This
is our cache of http://usliberals.about.com/.
our cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current
page without highlighting.
We are neither
affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
Ashcroft Out, Gonzales In It's official; John Ashcroft is no longer U.S. Attorney General. President Bush announced that he wanted current White House counsel Alberto Gonzales to take his place. While Gonzales may be unknown to the masses, he has been close to the President since his days as Governor of Texas. ABC News reports:
Gonzales' political career has flourished under Bush's patronage over the past decade, since Bush was governor of Texas. Recruited from a Houston law firm in 1995, he served as Bush's general counsel, secretary of state and then was named to the Texas Supreme Court before accompanying the president to Washington.
In that time period Gonzales has been criticized for his role in some controversial Bush Administration decisions. For instance, he wrote a memo for the White House claiming that it had the right to waive anti-torture law and international treaties providing protections to prisoners of war. Gonzales has also defended the Administration in their effort to keep secret records of meetings between Vice President Dick Cheney and others regarding U.S. energy policy.
Despite his role this and other controversial decisions, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are taking no position in this appointment. In a release issued today, Anthony Romero, ACLU Executive Director called for a full Senate confirmation process that would give the public a chance to better understand the rationale behind some of Gonzales' past legal opinions. People for the American Way issued a statement that echoed the ACLU's concerns. The Center for American Progress, on the other hand, is much less restrained in their critique of Mr. Gonzales.
Senator Specter Riles Up Anti-Abortion Activists Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter stepped into the proverbial bee's nest shortly after President Bush won a second term in the White House. Specter, a moderate Republican, is due to become the chair of the Judiciary Committee when Senate convenes its new session. But the new position is in jeopardy now due to the Senator's comments at a press conference last week. The San Jose Mercury News reports:
"he said that the Republican Party ought to move to the center, that the president had not earned a traditional mandate, and that he expected Bush to be 'mindful' of the difficulties in getting a judicial nominee through the Senate."
Obviously, many religious conservatives are outraged by his comments and are calling for his colleagues to oppose his ascendance to the powerful committee post. Right-wing fundamentalists are hell-bent (pun intended) on reordering the Federal court system. Since the Reagan era, they've been very successful too. With Chief Justice Rehnquist having serious health problems and several other justices over 70 years of age, Bush may have a chance to complete the conservative transformation of the highest court in the land.
But I must give kudos to Specter for encouraging his party to exercise some caution. Bush did win the election fair and square this time but he did not get a mandate. Like Kerry said in the debate, just because Bush says it, doesn't make it so. Appointing right wing ideologues to the Supreme Court would not be in the best interest of the nation, let alone national unity.
Maybe progressives should rally behind Senator Specter quietly because he may be our only hope in slowing the conservative onslaught of the court system.
What if Howard Dean Won the Democratic Nomination? Remember Howard Dean? That out-of-nowhere-candidate who was the front-runner for the lion's share of the Democratic primary season until the people of Iowa chose John Kerry as their candidate. He was dealt a major blow at the polls that day but it was his speech that night that put the proverbial nail in the coffin. The yelp heard around the world confirmed for the American public what pundits had been saying for weeks: Howard Dean was crazy, uncontrollable, and unfit for the White House.
But what if things were different? What if Howard Dean became the Democratic Party's presidential nominee and took on George W. Bush in the general election? Would things have turned out differently? Would Bush have been able to put him on the defensive for his stance on Iraq like he did to John Kerry? Would Dean, a former governor who has balanced budgets, have been able to focus the public's attention on the Bush Administration's inability to control government spending? Would Dean, a doctor, have been able to highlight the health care crisis that has only worsened under Bush's watch? Or would gay marriage have led to Dean's downfall too?
John Nichols, associate editor for The Capital Times, suggests that Karl Rove feared a Dean vs. Bush matchup moreso than going head-to-head with Kerry.
Nichols writes:
In the epilogue of Bob Woodward's book, "Plan of Attack," the author writes about how Rove saw the presidential race in early February 2004.
Noting that Rove believed the war in Iraq was turning into "a potential negative" for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, Woodward wrote, "Previously, Rove had claimed he was salivating at the prospect that the Democrats would nominate former Vermont Governor Howard Dean in the 2004 presidential race. But Dean had imploded and Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, had won 12 of the first 14 Democratic primary contests and it looked like he was headed for the nomination." What did Rove have to say about this development? " 'The good news for us is that Dean is not the nominee,' Rove now argued to an associate in his second floor West Wing office. Dean's unconditional opposition to the Iraq war could have been potent in a face-off with Bush. 'One of Dean's strengths through the primary was he could say, I'm not part of that crowd down there.' But Kerry was very much a part of the Washington crowd, and he had voted in favor of the resolution for war. Rove got out his two-inch-think loose-leaf binder titled 'Bring It On.' It consisted of research into Kerry's 19-year record in the Senate. Most relevant were pages 9-20 of the section on Iraq."
I'm inclined to follow this logic because the President got a lot of mileage out of the "flip-flopper" charges. Dean, as a former governor from a small state, did not have such an extensive voting record that could be misrepresented. And Howard Dean could attack Bush on one his perceived strengths: his unwillingness to change course on Iraq. Kerry, on the other hand, had to defend his stance on Iraq far too many times.
The Empire Struck Back Democrats were dealt a serious blow on Election Day. Not only is George W. Bush still residing in the White House but also Republicans tightened their control of the Senate and the House of Representatives. For months I predicted that Kerry would win the White House decisively and that Democrats would gain a one vote majority in the Senate.
How wrong I was.
The next four years will be a very interesting period for this country. Bush feels that his agenda has been validated and that voters gave him a mandate to remake this country as he sees appropriate. Democratic resistance in the Congress is less strong now due to diminished numbers. And the specter of reelection is not hanging over the President so he could do just about anything.
But progressives must stay vigilant. Epic battles of good versus evil always involve a bit of give and take. But in the end, good always triumphs.
The Supreme Court anointing George W. Bush President in 2000 was akin to the Galactic Empire taking control of the universe in "Star Wars." Reading the description of the Galatic Empire from StarWars.com, it is scary how eerily familiar it is to what is going on in America now:
"...Rather than offer the people of the galaxy newfound hope, the Empire instead became a tyrannical regime, presided over by a shadowy and detached despot steeped in the dark side of the Force. Personal liberties were crushed, and the governance of everyday affairs was pulled away from the senate, and instead given to unscrupulous regional governors.
Accompanying the growth of the Empire was an unprecedented military buildup. The many shipyards in the Emperor's domain churned out immense fleets of Star Destroyer s and TIE fighter s. The Imperial Starfleet maintained order in the galaxy, a role previously undertaken by the Jedi Knight s, an august order of protectors wiped out during the Emperor's ascent.
It was through fear that the Empire ruled. Its power hungry lieutenants and technocrats developed greater and greater instruments of destruction to cow a rebellious populace. ..."
And if you think of Dick Cheney as the Emperor in the background calling the shots and President Bush as Darth Vader, the analogy fits even more. But remember, the good side of the force won in the end of the Star Wars trilogy. The same will be true in America IF progressives stay vigilant. For the first time in decades, progressives began to assert their political beliefs and get organized. Conservatives regrouped and developed a cogent plan of attack in the 80's and now we're living the culmination of decades of planning.
But progressives can deal the President a major blow by working to regain seats in the House and Senate for Democrats. We must pay equal attention to what's going on in our own states too. Republicans did not just strengthen their control over the federal government but they also increased their dominance at the state level too.
So, if you think of 2000 as the dawn of the Galactic Empire and our ability to put the Bush Administration on the defensive for the past year as the destruction of the Death Star, then Bush's victory on Election Day was the Empire Striking Back. Now, it is up to us to lick our wounds, regroup, and prepare to fight another day. Because the core values of the Republican Party in the era of George W. Bush is diametrically opposed to that of the 48% of the electorate that supported John Kerry. I think it'll be difficult for either side to reconcile their differences to join together under those circumstances.
So going forward, you can look to this site for more tools, information, and resources to help you do your part to take our country back. As this is a group effort, please feel free to email me at usliberals.guide@about.com with your thoughts, comments, and suggestions at any time.
VOTE TODAY With interest in this year's election at a fever pitch, it's advisable to allow enough time to vote. If you're not sure the polling place to which you should go, check out MyPollingPlace.com. If you type in your address it will tell you where to vote anywhere in the country.
Check out this Election Day Guide courtesy of About.com's Guide to US Government Info.
Get Out The Vote Tomorrow is Election Day but Americans have been voting in several states for the past few weeks. If you have any time at all, you should make phone calls, walk precincts, watch polls, or do legal electionerring outside of polling places. If you're not in a battleground state but live within driving distance to one, you should consider taking a day off and helping out over there. Contact that state's party headquarters to find out where to report. You can also contact Americans Coming Together (ACT) to find out about organized trips to battleground states as well.
Regardless of what any poll indicates, it's actual voting that will make the difference. Don't wake up on Wednesday, November 3rd to another term of George W. Bush as President without having done anything to avoid that global nightmare.
Gay Marriage A Stealth Issue in the 2004 Elections Gay marriage may have dropped from the headlines but it still is a factor in next Tuesday's elections. Eleven states -- Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah -- have constitutional amendments on the November 2nd ballot to ban gay marriage and, in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon, civil unions as well.
President George W. Bush is banking on those amendments will bring legions of staunchly conservative voters to the polls who will tend to support him as well. If you remember, he called for an amendment to the United States Constitution during his last State of the Union address. Most observers saw that as a thinly veiled political maneuver intended to put Democrats in an awkward position and energize the Republican base. But, much Karl Rove's chagrin, gay marriage hasn't proven to be the albatross that many believed it would become.
At least not in the last few months of the campaign. The economy, Iraq, tax cuts, and terrorism have been in the spotlight much more. While this has boded well for liberals eager to see Senator Kerry take up residence in the White House come January, it could have lulled those who do not believe in discriminating against gays and lesbian couples that choose to marry. Polling suggests that voters in each of the 11 states will support the amendments and push the gay marriage movement a major setback.
And more broadly, if Karl Rove's machinations bare fruit, then George W. Bush will get the extra voters he needs to make him victorious in key states because religious conservatives who are still undecided about the President will likely support him if they come to the polls. William Lunch, a political science professor at Oregon State University, raises a valid point. He told the USA Today: "Republicans have done extremely well in mobilizing the religious conservative base. There's not a great deal of room left for additional mobilization."
Lunch's theory seems plausible. Conservatives tend to be reliable voters. And with much of our population growth coming from immigration rather than childbirth, it is unlikely that an overwhelming portion of the newly naturalized citizens will vote Republican, if at all. But, his hypothesis could be totally off base too.
For the sake of the country and the world, let's hope that the positive impact for Bush is minimal, if at all.
To take action against gay marriage bans, click on Marriage Equality USA's website here. It's a nationwide network of state organizations focused on ending discrimination against same-sex couples that choose to marry.
Dreams Come True for Bostonians in 2004 2004 has been a good year for Boston. The New England Patriots won the Super Bowl. The Boston Red Sox did what they hadn't done since 1918: win the World Series. And they didn't just win the championship, they did it in grand style. (Read more about it here) Let's all hope that Bostonians will have more to cheer for come next Tuesday. Read Archives#
Can Democrats Reclaim the Senate? Lost in the media storm this election cycle is the battle for control of the Senate. If President Bush remains in the White House, a Democratic Senate is critical to slow down his administration's continued attempts to, among many things, pack the federal bench with right-wing ideologues. If Senator Kerry wins on Election Day, then he will need the cooperation of a Democratic Senate to help him undo the damage of the Bush presidency before pursuing his own agenda.
Although Democrats have more seats to defend this year due to retirements and the election cycle, continued Republican dominance of the upper house of Congress is not an absolute certainty. In the eyes of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), the outcome of nine Senate races will determine which major Party controls that body in the next session: North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Oklahoma, Colorado, Alaska, South Dakota, Kentucky and Louisiana. The polling in each of those races suggest that the Democrat has a slight advantage or is within the margin of error.
Voter turnout is the name of the game here. A Kerry victory, I believe, cannot occur with a strong showing for Democrats down the ticket. Early reports suggest that new registrations in Democratic neighborhoods have outpaced that in Republican ones. Moreover, left-leaning 527 groups have a huge financial advantage over their Republican counterparts and plan to throw every last cent into getting the voters they have identified to the polls on November 2nd.
Go to the DSCC website and get involved in your local Senate race, especially if you do not live in one of the battleground states for the Presidential election.
Ask a Liberal I get lots of email from people and every once and a while I think it's worth sharing. This is one of those cases. A reader writes:
"Months ago you had said that the Valerie Plame investigation was going well.
The White House has managed to keep the Valerie Plame thing under wraps for over a year, and apparently past the election. And the press has let them get away with it. Claiming that the only way to find the culprit is to jail reporters is just a red herring, and a way to blame the press for the lack of a conclusion. The investigator is not independent. He ultimately serves at the behest of Ashcroft. He's just been laundered, like crooked money gets laundered.
Guy Noir could have solved this case in three days.
Why is the press silent on this matter?"
From what I can tell, the press has been covering the Valerie Plame investigation. Several high-ranking members of the Bush Administration, including Karl Rove, have been questioned. Each time that happens, it gets reported widely in the press. A handful of journalists have been subpoenaed, or threatened with a subpoena.
With all the other stuff happening in the world, I think many in the media are prioritizing other news. Just think about it: the worsening situation in Iraq and the presidential election alone have given the press enough fodder to write about for the last several months. And let's not forget the slew of high profile court cases: Kobe Bryant, Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson, etc.
When it comes down to it, the involvement of the press in the Valerie Plame investigation, will keep the issue on the media's radar screen. Journalist across the country are worried about the impact it will have on their ability to get high profile sources to divulge information to them if they cannot hide behind a veil of anonymity. Just today, the Miami Herald, ran an editorial about the vitality of confidentiality. I can only imagine that other papers will be joining that chorus in due time.
What do you think? Email me at usliberals.guide@about.com with your thoughts.
| 
email to a friend 
font size
JRun Server Name: nutch2 pageload time: 31ms