About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Plantation Governing?

And Also: "Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period ..." Sure, this request is not likely to threaten First Amendment values at all. All in the push to fight porn!


The problem starts not with lobbyists but inside Congress. Over the past five years, the rules and norms that govern Congressional deliberation, debate and voting - what legislative aficionados call "the regular order" - have routinely been violated, especially in the House of Representatives, and in ways that mark a dramatic break from custom.

-- If You Give a Congressman a Cookie [read the whole thing]

A recent blow-up was caused by the use of Sen. Clinton's use of the word "plantation" to describe how the Republicans run Congress ... something that perhaps my favorite media nerd, Tom Oliphant, forthrightly agreed with, without appearing to think he was racist to do so. After all, he has a well received best seller on the 1950s Dodgers, so perhaps he is covered. Seriously, the problem was the racial implications, especially because she said it at a black church or whatever.

I did not read her remarks. But, the core of her apparent point has been well tread elsewhere and has been reaffirmed over and over again. Namely, Republicans pervert the rules so that the majority has control; in particular, special interests have special benefits. This was shown over and over again. Late night votes. Votes extended for hours. Additions made a day before the final vote of big appropriation bills and such, allowing perks (including special "earmarks" or changes in regulations helping the usual suspects) that could not be challenged -- it is an up and down vote for the whole bill. And, the Patriot Act is but one example, changes in conference that did away with mild compromises made in committee (usually on the Senate side).

[The NYT editorial linked above reflects my feelings here. A reform package bouncing around the blogosphere not as much. I'm with the few that find it troubling. Just one issue of many: what if an incumbent has a tough race?]

And, who controls these things? The party in power. The party that complained that the Democrats abused power in the early 1990s, so the people needed to voted new blood in to change the system! A party that would not be like them, but who would give the minority power a real chance to have a role in creation of legislation. Yeah, and over and over again, the system was "closed" with token conservative Dems brought in to show how things were bipartisan in select instances. This was particularly troublesome in the House of Representatives, and the Dems there have been gritting their teeth for the last few years. But, changes in the nomination of judges suggest it also affected the Senate ... and those conference votes did as well.

Thus, we have a top down system in which the majority party -- in particular key leaders -- has unbalanced power. This on the face seems almost fair to people, especially since they do not look into the wonky abuses of the rules that even wonks might deem boring, since after all the Republicans are in power, right? But, that is not how things are supposed to work, and not how things worked -- surely not to this extreme -- when the Democrats were in power last decade.

We deal with a "Congress" here with two houses with representatives of the people, including the Senate that represents the states at large. Thus, even when the minority is involved, some sense of fairness is supposed to exist, some basic rules. Furthermore, when late additions and changes are made before there is a chance to even read the darn things properly, it affects EVERYONE. But, then, the Republicans do not like dissension in the ranks.*

You know, a "plantation." It was used as a metaphor, of course, and the possible racial implications might have been recognized given the audience. She was also filmed, so someone noted that she did not really use it that way, since she would have knew it could be taken the wrong way. Or, something along those lines. Hmm ... I really do not know. I am not a gigantic fan of the woman, honesty, and the use of the word on the face of it is a bit stupid. Sure, the other side cynically is raising cries of racism, but they know what works. They know how shallow this country can be, if we are too lazy. Just consider the plastic surgery industry -- image is everything, even if it is skin deep.

But, sure, the point is right. It helps the Jack Abramoffs of America as well, since it is so much easier to advance special interest fraud when there are no proper checks on power. Such is the path to fascism. We can target "lobbyists," and one call-in person wondered if we can just do away with them. Uh ... when the ACLU or whatever testifies to Congress that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional in various respects, this is "lobbying." Do we think that the members of Congress and their staff (of course, with Jack helping to select the Secretary of Interior ... hmm, something to do with Indians there ... the two overlap these days) create law all by themselves? No. It is the system without checks that allows lobbyists, like misused fire, to burn us.

Not to worry, reform is on its way! We saw Sen. Homophobe (R-PA) on C-SPAN remarking on his past reform related work while he was in the House. For instance, he dealt with the abuse of franking -- you know, the postage used by members to send stuff to their constituents (not lobbyists, you and me) -- and other things like that. He even brought up how he was unpopular for such things as raising the prices of congressional barbers. C-SPAN did not do it, but it could have run a scroll noting that: "Sen. Homophobe, in charge of the 'K-Street Project' that kept lobbyists in line, including keeping out the 'wrong' (Democrats) sort."** Yes, in other words, it would be akin to him supporting reform of the state's sodomy laws. Oh, did I note that he is up for re-election?

It was particularly depressing to see Sen. Maverick (R-AZ) right aside him, though he had the grace to look fairly uncomfortable about the whole thing. As with Colin Powell, I have found my respect for the man to have dropped below acceptability levels by now. Oh, I think the guy's heart is somewhat in the right place, and his independence on certain issues is true. It just is that he is not really independent when it counts.

Complaining about pork more than a rabid member of the Nation of Islam (racist!) is nice and all, but push comes to shove, he is there with people you think deep down he must have a deep distaste for. You know, Bush, etc. And, if he does not, well, you should not have respect for the man anyway. I also say this to those loyal to him, perhaps hoping he will run in 2008. The PTB might deign to let him, especially if no one else comes along that has a chance, but sorry ... no.

The Dems ... no connection to Jack Abramoff [correct -- connection to tribes he does business with is problematic only if any priest who is a member of the Catholic Church is "connected" to molesters and must be equally damned] they gleefully note ... have an alternative plan. Apparently, lobbyists can only give you golf trips and such if it is part of some sort of campaign donation. Ah reform: give us more money! The problem is deeper than the lobbyists, who will always be with us, partly because of the last phrase of the First Amendment. Part of the problem is that plantation. Another is campaigns without alternatives like public funding, free air time, and so forth. Money finds an outlet much like water. Campaign limits only go so far.

But, let's call Hillary a racist. Please, can she just go away, so a real candidate for '08 can come to fore? No more family members of past presidents. No more people who bring with them what amounts to hatred to a chunk of the population without even going into the issue of her being a woman. [It doesn't matter? Great ... let some other woman run. No, Laura, not Condi. But, true, Laura can teach you know who to be First Spouse.] She will continue to make some points, while being too conservative for my tastes in various respects (Iraq, anyone?), but find some way to invite petty opposition like here. It's stupid, but things are too important. Anyway, I seriously still do not think she is the best candidate out there. She is no Bill Clinton. No matter what that book by Susan Estrich says! [She has a book out promoting HC as a candidate Dems can love.]

Oh, and for all those who sell their souls (I am no big believer in the Devil, but many at issue here do, and like David Webster's famous client, they are signing on the dotted line) to a corrupt system because they do not trust the Democrats to even have a small piece of the pie, thanks as well! You are a big help here too. A few years back, I responded to a McCain '00 supporter, and simply noted: why not let the Dems control the Senate? You still have the rest! Abortion. I did not say, but I can now, you control it all now, and you still have abortion. As an article last month noted, Latin America bans it, and illegal abortions thrive. Oh, how about that Abramoff related business in Saipan involving forces abortions and prostitution ... with an assist by Rep. Terri Must Live (R-Indicted)? Thank goodness Republicans can secure morality again!

We can last to '08. Then, McCain! Who now is on the stage with Sen. Homophobe, since campaigning for President Bush is not necessary at the moment? Necessary evil. Keep saying that. Sure, you can laugh at the Democrats not putting up a great counterattack, though there are moments. Like Jets wins this season, but still ... But, it must be a pretty sad laugh by now.

---

* And, there are ways around these things, including ways ridiculed when Dems -- ahem, Kerry, ahem -- do it. For instance, on a trade measure, the vote was damn close. Two votes mattered ... both that voiced opposition in the past, but they managed to not vote against it on the floor. I believe one had a busy day and could not be there for the vote. Also, there are always things like threatening that the leadership would not support the race of one's son if they did not stay in line.

** I was going to say "straight Republicans," but given the person involved, that might lead to confusion. In fact, and reading through reports on the Bush Administration some pop up, homosexuals are allowed. After all, some might be friends with the Cheney family.