Security Breach at Google’s Gmail Service Forces Temporary Shutdown of The ‘Skeeter Bites Report to Protect Sources, Subscribers

(Posted 8:00 p.m. EDT Sunday, March 21, 2010)

In Unusually Blunt Language — The Strongest U.S. Rebuke of Israel in More Than 20 Years — Biden Blasts Israel’s Decision to Build New Housing for Jews in Arab Neighborhood of East Jerusalem, Warning That They ‘Undermine’ Not Only Mideast Peace Process, But Also U.S. War Effort in Iraq and Afghanistan

NOT ON THE SAME PAGE — Vice President Joe Biden (left) meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the vice president’s trip last week to Israel and the Palestinian Territories. The grim expressions on their faces tell the story: Biden, angered by Israel’s announcement that it was building new housing for Jews in a predominantly Arab neighborhood of East Jerusalem, reportedly blasted Israeli officials during a private meeting, condemning the decision as “undermining” the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. But the vice president also reportedly raised — for the first time — the specter of Israeli actions causing serious problems for U.S. forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Photo: Getty Images)

Rarely have relations between the United States and Israel been this testy. But there was Vice President Joe Biden — during a visit to Israel and the Palestinian Territories — using unusually blunt language last week to condemn Israel’s decision to build new housing for Jews in predominantly Arab East Jerusalem.

Biden’s remarks were the sharpest rebuke of Israel by the U.S. in more than 20 years — and might signal a new “get-tough” policy by the Obama administration on the volatile issue of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian Territories.

Read the full story by clicking HERE.

Leaked Plans by Republican National Committee Show Intent to Aggressively Capitalize on Fears of ‘Socialism’ Under Obama to Raise Money for GOP in 2010 Election Cycle; Meanwhile, Group Led by Ex-VP Cheney’s Daughter Comes Under Fire for Web Ad That Attacks Patriotism of Justice Department Lawyers Handling Terrorism Cases

“I have here in my hand a list of 205 people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party, and who, nevertheless, are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department!” With those words, Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) plunged the nation into a near-panic with his infamous anti-communist “Red Scare” campaign from 1950 to 1954, when McCarthy was ultimately exposed as the fearmongering demagogue he really was. Now, 60 years later, The Republicans have been caught plotting a McCarthy-style “Red Scare” of the 21st century, with revelations of GOP National Committee plans to launch an aggressive fundraising campaign by stoking fears of “socialism” under President Obama and the majority Democrats in Congress. (Archive Photo courtesy Wisconsin Historical Society)

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EST Monday, March 8, 2010)

By SKEETER SANDERS

Having lost control of both the White House and the Congress — and under mounting pressure from the Far Right — the Republican Party has been caught plotting to launch an aggressive campaign of stoking fears of the country moving toward “socialism” under President Obama and the majority Democrats in Congress to raise money for the upcoming midterm election cycle.

At the same time, a conservative group with ties to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter Liz has come under fire for launching a blistering Web ad that questions the patriotism of seven Justice Department lawyers assigned to handle the cases of terrorism suspects — branding the unnamed attorneys “the al-Qaida 7″ and mocking the DOJ as the “Department of Jihad.”

These two developments have prompted fierce accusations by liberals — and even some former Bush administration attorneys — that the GOP is stooping to outright fearmongering reminiscent of the infamous “Red Scare” whipped up in the early 1950s by late Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin).

PLANS USED CRUDE IMAGE OF OBAMA IN WHITEFACE AS THE JOKER

The Republican National Committee was forced into damage-control mode after plans to raise money for the upcoming midterm election campaign by aggressively pursuing a drive to “save the country from trending toward socialism” under Obama were exposed by Politico.com, which obtained a copy of the plans.

Incredibly, the confidential 72-page document, which was prepared by the party’s finance staff, was left behind at the conclusion of a February 18 party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida. It was picked up by a Democratic operative, who furnished it to Politico.com.

“What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate…?” the document asks. “Save the country from trending toward Socialism!” comes the reply.

Several of the document’s pages include crude caricatures of top Democratic leaders, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) as Cruella DeVille from the Disney movie “101 Dalmatians” and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) as the cartoon character Scooby-Doo.

Most controversial of all, however, was a caricature of Obama as the Joker, the psychopathic nemesis of Batman in “The Dark Knight.” That caricature of the nation’s first black president in whiteface — employed frequently by Tea Party movement activists — has been denounced by critics of the Tea Party movement as racially offensive.

GOP FORCED INTO DAMAGE-CONTROL MODE AFTER LEAK

Revelation of the RNC fundraising document on Wednesday forced the GOP into full-scale damage-control mode, with RNC Communications Director Douglas Heye frantically issuing an e-mail to major Republican donors and to the media to downplay its significance and seeking to distance GOP National Chairman Michael Steele from it.

“The document was used for a fundraising presentation Chairman Steele did not attend, nor had he seen the document,” Heye wrote in his e-mail. “Fundraising documents are often controversial. Obviously, the Chairman disagrees with the language and finds the use of such imagery to be unacceptable. It will not be used by the Republican National Committee — in any capacity — in the future.”

By Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), confronted with the controversy, acknowledged that the fundraising presentation “was not helpful” to the party. Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” McConnell said that he “can’t imagine why anybody would have thought that was helpful.”

McConnell refused to say whether he thought that Chairman Steele and others at the RNC should be held accountable for the document. “I don’t run the RNC. That’s up to them. But I don’t like it, and I don’t know anybody who does,” he said.

BAD NEWS FOR RNC WHOSE COFFERS ARE DRYING UP

For Steele, the leak of the controversial fundraising document could not have come at a worse time. The GOP national chairman has come under fire from major party donors unhappy with what they say is Steele’s lavish spending habits since he was elected party chairman 14 months ago.

The feud has led to major donors turning away from the RNC and toward other GOP committees. Politico.com reported February 23 that the RNC has raised $24 million since Steele took over as chairman — down significantly from the $46 million it raised in 2005.

To make matters worse, according to campaign finance reports, a $23 million RNC surplus that Steele inherited when he took over has shrunk dramatically to $8.4 million a year later.

CHENEY GROUP’S AD BRANDS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS ‘AL-QAIDA SEVEN’

Meanwhile, a growing number of critics on both the left and the right have denounced a vicious Web ad that attacks the Justice Department for its handling of terrorism cases.

The ad, posted by the right-wing group Keep America Safe — which is led by Liz Cheney and Weekly Standard editor-in-chief Bill Kristol — openly brands as “The al-Qaida 7″ seven lawyers hired by the Justice Department to handle terrorism-related cases who previously did pro bono work for Guantánamo detainees.

The ad demands that the identities of the seven lawyers be disclosed — and even goes so far as to refer to the Justice Department’s initials, DOJ, as the “Department of Jihad.”

Posted on YouTube on March 1, the ad has triggered a torrent of angry phone calls to Justice Department headquarters. It came just days after Liz Cheney, appearing at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, unleashed a blistering attack on the Obama administration, openly accusing the president of pursuing a dangerously misguided and ineffective approach to national security.

“We’ve learned he [Obama] wants to go around the world and apologize for this great country of ours,” the daughter of the former vice president said. “We’ve learned he wants to give rights to terrorists, including the right to remain silent. We’ve learned he wants to move dangerous terrorists from Guantanamo onto the American homeland while he investigates and possibly prosecutes the CIA officers who interrogated them. That is not change we can believe in.”

LIZ CHENEY ACCUSED OF JOE MCCARTHY-STYLE SMEAR

Such attacks by Cheney drew an equally blistering counterattack by Ken Gude, a national security expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “It’s not kind of like McCarthyism,” wrote Gude in an e-mail to TalkingPointsMemo.com, “it is exactly what Joe McCarthy did with his anti-communist witchhunts. Cheney accuses the Attorney General of the United States of being a supporter of al-Qaida and running the ‘Department of Jihad.’”

But Gude isn’t alone. Several prominent lawyers who worked for the Bush administration also blasted Cheney. Former Solicitor General Ted Olson called Cheney’s attacks “outrageous” and fiercely defended the DOJ lawyers handling the terror-related cases, saying they were acting “consistent with the finest traditions of the legal profession.”

GOP TRIPS BACK TO MCCARTHY ERA TO REVIVE BLATANT FEARMONGERING

Devoid of fresh ideas to compete with the Democrats and to restore their own credibility, the Republicans — under growing pressure from Tea Party activists and others to move even farther to the right — appear to have decided to go “back to the future” sort to speak — only in this case, back nearly 60 years to the fear-plagued 1950s.

That the new GOP aggressiveness would evoke memories of McCarthy’s demagoguery should surprise no one who is well-versed in American history. The Wisconsin Republican’s career had been marked by making accusations without providing a shred of proof to back them up, according to author Arthur Herman’s 1999 book, Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator.

Even before his infamous anti-communist witchhunts, McCarthy came under sharp criticism in the late 1940s when he lobbied for the commutation of death sentences given to a group of Nazi soldiers convicted of war crimes for carrying out the 1944 Malmedy massacre of American prisoners of war.

McCarthy was critical of the convictions because of allegations of torture during the interrogations that led to the German soldiers’ confessions. He charged that the U.S. Army was engaged in a cover-up of judicial misconduct, but never presented any evidence to support his accusations. Shortly after this, a poll of the Senate press corps voted McCarthy “the worst U.S. senator” in office.

McCarthy shot to national prominence on February 9, 1950, when, while delivering a speech to the Republican Women’s Club of Wheeling, West Virginia, he produced a piece of paper that he claimed contained a list of known communists working for the State Department.

MCCARTHY EXPLOITED FEARS GENERATED BY THE COLD WAR

From 1950 until he was censured by the Senate in 1954, McCarthy continued to exploit the fear of communism and to press his accusations that the Truman and later Eisenhower administrations were failing to deal with communists within its ranks. These accusations were made without McCarthy furnishing a shred of evidence to back them up, yet they received wide publicity, increased his approval rating, and gained him a powerful national following.

It was Herbert Block, the longtime editorial cartoonist for The Washington Post, who coined the term “McCarthyism” as a synonym for demagoguery, baseless defamation, and mudslinging. Later, it would be embraced by McCarthy himself and some of his supporters. “McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled,” McCarthy said in a 1952 speech, and later that year he published a book titled McCarthyism: The Fight For America.

By 1954 — his demagoguery exposed by the legendary CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow and the televised Army-McCarthy hearings that same year — many of McCarthy’s fellow senators had had enough. On June 1, Senator Ralph Flanders (R-Vermont) blasted McCarthy, comparing him to Adolf Hitler and accusing him of spreading division and confusion. “Were the junior senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists,” said Flanders, “he could not have done a better job for them.”

It was Flanders who introduced the Senate resolution that called for McCarthy’s censure. The resolution passed on December 2, 1954 by a vote of 67 to 22, a greater-than-two-thirds majority in the then-96-member Senate (Alaska and Hawaii had not yet been admitted to the Union). McCarthy never recovered from his rebuke, either politically or physically. He plunged into alcoholism and died from cirrhosis of the liver in 1957.

# # #

Copyright 2010, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.

Nearly 300 Bills Have Passed in House Since Current 111th Congress Took Office Nearly 14 Months Ago — Many With Broad Bipartisan Support — Only to be Tied Up by Unprecedented Brick Wall of Republican Filibusters in Senate; Minority Party Has No Constitutional Authority to Hold All Legislation Hostage by forcing 60-Vote ‘Super Majority’ in 100-Member Chamber

To say that the Republicans in the U.S. Senate are engaging in an unconstitutional abuse of power by blocking virtually all legislation proposed by either the Obama administration or the Democratic majority in Congress is not just political grandstanding. Nearly 300 bills that have passed in the House since the current 111th Congress took office 14 months ago have been blocked in the Senate by Republican filibusters. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the minority party in the Senate any authority to hold these bills hostage by forcing a 60-vote “super majority.” (Chart courtesy McClatchy Newspapers)

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EST Monday, March 1, 2010)
(Updated 9:00 a.m. EST Tuesday, March 2, 2010)

# # #

===================
By SKEETER SANDERS
===================

In a scathing editorial published two weeks ago on my blog site, The ‘Skeeter Bites Report, this writer argued forcefully that the minority Republicans in the U.S. Senate were engaging in an unprecedented — and unconstitutional — abuse of power with their blanket use of the filibuster to block passage of virtually every piece of legislation proposed by the Obama administration and the Democratic majority in Congress.

“Senate Republicans . . . are vowing to use their newly-bolstered filibuster power to stymie virtually every domestic policy initiative that [President] Obama proposes,” the editorial thundered. “To say that this would paralyze the Senate would be a gross understatement. This is nothing less than a declaration by the Republicans of an insurrection against the administration and the majority party in Congress intended to make it impossible for the president to govern effectively.

“This is a flat-out abuse of power that imposes a tyranny of the minority,” the editorial continued, “a tyranny that is clearly unconstitutional and violates the most precious tenet of democracy: That within the parameters set by the Constitution, the majority rules.”

In the two weeks since that editorial was published, solid evidence has emerged to back up that conclusion.

NUMBER OF FILIBUSTERS SOAR SINCE OBAMA’S INAUGURATION

For starters, the McClatchy Newspapers, in an analysis on the performance of the Senate since the current 111th Congress took office 14 months ago, reported that Senate Republicans “are using the filibuster to limit and often derail Democrats’ initiatives, paralyzing the Senate and making it nearly impossible to accomplish even the most routine matters.”

McClatchy noted that in the more than 13 months since President Obama took office, the number of filibusters — and the cloture votes to kill them — have risen dramatically. And they have come on a range of issues so broad as to be without precedent. To date, there have been 42 votes to invoke cloture, of which all but four were successful.

McClatchy estimates that if the partisan warfare continues, by the time the 111th Congress ends its term in December 2012, there could be as many as 153 cloture votes — an all-time record high.

After Thursday’s health-care reform summit between Obama and congressional leaders, in which both parties essentially dug in their heels, there is absolutely zero evidence that the warfare won’t end any time soon. On the contrary, it is certain to solidify even further.

The bickering has tied up the Senate in knots — and the GOP minority has made it abundantly clear, both privately and publicly, that a filibuster-proof 60-vote “super majority” will be required to pass “not only major Democratic programs, but also many routine proposals.”

The 100-member Senate’s 58 Democrats and two allied independents — Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut — ostensibly lost their filibuster-proof majority on February 4 with the swearing-in of Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts), although Brown quickly broke ranks with his fellow Republicans to cast his first vote in favor of a $15 billion job-creation bill.

CONSTITUTION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ‘SUPER MAJORITY’ TO PASS BILLS

However, the Senate Republicans’ determination to impose a 60-vote requirement in order to pass bills is not supported by the Constitution. The filibuster is a creature of the Senate itself. It is employed under the internal rules of the Senate.

Under Article I of the Constitution — which spells out the legislative authority of Congress — each house is free to create its own rules for parliamentary procedure. But Senate Rule 22, which establishes the filibuster, is neither part of the Constitution nor is it a statute.

Nowhere does the Constitution grant the minority party in either chamber of Congress any authority to impose a requirement that a super-majority of votes be reached in order to pass legislation.

To the contrary, in only three instances does the Constitution specifically require a super-majority: the passage of amendments to the Constitution itself; the ratification by the Senate of treaties; and the override of presidential vetoes of legislation approved by Congress.

In each case, a two-thirds majority (67 votes in the 100-member Senate, 290 votes in the 435-member House) is required.

290 BILLS PASSED BY HOUSE STALLED IN SENATE BY GOP FILIBUSTERS

That Senate Republicans have imposed an unconstitutional “tyranny of the minority” was made even more evident last Tuesday, when House leaders made public a list of 290 bills that passed in the lower chamber — only to be stalled in the Senate by the Republicans’ blanket use of the filibuster.

Many of those bills passed the House with broad bipartisan support, including a critically-needed measure aimed at bolstering the security of the Internet. That bill passed by an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority of 422 to five.

Another is a bill to crack down on predatory mortgage lending. That measure passed in May by a 300-114 margin, with 60 Republicans voting “aye.”

Still another is a measure to stimulate job growth by increasing opportunities for small-business entrepreneurs. That bill also passed the House in May by a whopping 406-15 margin, with 159 Republicans voting in favor.

In September, the House passed, by a lopsided 406-18 — with 161 Republican “ayes” — a measure to prohibit increases in medicare part B premiums charged to millions of senior citizens who do not receive their annual cost-of-living increase in their Social Security benefits.

GOP ALSO BLOCKED CONFIRMATION OF SCORES OF OBAMA NOMINEES

But legislation isn’t the only thing that Senate Republicans have been tying up for months. They’ve also stymied the confirmations of scores of nominees to high-level positions in the Obama administration by placing holds on their nominations — preventing the Senate from holding confirmation votes.

The Republicans did an about-face and allowed confirmation votes on the president’s nominees only after Obama threatened to take advantage of Congress’ week-long Presidents Day break to invoke his executive authority to make recess appointments.

The Senate confirmed 27 of the president’s nominees on February 12 after Obama made his threat in a testy exchange with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) during a White House meeting with congressional leaders.

An unusually high number of nominees to top positions in the Obama administration — 63 in all — “had been stalled in the Senate because one or more senators placed a hold on their nomination,” the president said in a statement. “And so . . . I told Senator McConnell that if Republican senators did not release these holds, I would exercise my authority [under Article II of the Constitution] to fill critically-needed positions in the federal government temporarily through the use of recess appointments.”

HOYER BLAMES SENATE GOP INTRANSIGENCE FOR PARALYSIS ON CAPITOL HILL

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) put the blame squarely on Republicans for the ongoing paralysis in the Senate.

Appearing on MSNBC, Hoyer accused the Senate Republican leadership of having decided that “failure and gridlock are to its political benefit, and as a result, we’ve had more requests for cloture or filibuster votes than at any time in history.”

The result, said Hoyer, is that the blanket filibusters by GOP senators “has brought, in effect, the Senate’s ability to do its business to a standstill sometimes and to a slow walk at others.”

SENATE GRIDLOCK A FACTOR IN BAYH’S RETIREMENT

And that paralysis is a major reason why Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) has decided not to seek re-election. In an op-ed column published February 20 in The New York Times, Bayh wrote that the filibuster, which “historically . . . was employed to ensure that momentous issues receive a full and fair hearing” has instead “come to serve the exact opposite purpose — to prevent the Senate from even conducting routine business.”

Bayh noted that the Senate last fall “had to overcome two successive filibusters to pass a bill to provide millions of Americans with extended unemployment insurance.” Even though there was no opposition to the measure — it passed unanimously, with two senators absent — “some senators saw political advantage in drawing out debate, thus preventing the Senate from addressing other pressing matters.”

Historically, filibusters have been employed in the Senate most often to block passage of reform legislation, ranging from the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s to the post-Watergate clean-government measures of the 1970s.

It was as a result of massive public outrage against the use of filibusters to block reform bills aimed at curbing abuses of government power under the administration of President Richard Nixon in the 1970s that prompted a change of Senate rules in 1975 to to reduce the number of votes required to kill off filibusters from 67 — the same two-thirds majority required to override presidential vetoes, ratify treaties and pass constitutional amendments — to the present 60.

But who would have thought back then that a move aimed at curbing abuses of power by the executive branch would one day pave the way for abuses of power by the minority party in the legislative branch?

‘MINORITY TYRANNY’ AN AFFRONT TO REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

What was originally intended to protect the minority party’s right to debate and push for a compromise on legislation is now being used by the minority party to totally stymie the agenda of not only the majority party, but also that of the president.

This wholesale use of the filibuster by minority Senate Republicans is totally without precedent and is in no way supported by the Constitution.

Indeed, the U.S. Senate is the only freely elected legislative body in the world in which the minority party can thwart the will of the majority party, unless the majority party can muster 60 votes. It is an affront to representative democracy and the clearly expressed will of the American people who voted for the majority party in the last general election.

The time is past due for the majority Democrats in the Senate to break the logjam by either invoking the reconciliation process to get those 290 House-passed bills to the president’s desk for his signature, or by invoking the so-called “nuclear option,” in which Vice President Joe Biden, in his constitutional capacity as president of the Senate, declares the GOP’s blanket filibuster unconstitutional.

Enough is enough! Either way, this “tyranny of the minority” in the Senate must be brought to an end — now.

# # #

Copyright 2009, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.