Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others.

As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor; let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own, and his children's liberty.

Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap; let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and Let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.

While ever a state of feeling, such as this, shall universally, or even, very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom.


- Abraham Lincoln, January 27, 1838
  Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Thank you to the handful; shame on the rest

Thank you to the THREE brave Republican senators who crossed the GOP partisan line and voted for our stimulus. Arlen Specter. Olympia Snowe. Susan Collins. Thank you for putting our national interests ahead of partisan politics.

I recently saw an op-ed by Specter in the Washington Post:

I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

The unemployment figures announced Friday, the latest earnings reports and the continuing crisis in banking make it clear that failure to act will leave the United States facing a far deeper crisis in three or six months. By then the cost of action will be much greater -- or it may be too late.

This reason makes sense. This reason is rational, and shows that Senator Specter recognizes the gravity of our national situation and cares about our collective survival.

So what is wrong with the rest of his party? Even my own Senator Lugar voted lockstep with his GOP peers, casting his vote against our bill.

The banks have their money (and are already back, asking for more.) But this bill was for the people; for all of us who were crushed when the greedy bankers and speculators ran amok under Bush and the GOP gilded age.

Yes, this mess was created by eight years of greedy excess, with no oversight and plenty of winks and nods from the GOP. I'm sure the seeds began long before W was elected. But removing all federal oversight turned a smoldering fire into a raging inferno. The fire has now spread across both oceans and has threatened the global economy.

Heckuva job, guys.

And so now we all turn to the government for help, as the only entity powerful enough to right our national ship. As Lincoln wisely noted: "If all men were just there would be some, although not as much need for government."

And all men are not just. Not even close. It only takes one Madoff - plundering without any apparent government oversight - to bring down benevolent giants.

That even Indiana's Senator Lugar couldn't bring himself to vote nonpartisan... this is a great disappointment. For me, this pretty well signals the final inglorious swan-dive of the GOP.

Due to GOP screaming, this bill is now laced with tax cuts that siphon money away from the programs we really need.

Tax cuts have never worked for anyone but the very rich - which is why the GOP supports them (when voting, they cater to their real base.) Now there is less stimulus money available for rebuilding our roads, dams, bridges and levees; improving our lagging educational system, our health care system (health care costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy in this nation,) and creating an alternative energy grid.

All of these desperately-needed projects create new jobs. They also will address our crumbling national infrastructure, which just wasn't a priority for the GOP. Apparently the wealthy never drive over out-dated bridges or live below aging damns.

Or reside below Gulf Coast levees.

But because they have a lot of money, they adore tax cuts. This is only logical. The more money you have, the higher your taxes. A tax relief check for most of us would barely pay off a credit card. This is supposed to stimulate our economy? No -- only satisfy the wealthy who fill the GOP political coffers.

Think about it. What is the point of a tax cut if you've lost your job due to a factory closing? How will a tax cut help you if you've already lost your home?

The GOP is dead. The die is cast.

Our entire state turned blue because people here are desperate for change, yet our remaining republican representatives still won't represent us. They stubbornly play political games while people here suffer and grow angrier by the day. I expect they will be out the door in the next election. We watch the president -- because we can see he is aware of our pain, listening and trying to help us -- we set our jaws, and we vow to do whatever we can do to make this work.

We will do it from the ground up; with federal assistance and a will to survive. And we will proceed without the GOP. They have rendered themselves obsolete as a force in American government, and the politics they hold more dear than anything else, including the best interests of our nation.

Rather than owning up to the failures of the last eight years - which they could at any point have addressed, to head this off - they stubbornly refuse to work with the Democratic majority that we elected (the majority of voters) and the ACTION that is being taken to address our national crisis.

By voting against our stimulus bill, they voted against the American people... hoping and betting that the economy won't turn around before the 2010 election; rearranging the political deck chairs as our nation sinks.

It appears they finally ripped off that American flag they've been hiding behind.

But thank you to the three senate republicans who stepped forward. History will remember you kindly. And we all owe you a debt of gratitude... and maybe even a thankful phone call.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, August 20, 2007

Tough talk (yawn)

Well, it appears that -- to no one's great surprise -- the White House 'missed' its 2:30 PM deadline to turn over documents providing legal justifications for the NSA's eavesdropping program to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Of course I can't imagine why they would have bothered. There are apparently no consequences for failing to do anything Congress demands. I'd be yawning too if I were the White House. This is all beginning to feel like a game: a game that has gone on so long that fans have either left the stadium or fallen asleep in their seats.

Senator Patrick Leahy has really had it this time. He's obviously hopping mad. He's going to start calling people names pretty soon if... oh wait; he's saying that the White House is in contempt of Congress?

No not exactly.

More talk. He's saying that their behavior; their stonewalling is in fact "contempt of the valid order of the Congress," and added that the subpoenas were passed by broad bipartisan votes.

And the consequences? Well... no word on that. Wake me up when we get to that part, will you?

Leahy pointed out that the Senate Judiciary Committee in the prior, conservative-led Congress, chaired by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), also attempted to ask questions about the program's legal justifications, but Cheney personally barred him from issuing subpoenas:

In fact, we were about to issue subpoenas then and one of the senators came to our meeting and said that the vice president had met with the Republican senators and told them they were not allowed to issue subpoenas.

Not quite sure that’s my understanding of the separation of powers, but it seemed to work at that time.

The funny thing is, I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference here. Once again the White House is saying 'no,' and nothing is happening.

So golly gee -- lay it on me Senator. Tell me what you're going to do for us next. Then tell us why we should believe it.


Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

I'm sure the Democrats will claim him, Fox!



Silly, silly Faux News... the antithesis of real news reporting. But always good for a laugh!

If you've ever noticed, any time a Republican steps out of line, the Fox ticker immediately labels him (or her) a Democrat. If a Democrat does something they like... they label him or her a Republican.

This one is my favorite!

Labels: ,

Breaking: House issues contempt citations to Miers, Bolton

CBS Radio has reported early this morning that the House Judiciary Committee has decided to hold Miers, a private citizen, and Bolten, the White House advisor, in contempt. Contempt citations could be handed out as early as today.

CBS also played the following statement from Senator Arlen Specter, which I can only speculate represents that the Senate signing off in support of this action. I think it is noteworthy that Specter himself - a ranking Republican - made the comment. This was probably intentional; to undercut any attempt by the White House to spin this as a partisan act.

That, and Specter is paying back a whole lot of IOUs to Cheney...

"If the White House does not allow the Justice department to enforce these citations, we can try them in the Senate, which I think could be very productive." - Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)

I often wonder if Arlen Specter will, almost singlehandedly, save what is left of the moderate sector of the Republican party. As much as the neocons confound us, we cheer Bruce Fein and Paul Craig Roberts when they speak out against the neocon element in their party.

Specter goes even further. Specter fights for the law. Specter fights for justice, habeas corpus, and has been resisting Cheney behind the scenes since well before the Democrats took over the majority. And he doesn't give a damn whether he is siding with Democrats, Republicans or French Poodles while he does it.

I really like this guy. He and Leahy are a terrific tag team. Dare I feel... hope?

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

He's really quite ridiculous



Transcripts of today's 'Gonzo grill' in the Senate are truly mesmerizing. I am amazed that the Senate still hasn't tossed the liar in a jail cell for contempt.

How much more of this can they take?

The man obviously cannot be embarrassed into telling the truth. He appears to know that nothing will be done no matter what he says. And yet... and yet... we get this:

Specter: How can you get approval from sedated Ashcroft?

Gonzales: Can I continue?

Specter: No, answer my question.

Gonzales: Obviously there was concern about Ashcroft's condition. There are no rules governing when Ashcroft decides he is well enough.

Specter: He had given us AG duties.

Gonzales: We knew he was ill...

Specter: Not making progress. Moving on. Do you think constitution govt can survive if Pres has unilateral authority to reject congress inquiries for Exec Privilege and prevent prosecution of claim?

Gonzales: Ongoing matter, I am recused, I cannot answer.

Specter: I am asking about constitutional law.

Gonzales: You are talking about an on-going issue.

Specter: No. Answer.

Gonzales: I won't answer - it is ongoing controversy and I am recused.

Leahy: Calls for decorum (room is protesting).

Specter: Won't pursue. This is hopeless. You are not just AG, you are a lawyer. This is a fundamental issues separate from USA resignations. Other subject. Do you have a conflict regarding the firing of US AGs?

Gonzales: Yes.

Specter: Do you have a conflict of interest about Miers?

Gonzales: Yes. I won't answer.

Specter: Let's find one you will answer. How about death penalty case? Charlton contacted your office and said case was not appropriate for dp. Testimony that AG spent 5-10 minutes on the issue...is this accurate?

Gonzales: I have no specific recollection of this case. But we have a detailed process for capital case review.

Specter: I am not interested in that. I want an answer to my question. You don't remember a case regarding a man's execution?

Gonzales: I have no recollection of the conversation.

Specter: Do you disagree with the testimony?

Gonzales: I can't agree or disagree.
He can't agree or disagree? Huh?

It gets even more ridiculous:

Schumer: I'll let you speak in a minute, but this is serious, because you're getting right close to the edge right here. You just said there was just one program -- just one. So the letter, which was, sort of, intended to deceive, but doesn't directly do so, because there are other intelligence activities, gets you off the hook, but you just put yourself right back on here.

Gonzales: I clarified my statement two days later with the reporter.

Schumer: What did you say to the reporter?

Gonzales: I did not speak directly to the reporter.

Schumer: Oh, wait a second -- you did not.

(LAUGHTER)

OK. What did your spokesperson say to the reporter?

Gonzales: I don't know. But I told the spokesperson to go back and clarify my statement...

Schumer: Well, wait a minute, sir. Sir, with all due respect -- and if I could have some order here, Mr. Chairman -- in all due respect, you're just saying, "Well, it was clarified with the reporter," and you don't even know what he said. You don't even know what the clarification is. Sir, how can you say that you should stay on as attorney general when we go through exercise like this, where you're bobbing and weaving and ducking to avoid admitting that you deceived the committee? And now you don't even know. I'll give you another chance: You're hanging your hat on the fact that you clarified the statement two days later. You're now telling us that is was a spokesperson who did it. What did that spokesperson say? Tell me now, how do you clarify this?

Gonzales: I don't know, but I'll find out and get back to you.

Pundits are losing their minds trying to find a way to spin this, or even simply cover it. I just laugh, shake my head... and wonder if maybe this time - this time - they will disbar him.

Is all of this for show? If so, it is a good one. An 'American Idol' for political pundits. Or perhaps the 'Gonzo Gong Show.'

Andrew Cohen from the Washington Post seems almost speechless with contempt:

Forget about the politicization of the Justice Department. Forget about the falling morale there. Forget about the rise in violent crime in some of our biggest cities. Forget about the events leading up to the U.S. Attorney scandal and the way he has handled the prosecutor purge since. Forget about the Department's role in allowing warrantless domestic surveillance. Forget about the contorted and contradictory accounts he's offered before in his own defense.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales deserves to be fired for his testimony Tuesday alone; for morphing into Jon Lovitz's famous "pathological liar" character (or maybe just one of the Marx Brothers) as he tried to dodge and duck responsibility before the Senate Judiciary Committee not just for his shameful leadership at Justice but also his shameless role in visiting an ailing John Ashcroft in the hospital to try to strong-arm him into renewing the warrantless surviellance program. Can anyone out there remember a worse, less-inspiring, less confidence-inducing performance on Capitol Hill? I cannot.

Neither can Gonzo. In fact, he couldn't remember much of anything today.

The most amazing thing (I think) to come out of today's testimony is proof that Cheney has been granted authority parallel with the President when it comes to intervening on pending matters at the Justice Department.

Now it's all starting to make sense, eh?

According to RAW STORY:

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) questioned the Attorney General about the independence of the Justice Department and communications with the White House on pending cases or investigations.

He then pointed to a May 4, 2006 memorandum signed by Gonzales which showed that the Office of the Vice President had been granted parallel privileges with the Executive Office of the President on communicating directly with the Justice Department's staff on criminal and civil matters.

"What - on earth - business does the Office of the Vice President have in the internal workings of the Department of Justice with respect to criminal investigations, civil investigations, and ongoing matters?" the Senator asked.

Gonzales was stumped, "As a general matter, I would say that's a good question."

Whitehouse then pointed out that in the same memo, the Chief of Staff and Counsel of the Vice President were also explicitly granted the same authority.

"On its face - I must say - sitting here, I'm troubled by this," Gonzales added.

Doh!

Whitehouse got the drop on the White House today - he came prepared. Here is a snip of the now famous memo that Gonzo can't recall ever seeing, or signing:



Catchy, huh?

Whitehouse went on to compare the Gonzales memo to the 'Ashcroft memo,' which allowed various members of the President's staff to communicate with the Justice Department. He then compared both memos with a letter written by Attorney General Janet Reno in 1994, which placed specific limitations on communications about pending cases to conversations between the White House Counsel or Deputy Counsel, the President or Vice President, and Attorney General or Deputy or Associate Attorney General. Not scores of miscellaneous staffers.

In other words... there was once a line between the judicial and the executive. I wonder, has that line now been irreparably blurred?

And now the kicker! From RAW STORY again:

In addition to granting the staff of the Office of the Vice President the ability to communicate with the Justice Department on civil and criminal matters, Gonzales' May 2006 memo gave Cheney's staff the ability to raise another issue with the Justice Department: 'Presidential Clemency Matters.'

Whether or not Cheney's office has intervened in discussions relating to presidential clemency has been of interest to Congress in recent weeks.

Before the White House commuted the sentence of former Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) of the House Judiciary Committee asked Cheney to recuse himself from internal White House deliberations on the subject.

White House spokesman Tony Snow did not rule out Cheney's engagement in the discussions on Libby when he discussed Bush's decision earlier in the month.

For once... no Snowjob?

Labels: , , , , , ,