This is What Democracy Looks Like

Today's Note From a Madman

Wednesday, January 25, 2006



A Bush Quote in the Lead

"I call on the United States Senate to put partisanship aside and give Judge Alito the up or down vote he deserves and to confirm (Judge Alito) as the next associate justice of the Supreme Court,"
-President GW Bush today (from

Oh really now. When President Bill Clinton, with a majority in the Senate, could have appointed a judge for the Supreme Court without the approval of the minority Republicans, he chose, instead, to meet with Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Together, in the TRUE SPIRIT OF BIPARTISANSHIP, they chose Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Breyer was approved by a vote of 87-9 while Justice Ginsburg swept through 96-3.

In other words, when President Bill Clinton had the opportunity to act in a partisan manner and select the judges that HE wanted, regardless of the minority Republican party, he chose the HIGH ROAD.

Why didn't President Bush take that same road? Why didn't President Bush meet with the minority Democratic leaders in the Senate before he chose the most unqualified nominee to the court (Harriet Miers) followed by the most partisan of candidates, Judge Samuel Alito?

"I call on President Bush to put partisanship aside... and meet with the minority Democratic leadership in the Senate, and put forth a nominee who could pass almost unanimously, like Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer did more than a decade ago."

-Noah Greenberg


Much like the Capital One commercials starring David Spade as a telephone bank manager who always says "NO", the White House practices the same method in respect to anything that has to do with Hurricane Katrina.

"NO" to turning over executive branch communications citing "privilege"
"NO" to making officials available to two congressional committees investigating the federal response to Katrina
"NO" to
Rep. Richard A. Baker (R-LA), who is writing legislation for a federally financed reconstruction program to help bail out homeowners and mortgage lenders

Anything that could help the current Katrina victims now, or help prevent future Gulf Coast hurricane victims from becoming "victims" gets the big, fat Bush "NO".

Remember when "Just say NO" was a way to keep kids off drugs? Now "NO" is the Bush administration mantra for anything that doesn't benefit the ultra-rich elitists that they call their "core constituents".

"The Baker bill as a tool was very efficient in terms of helping people sell out, or clear title to the land. We're going to have to go back to the drawing board and do the best with the tools we have."
-Sean Reilly, of the Louisiana Recovery Authority

Unless those "tools" are self-supplied bulldozers, hammers and saws, don't bother, Mr. Reilly. You're on your own. And just what will happen to those people's land and homes in Louisiana when they just simply can't afford to pay rent in Texas and a mortgage for the junkyard that used to be their neighborhoods in New Orleans all at the same time? Well that land will go to the highest bidder (or the largest GOP contributor to the Bushies); it will be cleared off, more than likely at taxpayer expense; and be developed for a hefty profit and even more Bushie elitist-rich tax-breaks and GOP donations.

And what's really funny (funny as in ironic, not funny as in ha-ha) will be this: the people who lost their land in the Big un-Easy because they could get no help from the federal government will end up paying for it in higher local taxes and never-ending bankruptcy payments to the banks that would now own much of their land.

Wow... What a gimmick! Deny them help until they default... supply the help to the rich bankers after the defaults... and make the original landowners pay for it all... BRILLIANT!

"We share the common vision, the common objective of Congressman Baker, to assist uninsured homeowners outside the flood plain,"
-Donald E. Powell, the Bush administration's Gulf Coast recovery coordinator

The only thing that the Bushies are going to recover is some big bucks from some rich bankers and new landowners.

"There has been a near total lack of cooperation that has made it impossible, in my opinion, for us to do the thorough investigation (regarding Hurricane Katrina and the federal response to it) that we have a responsibility to do,"
-Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), sounding more like the Democrat he USED to be

"The White House and the administration are cooperating with both the House and Senate, but we have also maintained the president's ability to get advice and have conversations with his top advisers that remain confidential."
-White House spokesman, Trent Duffy

"Cooperation" is another one of those perverted Bush words that has taken on a new, opposite meaning, like "Liberty", "Freedom" and "Jobs".


The White House has continually shown disdain for anything and anyone which might make them accountable for anything. There IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY to the People of the United States from the Bush White House.


President "G"lobal "W"arming Bush is so isolated with such a small group of advisors that, in another time, it would have taken a little boy to tell him he was wearing no clothes.

"I completely disagree with that practice,"
-Senator Susan Collins, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chairwoman

Don't these Republicans get it? Their party has been hijacked by President Bush and his cronies. The "practice" which Sen. Collins speaks of is nothing more than a way of keeping the truth at bay. There is no reason for Bush to keep "conversations with his top advisers" "confidential" when it comes to Hurricane Katrina.


We can learn from our mistakes, but the first step is admitting a mistake was made. Are we still waiting for GW to admit his first one?

"When you have a natural disaster, the president needs to be hands-on, and if anyone in his staff gets in the way, he needs to push them away. The response was pathetic."
-Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT)

The president needs to be hands on all the time, Rep. Shays. But more importantly, the president needs to admit that there is a problem and be willing to address that problem. This president is obviously unwilling to do that.

And it isn't only the White House. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hasn't been cooperating as well.

"We have been trying - without success - to obtain Secretary Rumsfeld's cooperation for months. The situation is not acceptable."
- Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA)

It isn't just Rumsfeld, its the whole Rovian Presidential philosophy at work.

-Noah Greenberg

"THE" Debate that divides the Nation
(And that's just the way the Bushies like it)

We all know that the Bush administration and their ultra-rich elitist cronies truly DON'T WANT an Amendment to the US Constitution that would outlaw abortion. They have a majority in both the House and Senate; they won 31 out of the 50 states in the last presidential election; and, of course, they have President George W. Bush, the "Right to Life" President. So, why hasn't the president given it the "Bush-Push" that would be required for him to "prevail", as he put it yesterday?

Here is yesterday's quote, just to remind you:

"We're working to persuade more of our fellow Americans of the rightness of our cause, and this is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens and is rooted in America's deepest principles -- history tells us that with such a cause, we will prevail."
-Bush to his Religious-Right-to-the-cause-and-diversion faithful

We all know the reason. Having this issue, and using it as a "wedge" to divide Americans is the only way for GW to keep his minions in line. Therefore, I say:

Let's have this debate.

I am pro-Woman's-choice. I believe that life does not begin at the time of conception. I believe that as long as the fetus is in the womb of the mother that the choice of going to term with the pregnancy is of that particular woman's choosing... not the man (husband)... not anyone else but her.

Now you know where I stand, just in case there was any question.

I understand that many, perhaps even half of the readers of "Note from a Madman" disagree with me. I also understand that there is some common ground for most of you on the pro-life side: Like when the life of the mother is endangered; or when incest or rape is involved. I am also unsure what to do with a late term mother who, after the second trimester is passed, wants to have an elective abortion. Although I am still in favor of a woman's right to choose, at that moment in time, it is more of an issue with me.

I feel we can't even discuss the "choice" issue until several criteria are met:
-Health care for the mother-to-be
-Health care for the mother and child after birth
-Health care for the child until he or she reaches adulthood
-The mother's ability to support a child
-The quality of life for mother and child

How can one support restricting "choice" without all of those criteria met? I know the argument that states "It isn't the baby's fault he, or she, was born," but shouldn't we provide for those babies who are born to a mother who simply can't provide? Or are we to pry that baby away from its mother at birth, partially as punishment for a reckless, out of wedlock affair and partially because we care so much for the baby and have no thought to its mother?

There are four things to do with an unwanted pregnancy:
1- Go to term, have the baby and keep it
2- Go to term and put the baby up for adoption
3- Go to term and allow the father to raise it, as is in some cases where the mother didn't want the baby but the father did
4- Abort the fetus

The first choice is always the best. A child would be best to stay in the life of its parents, or at least its mother. But the conditions above need to be met. If not, it would appear that we simply only love the fetus but hate the child. The second choice is good too, providing that the mother could live with herself after giving up her child. The thrid choice is rare, but happens. The fourth choice should be the last choice, but, as long as the above cnditions aren't met, for some women, it is the only choice.

As I have said before, there are many issues that most of the readers here at Madman agree on: Stopping this illegal war for oil; a better education system; and health care for all just to name a few. Maybe a good, lively debate on a woman's right to choose is an argument whose time has come. It might be the only way to get a dialogue started on the subject of universal health care

Things have to start somewhere, don't they?

-Noah Greenberg

Send your comments to: or

-Noah Greenberg