Timing is Everything

by shep

It’s almost here. For everyone other than the 25% of authoritarian (Bush) followers who are just fine with a Republican criminal enterprise running out of the Oval Office and the beltway elites who can’t stomach looking at the blood on their own hands, the argument is over. There is only one question remaining:

"Where are the real confrontations needed to vindicate the rule of law and restore constitutional order? No reasonable person can dispute that in the absence of genuine compulsion (and perhaps even then), the administration will continue to treat "the law" as something optional, and their power as absolute. Their wrongdoing is extreme, and only equally extreme corrective measures will suffice."
--Glenn Greenwald

Or, really, when will enough true patriots rise up and insist upon it?

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Distilling Truthiness

Steve Young pens an exceptionally snarky primer on how one actually can survive on the "fact-like" material spewed forth from Fox New -- which to the casual observer lacks any nutritional (let alone informational) value whatsoever.

Digesting Fox News, Bill O'Reilly and Dick Morris:
"One day during the last presidential campaign Bill O'Reilly said that he would not bring partisans on to The Factor to discuss the election because they would only be spinning the same ol' same ol' and just rehashing their side's nothing-new and biased talking points.

'We learn nothing new and that's not what we're about,' reminded the always blunt, looking-out-for-you host. That same night on O'Reilly Factor on Fox, not grasping the screaming comic irony, Bill brought on Newt Gingrich and Dick Morris to discuss John Kerry.

Young provides a needed a bit of mental reinforcement to combat the constant barrage of noise and subterfuge coming from the wingnut wankers, explaining just how their crap can be ingested, sifted for rare factoids, and excreted with little or no harm to your sensibilities.

In that, um ... spirit, Matt Stoller removes the curtain from Sean Hannity's feeble spin (actually, outright lie) that he is just too awesome for any real liberal to debate, and that we all cower before his manliness.

The Faux Noise mavens will never lack for an audience of frothing cult members willing to plunge the whole damn planet into the abyss rather than listen to reason or believe or an instant that they don't possess exclusive rights to the real truth. Without doubt, the Limbaughs and Coulters have sole proprietorship of the most paranoid and conspiracy minded mental cases in the country.

Maha wrote over the weekend about the the noise machine's unending ability to Say Anything and their capacity to exert influence over people with "the critical thinking skills of moth larvae." Isn't it interesting that it's Keith Olberman, Jon Stewart, John Edwareds and others on the left are the recipients of white powder mailings, and not the O'Reilly and Malkins of the world -- or have we forgotten that there have indeed been terror attacks on our soil since 9/11.

For some reason the U.S. has always had a disproportionate number of whackjobs among its citizens; that ain’t new. And the whackjobs have had political influence at various times in the past, also. What’s different is that mass media and the Internet are allowing them to live in their own self-made Crazy World on a mass scale. And the Republicans are heavily invested in keeping them crazy.

When you see this poll, you understand the critical importance of these propaganda outlets to the GOP.

"Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88% to 7%. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers." [Political Wire]

Shrinking this allegiance is certainly desired, but even more important (because it is doable) is denying this beast any legitimacy

Barack Obama freezing out Fox, and John Edwards leading the way to cancel Fox's Nevada Democratic Debates were outstanding first strikes at the heart of their Orwellian manipulation of the body politic. The beast must be starved, weakened, hunted down and finally slain once and for all.

That's why it is so disturbing to see Democrats adopting Republican frames, whether it's Obama admitting that Edwards is "kinda cute," or Harry Reid's initial willingness to have Fox host the debates because the can reach out to a whole new demographic.

88% Harry.

88% to 7% are unheard of odds, even in Vegas, Harry. What WERE you thinking? You don't win over such people. They are lost and prefer their dementia to facing the responsibility for the problems they cause. Ignoring them is a start, marginalizing and silencing them is better. You certainly don't cater to them, give them ammunition or a platform. They are spoiled children and you do not give spoiled children attention. You punish them and ignore them until they stop or go away.

Progressive Blogtopia has been keeping track of the Congressional Black Caucus courting Fox News as a debate sponsor as well. As risky as this might seem, I think it would show real leadership and backbone for Barack Obama to denounce this as even a remote possibility and declare, well in advance of the event even being put on the schedule, that he will not attend no matter how much they suck up to him.

Shame on Harold Ford Jr., too. I really, really like that guy. I can't believe he can't find a better place to keep his face in the public eye (where it should be, because he does indeed deserve a platform) than becoming a Fox News Regular. I would hold out hope that Ford going on Fox might mark some kind of transformation at the unofficial propaganda wing of the republican party -- except that the very reasonable and frighteningly smart Ford is paired with Rick Santorum -- a victim of hypnosis gone bad if ever there was one.

Stop it Harold! Please. You won't see any changes at Fox until Hannity, O'Reilly and Roger Ailes are gone. Putting a random centrist Democrat on that channel to be vilified as a true liberal is bad enough, but it also moves the center further and further to the right no matter how well Ford comports himself.

And Harold, for future reference, when your principle talking point is that we should get all the facts on the table -- as it was when you were discussing the U.S. Attorney Purge -- it will help if you get a firmer grasp on the facts that are available yourself.

You could have blown Little Ricky away when he gave the example of U.S. Attorneys should be fired if they for instance, don't follow an anti-child-pornography initiative the President orders. For one of the fired attorneys, Charlton, the opposite was the reality -- and I wish Ford had known that. Charlton was fired for being more, not less inclined to use his finite resources to go after child obscenity cases instead of being unwilling to take good cases like porn suppliers sending smut across state lines that did NOT contain any underage victims.

Update: Chris Bowers hit's the nail right on the head.

Peeling Back The Onion

One of the most frustrating aspects of investigating anything, it that you have to know what you're looking for. While is it ridiculous to advance the idea that anyone with a chip on his shoulder or an axe to grind can go on some kind of fishing expedition. It's invasive in the extreme to allow someone to turn your life inside out merely because they flash a piece of paper -- hence the probable cause requirement for warrants and the relevance threshold for civil discovery.

This logic also applies to Freedom of Information Act inquiries. You have to know something exists before you can request it or it's simply overly burdensome to the legitimate functions of the government. Congress's investigatory powers have the same kind of restrictions -- not from operation of the law, but from a credibility and political perspective.

Well, now we know what we're looking for.

We know that a handful of the 90 odd U.S. Attorneys were removed by the administration because they were not partisan enough. It's logical to assume that there are, therefore, a handful or more U.S. Attorneys (Bushies) who met Karl Rove's loyalty test and sold their integrity to the Republican Reich.

Who else did the Bush DoJ target?:

Consider the theory laid out in this diary by pacified, written nearly a year ago: The NSA at some point after 9/11 "requests" the cooperation of all major telecommunications carriers in "voluntarily" turning over access to all their call data but Qwest Communications -- at the direction of its CEO, Joseph Nacchio, and alone among major carriers -- refuses to comply.

Not long afterward, Qwest and Nacchio found themselves embroiled in... a federal investigation, of all things. The SEC hit Nacchio, Qwest, and several top officers of the company with allegations of insider trading and accounting fraud.

Gee whiz! Whaddya know?

Sharpen your pencils boys and girls, and get some metal polish for your aluminum hats. There isn't enough popcorn in the world to last through this show, cuz you know there's so much more to this.

You Can't Spell Controversy Without R.O.V.E.

Shep (who really should start his own blog) points us here:

John Dean: Refocusing the Impeachment Movement on Administration Officials Below the President and Vice-President: "The House Judiciary Committee Should Undertake Appropriate Proceedings

Given the number of officials within the Bush Administration who may have been engaged in Constitutional high crimes or misdemeanors, and the nature of the impeachment process, there is no shortage of civil officers worthy of consideration. Where there is clear prima facie evidence of such constitutional misconduct, impeachment action should be commenced."

Exhibit "A" -- Elliot Abrams, despite his pardon, could have been disqualified from holding office through the impeachment process.

Currently Alberto Gonzales is the focus of much of the left's wrath with a growing chorus calling for his resignation, and some intra-party partisans will point out that many of the current Democratic presidential contenders voted against his nomination, notably Clinton, Obama and Biden. John Edwards came out against the nomination as well even though he wasn't in the Senate at the time.

My question is, (since so much has been made about Edwards' vote for the Iraq war lately, suggesting that he should have done something then and not just speak out now) is why Gonzales wasn't given the same treatment as John Bolton or even a closely fought battle like we saw with Alito?

Obama:

The President is not the Attorney General's client - the people are. And so the true test of an Attorney General nominee is whether that person is ready to put the Constitution of the people before the political agenda of the President. As such, I cannot approach this nomination the same way I approached that of Secretary of State Rice or VA Secretary Nicholson or any other Cabinet position. The standard is simply higher.

Where was the filibuster threat? If this position was so important, so substantively different than other administration officials, where was the "hold" of the nomination from Joe, Hillary and Barack?

This isn't sour grapes, this is outrage that the man who gave cover to an administration engaged in kidnapping, torture, murder and wholesale spying on you and me was given the job in the first place -- without a fight.

NOW we're suprised, shocked! Shocked that there was some shenanigans going on?

Well, at least they didn't vote for Gonzo.

(UPDATED with improved linkage.)

Did I Say Rove? I Meant, Impeach Bush NOW

The pretense is over. We cannot continue to be led by a man who's disdain for the law and complete politicization of absolutely every single decision he makes.

White House Said to Prompt Firing of Prosecutors - New York Times: "Last October, President Bush spoke with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to pass along concerns by Republicans that some prosecutors were not aggressively addressing voter fraud, the White House said Monday. Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, was among the politicians who complained directly to the president, according to an administration official."

I want my country back, a country I loved and was worthy of the respect of the entire planet.

We used to set the example for respecting human dignity and civil liberties, our prosperity proving what could happen when no one, not even the President, could put themselves above the law.

In our system, there is no single law enforcement officer with more discretion than a prosecutor except for the cop on the beat. When you interfere with that discretion, you unravel the very fabric of our system.

When you pressure a U.S. Attorney to bring down more of your political rivals, you are engaging in a conspiracy more fitting of a tyrant, a move reminiscent of the worst dictators.

Gonzales, Domenici, Rove, and now, President Bush himself, are unworthy to walk the halls of government -- a government of all the people, not just Republicans. This is no better, indeed worse than the charge of obstruction of justice, because when individual U.S. Attorneys are fired for pure partisan spite, it not only interferes with that specific office, but sends a message to all the other U.S. Attorneys that they better get in line.

Yes, they are indeed political appointees serving at the pleasure of the President -- and wholesale changes in their ranks are standard operating procedure when an administration changes.

This is different.

Clearly there was an attempt to influence elections through the abuse of prosecutorial power. Clearly there was an interference with the judicial system by the executive at the request of a friendly member of the legislative branch. This is a slap at all three branches of government plus the people who they represent -- all at once. Voting, the courts, Congress and the President -- all have been cheapened by this horrible episode.

If this precedent is allowed to stand, our system will become a joke. To sweep this under the rug, to minimize its import will codify a corrupt and diseased power structure into the foreseeable future -- where no citizen is safe from retaliation for politically unapproved acts.

We cannot defend the liberties inscribed in the Constitution knowing that those who are not members of the party in power are subject to politically motivated abuse of prosecutorial power. When those who would shout the loudest against Constitutional abominations like the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act live under a cloud of "legal" retaliation, there is no limit to the subjugation of our rights as citizens of this country by unscrupulous, power-mad despots.

Bush might as well just go through the voter rolls of the last election and jail everyone who didn't vote for him. Only then will he be able to create the nation his dementia wants to create.

A politically motivated prosecution is a text book case of abuse of process, a crime in and of itself. That is what Domenici was requesting and Bush, by all apparent evidence, was willing to grant. This undermines every court in the land. Every defense attorney in America with a client who was the least bit political, now has a built-in argument that he or she is merely a victim of a corrupt system.

Heckuvajob Chimpy.