Verbosities

Power Line: Monica Goodling speaks

I spent a substantial portion of the evening listening to Monica Goodling's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee from earlier today. Goodling was a Justice Department employee who served as liaison with the White House. She was involved in the process which led to the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys. Initially, she invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify. She testified today under a limited grant of immunity.

If the Democrats hoped that Goodling would assist them in their quest to oust or discredit Alberto Gonzales, I believe they will be disappointed. The portion of her testimony I heard did not advance the case against the Attorney General. I should add, though, that press accounts have her testifying about a conversation with Gonzales in which she felt uncomfortable. I'll provide an update if there is anything of significance there.

Well, that's not an unexpected take on the situation. It's been the opinion of the Republicans that "hey, everyone does it" when it comes to the politicization of the DOJ, but I appreciate that a right-wing blogger wants to put his thoughts - partisan perhaps, but not truly biased - into this matter.

I will not opine on the credibility of McNulty and Goodling (a client of my law firm) in this matter.

Oh. Nevermind. The one righty blogger I read who writes about it happens to own the law firm representing Goodling. No Hewitt coverage, no Reynolds, no Malkin, and no attention from Little Green Footballs (which isn't surprising, I suppose, because there were no brown people involved).

Powered by ScribeFire.

The entire government has failed us on Iraq - Countdown with Keith Olbermann - MSNBC.com

The Democratic nomination is likely to be decided... tomorrow.

The talk of practical politics, the buying into of the President’s dishonest construction “fund-the-troops-or-they-will-be-in-jeopardy,” the promise of tougher action in September, is falling not on deaf ears, but rather falling on Americans who already told you what to do, and now perceive your ears as closed to practical politics.

Those who seek the Democratic nomination need to—for their own political futures and, with a thousand times more solemnity and importance, for the individual futures of our troops—denounce this betrayal, vote against it, and, if need be, unseat Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi if they continue down this path of guilty, fatal acquiescence to the tragically misguided will of a monomaniacal president.

Don't ever say Olbermann never goes after the left after this. The triangulation and dancing on the head of a pin is sickening. That people believe the troops will be left unequipped, stranded, and in unnecessary danger if a blank check doesn't hit the president's desk is an absolute travesty of dishonest marketing-speak which has turned the entire issue into a discussion not about the legitimacy and/or righteousness of a war, but instead about the safety and support of our troops in the middle of it.





Glenn Greenwald - Salon

What does seem clear is that one of the principal factors accounting for the reluctance of Democrats to advocate de-funding is that the standard corruption that infects our political discourse has rendered the de-funding option truly radioactive. Republicans and the media have propagated -- and Democrats have frequently affirmed -- the proposition that to de-fund a war is to endanger the "troops in the field."



This unbelievably irrational, even stupid, concept has arisen and has now taken root -- that to cut off funds for the war means that, one day, our troops are going to be in the middle of a vicious fire-fight and suddenly they will run out of bullets -- or run out of gas or armor -- because Nancy Pelosi refused to pay for the things they need to protect themselves, and so they are going to find themselves in the middle of the Iraq war with no supplies and no money to pay for what they need. That is just one of those grossly distorting, idiotic myths the media allows to become immovably lodged in our political discourse and which infects our political analysis and prevents any sort of rational examination of our options.



That is why virtually all political figures run away as fast and desperately as possible from the idea of de-funding a war -- it's as though they have to strongly repudiate de-funding options because de-funding has become tantamount to "endangering our troops"

This isn't a pass for the Democrats. Olbermann's dead right when he asserts that the people elected the Democratic majority to end this war. You can talk about the weakness of the majority and inability to override vetoes all you want, but we're nearly six months into this legislature's tenure, and there's not a single pelt on the walls of Pelosi or Reid that symbolizes a victory on the issue of Iraq*. There hasn't been political retribution that forces the administration to triangulate their position, there's no bitter pill for them to swallow, nothing.



What's the consequence of sending the same supplemental Bush vetoed back to him two, three, eleven more times until he's forced to sign it? That you'll have to go on the Sunday shows to explain yourselves? That in the next election cycle your move to end the war will be painted as "weak on national security?" That somehow you believe the talking points shift to assign Democrats all the "blame" for the failures in Iraq if you legislate the withdrawal?



I think the leadership believes Bush is not only continuing to singe his political legacy, but is torching the whole of the Republican party by association. I think the leadership is confident the handling of this war won't improve the situation, and I think they think 2008's election cycle could result in a Democratic administration and even a Democratic super-majority in both houses.



I still think it's bullshit. Democratic legislators were elected to end this war. So end it already - it's what we're paying you to do.



*Nor is there a pelt on Waxman's wall yet, but I think he's a hell of a lot closer with his oversight than Pelosi and Reid are on the war.

Powered by ScribeFire.

An Exclusive Interview with Senator Mike Gravel

Gatto: Great answer Senator. I have seen what Cocaine, Heroin and Meth do to good people. What would you do to stop the abuse of these drugs if they are legalized?

Senator Gravel: First of all, I do have a program to legalize the regulation of hard drugs. I think we ought to stop the prohibition of Marijuana and let marijuana be sold in liquor stores. You get a much bigger high off of drinking a fifth of scotch, than you would off a couple of packs of marijuana. That’s why it should be legalized. Now the regulation, the legalization of hard drugs is a whole other matter. What we have to do is stop criminalizing this whole drug problem, the addiction problem. This is a public health problem. It’s not a criminal problem.

Get him out of the debates and put him on the ticket. Post haste*. Good lord is it refreshing to hear a candidate say this out loud and not dance around it with platitudes.

*I'm about 14% serious, but it's still good to hear.

Powered by ScribeFire.

He thought the fun would be watching Obama and Hillary take shots at each other. Guess someone else is getting in on the intra-party fun.

Dodd Hits Airwaves, Blasts Hillary And Obama | TPMCafe

Fun fact: If you glue a cottonball to your finger and draw a little face, you too can have your own Chris Dodd finger puppet!

Just make sure to use black felt-tip for the eyebrows.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Campaign for America's Future

If the media does not start connecting some dots, they will have abdicated their citizenzship duties. How many times has the nation potentially come within a hair's breadth of suffering a... terrorist attack this spring? As of today, three, or possibly six times - at least that we know about.

Double-standard at play, clear as a day if you're wondering. The whole story gives some perspective.

Powered by ScribeFire.

FRAMESHOP by Jeffrey Feldman

But let's not lose sight of what is happening here. Harry Reid is not making a mistake. The Congressional Dems have not suddenly become "caved" in the face of Bush's supposed political strength. The opposite is true. Not only are the Dems generating more power each time they return a bill to Bush's desk, but they make it easier to see that the Iraq policy itself has become a symptom of the weaknesses that Bush has forced on America's federal system.

The mistake Congressional Dems have made is that they get the argument about building and re-balancing power implicitly, but if they need to do a much better job of saying it out loud--at saying that the Iraq policy is not the result of the success and power of the Bush administration, but an expression--a symptom--of the weakness in our constitutional system caused by Bush.

...and we are all dumber for having heard it.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Hullabaloo - Liberation

This is why I have contempt for tribalism, fundamentalism and authoritarianism. When it gets right down to it, it's always, in the end, about mob rule. A gang of violent bullies, often at the behest of some authority figure, "sends a message" by publicly humiliating, maiming or killing one of their own who had the temerity to fail to properly conform. Whether for God or country or tribe, it's always some poor victim, lying on the ground, covering his or her head, surrounded by people who have turned into animals.

There are a lot of manifestations of this particular human organizational style, some much more sophisticated and stylized. The violence becomes more ritualized and the humiliation takes other forms but underneath it all, the same impulse to dominate drives a fair number of people of all cultures. It's just a matter of degree.

This is the reason why it's so important to preserve our secular, reason-based constitution and fight against this horror of government endorsed torture and indefinite imprisonment. It is a very, very thin line between civilization and barbarism and every step we take away from the rule of law is a step toward becoming that primitive mob of killers. After all, I'm sure they felt justified too.

For example, this is what drives a talk show host to assert that an ex-president is a terrorist sympathizer, or is at the very least speaking for "another team." Let's stop short of hyperbole and call that "tribalism" instead of "authoritarianism," although certainly the means of one serve the ends of the other.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Italics his, emphasis mine:



Glenn Greenwald - The Islamic enemy within - Salon

The frothing, drooling anti-Islamic hysteria that one finds from Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and right-wing blogs -- not to mention pandering, craven GOP presidential candidates -- is so unhinged and cartoon-like that there is a temptation not to take it seriously, to do nothing but mock it.

But there is something rather extraordinary taking place. Presidential candidates of the political party that has dominated our country for the last two decades are competing with each other to prove who will most aggressively embrace policies such as torture and indefinite detention well beyond even what the Bush administration has ushered in. And this is occurring in the midst of still new extraordinary emergency presidential powers, along with allowing the Bush administration's radical framework of presidential omnipotence, constructed over the last six years, to remain largely undisturbed. The tenor of our political discourse becomes increasingly unrecognizable -- mainstream presidential candidates openly and happily advocate torture and life imprisonment with no charges while the audience wildly cheers.

The U.S. already has at least 14,000 people held in detention around the world without charges of any kind -- the vast, vast majority of them Muslim, many of whom have been tortured. And yet, there is a sizable portion of the country -- and clearly large portions of the GOP base -- which believe we have been too restrained against our Islamic Enemy, that we need more torture and more detentions and still fewer restraints, that the principal failing of the Bush administration is that they have been too meek and too compromising when dealing with the Great Islamic Threat.

Right, and just so we're clear, they don't hate us because we take Muslim men off the street, throw them in secret prisons, beat the shit out of them, and never charge them with a crime. They hate us because of Queer Eye For The Straight Guy.

As always, a great read.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Hugh Hewitt

This may seem odd, but I believe the employer penalties for record-keeping violations should be struck from the bill. The burden-shifting to business of enforcing the immigration laws is going to be large in any event, but to impose on businesses the absurd paperwork completion and storage requirements --backed by a $1,000 per incident fine-- empowers bureaucrats to punish any employer they take a disliking to. Keep Mike Nifong in mind when you consider how abusive such a requirement could be made to be even for employers who cannot be shown to have employed a single illegal alien.

Wait, so it is possible for an attorney tasked to prosecute the laws of the land to have a political agenda that could result in abusive and retaliatory prosecutions against those who may not have broken the law? Quelle fromage!

I kid, I kid. Actually, I tend to agree that shifting the burden to the employer can result in some unintended consequences, including what Hugh's getting at above.

He's got some interesting thoughts on the immigration bill in this post, although this attraction to building walls and fences from the right has become almost white noise at this point for as often as I'm reading about it. Fences don't solve problems. Lawless posses of vigilante Texans solve problems Economic reform solves problems, but since we're unwilling and likely not dumb enough to go there, this current shrieking that "something has to be done about this!" has wrought what it is that we're seeing under debate now.

Here's a couple of his proposals for amendments (as if Hugh Hewitt can propose amendments):

An amendment to establish a special category of illegal aliens which includes all males between the ages of 18 and 30 from countries with significant jihadist networks, with that list of countries to be determined by the DoD, the CIA and State. No probationary Z visas under Section 601(h) would issue to such illegals.

I've been on the fence for awhile regarding profiling, mainly because I don't like the fact that it'll be politicians responsible for its legislation. While the whole lefty ideal of "multiculturalism" seems to be a noble cause on its face, it's also responsible for our society's tepid response to the encroachment of intolerant religiosity in our culture.

I tend to almost agree with an article (which I've linked previously) from Positive Liberty called "While Europe Slept," which argued that the founding fathers didn't have a vested interest in one religion over another, but instead managed to weave Enlightenment principles of equality into their invocations of religion in order to promote and support the reasonable, tolerant and respectful free exercise of religion for all.

In other words, they knew that freedom meant the government must not endorse such views as the pious and hardline writings of John Calvin who preached heresy for those who might deny the Trinity. Their interest was in the freedom for all to worship in their preferred style, free from governmental coercion.

The last three paragraphs are essentially my way of pussyfooting around what to some is an obvious truth - that Muslim hardliners who immigrate, yet refuse to adapt to and adopt Western culture as their own will likely push a wedge between their descendents and ours as the years progress. We're seeing this in Europe now, and it has been brewing in the States for awhile too.

Let's be clear that so long as moderate Muslims refuse to marginalize their fringes, these fringes will continue to benefit from what is ostensibly begrudging approval from the centrists in their culture. I could say the same thing about Christians as well, who are by no means off the hook for Falwell and Robertson, Rushdoony and Dobson. So long as an appreciation of multiculturalism appears to be a value in this culture, and so long as centrist Muslims do not realize the consequences of refusing to take the political and economic control away from those that appeal to their fringes, there's no chance radical Islam is relegated to the dustbin of history.

My answer is clearly anti-multicultural, and nearly impossible. We must, as a people, decide to shed the yoke of irrational belief, and marginalize, disenfranchise, and otherwise dismiss all who would purport to be a vessel of an imaginary creator*. Since this ain't happening in anyone's lifetime, we're basically left with one chance to get it right on immigrants up front, and that's probably going to be done via profiling.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to carefully vet the Kurds, Pakistanis and Bosnians than it does to pretend Jose from Juarez wants to do more than take a bus to Washington to pick some apples.

*You heard me. We'd be a better people if we were all rational atheists. Give me two or three Manhattans and an hour or two of your time over some hot wings (your treat) if you want to know more, because this isn't one of those things you're going to catch me writing about at any length.

Construction of at least half of the double-fencing prior to the issuance of a single probationary visa, and completion of all 800+ miles of the double fencing prior to the issuance of any 4 year Z visa or any Y visa.

What is it with you people and your fencing?

A detailed statement of how and by whom the millions of background checks and interviews called for by the act are to be done, with funding authorized and allocated to support such obligations. This should also be a trigger.

Let's do the math... There's 12 million illegals, allegedly. Assume 33% apply for their Z visa. That's four million background checks and interviews. Which government agency is going to process four million checks and interviews? Even if that's only 15 minutes spent per application (and you know sure as hell it's going to take more than that to handle this), that's ONE MILLION BUREAUCRATIC MAN HOURS dedicated to just this task. Assume that we hire a dedicated staff at a $30,000 salary to handle these ONE MILLION BUREAUCRATIC MAN HOURS, and assume they work forty hour weeks for the whole of the 52 week year without vacation. That's 481 people working non-stop, doing nothing but this for one full year at a cost of $14.43 million dollars.

Now consider the efficiency of the governmental bureaucracy, and multiply the cost, personnel and man hours necessary by a factor of whatever-the-hell-you-think-is-egregious. I'm totally down with Hugh on this one. I'd like to know how they're going to do this with the intention of having a rigorous check on backgrounds and criminal records.

The elimination of social security credits for years worked as an illegal, and the payment --perhaps over a term of years-- of at least 50% of unpaid back taxes

I'm on board with the first part. I don't care if their paychecks already had that Social Security money factored out. If they can't prove they paid taxes, they don't get the future benefits that period of work would ostensibly provide. Now, if they can prove that their migrant labor job paid so little that they weren't going to be on the hook for taxes anyway, then they can positively apply to have those benefits carry forward.

The back taxes thing seems like an unfair burden, although one on which I can see both sides. On one hand, after jumping through bureaucratic hoops and paying your $5,000 fine for visa/citizenship application (I think that's what it is), you're now stuck with fifty percent of eight years of back taxes to pay? Isn't the $5k enough of a penalty? On the other hand, paying taxes fucking sucks, but is a necessary evil. They are our membership fees for taking part in the services provided by this country. I have to pay them, so why don't you?

Back to the topic of background checks and interviews, one more place Hewitt nails it:

If we put the right people in charge of the regularization process and empower them to make decisions on the spot, during the top level analysis of the vast majority of Z visa applications, a sizeable portion of the initial workload would vanish. It simply does not take much deliberation, for example, to decide to give a Z visa to a long term employee of a reputable company who is a 49 year old Mexican who is married and has three children born in this country. If the first round of determinations simply sorted the Z visa applicants into "approved" and "further study " piles, we might get to a manageable number.

Who could be trusted to make such decisions? Let me introduce you to the thousands of retired field officers in this country. A two to three year program employing them for their leadership and judgment skills to conduct the regularization program wopuld make enormous sense and give the program at least a decent shot of succeeding, and do so without overwhelming our law enforcement agencies with the nuts and bolts of regularization.

Here here. Hugh's suggesting profiling, and framing it as positive profiling (you look okay, go on by), but as I said above, I tend to agree with him on the point. Plus, I have a couple of retired field officers in the extended family, and these guys are some of the best men I know. Every state has a brigade of such guys who'd likely be thrilled to come off the bench to push paper around for a couple years to make sure things get done right. If we can deputize the forces and allow them to positively profile the easy cases, kicking the more difficult and questionable ones up the line for review, this likely won't be a big strain on the bureaucracy at all.

(Sheesh, look at me agreeing with a conservative talk show host...)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Michelle Malkin: The AP gets the headline wrong

"Most U.S. Muslims reject suicide bombings," AP reports.

Here's what should be headlined from the article about a new Pew poll (which you can find here):

Headline:

"One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances..."

Headline:

While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.

That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.

"It is a hair-raising number," said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.

Headline:

Only 5 percent of U.S. Muslims expressed favorable views of the terrorist group al-Qaida, though about a fourth did not express an opinion.

That's about 29 percent of U.S. Muslims surveyed who have favorable or unknown views about al Qaeda.

Headline: Nearly Three in Ten U.S. Muslims have favorable views/no opinion of al Qaeda.

Yes, that's hair-raising.

Sure, but it's still less than a majority.


Update:


lgf: AP Spins in Both Directions

The Associated Press seems to be having a little trouble deciding how to spin the new Pew Research survey.

One hour and 52 minutes ago, the headline was:

Most U.S. Muslims reject suicide bombings.

Thirty-five minutes ago, the same story was re-released:

Some US Muslims justify suicide attacks.

Oy.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Daily Kos: A Collapse for Democrats

This situation is a collapse for Democrats. We had a strong start, pushed back against the President’s failed policy and held our ground that the supplemental should include binding language to end the war. But now, as Congress gets ready to send the President a bill that does nothing to get our troops out of Iraq, we are just folding our cards.

Duh.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Excusing, for a moment, the invocation of Orwell in the title of the post I'm linking below, when are we as a people going to decide that we're going to draw a line on how far the government can go in their domestic eavesdropping?



Gonzales proposing new Orwellian thought crimes law - AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth

At what point do these so-called conservatives out there plan to speak up against this crap?

From CNet, then my analysis:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is pressing the U.S. Congress to enact a sweeping intellectual-property bill that would increase criminal penalties for copyright infringement, including "attempts" to commit piracy.... The Bush administration is throwing its support behind a proposal called the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007, which is likely to receive the enthusiastic support of the movie and music industries, and would represent the most dramatic rewrite of copyright law since a 2005 measure dealing with prerelease piracy....

The IPPA would, for instance:

* Criminalize "attempting" to infringe copyright. Federal law currently punishes not-for-profit copyright infringement with between 1 and 10 years in prison, but there has to be actual infringement that takes place....

* Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations. Wiretaps would be authorized for investigations of Americans who are "attempting" to infringe copyrights....

* Allow computers to be seized more readily. Specifically, property such as a PC "intended to be used in any manner" to commit a copyright crime would be subject to forfeiture, including civil asset forfeiture....

* Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. That would happen when CDs with "unauthorized fixations of the sounds, or sounds and images, of a live musical performance" are attempted to be imported.

Oh where to begin?

First off, what this legislation is really about: The Homeland Security department getting carte blanche authorization to fish through your computer and tap your phones with impunity, whenever they want, so long as they argue that they think you might have ever tried to download even a single song via Limewire or some of other music-sharing software, or have ever copied a photo off the Internet, or even watched a single clip from any TV show on YouTube. They're going to use this legislation to hunt for terrorists, and won't need search warrants, etc. That's what this is about.

Take off your partisan cheerleader sweater and drop the pom-pons for a second. Someday there will be an administration in office with whom you do not blindly agree, and someday that administration is going to take a law like this and use it as a blanket excuse to do something with which you do not agree. Something like blackmailing a political opponent, digging up dirt on a journalist, or ginning up charges against an opposition group perhaps. It doesn't even have to be an administration either, in these days of NSL abuse it could be a bureaucrat in a non-elected/non-appointed position in an intelligence agency digging up dirt on his ex-girlfriend for all we know.

Terrorism is a problem, but it's sold to us as a much larger problem than it really is. Septicemia and nephritis have killed more people per year than terrorism ever has, and I don't even know what those things are! You're not going to find anyone besides the staunchest and most pure libertarians out there who believes we shouldn't improve our ability and agility to protect ourselves through intelligence, I concede this point gladly. But what is it about us as a people at this point of world history that is causing us to give in to our most basic authoritarian impulses?

Why in god's name in this post-Watergate era should we ever trust the government to always protect our privacy and never abuse the myriad of powers we seem to be willing to grant them to do whatever the hell they have to do without warrants or oversight?

I've got one piece of advice for the DOJ and Homeland Security: Spin your wheels fighting nephritis instead. It sounds really awful and scary, and maybe we can fix that without giving a bureaucrat the ability to see what his downstairs neighbor is downloading off the Internet.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Verbosities - Carter plays for himself, not the U.S.

Carter is still stuck on his own thought of what peace is. Just as he did then, he does now. He cannot distinguish ally from enemy.

Just so we're clear, the "enemy" is a dissenting opinion, and the "ally" is blind fealty. That's what modern media punditry would have you believe, I suppose.

Or, to summarize StB, Carter was a terrible President who has opinions I disagree with and wrote a book he had to apologize for. He should shut up and suck it, because dissent isn't what we do on Team USA these days...

Powered by ScribeFire.

Via Instapundit:


Jackson Sun - www.jacksonsun.com - Jackson, TN

CHICAGO - The immigration reform bill worked out late last week by Senate Republicans and Democrats likely will fail, former senator and possible presidential candidate Fred Thompson said here Sunday.

Thompson, speaking at the National Restaurant Association annual show, said the bill will not win the support of the American people because they don't trust senators' promises to block illegal immigrants from crossing the Mexican border into the U.S.

"Nobody believes them. It goes to the bigger issue of the lack of credibility our government has these days," said Thompson, who was greeted with hoots and applause from the 2,300 convention attendees who filled a ballroom at the McCormick Place convention center.

If you've ever worked a day in the restaurant industry, you're probably aware that a significant portion of the grunt work from grilling to cleaning is done by immigrants - some legal, some illegal. Now, the immigration bill that will soon be under debate is bad for the National Restaurant Association, as it puts the burden of proof back on the employer to make sure that all immigrants hired have their paperwork in order. Since there's probably not a single Denny's or Carl's Junior up the west coast who hasn't turned a blind eye to paperwork compliance in the past, the penalties for being caught employing an illegal would be a major sticking point for the NRA (no, the other one). Illegal immigrants make up some significant percentage of the restaurant workforce nationwide, and it's likely that this industry organization would rather see open borders than not.

And, just like Fred, they'd like to see this particular bill killed off in Congress.

This reporter, however, would have you believe that this quote: "Nobody believes them. It goes to the bigger issue of the lack of credibility our government has these days," is based on a premise delivered in the speech that we can't trust Senators to block illegal immigrants from coming across the border.

Let me go out on a limb, just for the record, and guess that Fred never said that in his speech, as he's been fairly substanceless in his two major speeches so far in his non-campaign campaign. While it's a near certainty that Thompson and the NRA (no, the other one) would both find reason to oppose this bill, it's likely not at all for the same reasons. Freddie was probably purposefully obtuse in his speech, the reporter went to an aide for clarity on the statement after the speech, and the reporter then harnessed the policy back to the phrasing in an ex post facto sort of revisionism.

In other words, I'd bet you a dollar right now there's no way a non-campaigning campaign stop is going to feature a speech that goes out of its way to oppose the policy ideals of the organization to which the non-campaigning campaigner is speaking. Highly, highly unlikely.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Why Bush hasn't been impeached | Salon.com

Why? Why was Clinton, who was never as unpopular as Bush, impeached for lying about sex, while Bush faces no sanction for the far more serious offense of lying about war?

The main reason is obvious: The Democrats think it's bad politics. Bush is dying politically and taking the GOP down with him, and impeachment is risky. It could, so the cautious Beltway wisdom has it, provoke a backlash, especially while the war is still going on. Why should the Democrats gamble on hitting the political jackpot when they're likely to walk away from the table big winners anyway?

Because it's the right thing to do? Because, god forbid, you'd be showing the spine and leadership we thought you had when we elected you? Because this administration's callous disregard of civil liberties and the Constitution are in need of being exposed to those in this country who still don't get it? There's three good reasons right there...

Powered by ScribeFire.

FOXNews.com - Cops Investigate Nude Photos of Nursing Home Residents - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

IOWA CITY, Iowa — Authorities in Iowa are investigating a case of nursing home residents being photographed in the nude.

Over the weekend, officials identified three of four nursing home residents who were photographed naked.

Powered by ScribeFire.

From FoxNews no less...

FOXNews.com - Straight Talk: Paul Has a Point - Blog | Blogs | Popular Blogs | Video Blogs

But let's get back to Rep. Paul. After last week's debate, reaction to Paul from pro-war types was swift and severe. The head of the Michigan GOP demanded he be excluded from future debates.

Several activists have called for him to be purged from the Republican Party (given what the GOP stands for these days, perhaps that's not such a bad idea). One former staffer declared Paul an "embarrassment" and announced he'd challenge Paul for his seat in Congress.

This is all patently absurd. Actually, it's offensive. No one knows precisely what morbid formula inspired the Sept. 11 attacks. Most likely, it was some mix of U.S. foreign policy exacerbating radical Islamists' already deep-seeded contempt for Western values.

But to suggest that we shouldn't even consider that our actions overseas might have unintended consequences is, frankly, just ignorant. And to attempt to silence anyone who says otherwise as outside the bounds of civilized debate is doubly ignorant.

If you get stung by a hornet, it makes sense to see if there's a hornets' nest near your home and, if there is, to exterminate it. It doesn't make sense to forge out looking for hornets' nests anywhere you can find them, smacking them with sticks. You're bound to get stung again.

It also makes sense to see if there's something you're doing that's attracting hornets, like perhaps storing perfume by a window. None of this suggests you deserved to be stung; it only means you're rationally looking at what caused you to be stung in the first place and trying to prevent it from happening again.

Powered by ScribeFire.

CQPolitics.com - Keystone Dems Steeling for Run at Rep. Dent After Failed ’06 Bid

House Democratic strategists have few regrets about their political strategy in the 2006 election, in which they captured 30 Republican-held seats and a majority of seats overall.

But in hindsight, they must wish they had a do-over in Pennsylvania’s 15th District, where a stronger Democratic campaign might have toppled freshman Republican Rep. Charlie Dent amid the worst national political environment for the GOP in decades.

Dent won a second term last November with a modest 53.6 percent of the vote against little-known Democrat Charles Dertinger, a county councilman who spent just $89,000 — compared with $1.3 million for the Republican incumbent. Dertinger took 43.5 percent of the vote despite becoming the party’s nominee by waging a write-in campaign in the primary, in which no Democrat even filed to run.

Republican strategists acknowledge that the district is politically competitive. Pennsylvania’s 15th is one of just eight in the nation that voted Democratic for president in 2004 but is currently represented by a Republican in the House. But GOP officials counter that it would be a mistake to extrapolate the political environment of 2006 ahead to the 2008 election.

No Democratic candidate in the primary? Really? Just an idle thought here, but it'd be kind of cool to run for the House, wouldn't it? There's no way I'd be a palatable candidate for the Dems, with the minor skeletons in the closet and more conservative economic ideals, but the fact that the party didn't put anyone up in the primary is a real oddity.

A sincere part of the problem with PA-15 politics is that we're essentially the forgotten country up here in terms of media. We've got a local station, if you want to call it that, but our network channels are out of Philly, to whom Southern New Jersey and Delaware seem to be more important. So our race didn't get a lot of attention, and I can't actually remember seeing ads for Dent or Dertinger on the TV (and there were A LOT of ads on the TV) during election season. It's not a glamorous area, it's not a glamorous race, and it's a fairly evenly-divided and fickle sort of population.

Maybe one day it'll be Representative BG: The Great Allentown Uniter. Heh...

Powered by ScribeFire.

Media Matters - Jim Cramer on MSNBC

ROBACH: I also think it's funny that Jimmy Carter, of all people, is telling people who the worst president in history is. If he could recall -- maybe, I don't know -- did -- was that threat -- or that was leveled against him as well, correct?



GEIST: Yeah, he's looking for a successor, I think. He wants somebody to fill his shoes.



ROBACH: He's giving the tiara --



GEIST: Exactly.



ROBACH: -- to President Bush.



GEIST: Exactly.



CRAMER: Who does he play for, Carter? Does he play for himself? Does he play for another nation? Does he play for his own fifth column? Who is he speaking for?



ROBACH: He's working on his legacy, I don't know.



GEIST: Yeah, legacy. He wants to be the greatest ex-president of all time --



ROBACH: Right.



GEIST: -- because he wasn't the greatest president of all time -- clearly, maybe the worst. He wants to be the greatest ex-president of all time.



I think he'd tell you he plays for us. A lot of people would disagree

I swear to god if I were CEO of General Electric, Geist and Cramer would be off my airwaves so fast they wouldn't even be able to stand in the crowd outside the "Today" show.



Who are these "a lot of people" who think Jimmy Carter's not "playing for our team?" If this is a fair piece of commentary, who is this other team he's presumably playing for? Is it al Qaeda? Maybe, if you're being charitable, the French?



Why is this acceptable discourse? Christ, no one is saying you have to agree with Carter, and no one is saying that his opinions are on some pedastal above reproach, but the insinuation that criticism of our Noble and Just Leader means you must be speaking for "them" and not "us?" This is the fundamental problem with TV and radio punditry at this point. It's full of this hyperbolic bullshit that's simple-minded, polemic, nasty, semi-sarcastic, and specifically designed to appeal to the basest instincts of people already predisposed to agree with the viewpoint presented.



If Rush Limbaugh were as dry as a BookTV interview on a C-Span Saturday morning, he'd have been off the air a long time ago. I get that. But I maintain that these sorts of base and patently false associations are slanderous at best, dangerous at worst. Jimmy Carter may very well be the worst president ever, I accept that as a talking point, and I accept the irony of the possible worst president ever trying to crown the guy who's washing the taste of Carter out of America's collective mouth. I get that, and there's humor that can be mined out of that irony. Hell, I find it funny.



But it is not the least bit funny to accuse a Nobel Prize-winning democratically elected former leader of this country of speaking for the terrorists (or whoever this presumed "other team" is supposed to be). Actually, it's not the least bit funny to baselessly accuse any American citizen of speaking for the terrorists. It's not funny, and it's not serious. It's patently lazy and slanderous, and in my eyes is far far worse than anything Imus ever said to get kicked off the airwaves.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Current Legislators React to Allegations Against Ted Klaudt | KSFY.com

"Obviously a tragic situation." State Senator Dave Knudson says the situation surrounding Ted Klaudt raises a lot of questions.

"Certainly as a legislator it makes you wonder about whether we need strengthened oversight in the foster care areas," he says.

But to Senator Knudson, it also raises questions about a code of ethics that he says the state legislature needs.

"I do think the code of ethics is an idea who's time has come," says Sen. Knudson.

After the Senator Dan Sutton hearings on accusations of inappropriate conduct with a male legislative page, and now this, Knudson says it's an issue that needs to be addressed.

But he says the Ted Klaudt case is a lot different.

"It seems to me much more than legislator/page issues, but between a foster parent and foster child, so I don't know that anything the legislature could do in terms of codes of ethics would be able to have any meaningful impact on a foster parent/foster child relationship," said Sen. Knudson.

So he's a rapist... eh, whatareyougonnado?

(h/t Jesus' General)

Powered by ScribeFire.

First the news breaks that a supplemental without timelines will be passed, now this:

The Gavel » Blog Archive » “We Will Have No Alternative…”

Today, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sánchez sent a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, offering the White House one last chance at cooperation with the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the US Attorney firings

Hooray for another strongly-worded letter!

As you know, we first wrote to you on March 9, 2007, in an effort to obtain your voluntary cooperation with our investigation.

Hooray for a 75 day toothless dog and pony show!

Aye, 'tis truly a great day for Democratic leadership.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Dems set war bill without Iraq timeline - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON - In grudging concessions to
President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an
Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.

Nice leadership. Real nice.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Crooks and Liars » Bush Wants Full Control Of Government During Catastrophic Attack

Via The Progressive:



With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.

Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

He laid this all out in a document entitled “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”

Powered by ScribeFire.

Power Line: Duncan Hunter Goes Live

In the first two Republican Presidential debates, one of the most impressive participants has been Congressman Duncan Hunter. As I've said a couple of times, Hunter's demeanor and command of the issues are such that, if you didn't know who are considered to be the "first tier" candidates, you would assume that he is one of them.

Yeah, uh huh. He's looked pretty invisible to me, but what do I know? I'm not a righty, but I'll take a Republican's unbiased and totally unassociated opinion on this. It's not like these guys have anything to gain by promoting a back-of-the-pack candidate, right?

We are happy to say that Congressman Hunter has opened up a site on the Power Line Candidates' Forum. Congressman Hunter's site is here. Please visit Congressman Hunter's site, let him know how you think his campaign is doing, and see what he has to say about the issues facing our country.

Oh. Nevermind.

Powered by ScribeFire.

A Bit Late? Washington Post Discovers The Digital Divide -- Balloon Juice

investigative reporters at the Washington Post have found that online Democrats run circles around the GOP.

[snip]

As the old saw goes, ask three Democrats and get four opinions. The flip side of that has long helped to explain the huge popularity of conservatism in the old media. As demonstrated exhaustively by researchers like Bob Altmeyer, conservative followers like being told what to think and conservative leaders don’t tolerate input from the masses. In that way radio is the perfect medium, sending the Party line through a select group of reliable disseminators to the polloi with little chance for feedback, which liberals value but authoritarians hate. It helps explain why few conservative blogs allow comments and why Clear Channel radio often jettisons popular local conservatives to make room for a Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage monoculture. Feedback is a bug and the more mouthpieces you have the harder it gets to control the Party line.

An interesting take on the reason for the digital divide - both from Balloons Juice and the WaPo. Republicans have done a much better job of organizing and homogenizing the channels of communication (his point about radio), which was a strategy that worked brilliantly when media was simply print, TV and radio. The Internet isn't an easy place to control a message, but it's still interesting to me that the divide between the left and right is as enormous online as it is.

Who is the reasonable right-wing analyst of policy and the judiciary that Glenn Greenwald is? Who is the analogous right-wing reporter to Marshall at Talking Points Memo? Who on the right is turning dense political trial reporting on its head the way Firedoglake did?

Hugh Hewitt seems reasonable, as does the Balloon Juice site, but between the link-it-and-leave style of Instapundit, the breathless xenophobia of Little Green Footballs and the non-satirical giggle fits side-by-side with the finger-pointing nastiness of Michelle Malkin, it seems like the more reknown sites on the right don't have as much substance as they could.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Gingrich: Fight 'radical secularism' - A Concord Monitor Article - Your News Source - Concord NH 03301

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich told Liberty University's graduating class yesterday to honor the spirit of school founder Jerry Falwell by confronting "the growing culture of radical secularism" with Christian ideals.

Right, you'd assume they'd trot out "radical secularism" at Liberty. No biggie.

A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded," Gingrich said. "We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights.

"In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive and that public debate can only proceed on secular terms," he said.

Oh no! Not the founding fathers and the ten commandments and Jesus and all that! Yeah, yeah - same speech, different graduating class.

Gingrich said after his speech that Falwell's death would not slow the Christian right's efforts.

"Anybody on the left who hopes that when people like Reverend Falwell disappear that the opportunity to convert all of America has gone with them fundamentally misunderstands why institutions like this were created," Gingrich said.

Wait, WHAT?

Freedom of whatever you want, so long as you agree with Newt. And, apparently, Falwell. Oy.

(h/t Think Progress)

Powered by ScribeFire.

The tortuous road to Tehran | Salon.com

With the prospect of a third round of United Nations sanctions in the coming weeks over Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, Ahmadinejad's government will continue to look for ways to divert attention from the harmful stagnation of its policies. Since Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005, Iranians have had to suffer worsening unemployment, inflation and a sputtering economy. They have been told they may have to suffer further sanctions in the name of unity and nuclear pride, but at the same time they now see the U.S. reaching out to their government, albeit while making a fist with the other hand. They are not necessarily willing to have improved relations with the West at any cost, but impatience with Ahmadinejad is growing by the day, and average Iranians want the matter settled, one way or another, sooner rather than later, so they and their government can get back to improving their lives.

An interesting one-page read on how our recent mixed-messages regarding how we feel about Iran ("Axis of Evil" vs. sending Condoleeza Rice to meet their envoy) is probably an inadvertantly intelligent way to handle our foreign relations.

A vacillation between threats of war and diplomatic engagement may hurt the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because it helps preserve a stagnant political status quo inside Iran -- and that leaves Ahmadinejad's citizens, who are suffering from a sharp economic decline under his leadership, increasingly restless. Inside Iran there has been talk of imminent war with the United States for at least two years now. But war has not come, and at some point the distraction from other concerns wears thin, allowing day-to-day problems, such as the soaring price of tomatoes, vegetables and other commodities to take over.

I'll take a win, even if it's purely accidental.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Mike McConnell - A Law Terrorism Outran - washingtonpost.com

As director of national intelligence, I see every day the results of FISA-authorized activity and its contribution to our efforts to protect America. This surveillance saves lives -- the lives of our children and grandchildren. I also see the flaws inherent in the current law.

Because the law has not been changed to reflect technological advancements, we are missing potentially valuable intelligence needed to protect America.

Glenn Greenwald - The administration's FISA falsehoods continue unabated - Salon

In paragraph after paragraph, McConnell claims that FISA -- which was first enacted in 1978 but amended multiple times since then -- is an obsolete law because it was from an era where "the first cellular mobile phone system was still being tested" and "a personal computer's memory had just been expanded to 16 kilobytes." He then affirmatively (and falsely) states, several times, that FISA is unchanged since 1978 and thus does not recognize new communications technology such as e-mail and cell phones...

[snip]

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration demanded a whole slew of changes to FISA which expanded the President's eavesdropping powers and which the administration claimed were necessary in order to bring FISA into the 21st Century by allowing surveillance of modern communication methods. Congress, needless to say, complied in full, and in October of 2001 -- contrary to McConnell's misleading Op-Ed -- it enacted, and the President signed, sweeping "modernizing" changes to FISA.

[snip]

That FISA was substantially expanded in October of 2001 -- at the administration's request -- is one of the central (and often overlooked) facts illustrating how severe is the corruption and dishonesty which lies (still) at the heart of the NSA lawbreaking scandal.

Powered by ScribeFire.

TheAgitator.com: Cowards

But the way Paul's been treated for daring to suggest that we take an approach to foreign policy other than pure good versus pure evil, and that we--God forbid!--pay due deference to context, motivation, and unintended consequences just disgusts me. He shouldn't even be allowed in the debates? What the hell is wrong with these people? I'm about as jaded and cynical about politics as one can be. I don't disgust easily. But this childish, isolating, self-protective bubble in which the pro-war camp has encased itself, and the way it has enabled the media to shunt contrarian opinions to the fringe is appalling. Ron Paul was the only person on that stage who said anything remotely resembling the truth. And for that, they must silence him.

Just for sake of context, Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda of the 1980s liked us just fine when we were funnelling them money and arms to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. If they had a problem with Joan Collins' decolletage or the "Like a Virgin" video, I'd like to think they would have said something back then. Further, it's insane for the party of the so-called "Big Tent" to attempt to shut a candidate out of their debates. It takes an incredible stretch of one's imagination to reconcile "Big Tent" and "STFU," almost as big as the stretch between "the party of fiscal responsibility" and "what's happened since the 2000 election."

Powered by ScribeFire.

Positive Liberty » While Europe Slept

Indeed, how we deal with intolerant religions reflects a paradox in Founding thought... The paradox is, the rights of conscience are so profound government has no business saying what is true or false religion. Yet, government indeed does have an interest in promoting the “right” kind of religion, that is religion compatible with liberal democratic, secular, pluralistic norms.

Powered by ScribeFire.

I can't pretend for a minute that I know enough about this specific immigration bill to develop a full-fledged opinion. In most cases, however, the polarization of our political discourse tends to cause a degenerative discussion holding one of these two positions: either illegal immigrants are just here to make an honest living, or they're here because they wish to weaken the fabric of American society by draining our taxpayer resources and/or engaging in other insidious activities that will do us direct or indirect harm.



Obviously, neither scenario is exactly right, although it's safe to say that case studies for either scenario exist.



So assume for a minute that I have no opinion on this topic that fits into a little box of "bleeding heart liberal" or "xenophobic conservative." Instead, I want to read through the tea leaves of what the bill proposes, and what that generally portends for the rest of us.





Hugh Hewitt Interviews Tony Snow on the Immigration Bill

SNOW: But if you’re asking me, Hugh, if it’s going to be possible using immigration law to find out whether somebody has not previously broken the law, whether they are going to commit an act of terror, whether they are an American citizen or not? No, that’s not going to be what immigration law is about.

Alright, so it's not going to be a bill designed to combat terror. Cynically speaking, since this administration seems to view terrorism as a military problem, developing immigration reform into a bureaucratic/law enforcement solution to terrorists entering the homeland isn't a high priority. Besides, if they were to incorporate intelligence-gathering ideas into this bill, it would give a Democratic Congress an up-or-down vote on the types of things this administration is already doing under their purported AUMF/Article II justification.



But forget cynicism. If this isn't designed with terrorism in mind, what are the goals?

SNOW: Well, they would be eligible for regularization only if they met a whole series of standards. If they have broken the law while they’re here, they’re not eligible. If they do not remain continuously employed, they’re not eligible for regularization. If they do not provide, do not present themselves for a tamper-proof ID that has biometric information, submit themselves to background checks, they are not eligible for regularization. If they do not master the English language and culture, they’re not eligible for regularization.

If they've broken the law? Okay, so long as a parking ticket (Christ, I can just imagine an enraged O'Reilly screaming, "BUT THEY SHOULDN'T BE PARKING HERE!") is treated differently than a B&E, for instance.



Continuous employment? All right, so long as seasonal migrant workers aren't penalized for the two months between picking blueberries in Michigan and apples in Washington. It's a matter of degrees.



English language and culture? Okay, I guess, although they shouldn't have to name four of six characters on Friends to get their papers.



What'd I miss?



"If they do not provide, do not present themselves for a tamper-proof ID that has biometric information, submit themselves to background checks, they are not eligible for regularization."



This is where the little Libertarian that lives in my head starts to go apoplectic. A supporter of this bill would try to talk him off the ledge by saying:



But BG, these guys are already breaking the law by being here! Shouldn't we equip our law enforcement with the tools they need to keep track of these guys? If they want to be here, they're going to have to play by our rules, right?



Which, of course, is usually followed by the question:



If they aren't doing anything wrong, what do they have to worry about?



First it's immigrants, then it's the citizenry, and if you think that's not possible I encourage you to read a few news articles on the push for the Real ID:



News-Leader.com | Updates - News

A resolution passed Thursday night claims that Congress’ Real ID Act unconstitutionally infringes on civil rights and liberties by setting federal standards for driver’s licenses. The Real ID Act was enacted after federal officials learned that some of the people involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had legitimate driver’s licenses.



The act requires states to verify documents proving that driver’s license applicants are U.S. citizens and issue identification cards that meet federal standards.

It's actually kind of astonishing to see that it's Conservatives that are the biggest advocates of this idea, as they've traditionally been the party that argues vehemently that the states know better than the feds how to take care of their own citizenry.



Ultimately, this was proposed because a few of the 9/11 hijackers had proper, state-issued identification. Rather, that was why we were told this was a just and necessary law. What it does is establish a federal justification to track its citizenry, plain and simple. Think about it for a second - let's assume these are simply just suggestions for a federal standard for what information a drivers' license can contain. Don't we have those already? Isn't there a burden of proof when you go to the DMV that you are who you say you are?



What good then is this Real ID law if it's not specifically designed to develop standardizations for the data contained on the readable magnetic strips on each and every drivers' license across the nation? If you're a cop making a traffic stop, can't you figure out in five minutes on the radio or your onboard computer whether or not the license and registration you've been presented are fakes? Can't you, as a welfare office or potential employer, make sure a $25 background check matches the license number you've been given?



Sure you can. Doesn't matter which state's license you're presented. What the government wants is the ability to recognize patterns of behavior in its citizenry in order to deter potentially dangerous situations. This, of course, sounds fine and dandy except they're not just watching guys named "Mohammed" here, and our government has a less-than-noble history being trusted not to spy on Americans without warrants.



Anyway, I'm not trying to say that this push, as it exists right now, is a scary and fearful Big Brother sort of thing. But it's getting there. We're growing more and more comfortable with governmental intrusion into our lives, giving up privacy in the interest of making sure these evil bad guys don't ever hurt us again. It's a short leap from readable magnetic strips to demanding the same biometric information we're asking of the immigrants, and all it's going to take is a school shooter buying a gun with a fake Real ID to get us there. As the burden of proof goes up on the citizens, the ability to track and assemble huge databases of information on these same citizens also rises.



It's not just "them" the government's trying to keep an eye on. Someday it'll be members of the ACLU or PETA, then it'll be a high-tech post-Watergate RNC being watched. It's the absolute height of absurd fealty to assume our government is only after "them" and can be trusted never to look at what they've been collecting on "us." Privacy, to me, isn't a post-9/11 issue - it's a post-Information Age issue. Just because we have the ability to collect, store and analyze vasts banks of information in an incredibly effective and agile way doesn't mean we should.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Newt Gingrich just equated the Civil War in Iraq with the American Revolution, asking Senator Chris Dodd if he were in the shoes of the French Legislature in 1776, would he decide to give George Washington's side the aide they needed to defeat the British?

General Washington, if I remember my history correctly, was part of a revolutionary force that was attempting to eject the occupying force of foreigners from their country in order to claim self-determination and homeland rule.

So if we want to use this analogy, and if helping the Iraqis (with the supplemental) find solid footing for self-determination is equivalent to the French aiding General Washington's noble cause for freedom, who then is the analogous occupying force attempting to influence an overseas government through puppeteer control over the leadership?

Hint: It's not the Iranians.

Powered by ScribeFire.