, and Eliot Spitzer, three New York lawyers with considerable influence over public policy, crossed paths this week when wiretaps of New York Governor Spitzer arranging for paid sex were made public. Mukasey is the attorney general, and the federal authorities who wiretapped Spitzer work for him. Schumer is the junior senator from New York, and Mukasey was confirmed as attorney general on his say-so. Schumer recommended confirmation despite Mukasey’s refusal to confront racketeers in the executive branch who corrupted federal prosecutors. During his confirmation hearings, Mukasey was asked why Democrats are more often the target of federal prosecutions than Republicans. Not because of anything improper, Mukasey protested, and Schumer and two-thirds of the Senate took him at his word. Now it appears that Democrat Spitzer was specifically targeted by subordinates of Republican Mukasey, who wouldn’t be in office but for Democrat Schumer.

Let us stipulate that Spitzer was incredibly stupid and incredibly arrogant. The fact remains that this is probably a politically motivated hanging. There are a lot of things about it that don’t pass the smell test. Those questions are being examined at Firedoglake, e.g., here and http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/10/some-questions-about-the-spitzer-incident/.

By the way, isn’t it interesting that we haven’t heard a word about David “Diaper Man” Vitter? No federal charges there, and no resignation.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Is that a spine we’re seeing?

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

A while back I noted that it looked like the Democrats in the House were about to join their siblings in the Senate, and cave on the telecom immunity issue. It’s only fair that I report that I may (hopefully) have spoken too soon. Not only are the Democrats not caving, they seem to be fighting back:

As The New York Times reports this morning, the House leadership’s draft proposal for a surveillance bill contains a provision that would reject giving retroactive immunity to the telecoms. Instead, it would give the courts authorization to hear the classified material at issue in the case — in essence disposing with the administration’s claim of the state secrets privilege.

It would be absolutely marvelous if they followed through on this. It might never pass the Senate, but it may be that as time goes on, and the sky doesn’t fall because Bush lacks Big Brother powers, that the House will be emboldened to let the entire issue die until we get a rational President in January (assuming of course that Hillary doesn’t succeed in making John McCain president).

This issue, to me, is perhaps the most important issue facing the Congress. Bush has grabbed power from the legislative and judicial branch in a breathtaking manner, particularly when you consider that he is the most unpopular sitting president in modern history. Due to his Republican congressional enablers, who have proven that the founders were wrong when they assumed each branch would be jealous of its own power, it is extremely difficult to stop some of these power grabs. If Congress gives in to Bush on telecom immunity it will be formally abdicating its powers, and crippling the judiciary’s powers to boot. (I haven’t seen any informed comment on whether such a retrospective law would be constitutional, but I would guess that regardless of the precedent, the current Supreme Court would give this one to Bush). This is one area where the Congress can say no to Bush and make it stick.

It’s often remarked that this is all part of the Cheney agenda of expanding the powers of the President. It’s almost as if they expect to monopolize the executive branch for all time. After all, if the Democrats get in they could use those same powers in the service of an agenda that Cheney and his ilk would oppose. Maybe they know something we don’t know.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Democrats | | Comments (0)

Preserving Connecticut

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Many years ago my wife helped get a referendum passed in Groton to purchase open space. The allocated funds were never fully spent, because some of the town councilors, who professed to be fans of open space, always seemed to have problems with specific purchases. Nonetheless, as a result of that effort, a lot of space that would now be covered with suburban sprawl is now preserved. That process proved the truth, once again, of Ben Franklin’s observation that you can achieve a lot if you don’t care who gets the credit. To this day one of the political leaders of that era, who we considered a major roadblock to the entire idea, believes the whole thing was his idea.

Which is a round about way of bringing me to the subject of this post: the fact that there is a move afoot in the state legislature to spend real money to preserve what’s left of the character of Connecticut:

A coalition of preservation groups and other organizations wants Connecticut to invest $100 million a year over the next decade to preserve open space land, restore historic buildings and protect the state’s character. A law was enacted last year that set aside $55 million worth of bonding for specific projects. This session, The Face of Connecticut Campaign wants to increase that spending by $45 million more each year — for a total of $1 billion after ten years. “This is what will make Connecticut the place we want to live,” said Sen. Ed Meyer, D-Guilford, who believes the initiative will help fight suburban sprawl across the state. Much of the money would be spent on existing state programs, such as the farmland preservation fund and the Historic Preservation and Planning and Restoration Fund. Under the proposal, there would also be money set aside for new programs, such as efforts to promote urban parks and to protect small, local farms.

This is so enlightened it’s hard to believe it’s being seriously proposed in Connecticut. Our state representative, Lisa Wright, is a proponent of open space, so I assume she’ll be actively supporting this, and I understand that Andy Maynard is also behind it.

There is another way (in addition to, and not in lieu of the foregoing) that the legislature could protect open space, which would not, if properly done, cost taxpayers an extra dime. If the tax system in this state were restructured to drastically reduce local reliance on property taxes, the incentive for towns to roll over for every new strip mall that comes along would be significantly reduced. A move toward regional zoning would be a good idea too, but I’m not so crazy as to believe anything that rational can be achieved in my lifetime.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (1)

Report from the Charter Revision Commission

Monday, March 10, 2008

Tonight, I’ve been concentrating on local issues: the organic law of the Town of Groton. I.e, another Charter Revision Commission tonight. One of the leitmotifs running through our discussions is the extent to which the Charter should be written in language allegedly accessible to the layperson. For instance, is the term “organic law” verboten? As a lawyer I like the term, because it is, from the lawyer’s perspective, perfectly clear, as it would be to almost any judge. The charter being a legal document, my own feeling is that it should be written so that you can predict the way in which it will be construed in a court.

There is, not surprisingly, a considerable body of opinion on the Commission that the Charter should be written to be understandable to the layperson. I can understand that point of view, but that approach sometimes causes problems. In practice, at least in my opinion, it can lead to imprecise terminology that may cause no end of problems when you get to court.

If well done the two positions shouldn’t be mutually exclusive, but judging by results so far, I’m not sure we’ve reached that happy medium. In any event the term “organic” was thrown in the compost. It will be replaced with “fundamental”, a reasonable compromise, I guess.

Tonight, by the way, we learned that our library, along with others throughout the state, does not operate in conformance with either state statutes or the charter. This came up as we debated whether to retain the library board. The charter says that the library board shall “manage and control” the library, and state statutes are similar. The library board is treated as an advisory panel in Groton, which doesn’t seem to equate to “manage and control”. State statutes appear to require us to have a library board, at least they do if we are considered a “city” as opposed to a “municipality”. Unfortunately, the term “city” is not defined in the applicable statute, and I couldn’t find a definition elsewhere.

I’m in favor of keeping the board, because I think a body of people who like books should be the ones making the decision should some troglodytes decide to try to ban books from the library. An independent board, relatively immune to political pressure, would probably be better equipped to stand up for the First Amendment. It looks like that’s where were headed.

Back to full time blogging tomorrow.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Flower pics

Saturday, March 8, 2008

My wife and I, along with an old college friend and his wife, went to the Boston Flower Show today. This has become a yearly event for us, and each year I duly inflict some pictures on whoever might chance upon this blog.

My excuse is that after surviving “such a beastly month as February” everyone we all look forward to spring, and the sight of a few flowers is a sight for sore eyes indeed at this time of year. So, here we go. First, the world’s biggest trowel. This picture is sort of need because it actually takes some effort to make your brain realize the trowel is so big. Your brain keeps trying to adjust the surroundings to small.