There is a new organization advocating for family friendly policies that really support the American family. Rather than just paying lip-service to ‘family values’, they want America to put its money where its mouth is and fund progressive policies that make life better for families and keep families together, strong, and stable. The organization is … Read more

Tyranny is not a new phenomenon in the human experience; in fact, it is unfortunately the default condition of human beings to live under tyranny. Those who claim that freedom is the birthright of every human, know nothing of human history. Because tyranny is so pervasive it is also well-studied and well-understood both as a political dynamic and in it’s psychological effects upon the ruled and on the ruler. Yet our current political culture seems oddly reticent to label tyrannical behavior properly considering that our political system was born as a reaction to tyranny. The very structure of our government is an attempt to combat tyranny, and historically political opponents had no hesitation in denouncing the least whiff of tyrannical behavior by any holder of public trust.

Let us not tolerate tyranny in our society under comforting pseudonyms, or allow it to flourish on cowardly and sly justifications. Let us call a tyrant a tyrant. George W. Bush and significant portions of the GOP leadership, as well as its rank and file, are acting in a tyrannical fashion. Only by opposing that behavior and calling it by its proper name can we stop such behavior.

Paul Woodruff, the Professor of Ethics and American Society at the University of Texas at Austin, provides a symptomology of tyranny in his book “First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea”. Dr. Woodruff identifies the key features of that disease to which democracy is subject that the Greek originators of democracy most feared: tyranny.

Most people immediately think of a single person when they think of tyranny, but the majority in a democracy can also be tyrannical. Tyranny comes in degrees, and even a little tyrannical behavior can have far-reaching and terrible consequences. Here are the ways one recognizes a tyrant:

One question perennially on Democratic minds is "who will the GOP’s 2008 nominee be?" It is a question that is far too often over-thought, leaving little certainty, and more questions than anwers. Since I am seldom prone to the disease of self-doubt, I will attempt to unequivocally answer this question.

Allow me to set the Board.

The GOP nominee will be determined by certain key power-brokers as much as by the primary voters. Access to key endorsements, media opportunities, fundraising, and key grassroots constituencies will determine the front-runners long before the first primary ballot is cast or the first caucus is convened.

The most obvious, and traditionally one of the most powerful power brokers in succession following a second term is the out-going President. In this cycle, the President’s power to annoint a successor may be deminished. Bush’s power will be at it’s lowest ebb if he is forced to resign or is impeached. He many have little or no influence in that case, but may attempt to secure a chosen succession via a new Vice-President. He may even be afforded such an opportunity if Cheney resigns for health reasons following the 2006 elections, as has been rumoured. Such a sucession plan would give the President much greater freedom in his choices, as the choice would only have to be confimed by the Senate, instead of almost immediately having to gain the approval of primary voters.

I don’t claim sufficient understanding of Bush’s psyche to predict what he might do if faced with such an opportunity. A few possible VP choices would be Condoleeza Rice, JEB Bush, Senator John McCain, Senator George Allen, heck, he might even nominate his wife. Who the hell knows what this guy might do in those circumstances; or what the Senate would let him get away with. I think it likely he would try to stay within his inner circle, so JEB and Condi seem the most Bush-like choices.

I don’t think that this sucession scenario is likely, however. More likely is that the President will just quietly let it be known through proxies who his favorite son is in the pre-primary season. His voice will carry much less weight with key constitutencies than would normally be the case, especially if his approval numbers continue to plummet among Republicans. The favorite son would then have to do extra duty to win the allegience, support, and endorsement of key constituencies than he would otherwise.

I am of the opinion that Bush has already signalled his choice of a successor in the famous 2004 hug of John McCain. McCain has a commanding position with most moderate and non-fundamentalist Republican constituents. McCain’s weakest area of support is among fundamentalists, whom he courting even now. As the Republican with the strongest national base outside of Bush’s own circle (Rice polls well despite the lack of an real electoral base that has even voted for her), it is my opinion that McCain has the money, the party support, the credibility, and inevitability that a candidate needs to become the nominee. As soon as Bush starts making those quiet noises in late 2007 about McCain, the party will be over.

Congress.org and Knowlegis compile congressional power rankings of elected officials. The rankings are based upon 15 characteristics of power. These characteristics were measured and weighted to determine the relative power demonstrated by Members of Congress. Those characteristics may be grouped into three broad categories.

1) Position: How much power could the legislator wield through his/her position in the Congress by virtue of tenure, committee assignments or leadership position? This Power Category included weightings for all committees, subcommittees, and leadership positions, taking into consideration majority or minority party status of the member.

2) Influence: How much power did the legislator demonstrate to influence the congressional agenda or outcome of votes through the media, congressional caucuses or money contributed to other Members of Congress by his or her campaign committees or leadership PACs?

3) Legislative Activity: How much power did the legislator demonstrate through the passage of legislation or shaping legislation through amendments? The team eliminated from that data items which did not substantially change the bill or existing law. These included amendments dealing with technical changes or bills of a ceremonial or commemorative nature such as naming of post offices or other public buildings, or non-binding resolutions that expressed the "sense of the Congress."

The results for the Arizona delegation:

Sen. John McCain, Senate Rank #3
Sen. Jon Kyl, Senate Rank #17

Rep. Jim Kolbe, House Rank #30
Rep. Rick Renzi, House Rank #84
Rep. Jeff Flake, House Rank #140
Rep. J.D. Hayworth, House Rank #142
Rep. Trent Franks, House Rank #220
Rep. Fred Pastor,  House Rank #229
Rep. John Shadegg, House Rank #243
Rep. Raul Grijalva, House Rank #279

There is a certain irony in the fact that, while there is hardly anything so important in politics than budgets, there is hardly anything more boring. Politicians rely on this fact to ensure that constituents succumb to the soporific effect of endless columns of numbers and jargon before figuring out exactly where their money is … Read more

The master of strategy Sun Tzu wrote, "know thy enemy." In order to overcome an adversary, you must first understand him. This is a lesson that the Republicans have forgotten in their effort to conduct a "war on terrorism," but one which Democrats should heed in seeking to overthrow the current dominance of the GOP … Read more

Republicans are strongly implying that Secretary of State Jan Brewer is responsible for the large increase in voter registration in 2004, despite her support of Prop 200 and generally acting like Arizona’s own Katherine Harris. What is responsible for the surge in voter registration is not Brewer’s non-existent leadership, but the contentious and close-run 2004 … Read more