Today the new GOP House Majority Leader Roy Blunt answered questions in front of reporters about how the party will respond to the DeLay scandal. Blunt hinted that the GOP have put themselves in a predicament that will be difficult to get out of ():
"What we do here is more important than who we are."
I could not disagree more. They have it completely backwards. See, this is exactly their problem. Voters in 2006 will be looking at the individual candidates and decide for themselves which is a reformer and which is ethically challenged. With the impending scandals involving Bill Frist, Tom DeLay and Karl Rove drawing attention, the Republicans are at a huge disadvantage. The thing they need to be worrying about the most is who they are, not what they do.
Yesterday "an unabashed partisan zealot." Voters have been watching these last few years as the country has grown more divided than ever under Republican leadership, proving that the real partisan zealots are the ones in majority.
Within the last hour, John Roberts was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It was an overwhelming -- with a majority of Democrats voting in favor of the nominee. Putting things in perspective, there have been 43 Presidents of the United States and only 17 Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. Now you know why some people like me were a little upset at Democrats for not pressing Roberts harder to answer questions regarding existing civil rights laws. Nonetheless, he will be sworn in at 3 PM PET at the White House.
As the , the judicial process is just beginning. Bush is expected to name a nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor:
The next step will be the nomination of an associate justice, perhapswithin the next day or two, to replace the retiring Sandra DayO'Connor. Since that appointee will replace a centrist justice ratherthan a conservative, many observers expect a sharper battle.
You'd better believe it. After half the Democrats played a Bush-like role in the Roberts hearings, the progressive base will not tolerate the same thing to happen if Bush nominates either a fringe conservative or a personality that refuses to cooperate with the Judiciary Committee. Privacy laws are on the line. Sandra Day O'Connor was a moderate. Now Bush needs to nominate a moderate replacement. We will see how this goes.
Tom DeLay doesn't just win whenever he wants, he steps on those he beats afterwards. He also has come to be known as someone that gives money to candidates in order to control their votes. CNN's Candy Crowley took a look back at Mr. DeLay's long and successful political career prior to the indictment yesterday ():
For all you young Republicans out there, all you have to do is become a bug exterminator and develop a hatred for the environment -- then you can be just like Tom.
From studying the Middle East in depth during my experience at the University of Washington, I am all too familiar with a term that I wish the media would and politicians on both sides of the political spectrum would factor into the debate over Iraq. Before last year I had never heard the term used in my entire life. But it is one that strikes at the very core of whether or not we can succeed in an operation that could hold the fate of Middle East peace for the next 25 years. That word is what international studies experts call a "rentier state."
The word "rentier" should not be confused with its : "a person who lives on income from property or investments." Although the theory has something to do with ownership, it is important to note that the "rentier states" promote almost anything except personal ownership for its citizens. Finally, when I use the word "state" I am referring to a country -- not a territory analogous to Texas.
Getting right to it, a rentier state is a country whose source of national revenue derives either almost completely or entirely from its dependence on foreign countries buying that a specific natural resource -- which is oil in the case of the Middle East. This resource is well protected by the government by all means necessary because it represents the state's future and its geopolitical power in the region. But most importantly, the revenue from this natural resource keeps the ruling party in power.
Controlling and protecting the resource is the main function of the government. Most rentier states will suppress their people, and use their duty to protect the oil as means to install an undemocratic socio-economic hierarchical structure. In the case of Saudi Arabia, ever since oil was discovered there in 1933, the ruling Saudi family has used its oil wealth against its own people (especially on the Eastern Province) to keep the population from uprising. There are many other examples of Middle Eastern states -- such as Kuwait and Iran -- who have also used oil as a tool to suppress their own people while building palaces for the ruling party.
Now, I know what you are thinking. In the back of your head you are probably suspecting I am about to conclude that democracy in Iraq is impossible because of its dependence on oil as a natural resource, and the authoritarianism that would be implemented on its people, such as what occurred under Saddam Hussein. Many academics think so. But there is a way for democracy to exist in a rentier state like Iraq, or so I believe. Upon studying this issue in depth at the University of Washington, I came to the conclusion that there are two kinds of rentier states. The first kind of rentier state involves one person, family, or political party that has control over the oil wealth. The ruling group then uses its oil money to hierarchically distance itself from everyone else in the country. We found that the case in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The second type of rentier state, which has yet to be proven, is a country whose constitution specifically restricts one person or his allies from obtaining a foothold on the oil wealth. It is this second kind of rentier state that Iraq must emulate in order for the three rivaling groups -- Sunni, Shii and Kurds -- to coexist peacefully.
I had to break the bad news, but I must. The Iraqi constitution, as it is written, allows local groups to have their own oil autonomy. Among the three groups in Iraq, the Shii and Kurds have the most access to oil. Following true to the rentier state formula, they each will use their oil wealth to starve the Sunni from political power. Why else do you think the Sunni are fighting an insurgency? Under the current constitution, they have a source of income completely disproportional to the other two groups.
This same procedure has happened all throughout the Middle East like a broken record ever since oil was discovered. The group that finds oil is almost always the one that destroys its rivals, remains in power and does anything to keep the oil wealth. But what if there were something in the Iraqi constitution that said rival groups had to share portions of oil wealth for the well-being of the state as a whole? Implementing that idea will represent the greatest hope, and sadly the only hope, for the three factions of Iraq to live peacefully and democratic.
This week . But what the President needs to realize is if a constitution is passed that gives two of the three political wings of Iraq unprecedented oil power then we can expect and essentially kiss democracy in Iraq good-bye. The Administration must put pressure on the Iraqi Shii and Kurdish populations to nationalize the oil wealth, as opposed to following the same Middle East rentier state pattern that leads to powerful groups enacting authoritarian statehood.
I really meant it yesterday when I said corruption is glued to the top levels of the GOP. Roy Blunt, the Congressman temporarily replacing Tom DeLay as the Republican House Majority Leader, like DeLay is connected to dirty money ():
The political committeeof Rep. Roy Blunt, who is temporarily replacing Rep. Tom DeLay as Housemajority leader, has paid roughly $88,000 in fees since 2003 to aconsultant under indictment in Texas with DeLay, according to federalrecords.
Keri AnnHayes, executive director of the Rely on Your Beliefs Fund, said theorganization has been has been satisfied with the work done by JimEllis, but has not discussed whether he will be retained.
``We haven't had that conversation,'' she said. So far, she added, Ellis' indictment had no impact on his work.
Records onfile with the Federal Election Commission show the fund linked to Bluntretains Ellis' firm, J.W. Ellis Co., and has made periodic payments forservices. Political Money Line, a nonpartisan Internet trackingservice, places the total at about $88,000.
Ellis isone of three political associates of DeLay, R-Texas, who have beenindicted in an alleged scheme to use corporate political donationsillegally to support candidates in state elections. Ellis also runsDeLay's national political action committee, Americans for a RepublicanMajority.
DeLay wasindicted on Wednesday, a development that required him to relinquishhis leadership post at least temporarily. Blunt was chosen as hissuccessor for the time being.
Hayes said Ellis analyzes House campaigns for Blunt's PAC, which supports Republican challengers and incumbents in House races.
Blunt hasbeen the majority whip since 2003, a position that made him the chiefvote counter for his party's conservative agenda.
DeLay'sindictment capped a quick rise for Blunt, first elected to Congress in1996. His district in southwestern Missouri includes Branson, a town ofa few thousand residents that draws millions of country music fans eachyear to its performance stages.
When are voters regardless of political ideology going to start noticing these corporate connections that have helped turn Capitol Hill into a one-way lobbyist circus? I have a feeling they will. James Thurber, a , "He ruled with fear and also resources to reward people. Now without DeLay, the House will be balkanized." With 2006 around the corner, we will find out.
Was I the only one confused as to why Tom DeLay was smiling during his press conference following the jury's decision to indict him? Are his lips glued that way, or does he not have any shame? I'll be nice and say it was the former, not the latter.
The buzz on Capitol Hill due to Tom DeLay's indictment is growing to a point where the GOP could not possibly bring him back on as Majority Leader without facing an uproar all across the political spectrum. But is that for certain? David Drier, Congressman from California, has been named the new House Majority Leader. So why David Dreier, you ask? Political guru explained it for us:
"Why Dreier? Because DeLay plans on coming back. If DeLay lets someoneinto the job who actually has the juice to hold it, he might never getit back. That's why the logical person on the totem pole, Majority Whip Roy Blunt, is staying right where he is."
I'll say it now: I dare the GOP to bring back DeLay. Doing so would cost them Congress in 2006. Trails of corruption are being left behind by many high-ranking Republicans. They had a corrupt House Leader and currently have a Senate Leader that sold his blind trust (meaning you can't have direct control over it) after receiving insider information just the hospital stock -- that his family owned -- collapsed. Oh, and did I mention "the architect" Karl Rove? According to my close sources, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is expected to wrap up his investigation by the end of October.
(This just in: Roy Blunt will be replacing DeLay as Majority Leader for the time being)
"I know what I'm doing, and I think I do a pretty darn good job of it," former a few days ago during a hearing on Capitol Hill. What Brown left out was that he was that supplies would get delayed and personnel would be put at risk because his agency was not ready to handle a major emergency ():
An internal review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency'sinformation-sharing system shows it was overwhelmed during the 2004hurricane season. The audit was released a day after Brown vehementlydefended FEMA for the government's dismal response to Katrina, insteadblaming state and local officials for poor planning and chaos duringthe Aug. 29 storm and subsequent flooding.
The review by Homeland Security Department acting Inspector GeneralRichard L. Skinner examined FEMA's response to four major hurricanesand a tropical storm that hit Florida and the Gulf Coast in August andSeptember 2004. It noted FEMA's mission during disasters as rapidresponse and coordinating efforts among federal, state and localauthorities.
"However, FEMA's systems do not support effective or efficientcoordination of deployment operations because there is no sharing ofinformation," the audit found. "Consequently, this created operationalinefficiencies and hindered the delivery of essential disaster responseand recovery services," it said.
Brown can keep diverting the blame all he wants because no one is going to believe him -- not even the Senate Republicans. Not only was Brown under-qualified for the job to begin with, but he is engaging in revisionist history that distorts from the truth about what really happened.
Meanwhile, according to a , it looks like FEMA messed up on Rita as well. Again, it had to do with supplies getting there on time, which only reaffirms the exact problem the audit was referring to.
Confused about the charges that were brought against Tom DeLay earlier today? CNN's Ali Velshi explains what DeLay is accused of doing ():
(note: for your inconvenience, there is a brief Yahoo ad first)
Funny that Bacardi, the alcoholic beverage made famous in the past few years by rapper Jay-Z, was involved in some ($20,000) of the corporate money DeLay funneled from his political action committee to the bank account of the Texas Republican National Committee. But before you go boycotting Bacardi and all the other corporations involved, they are not legally at fault. Obviously they have absolutely zero control over Tom DeLay funneling money in between bank accounts. So you can keep on drinking responsibly!
Recent Comments