Slate Rundown - Special Edition

This is going to be a special edition of the Slate rundown in that the linked articles will all be connected by a theme. And that theme ... the corruption and ineptitude that is our (US) political parties. The criticism here is going to lean heavily towards the Republicans because they are in power and they screw up a lot. Though a couple of the links will show why the Democrats suck too and, especially, that they are not a party of the left but a moderate party. Which is completely fine, but at least admit it. Anyway, here we go.

Remember the Abramoff scandal? It's the one in which lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave hefty political contributions in order to get Congressional votes for his clients. It seems Abramoff's money was also welcomed by "independent" conservative nonprofits (aka "think tanks"). This WaPost article has the lowdown: "The report includes previously unreleased e-mails between the now-disgraced lobbyist and officers of the nonprofit groups, showing that Abramoff funneled money from his clients to the groups. In exchange, the groups, among other things, produced ostensibly independent newspaper op-ed columns or news releases that favored the clients' positions." One of the nonprofits is run by uber-Republican operative Grover Norquist (who is a prominent figure in the Abramoff scandal, naturally). Norquist is the type of libertarian, small-government idealogue who believes government agencies like the EPA are unnecessary. His insane views would simply be funny if he wasn't an advisor to the President on occasions.

In other Abramoff news, Representative Bob Ney (Republican, of course) pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the Abramoff scandal.

Since the Foley scandal midterm election polls are showing strong support for the Democrats. However, from what I heard the WaPost and NYTimes political reporters mention on the News Hour yesterday, while the Dems look poised to take over the House they still need some luck to take over the Senate. Therefore the reporters mentioned that the GOP would focus all its resources on the close Senate campaigns. I understand that this is going to sound extremely partisan but with all the overt corruption and ineptitude by the Republicans how can some of these races be so close? It's as if some of the Republican voters, who know of the corruption and mistakes, think voting for a Democrat would be unpatriotic or something. However, one of the most patriotic things a voter could do in this coming election is vote Democrat. The reason for this is that by giving the Democrats control of Congress the opposition party would be in control of the legislative branch. Now I'm not going to say that with the Dems in control they will immediately pounce on the abusive and inept Bush Administration/Republican policies and come up with wonderful alternatives. That is definitely not going to happen. But with the Dems in power of Congress they will, at the least, be the headache and obstacle that an opposition party with some power can be. They will be some semblance of a check on executive power by the Bush Admin. And for that reason alone the Dems need to take control of Congress.

I will now illustrate this point with the recent Detainee Bill passed in Congress. When the Detainee Bill was going through the Senate a number of prominent Republicans (McCain, Warner, Graham) cried foul and stated the Bill should uphold the Geneva Conventions. A compromise with the Bush Admin soon followed in which the public was told the Geneva Conventions would be upheld, therefore torture would be banned. However, as Dahlia Lithwick of Slate points out, it is unclear if the torture practices in question have been ruled out. Furthermore, an enemy combatant detainee cannot go to a court in order to claim Geneva Convention protection. It seems like a compromise in name only. Also, as Lisa points out in this post (and Lithwick does as well in her post), the Detainee Bill has stripped the courts of habeas-corpus jurisdiction. The legal doctrine of habeas-corpus runs all the way back to the 12th century (perhaps even earlier) and is basically the right of any detained (i.e. jailed/imprisoned) individual to ask the state to provide justification for his detainment to a neutral third party (a judge). This is extremely important if innocent individuals are being swept up when the state casts its wide detainment net. In Februrary of this year Slate's Dahlia Lithwick had an incisive article on 3 major Gitmo reports (I think I linked to it when it was first published). One of the reports strongly argued that the vast majority of Gitmo detainees did very little wrong and clearly are not terrorists. These two FRONTLINE docs touched on the subject as well. Without habeas corpus when would these detainees (many who are most likely innocent) get their day in court?

Now, would a Democratic Congress stop a bill like this? I'm not completely sure but they would have been a bigger obstacle to it and would have made public many of these points, at the least, strictly for political partisanship.

Anyway, if you are feeling a bit sad and gloomy because of this Detainee Bill, there is hope. The Bill will eventually reach the Supreme Court which has a greater appreciation for habeas corpus and the US Constitution. However, several of the Senators who voted for the Bill know this and are basically passing the buck to the Supreme Court.

Well, once again, I've written an overlong post. If you're still reading this thank you so very much. And I will be your bestest friend. And here is a little bit on why the Democrats, for the most part, suck.

Slate has a great piece on the lame leaders of the Dems.

Dem Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is in the news because of a suspicious land deal he made in 2004 and for using campaign funds for personal use. He is also pro-life, anti-gun control, and anti-gay marriage. I'd just like to repeat here that this guy is the Senate** Majority Leader of the US political party for the left.

And back to the Detainee Bill that was just passed in the Senate. The Senate voting on the Bill was 65 to 34. Which means that 12 Democrats voted for the Bill (and one Republican voted against). So maybe even with the Democrats in control, the Senate will remain a rubber stamp for the Bush Administration. You can find out how the Senate voted here.

**EDIT: When I first published this post I mistakenly typed that Reid was the House Majority Leader. He is in fact a Senator, therefore the Senate Majority Leader. My mistake has now been corrected.