"For
200 years, the Senate has used the filibuster to protect the
rights of the minority in Congress and prevent intensely divisive
legislation from passing."
Divisive
legislation like the Civil Rights Act? Here's a piece of irony:
Conyers was elected
to Congress in November 1964, just five months after members
of his own party used the filibuster to tie
up the Senate for 57 days in an effort to prevent passage
of that historic piece of legislation.
There's more.
In the interview, after calling Republicans "irresponsible"
for suggesting Democrats are using the filibuster to keep judges
of faith off the bench, Conyers turns right around and accuses
Republicans of using filibuster-like tactics during the Clinton
administration to keep women and blacks off the bench:
President
Clinton's nominees faced a far different fate at the hands of
these same senators, who used the tactics that they today propose
to abandon...
The
heaviest weight of these tactics fell on women and minorities.
By the close of 1999, every nominee who was subjected to obstructionist
hurdles, such as multiple Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings,
was a woman or person of color.
It's hard
not to admire the simplicity of Conyers' strategy: ignore history
and play the race card whenever possible.
JOHN
CONYERS: UBIQUITOUS DEMAGOGUE (PART II): The Congressman
from Michigan also popped
up over at Arianna Huffington's joint yesterday challenging
Byron York to rebut the charges of voter "irregularities"
Conyers allegedly found in Ohio after the 2004 election (they're
laid out detail in this
102-page report).
I
wrote about what a sham the Conyers hearings were back in
December. They seemed more like a Moveon.org rally than a serious
investigation of fact. Anyway, I was ready to step in for York
and take Conyers' challenge when I came across this post over
at Jackson's
Junction that pretty much did the job for me (via the all-seeing
Michelle
Malkin).
The only
thing I would add is this: you can usually make informed judgments
about the veracity of someone's argument based on the truthfulness
with which they treat the facts and data used to support that
argument. With that in mind, here is a passage from page 12 of
the Conyers report:
The
events surrounding the Presidential election in Ohio must be
viewed in two important contexts. First, there is the 2000 Election
debacle in Florida. In that election, advocates for a full and
fair count were asked to “move on” after Vice President
Al Gore conceded the election to then- Governor George W. Bush.
Months later, it was found that a full and fair count
would have resulted in Gore, not Bush, being elected the Forty-third
President of the United States.9 Subsequent
investigations also uncovered rampant disenfranchisement in
Florida, particularly of African-American voters.10
(emphasis added)
The first
statement is a flat-out lie. A detailed
review of all 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's
67 counties conducted after the 2000 election by USA Today
and The Miami Herald concluded that under any counting
method used (hanging chad, dimpled chad, pregnant chad, etc) George
W. Bush would have ended up with more votes in Florida in than
Al Gore. Conyers' hides this lie under a very official-looking
footnote which, quite tellingly, doesn't cite a news report but
an article by Hendrik Hertzberg that ran in The New Yorker.
(CORRECTION: There were four different standards for counting
undervotes reviewed in Florida. According to two separate analyses,
Bush would have come out the winner using
three out of the four standards. According to the original
article I referenced, under the most stringent standard Gore would
have ended up with a three vote lead. So my original statement
that Bush would have won under any standard used is incorrect.
Therefore, while it's probably unfair to characterize Conyers'
statement categorically as a "flat-out lie," the fact
remains it was a gross and willful distortion of the evidence.)
The claim
of African-American disenfranchisement in Florida is equally bogus.
The source of the charge is the U.S.
Civil Rights Commission report pushed through by notorious
left-wing Democrat, Chairman Mary Frances Berry. Berry ran a set
of hearings Florida after the 2000 election that were so shamelessly
partisan they made Conyers' effort last year seem tame by comparison.
The resulting report was so outrageous it was immediately discredited
by two members of the commission itself who wrote
this blistering dissent:
The
Commission’s report has little basis in fact. Its conclusions
are based on a deeply flawed statistical analysis coupled with
anecdotal evidence of limited value, unverified by a proper
factual investigation. This shaky foundation is used to justify
charges of the most serious nature—questioning the legitimacy
of the American electoral process and the validity of the most
recent presidential election. The report’s central finding—that
there was “widespread disenfranchisement and denial of
voting rights” in Florida’s 2000 presidential election—does
not withstand even a cursory legal or scholarly scrutiny. Leveling
such a serious charge without clear justification is an unwarranted
assault upon the public’s confidence in American democracy.
To my knowledge
not a single credible study has been done proving there was, in
Conyers' words, "rampant disenfranchisement" of African-American
voters in Florida.
There are
legitimate discussions to be had about whether more can be done
to address disparities in our electoral system that might adversely
impact African-American voters all across the country (like ballot
access, better equipment and better trained staff at polling places,
more voter education, etc). But by focusing exclusively on Ohio,
by trumping up various snafus that occured on election day and
weaving them into nefarious conspiracy theories, and by basing
it all on bogus and divisive claims from 2000, John Conyers is
not doing a single thing to address issues that might help strengthen
our democracy. In fact he's doing just the opposite. -
T. Bevan 11:15am Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
Thursday,
May 12 2005
GOVERNOR BLAGOJEVICH'S CHARADE: People are greeting the
piece of campaign finance reform legislation trotted out by
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich yesterday with an appropriate
mixture of amusement and scorn. Sort of like if Hillary Clinton
had come out with a detailed "document management strategy"
shortly after the Rose Law Firm billing records magically appeared
in the White House attic.
For those
who weren't paying attention, Blagojevich rode to victory in 2002
portraying himself as a "reformer" promising to "end
business as usual" in Illinois. This wasn't a very difficult
task given the GOP's political weakness in the state and a terrible
party image fostered by the George Ryan corruption scandal going
on at the time. But people who follow Illinois politics know that
saying Rod Blagojevich is a reformer is like calling Denny Hastert
anorexic (no offense intended the Speaker, of course). It just
ain't true.
In addition
to having deep ties to the Chicago Democratic machine, Blagojevich
is one the most aggressive fundraisers the state has ever seen.
Blago is currently sitting on a massive $10.4 million reelection
war chest - one of the largest in the entire country.
Two weeks
ago The
Daily Herald completed an analysis of contributions Blagojevich
received since he began his run for Governor back in 2000. The
results, in the opinion of one state campaign finance reform leader,
were "stunning:"
•
$7.34 million in campaign contributions from firms with special
state contracts and from people or associates of people he’s
appointed to state boards and commissions. That represents nearly
one in five campaign dollars Blagojevich has collected since
he began setting up a run for governor in 2000.
•
Of the total, $3.81 million in campaign cash comes from companies
that hold contracts with state agencies and the tollway authority.
The more than 320 companies that donated received $2.64 billion
in state business under Blagojevich.
•
The other $3.53 million is from campaign donations by appointees.
One in five of the more than 700 appointees are donors to Friends
of Blagojevich.
•
More than 80 percent of tollway construction contractors and
engineering firms have given to Blagojevich’s campaign
fund.
Blagojevich
has also been battered in recent weeks by a couple of scathing
state audits and the indictment
this past Monday of a member of the Illinois Health Facilities
Planning Board for extorting $9.5 million from hospitals seeking
permission to build new facilities (In all fairness to the Governor
on this one, the major player in the scandal is a Republican who
Blagojevich recently reappointed).
Still, this
is one of the more conspicuous examples of chutzpah in recent
memory. Over the last 4 years Blagoveich raised a jaw-dropping
$37.6 million from everyone under the sun, including
35 contributions of more than $100,000 and nearly a 1,000 contributions
of $10 grand or more. Two and a half years after being elected
as a "reformer," now beset by mounting evidence that
business in Illinois is indeed continuing as usual, Blagojevich
steps forward wanting to take money out of politics. Will voters
buy this charade?
WHIZGATE:
Here's
a news item of some silliness: Minnesota Vikings running back
Onterrio Smith was busted with a kit used to evade NFL drug tests
called "The Original Whizzinator." Not included in most
reports is this explanation of how the thing works that came off
the wire yesterday:
The
$150 device includes a prosthetic penis attached to a jockstrap
and plastic bag. Using a syringe, the user fills the bag with
a precisely measured amount of water blended with the urine
powder to create a clean sample. When the user takes a drug
test in front of an observer, the water is released through
the prosthetic with a valve (the instructions recommend the
user cough to hide the sound of the valve unsnapping).
Are members
of Congress are already gearing up for a round of hearings exploring
the use of prosthetic peeing devices by professional athletes
trying to avoid detection of drugs and steroids? - T.
Bevan 12:15pm Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
Tuesday,
May 10 2005
THE IRONY FACING TOM DELAY: In his column today, the
always-insightful Charlie Cook notes an interesting piece of irony
facing Tom DeLay in 2006:
Does
DeLay face more formidable opposition if he seeks re-election
in 2006 than he did last year, when he beat neophyte Democrat
Richard Morrison 55-41 percent, with a Libertarian candidate
and an independent each garnering 2 percent? Yes.
Former
Rep. Nick Lampson, who represented about 20 percent of this
district before a DeLay-engineered redistricting, is the strong
frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Lampson might face
Houston City Councilman Gordon Quan in a March primary.
Given
the substantially greater adversity that DeLay faces today,
it might be enough to cost him 5 to 9 percentage points and
the seat.
While
DeLay spent more than $2.7 million to get re-elected in 2004,
not counting considerable outside resources that went into the
effort, this time it would likely cost upwards of $5 million.
Keep
in mind, the 22nd District is not DeLay's old rock-ribbed Republican
seat. DeLay was a team player in redistricting, and gave up
heavily Republican areas, picking up Democratic territory, as
a gesture to urge Republican members also to give up friendly
territory.
In
retrospect, he really could use that old turf. One Washington
insider privately noted that it would be ironic if DeLay ended
up being the first GOP casualty of his own redistricting plan.
INSANITY
VS. REALITY: Slate's Timothy
Noah is confused. Noah can't seem to figure out "the
working class's refusal to synchronize its politics with its economic
interests," so he wastes pixels (not to mention the reader's
time) exploring the silly argument that working class families
who support Bush are "literally insane."
Noah should
check out Steve Sailer. Sailer has actually done some research
(gasp!) and boiled the issue down to a principle he's calling
the Affordable
Family Formation:
In
parts of the country where it is economical to buy a house with
a yard in a neighborhood with a decent public school, you'll
generally find more Republicans.
Sounds reasonable
- and rational - to me. If Sailer is right, then there's nothing
the matter with Kansas at all. - T. Bevan 10:15am
Link | Email
| Send
To A Friend
Monday,
May 9 2005
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY: I know it's cliché
to say there are two sides to every story, but it's true. One
thing you learn pretty quickly is that when it comes to some sources
in the mainstream media, you can bet you're only getting one side
of the story - the side they want you to get. Perhaps the greatest
strength of the blogosphere is that it allows readers access to
the OTHER side of a story.
For example,
take this business with Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The Los Angeles Times,
apparently eager to keep up the pressure on the Republican House
Majority Leader, recently dispatched reporter Walter F. Roche
Jr. to Saipan to do some digging.
The paper
unveiled its masterpiece last Friday: a
2,332 word front-page story reporting (in the worst possible
light, of course) the details of Abramoff's wheeling and dealing
and his links to Tom DeLay. Here is how Roche and co-reporter
Chuck Neubauer framed the story:
The
Northern Mariana Islands, a self-governing U.S. territory subject
to acts of Congress, have proven to be a veritable treasure
chest for Abramoff. His lobbying successes have been closely
linked to his relationship with DeLay.
Since
1995, Abramoff and two law firms where he was a partner collected
more than $7.7 million from the commonwealth government, records
show.
He
lobbied to keep Washington from cracking down on the island's
garment industry where workers are paid $3.05 an hour, well
below the federal minimum wage of $5.15, to work in what critics
say are sweatshop conditions.
The
workers, many brought in from China under less-restrictive immigration
rules than in the U.S. and most of its territories, produce
garments that are still stamped "Made in U.S.A.,"
thanks, in part, to the efforts of Abramoff and DeLay.
DeLay
helped lead the fight beginning in 1997 to keep Congress from
enacting reforms opposed by Abramoff and his clients that would
have required garment manufacturers to pay their workers the
higher federal minimum wage.
Just how
misleading is this? On a scale of 1 to 10 it ranks about an eight.
Here is the other side of the story, which Roche and Neubauer
weren't willing to give you because it didn't fit into their "narrative:"
1) According
to the commonwealth covenant between the North Mariana Islands
and the U.S. adopted more than 20 years ago, the
CNMI is explicitly exempt from United States
law in the following categories: customs, wages, immigration laws,
and taxation. In other words, the federal minimum wage does not
apply, nor has it ever applied in the CNMI.
2) The $3.05
wage paid to foreign workers in CNMI garment factories is nearly
10
times what workers earn in Chinese sweatshops. Furthermore,
CNMI wages are paid in U.S. dollars making it an even more lucrative
and attractive place to work.
3) The "reforms"
DeLay fought against in 1997 could also be accurately characterized
as an effort to strip the CNMI of its exemption from U.S. wage
laws. The bill was introduced by Democrats at the behest of big
labor who complained that CNMI's wage exemption was costing American
textile workers' jobs. The legislation passed the Democrat-controlled
Senate before meeting DeLay's opposition in the House where he
argued, quite rightfully, that forcing the CNMI to adopt a $5.15
per-hour minimum wage would essentially kill the commonwealth's
booming garment industry.
Turns out
there is another piece of back story worth mentioning. At the
same time the Clinton administration was aggressively backing
big labor's effort to strip CNMI's wage exemption, it was softening
its position on allowing Guam those same exemptions by becoming
a commonwealth.
The difference?
The Washington Post reported in February 1997 that Guam's Governor,
Carl Gutierrez, raised and delivered close to $900,000 in donations
to the Clinton-Gore 1996 reelect campaign and the DNC. As Ronald
Bailey noted shortly thereafter, "These handsome campaign
contributions made the citizens of Guam, who cannot vote in U.S.
elections, the biggest donors to the Democratic Party per capita
of any part of the U.S."
It's clear
the reporters from The Los Angeles Times weren't real
interested in letting the facts get in the way of their story
(their side of it anyway). But there is always another side. Reality
often looks much different and much more complex than we're led
to believe by those pushing an agenda.
As The
New York Times (of all places) reported just last month
on the economic difficulties facing the CNMI, " For the women
left behind, the garment jobs once so reviled by the mainland
American media now look increasingly good in the rear view mirror."
- T. Bevan 11:15 am Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
