The Ohio Rare Coin Scandal

James Conrad, director of Ohio's workers compensation bureau appears to be the first to lose his job by this absurd scandal. From the New York Times:

The director of Ohio's workers' compensation bureau resigned under pressure Friday over the disappearance of at least $10 million worth of rare coins that the agency had bought as an investment.

...

In a statement, Conrad said he would leave office next Friday because the furor was interfering with the agency's job of helping employers and injured workers.

''The last thing I want to do is distract from the outstanding progress we have made together over the years,'' he said.

Ohio's workers' compensation bureau began buying and selling rare coins in the late 1990s as a way to hedge its investments in stocks and bonds. Coin dealers said they know of no other state that puts it money in rare coins or other collectibles, and warned that such investments can be risky.

My understanding is this:

The Ohio Worker's Compensation Bureau invested $50 million in rare-coin funds. Tom Noe, the fund manager, was a Bush Pioneer. *Cough* Conflict of interest *Cough*. Noe is being investigated by the US Attorney for 2004 federal election issues.

Then it turns out 121 of the coins were missing from the fund.

Then it turns out the Governor's Chief of Staff got a huge discount as a guest at Noe's Florida vacation home.

Then it turns out 5 (of 7) justices of the Ohio Supreme Court had to recuse themselves from ruling in the case because they had received large campaign contributions from Mr. Noe.

Now Mr. Noe has allegedly misappropriated $10-12 million of that for personal use. That personal use may or may not have included campaign contributions to President Bush and other Ohio Republicans.

AMERICABlog has a good summary of the issue here.

Ohio is completely controlled by Republicans. Gov. Taft is resigning, leaving an open race for Governor. Senator Mike DeWine was one of the Group-of-14 blocking the nuclear option and there are rumors of a John Kasich primary challenge. I sense a bit of an opening for Democrats in this GOP stronghold.

Progressive Values Get Vetoed

A couple of vetoes and veto threats out there right now show a Democratic wedge-issue strategy playing out.

In Massachusetts:

Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed a bill Friday to expand stem cell experiments in Massachusetts because it would allow the cloning of human embryos -- a practice he has called morally wrong.

However, the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed the bill by big enough margins to override his veto when lawmakers take up the measure again next week.

In Colorado:

Colorado Governor Bill Owens has vetoed a bill that would protect gays, lesbians and the transgendered against bias in the workplace.

The civil rights bill passed the legislature earlier this month (story) Similar bills were defeated in the Legislature for the past eight consecutive years.

In Maryland:

Maryland's Republican governor announced Friday he will veto two bills which would have helped same-sex couples and gay families.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich said that he will reject the Medical Decision Making Act and a bill that would have eliminated an unfair property tax levied only on unmarried couples.

The Medical Decision Making Act would have created a limited domestic partnership registry allowing unmarried couples to serve as each other’s next of kin for crucial healthcare and post-mortem decisions.

And nationally:

President Bush on Friday threatened to veto a bill expanding public funding for embryonic stem cell research that could make it to his desk by early next week.

"I made [it] very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life, I'm against that," Bush told reporters. "Therefore if the bill does that, I will veto it."

It would mark the first veto of Bush's presidency.

To me this seems like a good strategy for Democrats. Force unpopular vetoes on issues a majority of Americans agree with Democrats on. Of course, I would rather see the laws passed.

Reaping What They Sew

The Wall Street Journal has a new poll...

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that disapproval of Congress's performance is higher than it has been since 1994, the year voters swept Democrats out of power on Capitol Hill. Americans have grown gloomier about the nation's direction, the economy and Iraq, and by 65%-17% they say Congress doesn't share their priorities.
...
Just 42% of Americans say their representative deserves to be re-elected, while a 45% plurality calls it time for someone new. When Americans are asked which party they want to control Congress after the 2006 elections, Democrats hold a 47%-40% edge -- the party's best showing since the Journal/NBC survey began asking that question in 1994.

42% is not good in case you're wondering.

Bush somehow seems to survive with a 47% approval rating. Not great, but what's he done to deserve one so high? Iraq has become more deadly. Social Security privatization, his one big idea from the second term so far, has gone nowhere as it has become more and more unpopular. The House is pre-occupied with protecting Tom DeLay from his ethics scandals and the Senate with securing long-term Republican control of the judiciary by breaking the Senate rules.

Are these your priorities? They aren't mine.

The Bible Protection Act

From John Aravosis at AMERICABlog:

Come on, Democrats. The Republicans would crap their pants if you offered this legislation. If they opposed it, they'd be responsible for sending a terrible message to the world - not to mention, I'd love to see them explain to the voters why they refused to vote for the Bible Protection Act. And if they support it, the religious right will crap as they can't stand ANYTHING that even vaguely recognizes Islam as a legitimate religion, thus we'd inflame a greater schism between the Republicans and America's Taliban.

It's a great idea. Seriously. I'd call it the Scripture Protection Act though.

Census prediction dump

The census dumped their predictions for the population of each state in 2030. The Wall Street Journal used those predictions to make a handy-dandy color chart of which states will get what electoral votes after the 2010 reapportionment. Here's the bad news for Democrats:

Blue States gaining EV's: California (+1)
Blue States losing EV's: Illinois(-1), Massachusetts (-1), New York (-2), Pennsylvania (-1)

Red States losing EV's: Alabama (-1), Iowa (-1), Missouri(-1), Ohio (-2)
Red States gaining EV's: Arizona (+1), Florida(+2), Georgia (+1), Nevada (+1), Texas(+3), Utah(+1)

Net Republican EV gain: +4

It will only get worse for the blue states relative to the red states as time goes on. But the news gets worse. The above states will all necessarily be redistricted after the 2010 census. Redistricting is most often done by the state legislature with a gubernatorial veto. Of the states that will be redistricted:

States where Democrats control the Governorship and both houses of the state legislature:
Illinois
2010 projected Congressional seats: 18

States where Republicans control the Governorship and both houses of the state legislature:
Texas, Florida, Georgia, Utah, Ohio, Missouri
2010 projected Congressional seats: 35 + 27 + 14 + 4 + 16 + 8 = 104

The opposing party should be expected to lose at least one seat in each of these states where one party controls all the levers. Bad news for Democrats. But wait! It still gets worse! Democrats will lose an additional seat for sure in Massachusetts, despite having veto-overriding supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature. Massachusetts has an all-Democratic delegation, so at least one Democrat is guaranteed to lose their seat there.

While most political observers will probably be watching the US Congress in 2006 to see if Democrats can retake one or both houses, I have little hope for that. However, I think it will be interesting to watch what happens to the partisan composition of state legislatures and elected executive branch offices in those elections. If the Democrats can do well, it may make the bitter pill of reapportionment seem sweeter, which in turn will help out in the US House of Representatives.

You gotta admire their spunk...

Carrying guns to a gay pride event in Utah seems like a sure fire way to end the world to me.

Specter is not party to the Deal.

He seems ever more like Dobson's tamed monkey these days.

Exhibit A. Specter's comments about Bush's picks for the Judiciary nearly derail his chairmanship.

Exhibit B. Specter signals he will vote yes on the nuclear option, just before the Deal is announced.

Exhibit C. Specter does not sign on to the deal.

Although he is pro-choice, pro-choice interests would be better off if he were to be replaced by a Democrat.

I think we know who's next...

Syria.

First of all, we're right there. Second of all, "If you're not with us, you're against us". Third of all, we can't take Iran. Fourth, Bush's approval rating has dropped to 46% according to Gallup.

Of course, a 46% approval rating both motivates and restrains the President. And our army has missed its recruiting targets lately. And we're having a rather deadly month in Iraq at the moment.

I'm not a military analyst. But Syria is causing problems for Bush and might be considered low-hanging fruit. And Bush wields an agressive foreign policy like a scythe.

The Senate Punts

Well, they reached a deal while I was watching Let Bartlett Be Bartlett (an episode of West Wing I enjoy).

They let pass what I believe are the three worst judges, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen, and in exchange the Democrats get to keep the filibuster. As long as they promis only to use it under "extraordinary circumstances".

Senators signing the deal were:

John McCain (R)

Mike DeWine (R)

John Warner (R)

Lincoln Chafee (R)

Susan Collins (R)

Olympia Snowe (R)

Lindsay Graham (R)

Mark Pryor (D)

Ken Salazar (D)

Robert Byrd (D)

Ben Nelson (D)

Mary Landrieu (D)

Joe Lieberman (D)

and one other Democrat who apparently has alien penmanship (D)


Conservative blogs are definitely upset. (I'm filtering through Dailykos because I don't make a habit of reading the conservative blogs. They just make me angry. And you wouldn't like me when I'm angry...)

Kos calls this a win:

Remember, Republicans have a 10-seat majority in the Senate. Given the alternative -- a Dobson controlled Supreme Court nominee -- this is a huge victory.

Chris Bowers at MyDD appears to have mixed feelings:

(My first reaction is that this is a defeat, since we would only accept a deal unless we didn't have the votes. Then again, the filibuster is saved and Frist might be finished, so it is also a victory).

Booman at The (aptly named) Booman Tribune thinks we lost:

The agreement allows us to filibuster two less radical judges, Henry Saad and William Myers. However, it is unclear on what grounds these less objectionable judges are being torpedoed.

The bottom line? We just got our asses kicked.

My gut feeling? This was the best we could do. We put off the real fight for later. First, we wouldn't have made a deal if we had the votes. We clearly didn't. And the way the Supreme Court nomination battle will go is this:

1. Bush nominates Atilla the Hun to replace ailing Chief Justice Rehnquist, claiming he is "a judge" and the sky is "blue" and therefore Saint Atilla deserves an up or down vote.
   
2. Democrats decide this could possibly qualify as "extraordinary circumstances".
   
3. Republicans go into convulsions and say Democrats are "going back on their word".
   
4. The Nuclear Option is served up again on a silver platter like so much leftover tuna casserole.
   

And of course that still won't be the end game. The End Game will be when either Stevens or O'Connor leaves the Court. Hopefully, the Democrats will retake either the Senate or Presidency or both by then. If not, life in the United States could start to change for the worse.

So anyway, the Senate punted. But, there is no question this is a loss for Frist. The reaction of the right-wing blogosphere ensures that. Dobson will no doubt see it this way as well, because his eye is also on the aforementioned End Game. This is also a loss for Bush, but it remains to be seen how big of a loss. And that means victory for Democrats, though it may be fleeting.

Brooks threatens Specter?

In his latest New York Times Op-Ed, columnist David Brooks, explains what he thinks will happen with the nuclear option in the Senate:

The minority leader, Harry Reid, told a small group of us Friday he was cautiously optimistic that he had the votes to defeat the nuclear option, but I think he's wrong. John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, John Warner and maybe Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe will vote against the nuclear option, but none of the other Republicans are likely to. Bill Frist has the votes.

McCain, Snowe and Chafee are on record against the nuclear option. The other three uncommitted senators most often mentioned as possibles no's on the nuclear option are Collins, Warner, and Specter. Specter is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and was put on a tight leash earlier this year. (Sorry I don't have a link on that but it's old news by now...)

My guess is that by omitting him from the list of no votes, Brooks is sending a message from the right wing think tanks to Arlen Specter that they will blame him if the nuclear option fails. And if it fails, Specter plus the Brooks five will be the Republicans that bring it down.

The good news here - maybe this means Warner and Collins are lost to them. Specter is also waging a fight againts non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Sometimes life-threatening illnesses can make politicians more unpredictable and less vulnerable to outside pressure. Sometimes. From his recent comments on the subject, he appears to want to vote no. Let's hope he can find his way there.

Update: From the Washington Post:

Democrats have fretted that, despite Specter's and Warner's seniority, Republicans could threaten them with the loss of their chairmanships if they abandon Frist on the rule-change vote. Just in case, Reid's office has consulted with the Senate parliamentarian, aides said, and determined that the act of removing the senators from their posts would be subject to a Democratic filibuster.

Maybe it will be harder for the theocrats to punish Specter than I thought...

Anti-gay Marriage Ammendment Comes to Texas

From the Austin American Statesman

The state Senate, after an emotional and sometimes fiery debate that cited slavery and the Bible, Saturday approved letting voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriages with an amendment to the Texas Constitution.

The highly controversial proposal will be on the Nov. 8 statewide general election ballot.

My worthless State Senator Jeff Wentworth (R - My damn district) voted for this abomination, of course. I can't believe both he and my State Rep. Terry Keel ran unopposed for their seats.

But at least 8 Democrats have a sense of the indefensibility of this unconscionable ammendment:

In approving the measure, the Senate rejected seven amendments to the resolution — recognizing civil contracts, adoption rights and hospital visitation by gay and lesbian partners.

Two others prompted hoots in the Upper Chamber: One by Hinojosa would have barred thrice-divorced Texans from marrying again, and another by Van de Putte would have required married heterosexual couples to have sex.

The rejected ammendments show the hollowness of the arguments that marriage is solely about procreation and that this constitutional ammendment is even about protecting marriage. The ammendment is about punishing gay people for being gay and being open about it because it offends the sensibilities of President Dobson and his puppets in the GOP.

Partisan Control of State Governments

Chris Bowers over at MyDD has a great educational post about the state of the states, as far as who's got what. More detailed information about the numbers of Democrats and Republicans in each house of each state legistlature can be found here.

I'm a big fan of colored maps like those, as anyone who knows me will tell you. Maps are what got me interested in politics in the first place. I still remember my first election night coloring in a US map, using blue for Mondale states and red for Reagan states. (My poor unloved blue pencil was in for 8 years of therapy beginning that night.)

The Doomed Senator from Pennsylvania

Rick Santorum, homophobe, and child of the Republican Revolution of 1994 had this to say today about Senate Democrats (via Raw Story) :

Some are suggesting we're trying to change the law, we're trying to break the rules. Remarkable. Remarkable hubris. I mean imagine, the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say, "how dare you break this rule!" It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine."

Remarkable hubris? Hmm.. a saying about pots and kettles is at the tip of my tongue... Also, quite noteworthy is the rank hypocrisy of Sen. Santorum invoking Hitler within a few months of saying this about Sen. Robert Byrd's unfortunate Nazi reference:

"Senator Byrd's inappropriate remarks comparing his Republican colleagues with Nazis are inexcusable," Santorum said in a statement yesterday. "These comments lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate. He should retract his statement and ask for pardon."

Risking the wrath of Quirk's Exception, I'll simply say this: It just doesn't pay to invoke the Hitler comparison. It may be apt or it may not. But it doesn't matter. No one in America will listen to you anymore once you say it.

I actually posted my first comment ever on another blog on this subject.

Why is Santorum doomed? Check it out...

Gay Marriage saves the Canadian Government!

Via 365gay.com

In a vote that had gays and lesbians along with members of Parliament on the edges of their chairs, the government of Liberal leader Paul Martin survived a confidence vote Thursday evening.

The vote, on a budget bill, was won when the Speaker cast a tie breaking vote.

Had the vote failed the government would have fallen and Canada would have been plunged into an election. All bills before Parliament would die - including same-sex marriage legislation.

Until this week it looked as though the government was headed to defeat. Then, on Tuesday, a key member of the opposition Conservatives defected to the Liberals. (story) Belinda Stronach who represents a suburban Toronto riding, blamed Tory Leader Stephen Harper for her defection. She had been at odds with Harper for weeks over his opposition to same-sex marriage and for his push to topple the government.

Sure, the article goes on to say an independent or two actually were instrumental too. However, but for Harper's opposition to gay marriage, Belinda Stronach might have remained a Conservative, and Martin's government would have been toppled.

Perry's Approval Rating

Well SurveyUSA has just posted a complete list of approval ratings for all sitting Governors. Our not-so-beloved Republican Governor Perry is on there all right - ranked 38th in the nation with an approval rating of 38% and disapproval rating of 48%. In most states, this would be good news for the Democrats. But in Texas, it's just good news for some other Republicans. Both Carol Of the Many Names (Strayhorn this week is it?) and Lady Kay are considering challenges to Perry in next year's gubernatorial primary. Who do the Democrats have to run against Perry? Chris Bell - a one-term Congressman who was redisctricted out of his seat. Doh! Well, I guess there's always Kinky...

Abram

Reid calls for a vote.

Well, according to kos over at Daily Kos, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is calling for a vote on the nuclear option. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, meanwhile, wants to wait until next week. IMHO, this spells trouble for the Republicans. If Frist had the votes lined up, he would call for a vote immediately. And Reid wouldn't call for a vote he didn't think he could win. It could be a bluff, of course, but with the Northeastern Republicans (Chafee, Specter, Collins, Snowe, Sununu, Gregg) and the Mavericks (McCain, Hagel, Warner) both blinking, it seems more likely it's for real.

Abram

My First Trip to The Smoking Gun

This was my first trip there, and I found the Historical Mug Shots haunting. Especially those of civil rights heroes Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks.

Abram

More Trouble for Frist

Further signs Frist may have overreached...

Abram

Nuclear Tuesday

Well, it appears next Tuesday will probably be Senator Frist's occasion to revoke the filibuster for judicial nominees by unilaterally ignoring the Senate parliamentarian and changing the rules.

Norman Ornstein, a respected political analyst and resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called for a specific list of Senators, who he claims should know better, to do the honorable thing and buck their leaders on this.

Those Senators are: Lugar, Warner, Cochran, Stevens, and Domenici. In addition he names, four Senators who he calls "lost causes": Dole, Alexander, Hatch, and Bennett.

Other Senators that are possible opponents of the nuclear option include the Northeast RINO's Chafee, Snowe, Collins, and Specter; the maverick presidential hopefuls McCain and Hagel; and Senators Sununu, Smith, and (surprisingly) Graham.

Including Ornstein's four "lost causes", that makes 18 possible votes against the nuclear option from the Republicans. With all 44 Democrats and Jim Jeffords, the Senate's lone independent, likely to vote against, and Vice President Cheney on record as saying he'll support the nuclear option, the Democrats would need 6 out of the above 18 to vote with them. Will they get them? Frist says he will have the votes. But should we believe him? According to a recent New York Daily New Article, he doesn't have the votes, and it will really put a dent in his plans to be selected President by the Supreme Court in 2008:

Sources told the Daily News that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist lacks the 50 votes he needs, which could be a blow to his presidential hopes. "I don't think Frist has the votes," a GOP aide said. "He's now in his own corner. If he doesn't have the votes, he's really screwed."

Robertson echoed that sentiment. "I just don't see him as a future President," Robertson said.

Not looking too good for the cat torturer, is it?

Abram

The Daily Grrrrr

An outrage.

-Abram

The Nuclear Option

So, now that the Republicans control Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary, their feelings are hurt when their attempt to further pack the Judiciary with extremist right-wing judges is blocked by a Democratic filibuster. Well, far be it from me to tell them what they should feel, but the Republican refrain of "Unprecedented!" is in fact wrong.

In fact, the filibuster has a long history of distinguished and notorious use. It as even been used to block a Supreme Court nomination -- that of Abe Fortas in 1968.

From the Senate's website (bold emphasis mine):

Fortas became the first sitting associate justice, nominated for chief justice, to testify at his own confirmation hearing. Those hearings reinforced what some senators already knew about the nominee. As a sitting justice, he regularly attended White House staff meetings; he briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed the war in Vietnam. When the Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course, Dirksen and others withdrew their support. Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.

On October 1, 1968, the Senate failed to invoke cloture. Johnson then withdrew the nomination, privately observing that if he had another term, "the Fortas appointment would have been different."

What may be unprecedented is the frequency with which the Democrats are using the filibuster to block judicial nominations. (Instead of only filibustering one judge, as it has been done in the past, they filibustered ten.) Since the Democrats are in the minority in the Senate, the filibuster is the only mechanism they have to block extremist judges. So, of course, the Republicans want to eliminate that mechanism, using the so-called "Nuclear Option". And their second refrain is "Up-or-Down Vote!"

Now ignore for a second that the Democrats have allowed 219 out of 229 judges nominated by President Bush to be confirmed by the Senate. Also, ignore for a second that the Republicans didn't allow up or down votes on nearly 60 of Clinton's nominees. Does Bush deserve an up-or-down vote by the full senate for each of his nominees?

The Constitution has this to say in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 (bold emphasis mine):

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Nothing in the constitution mandates an up-or-down vote from the Senate. If the Constitution offered the Senate only the role of consenting, that might be construed differently. However, the Constitution also provides for a role of advisor for the Senate. This clearly means a more complicated process is permissible.

Also, the Constitution does not provide rules to the Senate governing how to reach advice and consent -- the Senate is free to create its own rules and traditions. And the Senate does have rules and traditions governing consent on judicial nominees, including the entirely constitutional possibility of a filibuster.

The Republicans want to change the rules and traditions of the Senate to increase their power in the judiciary. The Democrats want to preserve the power they currently have. That is true nature of this discussion.

Abram

Casual Soapbox is now open!

Hi, and welcome to Casual Soapbox! With what is definitely the first of either many or few posts, I think I should explain what Casual Soapbox is and is not.

Casual Soapbox is not a website about soapboxes, soapbox derbies, soap, or soap-oriented paraphernalia. Casual Soapbox is not a regularly updating site. I may or may not update at any given time. No promises. I'm a busy man. Or at least I want you to think that. While I plan to try to be accurate about facts I may bandy about, I'm a human being who makes mistakes and has no editor. Take everything I say with a grain of salt. Or maybe two.

Casual Soapbox is a blog, the purpose of which is to provide me with a venue to expound upon politics, popular culture, religion, humor, and any other topic that boils my blood. I'd love to say I have big plans for this site, but I don't, except to bloviate pompously, deprecate myself and others, practice my verbal skills, and pathetically imitate popular people I admire. So, if any of that appeals to you, this blog's for you!

With that nasty business out of the way...

Casual Soapbox is now open!

Abram