More Gore, please

We're going to be hearing more and more of this so long as the media hyperventilates over Clinton/Obama:

Veterans of Al Gore's past are quietly assembling a campaign to draft the former vice president into the 2008 presidential race — despite his repeated statements that he's not running.

His top policy adviser from his 2000 presidential campaign and other key supporters met Thursday in Boston to mull a potential Gore campaign. The participants and Gore's Nashville office both said Gore, who is in London, is not involved.

Elaine Kamarck, a veteran of the Clinton White House and Gore's policy guru in 2000, said the meeting was informal and shouldn't be taken as a sign there will be a Gore 2008 campaign.

Chris Mackin, a Boston consultant and Gore supporter, called it "an early stage conversation." But he added: "We're very serious about exploring this."

This is where Democrats should be wathcing, not how high Hillary's poll numbers are after one or two trips to Iowa, one year out. After all- Gore's pull is potent. We all know it and his people are eager to get him back in it when he is no longer tainted with the Clinton years and a Republican Congress investigating every fucking stupid thing the Democrats do (re: Pelosi post.)

Firing lawyers: When it is actually bad...

So the Bush Administration decided to clean house with the Justice Department forcing the resignation of many federal attorneys recently. Now the battle begins to make sure Bush isn't (as he has with the Federal Judiciary) stacking the department with prosecutors who are buddy-buddy with the Bush Administration. Here's what I mean (From AP today):

Senate Democratic leaders sent Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a letter Thursday asking him to publicly answer several questions about the matter, including any role that presidential adviser Karl Rove might have had in replacing Arkansas U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins with former Rove adviser Tim Griffin.

Senate Democrats accuse the administration of slipping the provision into the Patriot Act reauthorization that took effect last March with the intent of circumventing the Senate confirmation process and rewarding political allies. Specter, who wrote the reauthorization as chairman of the committee, says he was unaware of the provision and opposes it.

The Democrats cite the firings since March of seven U.S. attorneys from Arkansas to California, some without cause, as evidence that the administration is punishing prosecutors whose work targeted Republican allies and rewarding those faithful to the GOP.

This is more than some partisan squabbling on the part of the Democrats. The Senate is being bypassed each day. It is relieving to see Democrats recognizing the importance of Congress's roll in the Government. Here are some details of the bill proposed by Sen. Feinstein (D-CA):

U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and may be dismissed for any reason, or no reason at all. It's the process of replacement that, the bill's proponents argue, should prevent political cronyism.

Sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., the measure would eliminate a provision in the antiterror Patriot Act that gave the attorney general new power to replace fired U.S. attorneys indefinitely, avoiding the Senate confirmation process.

Feinstein's bill would allow the attorney general to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for 120 days. If after that time someone had not been nominated and confirmed by the Senate, authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney would fall to the district court.

The Administration and Republicans are opposed because someone else other than the President can choose the interim lawyers. Makes sense to oppose something so temporary as a 120-day appointment when you only have so many days left in power...

That's it, keep wasting your time...

Back to the Good 'Ol Days? Check out the Republicans new time waster (in place of substantive criticisms or debate about Iraq or other pertinent issues...):

The White House on Thursday defended House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) against Republican criticism that her desire to fly in an Air Force transport plane is an extravagance.

"This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

Republicans are taking issue with the size of the plane Pelosi would need to fly in to reach her hometown of San Francisco without refueling. There are three Air Force airplanes that have the fuel capacity to make the trip nonstop, with the largest being a C-32 plane, a military version of the Boeing 757-200.

That's it- keep it up boys, waste the President's time. It is a little different for ya when the president is on your side and your wasting his time. But keep these petty issues on the table please. America really wants to know how absurd you are and soon enough will realize how the Clinton years were wasted because of your fucking inanity.

Hmmmm... here's a critical thinking problem. An equation if you will: Bush disasters + Republican leadership with nothing to say = Democratic Majority for many many years.

Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, the No. 3 Republican leader, called Pelosi's desire for a large transport plane "an extravagance of power that the taxpayers won't swallow."

Taking on extravagance in the name of the taxpayer. I am certain Americans believe you when you say that, when I look to the last 12 years of republican power.

Really, try harder.

Uniting for Universal Healthcare?

Check out this odd grouping of organizations, unions and corporations(???!!!) who are coming together to support the notion of universal healthcare. From yesterday's NYT:

The meeting between H. Lee Scott Jr., the chief executive of Wal-Mart, and Andrew L. Stern, president of the S.E.I.U., which caps months of secret conversations, could be the beginning, however tentative, of a détente between the nation’s largest employer and its labor critics.

At least on one issue. But the issue — providing affordable health insurance — is arguably the biggest facing both Mr. Stern and Mr. Scott. Wal-Mart, which insures fewer than half its workers, has identified health care as potentially the biggest vulnerability to its image and business, and the S.E.I.U., one of the country’s biggest unions, has called it the No. 1 priority for its members.

So during today’s meeting, Mr. Stern and Mr. Scott will announce a campaign to seek public acceptance of several principles of health policy. One goal is universal health coverage by a specific date, somewhere around 2012. Another is the idea of shared responsibility, emphasizing that individuals, businesses and government all play roles in financing health care and expanding coverage.

This speaks large volumes about Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). A divisive figure in labor politics himself, he has moved beyond the traditional labor approaches, and is in charge of the fastest-growing labor union in the country. In the last twenty years, America has seen its labor movement whither and its political significance in national politics lessened. Call it Reaganomics, globalization, or post-industrialism, but nothing will reverse this trend in the near future and Mr. Stern has shown his eagerness to adapt and to re-invigorate labor's pull. It is impressive he is able to get Wal-Mart on board for this.

This leaves one last thing to be discussed: the dysfunctional Healthcare system in the U.S. and the inability of business, big or small to keep health insurance costs down, and why this is needed. To read this one almost doesn't believe what he is seeing is real. I mean how is that possible? But it is one of those moments in time when interests collide.

Harley Shaiken, a professor specializing in labor issues at the University of California, Berkeley, said the meeting represented “a combination of pragmatism, idealism and desperation on the part of Wal-Mart and S.E.I.U; health care has become a devastating issue for both."

Wal-Mart stands to gain tremendously if it has the burden shifted off its back for healthcare, and all the while, looking concerned for the average person. From a PR standpoint, it is a winner. AT&T and Intel are among some of the other corporations joining in support of this movement. With corporate interests backing a plan of such magnitude, I wonder how long really will it take to overpower the insurance industry.

Look to the Votes: "Moderate" Republicans and the Iraq War

There are few things in politics and in life that bother me more than hypocrisy. Ever since the speech by President Bush announcing the escalation of the Iraq War, there has been much gnashing of teeth by Congressional Republicans. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), while protesting those of his own party who opposed any effort for an anti-war resolution, said the follwing in response to the Biden-Hagel resolution in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.

Senator John Warner (R-VA), joined with Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) in the Senate Armed Services Committee to draft a milder rebuke to the escalation of the war. Eventually, a deal was struck and the Warner-Levin resolution was agreed to and the Biden-Hagel resolution was dropped in an effort to find one resolution for Democrats to unite around. On Monday, there was a vote for cloture, to allow the Warner-Levin resolution to go forward, with much strong language by many involved on the war and on the need for a vote. So, how would you think Senators Warner and Hagel voted? If you think they voted to move a resolution they sponsored forward when "everyone should be counted," think again. Here is the way they voted on the cloture vote.

In other words, the only Republicans who were willing to have a vote on the resolution were Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Norm Coleman (R-MN). The only "Democrat" who voted against cloutre initially was Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) changing his vote to reserve the right to reintroduce a cloture vote. (Senate rules state that any member who voted against cloture can reintroduce cloture at a later date, so it is customary for the Senate Majority Leader to change a vote on cloture when it is obvious that it will fail when the leader wants to have a do-over.) A colture vote required a 3/5 majority to pass, and the final vote was 49-47 with Senators Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mel Martinez (R-FL) and John McCain (R-AZ) not voting, meaning that the final vote was ten short (nine including Reid's initial vote)of the 59 needed to pass. (It is 60 when all Senators are present.)

While Senator Coleman is a newcomer as a "moderate," he knows that he is in a very vulnerable place as he faces re-election last year, with GOP "dream candidate" former Congressman Mark Kennedy (R-MN) losing to then-Hannepin County Prosecutor Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) by 20 points and he knew that the vote would fail. This seems to be the only time that GOP "moderates" buck the party. The last instance that I can remember where a vote by "moderates" a Congressional Republican went against the leadership was Campaign Finance Reform in 2002, and the only other time that it meant anything in the Bush years was the vote by then-Senators Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) and Jim Jeffords (I-VT) to reduce the amount of the Bush tax cut, with the aftermath leading to Jeffords' defection from the Republican Party.

This is something that happens a lot of the time. There are Republicans in Congress in districts that are Democratic-leaning who will say that they are moderate and point out the times that they made "courageous" stands against the Republican leadership, but none of these times are actually brave, because the vote has already been decided. As Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) said about "moderate" Congressional Republicans, "There is no such thing as a moderate Republican in Congress. They say that they only voted with Tom DeLay 70 percent of the time, but they vote with him 100 percent of the time when he needs their votes." It looks like Senators Warner and Levin are doing the same thing. They are introducing resolutions critical of President Bush, but when push comes to shove, they tow the party line just like the rest of them. Of course, the initial press coverage is there for their "opposition" to the war, but not so much for their vote against their own resolution. However, there have been some on MSNBC who have called them on this blatant hypocrisy. Are we seeing a new dawn? If so, let's take Senator Hagel at his word. He said that if you don't want to go on the record, you should go sell shoes. Well, he is up for re-election this year, so let's do what we can to help him chart that course.

In a related note, why do people say that Sentor McCain is genuine in his war posturing but Senator Clinton is not. It is ludicrous to suggest that one is being calculated and the other is not. Senator McCain knows that he is painted himself into a corner politically and that he has to go forward and keep saying that everything in Iraq would be solved with more troops. He has been suggesting this for years, and he is now stuck there. He knows that he has to be a hawk or else lose credibility, so we need to stand up and say that he is, in the immortal words of Black Sabbath, "Treating people just like pawns chess/They only started the war" just as much as every other hawk on Iraq.