From ACSBlog: The Blog of the American Constitution Society:

On the first day of the new legislative session last week, the new Republican majority in the Georgia House of Representatives has passed unprecedented procedural rules allowing House Speaker Glenn Richardson to "appoint legislative "hawks" who can swoop in to any committee with the authority to vote the way the speaker wants them to." According to the Macon Telegraph, "the idea is for the Hawks to be able to move legislation out of committees where the Democratic minority has been able to persuade enough Republican members to stall a bill or vote it down." Although Richardson says he will appoint no more than 2 or 3 members to this position, the actual rule specifies no maximum number.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to political strategy, but one of the sharper ones should have already started a campaign tagging Republicans, nationwide, as arrogant elitists. Why? The same protections that they enjoyed in the minority (for, in some places, 80 years) are the ones they can't tolerate as the majority party. They want to eliminate the very dissent that let their ideas be heard so the nation could decide about them.

This is not a new strategy for the wingnutty right: they demand concessions, protections, and obesiance for themselves that they absolutely will not tolerate for others. I used to call this "laws are for other people," but that's not the best term, nor is "elitist." Corrente picked up Atrios's term "IOKIYAR", for "It's OK if you're a Republican!" None of these are getting the point across, though: these people think they're the pigs in Animal Farm: "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."

I'd really like to see people with good communications skills take this on with the same fervor the wingnuts do with terms like "flip-flop" and "obstructionist." Plus, the Democrats need to get their house in order, as the end of that Georgia story shows:

Still, in a state where all three branches of government are now controlled by Republicans, the change received significant bipartisan support.

Salon's "War Room" on the opposition to Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales:

The Democrats don't have the votes to stop the Gonzales nomination even if they unite against him -- and it's not at all clear that they'll do that. One school of thought -- advanced by more than a few newspaper editorials -- says that Senate Democrats have got to stand up against Gonzales in order to make a strong statement against torture and to signal that they'll be united when it comes time to consider George W. Bush's nominees for the Supreme Court. Others take exactly the opposite view -- that Democrats should hold their fire now, in a case they can't win, so that they're not branded as knee-jerk obstructionists when Supreme Court nominees come before them.

These "others" who advocate holding their fire are insane. The last Senate approved 96% of President Bush's judicial nominees, using filibusters to block just ten of the worst of the worst. For taking this Constitutional role seriously, the people who blocked the very worst 4% of Bush's nominees were already branded "obstructionists," enough so to defeat Tom Daschle after similarly-unprecedented campaigning in his home district by Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist. (I would only hope Sen. Obama would campaign against Sen. Frist when he's up for re-election...)

Senate Democrats need to wake up again. If Bush nominated Josef Mengele to the federal bench (and, as Tom Tomorrow says, it's harder each day for parodists to stay ahead of these guys), they'd brand Democrats as "knee-jerk obstructionists" for trying to keep him from a lifetime judicial seat. ("Dr. Mengele is a strong Christian who opposes the abortion and homosexual agenda. Democrats are just trying to keep good family men like him from stopping their activist judges from forcing gay marriage on everyone.")

They're going to call you obstructionist. The correct response is not to roll over and play dead while President Bush fills the executive and judicial branches with torturers, racists, and theocrats.

Tom Tomorrow has more on why Democrats should look to 1993 to find their spine:

In 1993, Senate Democrats lined up to oppose the confirmation of Zoe Baird, President Clinton's choice to be the nation's top law enforcement officer, over her hiring of undocumented immigrants in violation of the law. Now, the Senate is poised to vote on the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales, who has effectively advised President Bush that he was above the law, and could order the torture of detainees in U.S. custody. Clinton withdrew Baird's nomination, at her request. Today, however, neither President Bush nor Mr. Gonzales appear inclined to free Senate Republicans from the embarrassing choice of either voting for torture, or voting against their president. I think we can all agree that the issue of torture carries greater moral and practical weight than does the green card status of two household workers.

I'm generally inclined to let the President have his choice of cabinet members. But not today. Democrats and conscientious Republicans should join in opposing Mr. Gonzales' confirmation. Call your Senators today and tell them how you feel.

Ditto. I'd contact my Senators, but I don't have neither the $200,000, the 500-member congregation, nor the sheer quantity of bile it takes to buy their attention.

Atrios has it even more succinctly:

It is not partisan for anti-torture Democrats to oppose Gonzales. It is partisan for anti-torture Republicans to support him.

Amen.

From AMERICAblog:

America's Taliban now wants government officials to ban TV shows simply because they may cater to a gay audience.

Move over Fox and Friends. A new morning news program is entering the already-crowded market. It’s name -- Good morning Gay America! The show is an offering from Q Television, a gay pay cable network which caters to “gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, and the curious.”

Interestingly, the name is taken from the ABC News morning program Good Morning America, which begs the question of whether a copyright infringement lawsuit lies in the future. Reportedly, ABC News had no comment on whether or not lawyers for the news giant were “ok” with the name choice.

Fortunately, the program, which purports to “feature news from every national gay event across the country,” is only available in select cities. Unfortunately, systems are being added in other cities, according to a Q spokesman.

Take Action!

Contact your local, state, and national representatives and tell them you are tired of the glorification of the homosexual lifestyle. Ask them to prohibit the Q network from infiltrating your town.

Emphasis added on the last paragraph, as if it needed it. It's not enough for these "patriots" that they have a right not to watch programs they don't like; they can't stand that anyone might see something with which they disagree. AMERICAblog has it right:

We need to take these mo-fos down, hard.

Too bad for them that Michael Powell is going away.