Courage Makes A Majority

A Question of Privilege

The question of executive privilege and when the president can use it has been asked for years.  This presidency has chosen to use more than any other.  Most recently, the President has asserted this authority to avoid submitting subpoenaed documents to Congressional oversight committees and preventing former aides from testifying at hearing about the fired US Attorneys. 

The problem here is, in my humble opinion, it is inappropriate to utilize executive privilege to avoid Congressional oversight.  Executive privilege is appropriate in matters of national security or in matters that don't involve the interests of the public (which would be very rare by definition of the government).  The president here is delivering a big F.U. to Congress and saying if he doesn't set the rules, he won't play.  It looks like we are headed to a judicial showdown on this one.  That is, of course, it the Justice Department does there job.  I say, good for Congress for pursuing this matter.

Why you ask? Because our government is founded on having three separate but equal branches of government.  So that means one third of the power in our government is held by each branch.  Or, said another way, the president is no more important to our governance than the congress or the courts.  Part of keeping these branches equal is the oversight they have over each other.  The judiciary can make laws invalid based on Constitutional interpretation (Judiciary checks Congress) or force the execution of laws (Judiciary checks Executive).  The president vetoes laws (checks Congress) and appoints judges (check judiciary).  The Congress can override vetoes, impeach (checks executive) and approves judicial appointments (checks judiciary).  However, the presidency has one advantage in power over the other branches, the power of the presidency is consolidated into 1 person, while 535 congressmen hold the power of the legislature, and numerous judges (not just the 9 supreme court justices) hold the power of the judiciary.  That is why oversight of the president and limiting his (or her) power is so darn important. 

Executive privilege is not found in the Constitution.  It has been established as a matter of law through the years (just like executive orders and signing statements).  If it continues to go unchecked, it will become precedent for other presidents to abuse.  The Congress is saying clearly here, the president has gone too far.  We will see where this goes in the court, but needless to say, a president with carte blanche, is a dangerous president.

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha....I Can't Stop Laughing

Ok, if you are not sitting down when you read this, stop reading right now.  Go get yourself a drink, maybe some tissue and find your self a nice soft chair.  If you are in a place that would not appreciate loud noises, go find a pillow to muffle the laughter you are about to experience. 

Our president has decided to take the Democratic leadership to task for, get this:

"Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people's money wisely."

That isn't the funniest part.  To futher bolster the White House claim of Democratic ineffectiveness, the administration issued this gem.

"We saw this with immigration, and we're seeing it with some other issues where Congress is having an inability to take on major challenges,"

Ok, where to start.  I find it incredibly amusing that a president that has never vetoed a spending bill and has overseen the largest budget deficits in this history of this country, feels that it is appropriate to chastise the Congressional leadership over "spending the people's money wisely."

But if that joke wasn't good enough, placing blame on the Democrats for the failed delivery of the immigration bill borders on asinine.  Mr. President, the House passed and the Senate couldn't get cloture on the bill to vote on it because your own party submarined it.  You don't have your pet domestic legislation because you lack the leadership to sway members of your own party to deliver what you want. Somehow, you want to conveniently pass the buck for this failure on Harry Reid, but nobody in this country, save the 25% brain dead Americans that still approve of the job you are doing, don't buy it.

The President goes on to specifically mention the lack of progress on budget bills:

"Democrats have a chance to prove they are for open and transparent government by working to complete each spending bill independently and on time.  I urge Democrats in Congress to step forward now and pass these bills one at a time. "

What he fails to mention is in 2006, an election year, with significant majorities in both chambers of Congress and the presidency, the GOP failed to pass 11 of 12 budget bill before control passed to the Democrats.  That's right, his own party not just missed the October 1st start of the federal budget, not just missed election day (11/7/06), but also the end of the year!  And what did you say to your own party when all those deadlines were met?  Nothing, Nada, Zippo, Zilch.

Folks, what we see here is a pathetic (I don't want to say desparate because that would imply some effectiveness) attempt by the President to try to change the national dialogue.  Tired of being clobbered by the failure of our Iraq policy and now with the Libby beating he is taking, the President is trying to turn the attention from his miserable administration and point fingers at another body that really isn't that popular. 

I will say this...The president's got a lot of balls...no brains...but industrial sized grapefruits.

It's Never to Early to Make the Case for a Democratic President

We are 488 days from the 2008 Election, but it is never too early to start framing the issues that will help determine who the citizens of this great country will vote to be the land's chief executive.  Now, whomever is selected to be president doesn't have to do much more than put together a coherent sentence to outperform the current dumbass holding the oval office.

Quite easily (and rightfully), the most talked about issue will be the Iraq War, and obviously, ending this war will be a requisite stance for my vote.  And, given the important documentary focus on the environment (Inconveinent Truth) and health care (Sicko), those issues will receive top tier treatment as well.  Maybe some focus on the economy, immigration and the deficit, and we have a nice six pack of issues to run a campaign.  Sure there will be other items brought up, and if there is some major current event that brings it to the forefront, it may fall in to the top six.  Top six status is important, because most people (and certainly most news agencies) don't have the attention span to handle more than six (and that is being generous).

However, there is one issue, and one issue alone, that will have profound, LONG TERM impact on the direction of the country, and it is one issue that will not get much play this election, the make-up of the Supreme Court.  I say it won't get much play, that is unless this President gets to make another appointment during the next 18 months.  I mentioned this issue just over a year ago when I posted about the need to flip the senate.  Anyway, take a quick look at the make up of the court:

• Liberal Votes: Stevens (Appointed by Ford, Age 87), Ginsberg (Clinton, 74)
• Moderate Votes: Souter (Bush I, 67), Breyer (Clinton, 68)
• Moderate to Conservative Vote: Kennedy (Reagan, 70)
• Wingnut Conservative Votes: Chief Roberts (Bush II, 52), Alito (Bush II, 57), Thomas (Bush I, 59), Scalia (Reagan, 71)

The three justices in their 50's are wingnuts.  The two oldest Justices are the liberal votes on the bench.  There is a good chance the next president will make at least 2 appointments to the Supreme Court, most likely the liberal votes (Stevens will be 4 months shy of 90 when the new president takes office, Ginsburg had cancer in 1999 and is said to have some health issues).  There might be a chance to replace Scalia, but that is still probably 10 years away. 

It goes without saying just how important the Supreme Court is to this country.  If a democrat doesn't win the White House and/or the Democrats don't hold/increase their majority in the Senate, the Supreme Court, which is on the cusp of a major ideological shift, will see a solid supermajority of conservative votes for at least a decade, maybe two.  To me, this, behind the war, is the primary issue of this election. All of our efforts should be dedicated to electing a democratic president and increasing our majorities in the senate.

Happy 231st Birthday, America!

Just wanted to take a moment to recognized the birth of the greatest country in the world.  We all must remember the president and his administration isn't the symbol of our country.  We are.  Those of us who will stop at nothing to continue to make this the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The Little Brother Defense

So the wingnuts are out in force right now, excusing the president's chickenshit commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence with the "Bill Clinton was worse" response (equating Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich as justification for Bush's actions).  The republican party is circulating collection of information on the Clinton pardon of Rich in response to the highly critical response by the Democratic Congressional Leadership to the Bush commutation of Libby's sentence.

This, of course, is all nonsense.  I equate it to the times I told my mom, "you can't punish me, I know that my (older) brother (pick one Pete or Chris) used to do the same thing."  I hope everyone remembers that Bush campaigned on "restoring honor to the White House."  You can not claim to lead from a moral high ground  and then use the "other guy did it too" excuse.    You will never see me try to excuse the politicians I support with an everyone does it mentality.  If they betray the principles I hold them too, I will call them on it.

If each president would use the mantle of his predecessor's actions to justify his own lapses in leadership, then we are doomed to a presidency that digresses to poorest moments in American History.  15 years from now, does a president embroiled in a scandal issue pre-emptive pardons for his or her staff just in case?

And for all those GOPers that want to keep pointing to Clinton as what's wrong with the Democrats when their in control of the White House, I will say just this:

• I will take an 8 year period where incomes grew, inflation was non-existent, a nation at peace, respected in the international community, a government that understands diplomacy, record budget surplus, declining poverty rates, higher insured rates, lower unemployment, record low interest rates and a president persecuted for getting a hummer in the oval office with a woman who was not his wife, but put on trial for his indiscretions because it some how relates to an investigation into a real estate deal that ultimately showed nothing illegal, OVER
• a 7 year period where incomes stagnated/shrank, inflation took over, a nation at war because of lies, isolated from the international community because of its lack of diplomacy, record budget deficits, increasing poverty rates, more uninsured Americans, higher unemployment, increasing interest rates, and a president who gets a pass for his abuses of power including eroding our civil liberties, exhibiting an unbelievable amount of cronyism, denying human beings the right of habeas corpus and tacitly endorsing the torture of people to look tough in the face of the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor because the country has become so polarized that any attempt to impeach him and his administration will exasperate an already exhausted population, ANY DAY.

Any one who thinks its strong defense of the current president  by comparing him to his predecessor has hit his head into the wall one to many times.  There is no comparing Bush to Clinton, because Georgie could not hold Bubba's jockstrap. Get a grip wingnuts, your boy has gone down in flames and has failed to live up to any of the principles he ran on to get "elected".

Libby, Libby, Libby on the Label, Label..er, Pardon

OK, first off let's get some things straight.  One, the President did not pardon Scooter Libby, he commuted his jail sentence.  The difference being, Libby still holds the distinction of being a convicted felon.  A pardon would have wiped his record of such a blemish. Two, the president acted within his Constitutional authority in commuting his sentence (it is one of the executive checks of the Judicial Branch).  Three, the President is still a Jackass, and his actions only go to confirm that title. 

Let's take a closer look at the president's rationale for commuting Libby's jail time.

"This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting." [Emphasis Added]

This is a significant amount of the press release, but it is important to look at the case the President lays out.  I have bolded and underlined three statements.  Our system is based on telling the truth.  Mr. President, you wouldn't know the truth if hit you in the head, Mr. Weapons of Mass Distruction.

Second, the district court "ignored" the probation office.  This is, at best, misleading. The probation office recommended a sentence of 15 to 21 months, so does the president need to criticize himself for doing the same thing.  The other issue I have with this statement is, while the court rejected the probation office's recommendation, the court was consistent with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said a 33 month sentence for Obstruction of Justice and Perjury (the same felonies that Libby was convicted of)  was reasonable for a convicted military man. 

Which brings me to the third statement where the president says he believes the sentence was excessive.  Please note, that no where does the President make the case that Libby was not guilty or given an unfair trial.  In fact, he goes out of his way to say the Libby's record will be forever tarnished, and that his other punishments: probation and a $250k fine, remain in effect.  So, Mr. President please reconcile why 33 months is OK for John Q Public but not the former Chief of Staff of VP Dick?

You can't answer that can you?  From now on, Mr. President, you and your administration are banned from using the phrase, "Rule of Law."  You can't claim to hold the torch for the Rule of Law if you don't beleive equal justice for all.  And for all your nonsense about "activist judges" and "activist courts," you are nothing more than an "activist executive."  You didn't like that your boy got caught and punished, so you used your own powers to change the outcome.

No more talk about strict constructionists, are any of that hoo-hah.  You made it clear that those phrases were only punchlines in your political statements and not a principled conviction.  I say if you had any conviction or courage, you would have played it either way, pardon or let it stand.  This chicken shit I will commute the tough part of his sentence but let his conviction stand, so I can preserve the illusion of respect for the judiciary and equal justice for all.

Can't wait to see the President's polling numbers in the coming weeks...under 25% approval here we come!