I miss Fafblog!
But at least Fafblog has a long shelf life. February 20, 2006:

Q. Why are we in Iraq?
A. To prevent the failure of the occupation of Iraq. If we pull out now the occupation will be a failure!

Q. Would it have been easier to have never occupied it in the first place?
A. Ah, but if we never occupied Iraq, then the occupation certainly would have been a failure, now wouldn’t it?

Q. [meditates for many years]
Q. Now I am enlightened.

August 25, 2005:

FAFBLOG: So what's up, Democrats?
JOE BIDEN: What's up is the war in Iraq, which is terribly mismanaged, Fafnir.
FB: Oh wow! Are you guys against the war, too?
JOE LIEBERMAN: Oh no, we're not AGAINST the war!
HARRY REID: We're all FOR it!
BIDEN: It's the best worst idea in the world, and we're gonna run with it to victory!
HILLARY CLINTON: Watch me eat a bug!
FB: So we can actually win the war! That's great news!
LIEBERMAN: Yes!
REID: Sort of!
BIDEN: Maybe!
CLINTON: I can wrestle a buffalo!
FB: I'm confused.
REID: The problem is troop levels, Fafnir. The US invaded without enough boots on the ground!
LIEBERMAN: Just another couple hundred thousand soldiers on the ground and hey, we should have this thing wrapped up in no time!
BIDEN: Just like I told George Bush all along! I told him in the Oval Office, "You're gonna go in without enough troops and you're not gonna plan for the occupation and it's gonna be the biggest mistake of your presidency and I'm gonna vote for it!"
FB: Wow, that all seems so prescient.

July 10, 2004:

It's so easy to kind of sweep it all under your brain an think "Well theres nothin more to be said an nothin more to think about it" cause let's face it nobody wants to think about their government participating in horror. An right now the level of torture talk has gone from "Torture: Bad!" to "Torture: Bad, But Not As Bad As Saddam Hussein" to "Torture: Bad, But What About Ticking Bombs?" to "Torture: Bad, But Not Necessarily Proof That The People Who Ordered Torture Are Bad" to "Torture: We Still Talkin Bout Torture?" to "Torture: Bad?" An before we get to "Torture: Sorta Like Mowin Your Lawn" I think we should try as hard as we can to wake up.

Wake up.

Apropos of which: high school kids in Chicago did, about the war -- now they're getting expelled. They did their part -- now you do yours, and sign this petition to "drop all disciplinary action against the said students, and to remove any indications of said events from their permanent records. We urge you to respect these students right to free expression now and in the future."

I would add that that I wish there were/there ought to be at least one or two colleges in this great country of ours that might look favorably on expulsions such as these. More by Arthur Silber, all via Jonathan Schwarz.


=====
NOTE, UPDATE, 11/11: "sorta like mowin your lawn" link via Nell Lancaster, "A Lovely Promise." Other favorite Fafblog posts of mine are an interview with James Dobson (features tbe unforgettable line "powerful shockwaves of destructive gay energy") and "drivin with Donald." posted by Thomas Nephew at 4:04:00 PM -- |    

 
Maryland switch to optical scan voting imperiled?
On the heels of widespread Maryland election snafus in the 2006 primaries with electronic voting systems, Maryland's legislature passed a voting systems reform act (SB392/HB18) mandating more reliable and secure optical scan voting technology by 2010. However, the voting system switch was made contingent on funding them in the coming fiscal year.

Given the current budget crunch and special legislative session, I was relieved to learn from Delegate Heather Mizeur last week that money for the switch had been penciled in to the first draft of the budget submitted by Governor O'Malley for a joint legislative committee's consideration.

However, tonight verified voting advocacy group TrueVoteMD.org is alerting supporters that optical scan voting by 2010 for Maryland is in danger, citing a Delmarva WBOC-TV news report ("Budget Cuts Put New Voting System for Md. in Question"):

A legislative subcommittee mulling budget cuts on Tuesday to address a state shortfall considered cutting $3.3 million from the State Board of Elections. That money was to be used to change the current voting system to one that uses paper ballots.

Lawmakers voted last session to replace the state's Diebold voting machines with a new system that would leave a paper record, but that bill was contingent upon funding to take effect by the next gubernatorial election in 2010.

The loss of the $3.3 million next year could put the voting change in danger, said Linda Lamone, Maryland's elections chief.

"It would mean no new voting system would be implemented," said Lamone, who attended the hearing but did not address lawmakers.

An analyst told the committee that Maryland needs to spend $29 million over the next five years to have the new voting machines in place by 2010. Marylanders will use the current Diebold machines in next year's presidential election.

Appropriations Committee chair Norman Conway said it was too soon to tell whether the elections money would be cut. Unfortunately, at least some lawmakers seem to be tempted:

...Some lawmakers on the panel considering elections cuts said they don't see an urgent need to change voting machines now that the state is in a budget pinch.

"I think the system we have now is good," said Delegate John Wood, a Democrat who represents Charles and St. Mary's counties. "I don't know why we need to change it."

Another Democrat said she didn't see the need to change voting machines.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it," said Delegate Barbara Robinson of Baltimore.

But it is broke. Maryland's 2006 primary election debacle showed our election system is the equivalent of using a space shuttle to get to the supermarket -- when it would be safer and cheaper to drive. We want the votes we cast to be the ones they count -- but electronic voting systems like those used in Maryland invite hacking and undetectable election fraud, as well as system-wide technical glitches like those in 2006.

Fortunately, there's a proven, more secure system available with optical scan voting machines -- and what's more, it's actually cheaper! As the message TrueVoteMD has drafted for supporters to e-mail puts it:

It is important to know that switching to a paper ballot counted by optical scan machines will save Maryland money as it is much less expensive to provide storage, security, transportation and training for optical scan machines. You only need one optical scan per voting precinct compared to at least five touch screen machines per precinct.

It's critical that money be allocated this year so Maryland can have safer and cheaper elections starting in 2010. Click through and send the TrueVoteMD message -- and then call your Maryland Delegates and State Senators* today and tell them the same thing: optical scan voting means more secure voting for less money -- and it has to be funded this year.

We're on the verge of closing the deal on a much, much better voting system for Maryland. Let's not let up now.


[CROSSPOSTED to Free State Politics]

=====
* This link lets you find your delegates and senator for your home address; if you already know who they are, here are House of Delegates and State Senate directories. For District 20, they are Delegates Sheila Hixson (1-800-492-7122, ext. 3469) , Tom Hucker (1-800-492-7122, ext. 3474), and Heather Mizeur (1-800-492-7122, ext. 3493), and State Senator Jamie Raskin (1-800-492-7122, ext. 3634). posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:12:00 PM -- |    

 
Dems avoid Cheney impeachment debate, reap GOP gratitude (not)
The Hill's Jonathan Kaplan reports ("GOP turns impeachment resolution against Dems"):

House Republicans on Tuesday nearly forced Democratic leaders to vote on a resolution to impeach Vice President Cheney.

The horror! Kaplan tells the tale of yesterday's maneuvering adequately. His report confirms, to no one's surprise, that Republicans considered their vote-switching to prevent tabling Kucinich's resolution a clever effort to embarrass Hoyer, Pelosi, et al:

“The determination was made that if Democrats are going to waste time and resources with a resolution like this, then it should be thoroughly debated,” said Brian Kennedy, the spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), adding that the charges against Cheney were “ludicrous.”

But order was restored, and all was well:

Hoyer and Democratic leaders succeeded by a 218-194 vote to get a majority of Democrats to stop further debate. The House then voted by the same margin to send Kucinich’s resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, where it will be left to languish and die.

Political fallout has been swift, with right-wing bloggers and pundits enjoying the spectacle. The Democratic leadership's timidity -- as well as that of 81 Democrats who toed the leadership's line on the critical 2d and 3rd votes -- came in for derision:

• Jules Crittenden ("Forward Movement"): "Big queston. Does this mean that Cheney-Bush regime didn’t lie, people didn’t die, or simply that Party of Surrender … surrenders?"
• Brian Faughnan (Weekly Standard): "it seems there were plenty of Democrats who voted to go forward with impeachment when they thought it would fail, who suddenly voted against impeachment when it mattered. I guess it was all just about politics after all — even for the supposed ‘true believers.’"
• mcq ("QandO Blog"), responding to particularly idiotic spin by a Pelosi spokesman on the GOP "bring it on" votes against tabling the resolution: "Uh, no Nadeam, they weren't voting to "impeach the vice president", they were voting to show how ineffective the House Democratic leadership is."

But the principal right wing reaction seemed to be something like "nutty radical leftwingers rule the Democratic Party, that's why Dems can't be trusted":

• California Conservative: "With this vote, the Nutter base of the Democratic Party will demand action. In fact, they’ll demand the House Judiciary Committee to pass articles of impeachment against Cheney.
• Gateway Pundit: "Nutroots Rule the Day..."
• LibertyPundit: "Make no mistake, the Dem leadership want to impeach Bush and Cheney, but they know that unless they find some kind of smoking gun, it’s not going to happen. That’s why you have all these investigations going on. They’re trying to find something — anything — that will stick and get Republicans to go along with the measure."*
  

This despite the Democratic leadership causing the defeat of the Kucinich impeachment resolution -- that is, its relegation to the Judiciary Committee freezer. So after all these strenuous efforts by Pelosi, Hoyer, Van Hollen et al to disown impeachment and change the subject -- it's still not enough. It never will be.

The Democratic Party ought to have its rhetorical guns pointing out of a fort at the GOP -- not into a prison camp at its own members, forcing them to give up on taking down the worst Vice President (and President) ever. By running scared yesterday, Pelosi, Hoyer et al are essentially signaling they agree with Republicans; incredibly, they think they'd lose a debate about Dick Cheney -- whose popularity has been measured at levels south of mad cow disease. As Barbara O'Brien ("MahaBlog") writes:

...if the Republicans think that impeachment is a loser issue for Dems, they need to get out more. As Kagro X says, “Republicans believe everything is good for Republicans.” Well, wait ’til next year …

If I were Hoyer or Pelosi, I'd get ready for another one of these privileged resolutions. This time, though, they shouldn't be planning to whip their party into ducking a debate about Cheney, but preparing for one -- inside and outside Congress -- about the Vice President, the President, and the corrupt Republican party that enables them both.

That's a debate Democrats should join, could win, and could win easily... if they only had the courage to do it.


=====
* All links via Memeorandum; the site also lists blog and media reactions to other stories about the Kucinich impeachment resolution, including "Dems outmaneuvered on Impeachment," "Dems Ensure Motion to Impeach Goes Nowhere."
posted by Thomas Nephew at 7:00:00 PM -- |    

 
If Ron Paul is so great...
...why did he vote against the impeachment position in each of the three votes about Kucinich's impeachment resolution today?* I'm sincerely interested in what his rationale would be for helping avoid a floor debate about Cheney's pre-Iraq War deceptions, and the propriety of the Vice President's saber-rattling re Iran.

As Glenn Greenwald writes today, Rep. Paul very much considers himself a defender of the Constitution and the rule of law:

As a matter of fact, if you look at every single problem we're facing today, it's because of the lack of respect for the rule of law and the Constitution.

Yet Rep. Paul voted to table -- that is, kill outright -- Kucinich's impeachment resolution; then he sided with Democratic leadership like Steny Hoyer in the following two votes as well, which essentially consigned the resolution back to the Siberia of the House Judicial Committee.

It seems unlikely that mere hypocrisy or political oneupsmanship of some kind is involved. Rep. Paul walks the walk; most notably, his excellent America Freedom Agenda Act (discussed here by Naomi Wolf) calls for the rollback of post-9/11 legislation infringing on individual liberties.

So the answer is presumably that Paul disagrees with the particular grounds Kucinich advanced for that Cheney's impeachment: pre-war manipulation of intelligence concerning Iraqi WMD and ties to Al Qaeda, and Cheney's recent saber-rattling against Iran. In this view, these are merely terrible policies, not impeachable ones.

Now it's possible, I think, to disagree with Kucinich about whether saber-rattling is impeachable per se; but it's stunning to me that Rep. Paul would disagree that lying about the basis for a war is impeachable, or that he'd sacrifice the chance to make a case for impeaching Cheney because the available legislative vehicle was imperfect in some way.

Paul's votes today were hardly the main story -- that would continue to be a Democratic leadership whose only memorable accomplishment may prove to be taking impeachment "off the table." Still, I'm genuinely curious how Paul will explain this. As an impeachment supporter, I must say Rep. Paul's opposition today undermines his position and image with me considerably. I should think his votes today would also disappoint more than a few of his own supporters, should they reflect on it.


=====
* The simplest way to see that is to note that Paul and Kucinich were on the opposite side on all three votes.

EDIT, 11/7: I struck the phrase "-- especially given his frequently expressed support for it--" from the next-to-last sentence. The linked video (of a response to a C-SPAN caller in March 2007) shows Rep. Paul expressing support for investigation of impeachable acts, including lying about the justifications for the Iraq War, but not for impeachment per se. I feel the record is clearer than Rep. Paul does, and that H.Res.333 (or what might be called its "mirror" resolution H.Res.799 yesterday) lays out that record adequately. As for "frequently," that may be based on the same distinction: support for investigation leading to impeachment, professed agnosticism on outcome of such an investigation. Even so, I neither understand why Rep. Paul failed to co-sponsor H.Res.333, nor why he supported ducking an impeachment debate under current circumstances, when referral to committee is a decision to ignore the matter rather than (even merely) investigate it.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:34:00 AM -- |    

 
Annals of Serious Congressional Oversight
In other news, remember AttorneyGate -- the forced resignations of US attorneys for refusing to go along with spurious voter fraud prosecutions?

Heck, me neither. But House Judiciary Committe chairman John Conyers is on the case; he's threatening the White House with contempt citations if they don't give documents and testimony -- and this time he really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really means it:

“I have written to you on eight previous occasions attempting to reach agreement on this matter,” Conyers writes. “As we submit the Committee’s contempt report to the full House, I am writing one more time to seek to resolve this issue on a cooperative basis.”

He won't even mind if the White House lies a little:

The Committee and White House would specify present and former White House staffers for interviews but would not require those persons to be under oath.

Also:

I very much hope that we can... avoid a constitutional confrontation in this case.

Too late. And you're losing. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:45:00 AM -- |    

 
Kucinich to force Cheney impeachment vote
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10) is going to bring H.Res.333, "Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President," to a vote in the House of Representatives today as a "privileged resolution." Such measures require Congressional action within two days. The resolution, co-sponsored by 21 other representatives,* calls for Dick Cheney's impeachment on the grounds that the Vice President

• purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,
• purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and
• openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, in contravention of Article II, Section 4 of the UN Charter, to which the United States is bound by treaty.
  

In all of these things, Cheney has

acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Kucinich's congressional impeachment web page provides links to online documentation for each specific evidence or authority listed in the resolution. As a press release explains:"The privileged resolution has priority status for consideration on the House floor. Once introduced, the resolution has to be brought to the floor within two legislative days, although the House could act on it immediately."

While a planned national phone conference planned for Monday evening failed due to technical difficulties, David Swanson was able to hear Kucinich's more detailed explanation of how things are likely to unfold:

[Kucinich] said that there might be an actual debate on the substance of the charges, for which he said he was prepared, or there might be a motion to table the matter (effectively killing it if successful), or it might be referred to a committee. If it is sent to committee, Kucinich, said, it will be the House Judiciary Committee.

In a statement, Kucinich explained:

I am urging my colleagues to recognize that impeachment will not create a crisis by briefly disrupting their schedules on Capitol Hill. The crisis, as Americans outside the Beltway know, is upon us. Congress, the first branch of our government, to which the first half of the Constitution is devoted, has been reduced to almost a bystander as the policies of the wealthiest nation and the largest military ever known are set in secret by the Vice President's office. Under Bush/Cheney, we have become a nation that illegally threatens and launches aggressive wars for political – not national security -- reasons. For this crisis of confidence, this denial of our Constitutional beliefs and rights, impeachment is the only cure available.

I agree with Congressman Kucinich that Cheney's fraudulent case for the Iraq war was a direct assault on the fabric and Constitution of this country; he has my thanks for standing up for the Constitution and honoring his oath of office. By contrast, my own Congressman, Chris Van Hollen, has been a terrible disappointment on this issue until now; I can only hope that he might earn the same thanks over the next couple of days.



=====
* Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Robert Brady (D-PA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Henry Johnson (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. James Moran (D-VA), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD).

UPDATE, 11/6: More information at ImpeachCheney.org; follow developments at AfterDowningStreet.org.

UPDATE, 11/6: I hoped in vain -- Van Hollen voted to table Kucinich's resolution. When the motion to table failed unexpectedly -- due to a GOP stunt -- he also voted to put referring H.Res. back to the Judiciary up to a vote, and then voted to actually refer H.Res.333 back to the Judiciary Committee. Via AfterDowningStreet.com. The final votes were nearly party line votes -- with Democrats seeking to avoid debate of H.Res.333, and GOP seeking to force it. I guess the leaderships of both parties figured Democrats couldn't win a floor debate or a media debate ...about impeaching Dick bleeping Cheney, Mr. "I'm less popular than mad cow disease." Headline it "House unanimous: Dems can't punch their way out of wet paper bag." BONUS UPDATE: Since I'm feeling bitter, I note that blogosphere/internet darling Ron Paul (R-TX-who cares) voted with Steny Hoyer and the Democratic leadership each time as well.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:48:00 AM -- |    

 
Physics In The News

...if time were perfectly symmetric then it would be possible to watch a movie taken of real events and everything that happens in the movie would seem realistic whether it was played forwards or backwards.

Consider, for example:

Bush's faith in Musharraf tested
Pakistan Police Attack Lawyers at Protest

In this case, obviously, time's arrow could point either way! This has been "Physics In The News." posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:21:00 PM -- |    

 
Senator Cardin: "we should not even be close to the line of what is torture"
To his great credit, Senator Cardin announced his opposition to the Mukasey nomination earlier this afternoon. In the nub of what commenter Brett rightly calls a fine speech, Senator Cardin rehearsed Mukasey's written answers to Cardin's handful of written questions: that he would prosecute individuals who have committed acts of torture, that the Department of Justice has an obligation to prosecute such acts, that no "exceptional circumstances" exist justifying torture, and that he, Mukasey, would never authorize torture.

The question, of course, was what Mukasey is willing to define as torture -- and what he's willing to commit to before Congress about that. Cardin continued:

I therefore have great difficulty understanding Judge Mukasey’s refusal to say that waterboarding is torture, and to leave open the possibility that waterboarding would be permitted as an interrogation technique. Judge Mukasey now acknowledges that he understands what is generally meant by waterboarding, after he stated he was not familiar with this technique during his confirmation hearing.

The questions asked to Judge Mukasey during his confirmation hearing, and in subsequent written questions from the Committee, do not ask about a specific technique that may have been authorized by the President for use on detainees. Our questions to Judge Mukasey related to waterboarding as generally understood. It was not a hypothetical question. The United States has prosecuted Japanese soldiers for using waterboarding during World War II. In 2006, the Army released an updated version of the Field Manual that prohibits the use of waterboarding by our soldiers. The military acted after the passage of the McCain amendment in 2005, which, first, requires Department of Defense personnel to use the Army Field Manual guidelines when interrogating detainees. Second, the McCain amendment prohibits the use of “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment of persons under the detention, custody, or control of the United States Government.”

During our final panel of witnesses at the confirmation hearing, I asked Admiral John Hutson about this matter. Admiral Hutson is a distinguished and highly decorated military lawyer, and in his capacity as the former Navy Judge Advocate General was the senior uniformed legal advisor to the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations. Admiral Hutson testified, in sum, that the Attorney General as our chief law enforcement officer has to be absolutely unequivocal as to what is torture and what is not. We should not even be close to the line of what is torture. Admiral Hutson testified that waterboarding is one of the most iconic examples of torture, and it was devised during the Spanish Inquisition. Its use has been repudiated for centuries.

So it appeared to me, Mr. President, that Judge Mukasey was yielding to White House pressure on the issue of waterboarding. This is troubling to me because of the critical importance of the independence of the Attorney General.

On November 1, 2007, President Bush implied that if Judge Mukasey answered the question on waterboarding he would give “terrorists a window into which techniques we may use, and which ones we may not use.”

I want the Attorney General and the President to tell the world that the United States will not permit the use of torture. I am concerned that after signing the McCain amendment into law the President issued a signing statement saying his administration would interpret the new law “in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief, and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.” This vague language may mean that the Administration is still claiming the right to torture detainees. I was saddened to read the October 2007 New York Times report that the Justice Department had issued classified legal opinions in 2005 which have not been rescinded and which continue to authorize the use of waterboarding against detainees. [...]

I am privileged to serve as the Senate Co-Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and as a U.S. delegate to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). [...] Sadly, I find that I spend most of my time in the OSCE today trying to defend the United States against international criticism. The leadership of the United States is being questioned and challenged, and I cannot find the right answer to give my colleagues, particularly on the issue of torture.

Judge Mukasey is a good person and an honorable man. However, on the critical issue of standing up to this Administration as an independent advisor against the use of torture, I have my doubts.

For that reason, Mr. President, I will vote against his confirmation tomorrow morning in the Judiciary Committee.

I note without great surprise that Senator Cardin elected not to follow my sage advice and widen the scope of the case against Mukasey to his notion of voter fraud as a problem commensurate with vote suppression. Cardin may be right to claim that Mukasey would "bring a refreshing change to the Department of Justice," and would "begin to restore the morale at the Department, along with the respect for professional career attorneys." But unless the next Attorney General brings a fundamentally different set of priorities to civil rights enforcement -- and an independence he refused to show regarding torture -- the change will be illusory and the restoration of morale will be short-lived. Mukasey's defeat would be no major setback for civil rights enforcement if he was planning to continue the voter fraud wild goose chase.

I also note (with with somewhat greater surprise) that the Senator also elected not to stress his own excellent written question regarding prosecuting conspiracies to commit torture -- a question that should be sending shivers down John Yoo and David Addington's backs, to name some of the littler fish the charge could apply to.

But those are quibbles, as is my wish that he'd said this sooner. I set against those quibbles the very great goods of Senator Cardin calling out the President on his signing statement gutting the meaning of the McCain amendment; Senator Cardin decrying the newly revealed "torture v.2.0" OLC documents; Senator Cardin candidly describing to his fellow senators the loss of reputation he knows our country has suffered for Bush, Cheney, Addington, Yoo et al's addictions to the abuse of power; and above all his enunciation of the Cardin Rule: "we should not even be close to the line of what is torture."

In a dark time, Cardin's speech today was a moment Maryland progressives and Democrats can be proud of. Thank you, Senator Cardin. posted by Thomas Nephew at 4:00:00 PM -- |    

 
Cardin missing an opportunity to widen Mukasey debate?
Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) has remained silent through the weekend on how he'll vote on Michael Mukasey for Attorney General.

By now it may hardly matter. Hopes that the Bush administration's latest apologist for unfettered presidential power would be defeated in the Judiciary Committee were probably extinguished when Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) confirmed he'd vote for Mukasey. The resulting unanimous GOP "yes" vote, combined with Senator Feinstein's (D-CA) and Schumer's (D-NY) support, means that Mukasey will probably at least eke out a narrow win in the committee.

It's a shame, because Senator Cardin had a chance not just to join the fight for a renewed constitutional republic, but to lead it. Had he come out with a "no" signal ahead of Feinstein and Schumer, the pressure might have increased on those two Senators to delay and reconsider their vote -- especially if Cardin had forcefully raised new concerns about Mukasey -- concerns that speak directly to millions of American minority voters. To see why, watch the video of Cardin's October 17 and 18 exchanges with Mukasey on voter ID and vote suppression:



This comes via the redoubtable Bradblog, where a transcript of both exchanges can be found. The key exchange came early on, after Cardin had briefly recapped a Georgia photo voter ID law purporting to solve a problem of fraudulent voting. The cost and effort to get the IDs made the law "the modern equivalent of the poll tax" by a judge who struck it down. Cardin reminded Mukasey that the law had been vetted and approved by the Gonzales Justice Department's politicized Civil Rights Division, and then asked where Mukasey's priorities would lie:

[SENATOR BEN CARDIN]...So I guess my question to you is, will your priority, in your instructions to the Civil Rights Division, be the traditional role of the Dept. of Justice in trying to remove obstacles to particularly minorities being able to vote, or will it be more to try to do the Georgia-type of Voter ID laws?

JUDGE MICHAEL MUKASEY: Respectfully, I don't think it's an either/or proposition. I think that voter enfranchisement, voter empowerment, opening up the vote, opening up access to the vote, and preventing people who shouldn't vote from voting, are essentially two sides of the same coin.

But as Senator Cardin had already pointed out, "the Secretary of State of Georgia could give us no examples of people using false identification or false persons to vote." As Senator Kennedy wrote in followup questions*submitted in writing, "In the past 5 years... there have been only 86 convictions [of voter fraud] nationwide -- mostly involving poor, immigrant, or minority voters who had no intention of violating the law, but didn't know that they were not legally allowed to register to vote."

By contrast, vote suppression is common and intentional -- as Senator Cardin has reason to know: his opponent last year, Michael Steele, not only hired Philadelphia homeless people to distribute fake "voter ballots" falsely claiming he'd been endorsed by local African-American Democratic politicians, but acknowledged the effort to defraud voters after the election and "just had to laugh at" criticism of the tactic.

So while they're theoretically "two sides of the same coin," vote suppression is real, while systematic, intentional vote fraud is essentially imaginary. As Brad Friedman notes, Judge Mukasey was quick to agree that overt trickery (publicizing the wrong election date, threatening arrests for outstanding tickets, and the like) is criminal. But Mukasey was much less enthusiastic about condemning legislative vote suppression such as the Georgia photo voter ID bill -- even though that's part of the job description of the Civil Rights Division he hopes to oversee. The judge went so far as to criticize the "modern day poll tax" statement as "a little over the top."

More troublingly, in written answers to Senator Kennedy, Mukasey was unwilling to take the Justice Department approval of the Georgia law as evidence of a problem in the department:

ANSWER: I completely agree that the Department's priorities should focus on the most prevalent and significant voting problems. At this time, however, I do not have sufficient information to determine whether the Department's priorities comport with that approach, although I assume that they do.

Recapping, Mukasey assumes all is well at the Civil Rights Division's priorities, even though they approved a blatantly discriminatory and vote suppressive law.

Senator Cardin appeared to be pleased with the answers Mukasey gave him regarding civil rights and voting law enforcement, doubtless valuing the respectful manner in which Mukasey delivered those answers. John Nichols, writing for The Nation, considers Mukasey worse than Gonzales, in part because he's smoother:

Mukasey gives every indication that he is as enthusiastic as was Gonzales about helping the president to bend and break they law. The scary thing is that Mukasey appears to be a good deal abler when it comes to cloaking lawlessness in a veneer of legal uncertainty.

As Brad Friedman writes, Cardin "would be well advised to re-review the text transcript very carefully." Both Mukasey's testimony and his written answers reveal a willingness to dilute and subvert the Civil Rights Division's true intent -- enabling minorities to vote -- with a fraudulent wild goose chase after vote fraud. As Senator Kennedy points out in his questions, that's potentially unconstitutional and unlawful behavior by the Civil Rights Division itself. And as Kennedy's subsequent questions indicate, that in turn is the basis of the "AttorneyGate" scandal that led to Mukasey's nomination in the first place.

In his answers to Senators questions, Mukasey goes on to assert he agrees that the Civil Rights Division's priorities must "reflect the most prevalent and significant voting problems." But his oral testimony and his written testimony indicate Mukasey has a precarious, if not to say suspect, grasp of which voting problems are significant, and which are not. In a way, this is similar to Mukasey's flights into high theory and casuistry about waterboarding. Things are sometimes as simple, as wrong, and as illegal as they look -- and that's something Mukasey seems loath to admit.

Were Senator Cardin to sound the alarm on voting rights law enforcement, and justify his "no" vote on this basis, Mukasey's still-wobbly prospects still might get the coup de grace they deserve. For one, the claims by Schumer and others that "torture alone" is driving the debate would be (again) rebutted; for another, the legacy of the civil rights movement is (still) one of the most widely cherished ones in American life. While the Judiciary Committee vote seems a foregone conclusion now, the Senate vote need not be.

Senator Cardin has a huge opportunity both to make his mark in the Senate, and to serve his country. I hope he takes it.


=====
* The excerpted questions by Senator Kennedy are on page 39 and 40 of his 64 page section (48 and 49 of the overall 172 page .PDF document).
NOTES: "struck it down," "vetted and approved," "just had to laugh at" lead to posts on this blog about those events, with links to regular news media articles.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:51:00 AM -- |