In 1991, 18 Senators who still serve today voted for a bill by Sen. Al D’Amato (R-NY) to limit the interest rate credit card companies can charge to 14 percent (the measure was consequently stripped out of the final bill). Those same 18 Senators voted a few weeks ago against a bill by Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) to limit the interest rate credit card companies can charge to 30 percent.

Why would 18 Senators, including co-sponsors of the original measure, vote for a tougher pro-consumer measure in 1991, and then vote against a weaker measure in 2005? Could it be that the more than $2 million these Senators took from the credit card/banking industry in the interim made them change their mind? Or, was there another reason? I’d say the public deserves an answer.

There is a lot of carping on right-wing blogs about this Sunday’s article on the DeLay family’s decision to terminate life support for Tom’s father. On the National Review’s blog, the Corner, K.J. Lopez says:

The Times tries to make the case the same as the Schiavo case, which it is not.

More examples here, here and here.

This reaction is puzzling for several reasons:

1. All these commentators learned the differences between Terri Schiavo and Tom DeLay’s father by reading the LA Times article.

2. The LA Times article includes a lengthy quote from Tom DeLay’s spokesman stating that the cases are completely different.

3. There are similarities between DeLay’s father and Terri Schiavo. As the LA Times notes: “Both stricken patients were severely brain-damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared from being kept alive by artificial means. And neither of them had a living will.”

In an interview yesterday with Fox News, Senate Majority Whip Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) defended the conservatives’ consideration of detonating the nuclear option to push through President Bush’s controversial judicial re-nominees. However, instead of calling the move what it is, McConnell stated it would best be described as the “Byrd option.” He then continued on to assert, “I don’t want to get too technical here, but the point is, what Senator Frist is considering doing is not unprecedented. It was done by Senator Byrd when he was majority leader.”

Not getting “too technical” allowed Sen. McConnell to not be too honest, either. As Senate majority leader in the late 1970s, Byrd only went so far as to allow nominations to be considered out of order and impose a limit on debate time but never tried to change filibuster rules. Though proponents of the nuclear option continue to claim that they would not be employing a never before used tactic, “a careful review of the Senate’s precedents reveals that the Senate has never acted by simple majority vote to force an end to a filibuster or a change to the Senate’s rules of debate.” Apparently, getting technical tends to get in the way of the truth.

Yesterday on CBS’s Face the Nation, Karen Tumulty of Time Magazine confronted Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, on the speech Tom DeLay gave to his organization:

And, Mr. Perkins, in a speech to your organization about a week ago, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay compared his own struggles right now with a series of ethical controversies with the Terri Schiavo case and said that it was all part of an attack on conservatism that he said was coming by essentially a liberal–the word he used was `syndicate.’ Do you, in fact, see Mr. DeLay’s circumstances and Terri Schiavo’s as being linked?

Perkins responded:

No. There was a mischaracterization of what Mr. DeLay said…And so there was–this was portrayed by this recording that was secretly taken of our event to show that he was trying to connect these two, which he is not…

What Tom DeLay actually said:

And so it’s bigger than any one of us, and we have to do everything that is in our power to save Terri Schiavo and anybody else that may be in this kind of position. And let me just finish with this: This is exactly the issue that’s going on in America. That attacks against the conservative movement, against me, and against many others.

On Thursday, privatization-pushers released a deceptive “research briefing” with excerpts from news stories on recent Social Security town-hall meetings. The article snippets give the impression that President Bush’s privatization plan enjoys nationwide backing; indeed, the document’s bold, italicized headline reads, “More Americans Support Call To Strengthen Social Security.”

Just one problem — several of the individuals quoted in the press release explain in the excerpted articles that they actually oppose privatization:

The pull-quote: Clif Smith, A Retiree From Joplin: “I Believe [Social Security] Needs Improved [Sic].”

The full quote:

“I believe it needs improved,” said Clif Smith, a retiree from Joplin, at the AARP gathering. “But nothing of the nature of what is being talked about in Washington.”

Smith said he opposes private accounts because he thinks they would drain money from the trust fund, but he said the fund itself should own stock.

+++

The pull-quote: “[Kimberly] Holloway Sees Advantages In Personal Accounts In That It Would Encourage More Savings And Financial Responsibility …”

The full quote:

Holloway sees advantages in personal accounts in that it would encourage more savings and financial responsibility, she said.

But she’s wary that this proposal feeds into the Bush administration’s trend to encourage self-centered thinking away from considering the welfare of the general society, she said.

“We all should care because you don’t know what (misfortune) will happen,” Holloway said. “Don’t fiddle with the social safety net.”

+++

The pull-quote: Scott Savelkol, Recent Graduate From Dickinson State University: “Doing Nothing Is Not An Option.”

The full quote:

Scott Savelkol, who recently graduated from Dickinson State University, said he also opposes to private accounts [sic]. He would prefer lawmakers lift a $90,000 cap on wages taxed for Social Security.

“Doing nothing is not an option,” Savelkol said.

Add conservative governors in Colorado, Nevada, and Idaho to the list of conservatives who are abandoning the ultra-right tax orthodoxy of Grover Norquist, and instead are raising taxes because they live in the real world.

“The federal cuts have been very difficult for states to manage,” said economist Bert Waisanen of the National Conference of State Legislatures. “Governors have to run programs like Medicaid, No Child Left Behind, homeland security. But there is less and less money coming from Washington to pay the bills.”

Norquist might scream at these governors, but he is obviously becoming increasingly marginal. That’s what happens when you get so insulated in Washington’s power structure you lose all touch with reality.