Today's New York Times carries a story in it's "politics" section that raised red flags in my mind, but apparently not in reporter Christopher Maag's... The title alone, "Inquiry in Ohio Could Hurt Obama Vote," might seem to suggest a political motivation for the inquiry, and the details of the story only heighten the question of whether the inquiry might be politically motivated--the inquiry targets the top Democratic Party members in Cuyahoga County, the most populous and Democratic-leaning county in Ohio. 

To be sure, the reporter dances around the issue:

Cuyahoga County is the most populous and Democratic-leaning county in Ohio. In one Congressional district in the county, John Kerry won 81 percent of the vote in 2004. But even that large margin of victory could not overcome strong Republican majorities elsewhere in Ohio. President Bush won the state that year by about 118,000 votes out of 5.6 million cast. 

“Kerry won big in Cuyahoga County, but it wasn’t enough,” said David B. Cohen, a political science professor at the University of Akron. “Which means Obama needs to win even bigger.” 

That may prove difficult with top leaders of the local Democratic Party under investigation. Over three decades in public office, Mr. Dimora has built a broad political coalition, with many allies working as ward leaders, City Council members and mayors across the county.

[...]

Meanwhile, Republicans see the investigation as an opportunity to narrow the Democratic Party’s traditionally large majorities in the area. 

“The backbone of their operation is being taken out because so many of their volunteers are public officials and public employees,” said Jim Trakas, the former chairman of the Cuyahoga County Republican Party, who is running against Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, a Democrat. “That will make it very difficult for them to campaign.”

But the reporter not only doesn't ask the question "Is this political?", he doesn't even note the implications, nor the history of politicized prosections we've been hearing about for more than two years. Granted, those stories involved the U.S. Attorneys appointed by Bush, and this involves the F.B.I. and I.R.S., but still, that history would seem relevant to a story about investigtation of top Democratic Party members in a county important to--some would say crucial to--the Democratic nominee's chances in that state.

Perhaps the NYT's reporters need a little help in dot-connecting? They seem unable to do so on their own. What do you think?

I put this post on my "regular" blog, but since nobody ever goes there, I'll repost it here.

I've been following the discussion on health care reform with great interest. Some argue that we should push for a "single payer" universal health care plan, others argue that we should push for a "nose in the tent" incremental approach. Here's my take on it.

In my view, it's a risk vs. reward question. I start from the premise that the current system is the problem. The only "people" it really works for are the insurance companies and, increasingly (as more diseases are treated by drugs), the pharmaceutical companies.

Given that premise, what are the risks of pursuing an incrementalist approach? In my view, the biggest risk is that, if we win, we simply perpetuate the problem - in perhaps a slightly mitigated form, but the current system will still be in place, helping the fewest number of people at the greatest cost. In that sense, "winning" is virtually indistinguishable from "losing" -because the risks of losing with an incrementalist approach are that the problem is perpetuated, and the reward of winning is that the problem is perpetuated - except that if we "win," we'll be complicit in that perpetuation.

What are the risks of pursuing a "UHC" approach? Well, if we lose, the system is perpstuated. That risk is absolutely cancelled out by the fact that it's the *same* risk as persuing an incrementalist approach.

But what are the rewards of pursuing a "UHC" approach? It fixes the problem AND provides the opportunity for a paradigm shift in both the way the Democratic party is perceived by the working class AND the way we as a society view government's value in solving problems.

We need not argue that government can solve *every* problem, but we can, and should, argue that government can, and should, have a role in solving problems that affect ALL of us.

In short, we won't be much worse off if we lose (and in pure partisan terms, I'd suggest we'll be better off if we lose on a UHC approach than we will be if we win on a incrementalist approach), and we'll be far, far better off - both as a country and as a party - if we win on an UHC approach.

I say we go for broke.

And, yes, I used that expression on purpose. Because if we lose on either approach (and even if we "win" on an incremental approach), more and more people will be pushed into bankruptcy by medical bills, and the execrable Bankruptcy "reform" will insure that they will be even madder about it than they are now. The difference is, if we lose on UHC, they'll have a much clearer idea about who to blame for it, than if we either win or lose on incremental approach.

Bush breaks the law and it's the Democrats' fault for not stopping him??

Walter Pincus includes this gem of a quote in his article about the appearances of Democrats Jane Harman and Tom Daschle and Republicans Pat Roberts and Peter Hoekstra on Meet the Press yesterday:

Hoekstra said if Democrats thought Bush was violating the law, "it was their responsibility to use every tool possible to get the president to stop it."

I'd like to believe this is an example of ÜberSpin, but, unfortunately, it's just par for the course...

Let's review what a "right" judiciary means: As a practical matter, the courts are the only recourse an individual has when confronted with an abusive employer, corporation, or government. We have seen that even rather large numbers of individuals have little effect on the laws that get passed, corporate wish-lists rule the day, and usually the congress (as demonstrated by the anti-war and anti-"bankruptcy reform" activists).

Yet right-wing judges consistently rule against individuals and for corporations, against individuals and for governments, against individuals and for employers. Lately (as I've posted here and here), they've even gone so far as to suggest that unless laws passed by congress specifically included "magic words" saying that individuals can sue for violations of rights granted to them by that law, they can't actually enforce rights the law supposedly says they have.

In other words, sure, you have the right not to be discriminated against, but if you are, well, gee, must suck to be you right now. Sure, you have the right to organize, but if the company fires you for it, well, gee, must suck to be you right now. If a company poisons the air you and your kids breathe, well, gee, must suck to be you right now.

"Besides moving the judiciary to the right..."??

My goodness, Mr. Moose, that isn't meager, that's pretty much the whole ballgame.

I think I’m having a Fitzgasm.

Here’s the thing. For five years, the Bush administration has lied, smeared and sought to destroy everything I believe in, and subverted what I believe to be the very essence of what America is. Until now, they have paid no price for this. They have not been called to account by the media, by the people, or even by the opposition party of which I claim to be a member.

Was it all I had hoped for? Well, no. I would have liked to see more members of the administration charged. I would have liked to see charges on using classified national security information to cover up a lie, and punish an opponent. I would have liked to see somebody dare call it treason. I got none of those things. But, finally, finally, one person has stood up and said, “No. You can’t do that in America.”

Was it good for you?

“Barb! Listen up! You might not think you’ll go to the boats when you grow up, but life has a funny way of not working out the way you planned.”

She turned to him with an obviously fake look of rapt attention. “Yes, daddy. Turn left at the big smokestack and aim for…?”

He sighed and closed his eyes a moment. That girl’s gonna come to a bad end, mark my words, he thought. But Rick was taking it all in, and he was more likely to take to the boats anyway. At least he would do his daddy - and the granddaddy he was named for - proud.

“Head straight between those two little ones, see there? This part of the dogleg follows an old railroad, so you know there’s no shorter smokestacks hiding under the surface to punch a hole in your hull. Then, oh about two lengths beyond the twins – that’s what we call those two stacks, Rick, the twins – you make a turn back to starboard and go pretty much straight east. You’ll know when you pass the old coastline, the water turns black, and there aren’t any little eddies swirling around. Then you’re home free.”

Barb had gone back to leaning over the side, her thoughts obviously a million miles away. He didn’t know what he was going to do with that girl. Why couldn’t she be more like the grandmother she was named for? Wallace's mother had been calm, competent, dutiful, and a hard worker. But little Barb had tired early on of "Gramma Barbara’s" stories of past glory, much preferring to listen to her great-aunt Jenna’s stories of her wild and rebellious youth, before the polar ice caps had melted.

He tried again. One more time, he told himself, knowing it wouldn’t be the last time he’d try, even though each time he said it, he pretended that it would be.

“Living in this half-drowned world isn’t easy, girl. Nobody could have predicted the ice would go so fast. Even then, it wasn't the water so much as the disease and starvation that killed people. And the riots. And make no mistake," he shook his finger at her sternly, "there are still folks around who’d rather take what you’ve got than make it for themselves."

Wallace saw the glazed look in Barb's eyes, knew he wasn't getting through any better this time than he had any other time. But he struggled gamely on to the end of his well-worn lecture. "Those that were left just had to suck it up, and do whatever it took to get by. Your gramma and grampa did it, your mom and me did it, pretty soon it'll be your turn. You'll have to give it all you got and maybe you'll get by, maybe. But it ain't gonna be easy, girl." He shook his head sadly as he saw that Barb had stopped even pretending to listen.

Wallace finished in a mutter, half to himself. "It’s hard work.”

***

Should you want to read any more momentos (including this one), they can be found on my blog.

Check out these quotes from Bush's news conference, recorded by Josh here at TPM:

QUESTION: Mr. President, does the federal government need the authority to come in earlier, or even in advance of a storm that threatening?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I think that's one of the interesting issues that Congress needs to take a look at. And it's really important that as we take a step back and learn lessons, that we are in a position to adequately answer the question, are we prepared for major catastrophes, that the system is such that we're able to work closely together and that --

QUESTION: Do you recommend that Congress consider allowing the federal government to act more quickly?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I think it's very important for Congress to take a good, close look at what went on, what didn't go on, and come up with a series of recommendations. And my attitude is, is that we need to learn everything we possibly can; we need to make sure that this country is knitted up as well as it can be, in order to deal with significant problems and disasters. Meantime, we've got to keep moving forward.

Isn't that pretty much how the whole "PATRIOT Act" ball started rolling? "Congress has to "look at" giving the Federal authorities more power"??? Never mind that they wouldn't have needed the powers granted in that act to have stopped 9/11 - they already HAD the information (and powers) they needed under the "old" rules to stop that, if they'd only paid attention to it. But it got passed on a wave of outrage, as a plan to "fix" whatever went wrong.

This is not to say that changes are not needed in the rules governing FEMA and the federal government's response to disasters. Clearly, changes are needed. But we need to be on guard against TeamBush using this need for change to grant themselves more power than they need to do the job, or powers that aren't actually relevant to the problem at hand.

Be alert, people. I've said over and over again that this administration will use ANY excuse - there is no tragedy too horrific, no exploitation too indecent, for these people - to gather more power to themselves.

And to any Republicans reading this post, I'd offer some advice that's always seemed sound to me... Don't be so eager to pass laws to give your political "friends" any powers that you wouldn't want your political "enemies" to have - because sooner or later, your political enemies WILL get their hands on those powers.

Unlike the widely covered (and blogged-about) Kelo ruling, the decision got very little coverage in the mainstream media, so far (although some blogs have covered it). I only know about it because I finally got a chance to sit down with the newest Mother Jones, which had a special report on domestic violence that mentioned the case, and said that a ruling was expected in this session. So, I looked it up at Cornell University's Legal Information Institute. (A great resource that offers court decisions in html format, with separate pages for the opinion and each concurrence and dissent, plus a "Syllabus" - a short summary of the case and the decision.)

(As an aside, in a slightly world-turned-upside-down dissent, Stevens and Bader-Ginsberg argued that that majority had "overreached" in deciding whether Colorado state law did or did not create a mandate for enforcement:

The majority’s decision to plunge ahead with its own analysis of Colorado law imprudently departs from this Court’s longstanding policy of paying “deference [to] the views of a federal court as to the law of a State within its jurisdiction.” [...]

Even if the Court had good reason to doubt the Court of Appeals’ determination of state law, it would, in my judgment, be a far wiser course to certify the question to the Colorado Supreme Court. Powerful considerations support certification in this case. First, principles of federalism and comity favor giving a State’s high court the opportunity to answer important questions of state law, particularly when those questions implicate uniquely local matters such as law enforcement and might well require the weighing of policy considerations for their correct resolution...

"Liberals" playing the Federalism card. Again.)

Now, I certainly understand that we can't have citizens suing the police every time they are the victim of a crime that, with unlimited funds and personnel, the police might have been able to prevent. And it seems to me that this case could certainly have wider implications - if police are granted "wide discretion" in choosing if and when to enforce state laws, why should any citizen expect any police officer to enforce any law? But it seems especially perverse (again, to me) that they have the "discretion" to ignore warnings of an ongoing violation of the state's laws, and especially a violation by a person that the court itself had already recognized as "dangerous," by virtue of issuing the restraining order.

From the ACLU's page:

The bipartisan Security And Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of 2003 (S. 1709 and H.R. 3352) is a measured, informed response that adds safeguards to key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that threaten fundamental American civil liberties. These safeguards, including enhanced judicial oversight for these provisions, are needed to prevent misuse of these intrusive powers.

Surveillance powers amended by the SAFE Act include roving wiretaps in intelligence investigations, searches of library and other personal records, and “sneak and peek” warrants. The SAFE Act also adds nationwide search warrants and amendments to “national security letters” to the sunset provision to ensure meaningful review by 2005. Finally, the House version of the SAFE Act (H.R. 3352) amends the definition of “domestic terrorism” so that it covers serious crimes and not the civil disobedience tactics of certain protest groups, such as Operation Rescue, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or Greenpeace.

The Bush Administration's opposition to the SAFE Act is based on a misleading campaign to bolster the PATRIOT Act and tear down even thoughtful and responsible criticism of the law from both the left and the right. Far from repealing any provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, the SAFE Act preserves PATRIOT Act surveillance powers while amending them to restore meaningful judicial and Congressional oversight.

The Bush Administration does not point to any real-life terrorism case (or indeed any case) where the prudent judicial oversight that the SAFE Act adds to PATRIOT Act surveillance powers would actually have impeded an investigation. Instead, the Administration mischaracterizes the provisions of the SAFE Act that add judicial oversight to PATRIOT Act powers as “repealing” parts of the PATRIOT Act. This is simply false, and is part of an effort to unfairly characterize supporters of the legislation by misleading the public about what the SAFE Act does.

The SAFE Act is currently languishing in the Senate Judiciary committee. If your Senator is in the list of committee members below, give 'em a call and tell them to get to work before the Intelligence committee reports out its bill.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Republicans:

Arlen Specter (R-PA) [Chairman]

Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)

Charles E. Grassley (R-IA)

Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

Mike DeWine (R-OH)

Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

John Cornyn (R-TX)

Sam Brownback (R-KS)

Tom Coburn (R-OK)

Democrats:

Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) [Ranking Member]

Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE)

Herb Kohl (D-WI)

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Russell D. Feingold (D-WI)

Charles Schumer (D-NY)

Richard J. Durbin (D-IL)

If your Senators are NOT on the list of (only 12!) co-sponsors below, give them a call too, and urge them to cosponsor it!

Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM]

Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA]

Sen Corzine, Jon S. [NJ]

Sen Durbin, Richard [IL]

Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI]

Sen Kerry, John F. [MA]

Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ]

Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK]

Sen Obama, Barack [IL]

Sen Reed, Jack [RI]

Sen Salazar, Ken [CO]

Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]

You can find all the contact information you've ever wanted at Juan Cabanela's totally fantastic Contacting The Congress site.

The Senate Judiciary Committee members' contact information can be found here.