Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
But what really worries me about the new rules for corporations and unions is what could happen out of sight of the voting public. I can foresee two ways for such invisible influence to happen, although there may be others I have not thought of as well, I admit.
Welcome back to my annual outright theft of The McLaughlin Group's awards categories for the past year in politics. What's that? We're sorry, but out lawyers insist we instead use the phrase "my annual legally-allowable constitutionally-protected parody" instead. So sorry. For those of you who missed it, Part 1 of this column ran last week, on Christmas.
These days, it takes 60 votes to do just about anything in the United States Senate. That is a fact that galls many, especially since it is a fairly recent development. While the filibuster (or, the more polite modern version, cloture) has been around for a long time, it simply has not been used as such a blunt instrument before in the fashion Republicans are now swinging it around. Which has led to calls to either abolish the filibuster, or scale it back in some way. But proponents of such action should really think long and hard before they do. Because, eventually, the shoe's going to be on the other foot for Democrats in the Senate. This is something which usually gets lost in this debate, or brushed off when mentioned. It really shouldn't, though.
I know I'm supposed to be writing about Afghanistan today, in advance of President Obama's speech tonight, but I am still waiting to hear what the man has to say before analyzing it, so you'll just have to join me as I wait and see.
This column is really a second installment to yesterday's ("How To Not Give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed What He Wants"), where I took a look at two of the criticism's against Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the accused mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in federal civilian court rather than in a military tribunal.
Attorney General Eric Holder has caused an uproar in some circles over his announcement that the self-confessed "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be tried in federal court in New York City, mere blocks from where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood. To be honest, I was surprised this was even controversial, for a number of reasons most people (on either side of the issue) have largely ignored. Today I will examine two of these, and tomorrow I will take on the biggest elephant everyone seems to be missing in this particular room.
"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party."
Of course, this really should be (in today's inclusive society): "Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party." But what it really should say is something more like: "Now [...]
Senator Robert Byrd reportedly visited the hospital today. The cause of his visit wouldn't normally be considered alarming, but the man is 91 years old, so any such visit is bound to be seen as news. My reaction to this announcement was to check the West Virginia legal code for their rules of senatorial succession. Thankfully for Democrats, the state has a Democratic governor who has the power to appoint a replacement, should Byrd not complete his term.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This is a tough subject to write about, because Edward "Teddy" Kennedy, brother of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, has served Massachusetts in the United States Senate longer than I've been alive -- almost a half-century. Served, it hardly needs adding, with distinction. His nickname on Capitol Hill these days is "The Lion of the Senate," which just shows the respect and admiration many other politicians feel for the man.