Thursday Mashup (2/4/10)

(And I also posted here.)

I find myself today in the highly unusual position of having to defend conservadem Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana; it seems that his GOP challenger Dan Coats has some ‘splainin’ to do when it comes to “Terra! Terra! Terra!”

Or, as Greg Sargent tells us here…

…in 1998, Coats questioned Bill Clinton’s motives in ordering air strikes targeting Osama Bin Laden and associates, in the wake of the bombing of U.S. embassies in east Africa.

Coats hinted it was a wag-the-dog effort to distract from the Monica Lewinsky scandal:

“The president has been consumed with matters regarding his personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be given to this issue to call for military action.”

This was something of a radioactive position even at the time, and those who voiced similar sentiments came under severe criticism for undermining efforts to counter a genuine terror threat.

In light of the subsequent September 11th attacks, of course, the comments look even worse, and may be used to cast doubts on Coats’ judgment and even perhaps his deference to the commander in chief’s office.

And by the way, did you know that Coats also lobbied for an oil company with ties to Hugo Chavez, as noted here (hey, no prob for a filthy, unkempt liberal blogger such as yours truly, but if you’re a Repug…).

Maybe Bayh will remember this the next time he complains about “far left-wing blogs” in the manner he did here (yes, I know – I can dream, can’t I?).

We learned the following today via Drudgico from Senate Repug Judd Gregg (here)…

Reconciliation is not the right path to achieve this goal. The process first emerged to give Congress a tool to help bring spending and revenues in line with the fiscal policy assumed in the budget resolution. In short, the intended purpose of reconciliation is to make sure there is a way to enact, via a simple majority vote, changes to fiscal policy levers that will implement the budget totals, not to force through, using an expedited process, drastic and expensive new policies that will affect every American household.

As Ezra Klein tells us here…

Under George W. Bush, Republicans managed to ram tax cuts, oil drilling, trade authority, and much else through reconciliation.

…

…the reconciliation process has been used for plenty that did not reduce deficits. Both of President Bush's tax-cut plans traveled through the process. And the very senators who speak reverentially of the filibuster now, voted for reconciliation then. Judd Gregg, in fact, voted for reconciliation every time it was used in the Bush era.

And to think, the Obama Administration actually considered this bozo for commerce secretary.

Finally, the New York Times tells us that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke recently in defense of the dreadful Citizens United ruling (here)…

He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”

However, this tells us the following about the Act bearing the name of “Pitchfork Ben” Tillman, passed to hurt Republicans who supported Reconstruction in the South…

(In 1907) Congress sends the bill to President Roosevelt’s desk for his signature, but not before the GOP-controlled Senate rewrites it so that the law bans only corporate or bank contributions to federal elections, not state or local ones. In practice, the Tillman Act proves to be fairly toothless. Since the law sets no limits on what individuals can give, corporations can easily get around it by having executives make donations in their own names and then reimbursing them by paying bonuses.

So…Thomas thinks it’s wrong to regulate corporations, then, because a law was passed by a segregationist that failed in that original purpose?

And while you’re pondering that one, I should also point this out from the Times story…

Justice Thomas would not directly address the controversy over Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling or Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s mouthed “not true” in response. But he did say he had stopped attending the addresses.

“I don’t go because it has become so partisan and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there,” he said, adding that “there’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.”

“One of the consequences,” he added in an apparent reference to last week’s address, “is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It’s just an example of why I don’t go.”

However, as noted here from 1994…

WASHINGTON, May 16— Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court said today in a speech that the disorder and rampant crime in America's cities were results, in part, of what he called the "judicial rights revolution" that ended up treating blacks and poor people as victims of their situations rather than holding them responsible for their actions.

In his first speech on the issue of morality and justice since he joined the Court more than two years ago, Justice Thomas said well-intentioned judges and government officials had moved many American blacks from a position of slavery to one of crippling dependency.

Justice Thomas said that when black and poor people were regarded as victims and not held responsible for their actions when they commit crimes, they are being treated as children, "or even worse, treated like animals without a soul."

"Why are so many of our streets rife with drug bazaars?" he asked. "Why is there no discipline in our schools?" A big reason, he said, is that people are no longer held responsible for their acts and that judges are often lenient with criminals because of their positions in society and personal histories.

Your Honor, by virtue of remarks such as these, you became part of “the conversation” long ago (the National Review couldn’t have said it any better). So don’t act like a crybaby when that “conversation” goes in a direction you don’t like.