The Polished, Energetic and Seasoned Washington Insider

Remember Virginia Thomas’s early morning call to Anita Hill? She went out of her way to harass Ms. Hill, and now she is again taking an overly pro-active lead in consulting for ultra-conservative issues. While she has the right to do what she wants, and a woman should never have to subsume her career to that of her husband’s, Ms. Thomas’s activities ought to be tracked very closely. Her consulting firm is focused on her ability to be “an ‘ambassador’ between the new citizen activities (tea party movement), the established conservative movement the entrepreneurial class, the alternative media and principled statesmen and candidates.” Does Fox News count as the “alternative media?” The title of this post is taken from her bio found here.

I do not know “Ginny” Thomas, and can only read her husband’s opinions, but I get the sense that their behind-the-scenes activities are dove-tailed to make effective use of their positions and influence.  This is the definition of a judge who is compromised and ought to limit his opinions to those where there is not a conflict. You cannot stop the husband-wife interaction and their general impact on events, but we can make sure that Justice Thomas does limited harm to our country.

See more here.

Bachmann Overdrive

So, let’s ask Ms. Bachmann how much she is spending of the government’s money to deliver this speech. The fact that the Republican majority in the House is allowing this to happen speaks to their complete and utter subservience to this fringe movement. This is just pathetic, and a complete show of disrespect to our President and her own party. Maybe Sarah Palin can write a rebuttal to Ms. Bachmann’s rebuttal?

Bachmann’s Response Will Push Tea Party Goals – NYTimes.com.

Some next-day reflections on Ms. Bachmann’s speech:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/tv-watch-michele-bachmanns-rogue-rebuttal-defies-unity-theme/?hp

Despite searching for ten minutes I could not locate any commentary on Ms. Bachmann’s speech on Fox News website (www.foxnews.com), only the video of the speech itself. Hmmm.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41262130/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/michele-bachmann-state-of-the-union_n_813362.html

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/1/23/bachmann-state-of-the-union-response-shows-gop-message-problem.html?s_cid=rss:robert-schlesinger:bachmann-state-of-the-union-response-shows-gop-message-problem

Hey Boehner, Change and Evolution are Good

I have to hand it to the wonderful leaders of our newly elected House of Representatives, members of the 112th Congress. In an attempt to somehow remind people of the importance of the Constitution, and seemingly to suggest that earlier Congresses were ignoring it, John Boehner and the Tea Party cabal decided to spend more money and time to read the entire document aloud on the floor of the House. Did anyone listen?

There are many aspects of this charade that were amusing, but what was downright eye-opening was that some of the original Constitution had to be skipped because words had been literally changed due to amendments offered across the years. So, Boehner and his team had to spend the time (and, again, the money) determining specifically which parts of the original text would be ignored so as not to confuse anyone. Could you imagine Representative John Lewis (D-GA), an African-American, reading about “3/5 of a person?”

The irony of this whole mockery is that the very people who most wanted it read aloud – Republicans and Tea Party representatives – would generally be the same people who would argue that we need to stay close to the “original intent” of the Framers of the Constitution. In this way, by reading the Constitution more literally, we could determine the “right thing to do” because the meaning was supposedly fixed and unchanging. “Original intent?” What was the original intent of the 3/5 of a person? Why 3/5?

Note to John Boehner….such was the design of the Founders – amendments could be offered precisely because they could not get it all correct. Since the Framers knew they could not predict everything, and they realized that people change their views, the writers of the Constitution allowed for change and interpretation to occur. So do not make it seem as though reading the document on the floor will somehow inspire your team to do something “right.” You will do what you want…at least the Senate and the President are still awake.

By the way, Mr. Boehner, how much have you spent so far in the 112th Congress?