Arcane Gazebo

Showdown for House Majority Leader

Soon-to-be Speaker Pelosi is apparently strongly backing John Murtha for majority leader over current Democratic whip Steny Hoyer. Murtha gained national prominence due to his vocal opposition to the Iraq war, but now people are discovering that he's a pretty conservative Democrat. But wait, didn't everyone know this? After all, plenty of people were loudly anti-war before Murtha spoke up, but the reason he got serious attention was precisely because he's not very liberal—the media had treated the anti-war position as a sign of left-wing fanaticism until Murtha forced a change in the narrative. (By that time opposition to the war was already quite widespread.) Apparently that change didn't last, if people are now assuming he's liberal just because he's anti-war.

Personally, I prefer Murtha for majority leader just for the sake of party unity and discipline. He is a close ally of Pelosi (despite their different positions on the political spectrum), while apparently Hoyer is a rival of the new Speaker. Since now would be an incredibly bad time for an intra-party power struggle, Murtha seems like the right choice.

(The second link above uses Keith Poole's congressional rankings to establish Murtha's position on the spectrum; Mason may be able to comment on whether he saw a similar result in his analysis.)

Rolling back the Military Commissions Act

Now that Congress has changed hands, some of us are wondering: when can we get habeas corpus back? I'm pleased to see that Patrick Leahy is on the case:

An effort to restore habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants could be the first test of the Democrats' resolve to change course in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who is expected to become chairman, confirmed Thursday that he is drafting a bill to undo portions of a recently passed law that prevent terrorism detainees from going to federal court to challenge the government's right to hold them indefinitely.

(Via Unfogged.) Realistically, the earliest something like this could get passed is 2009. Bush can be expected to veto anything that reinstates habeas, and before reaching his desk any bill would have to pass a Senate whose median vote is the pro-torture, anti-habeas Joe Lieberman. Still, it's good that Leahy is working on this.

So this is what victory feels like

Yes! Despite my dire predictions the Democrats have finally proven that they can win elections, and have broken the GOP's lock on the House of Representatives. The last couple of years of GOP governance have been worse than I had imagined, with the loss of the Geneva Conventions, habeas corpus, and the city of New Orleans, but the end of one-party rule should keep things from getting much worse.

Fire away with the subpeonas, Speaker Pelosi! (The Bush Administration is going to ignore the subpeonas, but it's a start...)

Election 2006 Endorsements

My neglect of the blog continues but I really should post something about the election.

(Image via Pharyngula.)

My endorsements: Recently the Republican Congress passed a bill which legalized torture and suspended habeas corpus. I am endorsing every Democrat running for any office anywhere.

In California, we have the usual assortment of dumbass ballot initiatives. I am voting no on everything except 87 (taxing oil companies) and 89 (public election financing). I could perhaps be convinced otherwise (but you'll need to do it before about 10am tomorrow).

I predict that Republicans will keep both houses of Congress. I think there's no way the Senate will switch; the House seems more likely, but I think dirty tricks and rigged voting machines will put the GOP over the top.

Nedrenaline!

Ned Lamont is the Democratic nominee for senator from Connecticut. I'm sure it was this blog's endorsement that pushed him over the edge.

My guess is that Lamont wins the general, since both the Republicans and Lieberman have been so inept.

Nutmeggers, any thoughts?

SOTU Liveblogging, 2006

Ok, the Dem response was better than last year's, but still boring. I'm going back to physics. You can just wire that money directly over here, George.

He's revised the Democratic slogan to "There's a better way". A little punchier, I guess.

The Pentagon is "sacred ground"?

Kaine's going for a "nice reasonable bipartisan" thing.

Tim Kaine has the raised eyebrow thing going big-time.

On to the Democratic response, because I am a glutton for punishment.

C-SPAN commentator: "Well, the president's certainly taking his time leaving the chamber..."

It's over, cue music: "America.... America.... America! Fuck yeah!"

Ok, I just missed a few minutes so I could talk to my advisor. What's he talking about now? I caught something about embryos or something, was that stem cells? Grr. Ok, he's on to corruption--wait, now it's something else. Is he randomly jumping between topics or am I just confused?

More money for physics? Hey, thanks! Maybe this means our grant will get funded.

"Nukular" again. Well, at least he's making reference to alternative energy. But ethanol costs more energy to produce than it ultimately provides. I'll wait until I see how much money actually gets allocated to realistic projects.

"Congress did not act on my proposal to save Social Security" MASSIVE applause. Awesome.

Line item veto? He's never even used the regular veto.

Yeah, better make the tax cuts permanent, otherwise those American families in the top 1% of income might get an unwelcome increase. Oh wait, he left out part of that too.

Hmm, I don't think he's going to mention that the job increases can be accounted for by public sector jobs. Especially just before he criticizes "the government taking a larger role".

Seriously, has he even read the Constitution? I do not think it says what he thinks it says.

"RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH." If there are people inside our country talking to Al Qaeda, get a fucking warrant.

Mixed reaction from Congress in response to "PATRIOT Act". Seem to recall that happened previously.

"Nukular"! Twice! (I was at a seminar last week where a physicist was saying this... it's spreading.)

"Rule of law, protection of minorities, and strong accountable institutions" Hey, can we get some of that here?

"A duty to speak with candor" I think he takes that about as seriously as his Texas Air National Guard duty.

Here's the part where criticism of the war is undermining the troops, or something.

Bush just gave a rousing argument against isolationism, delivering a stunning rebuttal to... the crazy guy on Telegraph Avenue. Seriously, who's arguing for isolationism that it needed to be addressed? Keep kicking that straw man...

"Enemies of freedom"... there's one! Oh, wait...

Mixed feelings on the Bible in schools

I totally don't know how to react to this NYT article: Democrats in 2 Southern States Push Bills on Bible Study

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 — Democrats in Georgia and Alabama, borrowing an idea usually advanced by conservative Republicans, are promoting Bible classes in the public schools. Their Republican opponents are in turn denouncing them as "pharisees," a favorite term of liberals for politicians who exploit religion.

On the one hand, I don't have a problem with teaching the Bible from a secular standpoint in the context of its influence on Western literature, and if the article is accurate that's what these bills are proposing. I had a similar textbook my senior year at a public high school, although it wasn't the focus of the course, and it seemed like a worthwhile academic endeavour despite the fact that I had already developed my negative views of religion by that point. The fact is that a huge amount of literature contains Biblical references and it's important to understand them from a cultural literacy standpoint.

On the other hand, the Democrats pushing these bills are obviously pandering to theocratic Christians who want to see more state promotion of religion, and are just being clever by doing this in a constitutional way. Pandering to these sorts of people, or giving them any political influence at all, is bad on general principles. These bills themselves may be good policy, but if they're a big hit with the bible-thumpers I worry about what these legislators will do next.

On the third hand, Republican hypocrisy on this issue is completely hilarious:

"Their proposal makes them modern-day pharisees," State Senator Eric Johnson of Georgia, the Republican leader from Savannah, said in a statement. "This is election-year pandering using voters' deepest beliefs as a tool."

I know! Don't you hate it when politicians do that?

Saying he found "a little irony" in the fact that the Democratic sponsors had voted against a Republican proposal for a Bible course six years ago, Mr. Johnson added, "It should also be noted that the so-called Bible bill doesn't use the Bible as the textbook, and would allow teachers with no belief at all in the Bible to teach the course."

Johnson seems to believe that these are arguments against the bill, rather than reasons why it's within shouting distance of actually being constitutional.

Then it turns out that the origins of the textbook are slightly sketchy:

The textbook they endorse was the brainchild of Chuck Stetson, a New York investment manager and theologically conservative Episcopalian who says he was concerned about public ignorance of the Bible.

...

The textbook came to the attention of Democratic legislators in Alabama and Georgia through the advocacy of R. Randolph Brinson, a Republican and founder of the evangelical voter-registration group Redeem the Vote.

Mr. Brinson, who said he was working with legislators in other states as well, described his pitch to Democrats as, "Introducing this bill will show the evangelical world that they are not hostile to faith."

Some liberals are unhappy, however. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argued that "The Bible and Its Influence" was "problematic" because it omitted "the bad and the ugly uses of the Bible," like the invocation of Scripture to justify racial segregation.

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis.

The senator I don't like to talk about

I meant to post this yesterday, but somehow it slipped my mind. Anyway, I've often posted kind words for California's excellent junior senator. However, I rarely mention our other senator, Dianne Feinstein. Generally she just doesn't get my attention as often as Boxer, but when she does I get the impression that... she kind of sucks. It was a post on Eschaton that brought this to mind:

Andrew Raisiej, who's running for New York City Public Advocate, writes about a response he recieved when he gave a technology presentation to the Senate Democratic Caucus:

First Senator Dianne Feinstein raised her hand and said, "Senator Daschle, the Internet is full of pornography and pedophilia, and until that's clean up, I don't think the Senate should be on the Internet." (And she represents Silicon Valley!)

After banging my head on the desk, I wondered what the chances are we could get a primary challenger. Probably not so good. Sigh...