Tangled Webs

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Book Em' Danno

The legal eagles are weighing in. Clearly, it appears that Congress' best option if Bush/DOJ refuse to prosecute their contempt citation is to have the Sgt. At Arms arrest Harriet Miers:

Instead of referring a contempt citation to the U.S. attorney, a house of Congress can order the sergeant-at-arms to take recalcitrant witnesses into custody and have them held until they agree to cooperate -- i.e., an order of civil contempt. . . . So, far from being defenseless against the president's refusal to prosecute or the threat of presidential pardon, Congress could take into its own custody defiant administration officials who refuse to cooperate with legitimate inquiries into executive malfeasance. Those targets would have the right to seek writs of habeas corpus from the federal courts, but as long as Congress could show a legitimate need for the information it was seeking pursuant to its legislative oversight functions, it would be standing on solid legal ground.

Remember, this could include Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Josh Bolten and any other White House officials who can't show sufficient cause why they should not be compelled to testify.

WaPo Used To Be A Quality Paper

Today's editorial is another piece of crap, bootlicking Republicans ....

From Josh Marshall. First an excerpt of the editorial and then Marshall's commentary:

The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible.... A Democratic strategy of trying to use Iraq as a polarizing campaign issue and as a club against moderate Republicans who are up for reelection will certainly have the effect of making consensus impossible -- and deepening the trouble for Iraq and for American security.

One wonders if perhaps the Post editorial board simply hasn't been paying attention to current events. As Kevin Drum noted, "After four years of Republican insistence that Congress's only role in the war is to pony up trainloads of money and then shut the hell up, it turns out that it's actually Democrats who are making consensus impossible."

This would fit right up there with the old axiom that if I beat my wife, it's her fault for making a crappy dinner or something.

Indeed, where have these guys been? When Republicans unilaterally govern the WaPo wants to worship at the feet of "strong leaders". When Democrats, the adults, step in an start to try and clean up the mess, they're not being bipartisan? And since when is making bipartisan agreements back in vogue again?

Harry Reid is speaking the only language the Republicans can understand right now. That language is one of raw power as the current GOP leadership has shown over and over and over again that they will respect nothing less. I hope it doesn't remain so, but until things change that's the way it is.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Oh. My. Gawd.

First there was Edwards haircut. Then Romney's makeup. Today we had Oprah dead dog. And now Hillary's cleavage.

That's right ladies and germs. And entire WaPo .... yes I said Washington Post ... piece on Hillary showing some cleavage on the Senate floor. Sure, it was a fashion writer, but is this a fashion story? Take a look and judge for yourself .....

Allow me to save you the googling. Here is the "offending" picture:

Lest you be shocked by that one, I found another from another time on CSPAN:

Oh my. The horror! Why, this is the equivalent of Hillary giving Robert Byrd a blow-job right on the Senate floor! I'm, well, words can't express my shock.

You have to take a moment and read some excerpts on the offending outfit:

The cleavage, however, is an exceptional kind of flourish. After all, it's not a matter of what she's wearing but rather what's being revealed. It's tempting to say that the cleavage stirs the same kind of discomfort that might be churned up after spotting Rudy Giuliani with his shirt unbuttoned just a smidge too far. No one wants to see that. But really, it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!

....

With Clinton, there was the sense that you were catching a surreptitious glimpse at something private. You were intruding -- being a voyeur. Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed.

Whether tongue in cheek or not, and who could tell these days, this is the peak of stupidity in the media.

THIS Is A Great Idea

So, Bush thinks he can prevent the DOJ from prosecuting a Congressional contempt citation? So this is what Congress should do:

Marty Lederman, who predicted a couple of weeks ago that this would happen, has more details on pursuing these options here. Mark Kleiman, by contrast, thinks Congress should just start defunding the "non-essential" parts of the White House: the press office, the political office, and the White House Counsel's office. Says Mark: "Clinton won his [1995 budget showdown with Newt Gingrich] because Gingrich tried to shut down the government. Punishing and crippling Bush doesn't require shutting down any activity the public cares about."

There are clearly enuciated powers in the Constitution for Congress. So if the Preznit wants to play rough, play rough. And if Republicans threaten to filibuster? Use the nuclear option that they developed. It's time to save our government.

More from Kleinman:

I haven't used the term before, but this is really a Constitutional crisis. If the Democrats handle it correctly — which means, above all, stressing the insult to the rule of law and the threat to the Constitutional order — they'll have the public on their side, along with the bulk of elite opinion. (Who knows? Maybe even the editorial page of the Washington Post.)

And I suspect that a combination of institutional self-respect and electoral self-preservation will lead a substantial number of Republicans to desert the President. They've been looking for an excuse, and he just handed it to them.

Perhaps. Perhaps.

Takin' It

Bush has (a very public) colonoscopy .....

But it's the American public who takes it in the ..... well you know.

Hasert To Resign?

That's the rumor anyway.

You've gotta wonder if he's on, like, a list or something?

Pakistan Boils

While Iraq is at a full cook, Pakistan is just starting to boil. Will it boil over? Will it simmer down? Who will get the nukes if it does boil over?

And We Thought Paris Was Bad

Did you know that Oprah Winrey's dog died?

Well if you don't, you're just not paying attention:

In case you missed that, let me reiterate: Oprah sent out an official press release to inform the world that she's heartbroken because her dog died.

Chez gives us the full run down here. I totally agree with him. I try to be nice to Oprah. But let's face it, I don't like her. She's arrogantly overindulged and self-important. The information on her show ranges from just enough to get people in trouble to completely wrong.

Dictator Watch

This story is more of a reminder than news. Apparently the media is just starting to get a wiff of what is likely to happen once Congress issues contempt citations to the White House:

To appreciate the White House's new claims of executive privilege, it's important to understand how contempt charges work. First, the House or Senate issues "a statutory contempt citation," which is given to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who then has to convene a grand jury. But none of this would be able to happen under the White House's new position on the matter, which an expert in executive privilege called "astonishing." It all amounts to "a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," the expert said. This view of executive privilege is apparently based on an opinion issued by the Justice Department during the Reagan administration.

Whatever opinion they are saying they depend on, make no mistake that it's Abu Gonzales that is pulling the strings at DOJ. As I've said numerous times, Bush hasn't kept his good buddy at DOJ simply because they're good friends. Bush is covering his flank and enhancing his ability to play out the clock.

When (not if) Bush ignores any contempt citation, and when (not if) the DOJ refuses to prosecute it, time will continue to pass. Hopefully, and that's a big hopefully, via other suit remedies (or if the Congressional Sgt-At-Arms goes to the White House and arrests someone) the courts will ultimately rule in Congresses favor via a civil suit. But by then, Bush figures to be out of office and will care less what is revealed. Bush, correctly in my estimation, realizes that no one will have the stomach to bring criminal charges against a former President.

Too bad ... that.

Update: Here's the actual statement from the White House on the subject:

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," a senior official told the Post, which granted the official anonymity because 'he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly.' "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

I think that's a "tag, you're it" moment to Congress. I guess if the Pentagon can have an intelligence agency, Congress can have a police force with jails.

But then you have a former Reagan administration official saying this:

"Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."

...

Roberts said that because of Bush's unpopularity, the Republicans face a total wipeout in 2008, and this may be why "the Democrats [and Republicans in safe seats I might add] have not brought a halt to Bush's follies or the war, because they expect his unpopular policies to provide them with a landslide victory in next year's election."

However, Roberts emphasized,"the problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that Cheney and Rove and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts, or it assumes that they are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed after Bush has his fling." Roberts believes instead that Cheney and Rove intend to use a renewal of the War on Terror to rally the American people around the Republican Party. "Something's in the works," he said, adding that the Executive Orders need to create a police state are already in place.

Wow. My denial system says that this is perhaps a bit of hyperbole. Then my experience says that it's true. Afterall, what hyperbolic prediction about Bush's pursuit of executive authority has not come true thus far? I wonder just how far things have to go before Congressional Republicans step in to remove these clowns?

If Congress does nothing, we're all in more deep yogurt. Are people going to have to take to the streets with weapons or something? You have to wonder? The most fundamental basis on our peaceful system of government is that power is balanced, executives are checked, and imbalances can be equalized via a system that is responsive to it's citizens. If that breaks down, and it certainly seems to be breaking down, people are left with going outside the system or submitting to dictatorship.

Update II: Care to guess who the Reagan official was who issued the opinion that the White House could thumb it's nose at a contempt citation by forcing the DOJ to not prosecute?

Ted Olson.

The Gambler

Here's a post sure to make you smile.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Duffy Takes a Mulligan

Atrios gives us a brief pictorial trip down memory lane, pointing out how good our media is at prognosticating, given his split-the-baby-in-half policy analysis today!

Plame Suit Dismissed

A Federal judge has dismissed Plames civil suit against Cheney et. al. I don't know any details yet other than it's the same judge that dismissed the Cheney task force lawsuit. I'm sure she'll appeal.

Update: It was dismissed on "jurisdictional grounds", having nothing to do with the case's merits.

Go Harry

Republican WINO's are furious with Harry Reid after the filibuster. Here's why ....

This handy guide to the filibuster answers many questions. But this is one of the keys:

4. What are the prospects for the Dems succeeding in breaking the GOP filibuster?

They're actually better now that the softer Iraq amendments can't get passed. That's yanking the bill rules out the introduction of other, nonbinding amendments that nervous Republicans were inclined to support. Without the option of supporting such amendments, Republicans can't plausibly claim to constituents to have done anything to stop the war. In turn, that increases the pressure on them to support the only available option left -- i.e., a binding measure mandating withdrawal, such as the one favored by Dems.

That's probably the real reason why Republicans are furious with Reid today for removing the bill and all its amendments. (Well, that and sleepiness.) Case in point: Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). In his floor statement right after the cloture vote failed, a visibly angry Specter inveighed against the Senate's lack of debate on the most prominent GOP amendment -- John Warner and Richard Lugar's toothless proposal for Bush to submit a post-surge strategy to Congress after Petraeus's report. Specter, clearly, wanted the option of supporting Warner-Lugar, an option Reid has taken away.

As a result, when debate eventually resumes, Specter will have to choose between either staying with the surge or mandated redeployment. Even for a moderate GOP Senator not up for reelection next year, stark choices are not pleasant ones. Get ready to see more waverers -- though, as Greg has been pointing out, not all waverers actually vote their wavering consciences.

The wild card here for the WINOs is the September Petraeus report. No matter how nuanced a picture of Iraq Petraeus paints to Congress, the White House will use it as a rallying cry for continuing the war. How much support that can give to a GOP Senator whose constituents loudly hate the war is one of the big unknowns.

One thing that could conceivably cause more Republicans to defect, ironically, would be President Bush portraying Petraeus's report as more optimistic than it in reality. The same could happen if Petraeus's report itself is more optimistic than Iraq seems to warrant. Either of those could diminish whatever credibility on Petraeus' part the White House is out to exploit, leaving the GOP caucus set to fracture ahead of the next election.

Good move Harry. Make em' sweat at home this summer.

Excellent Question

This is really an excellent question.

Whatever happened to our "war czar"? For bonus points, can you name him (without cheating)? You remember, the person who was going to coordinate the war right into victory?

Quote of the Day

From Maria Bartiromo's interview of Condi Rice in the current issue of BusinessWeek:

MB: Would you consider a position in business or on Wall Street?

CR: I don't know what I'll do long-term. I'm a terrible long-term planner.

Ah. We know.

Is This Progress?

This chart was put together by Brian Beutler ....

These are the number of attacks per quarter since the start of the war (click to enlarge):

Sure making progress there aren't we?

At Least She Apologized

Diane Sawyer that is.

That's more than can be said about most of the other media types who screw things up.

Wear Your Helmet

James Surowiecki makes the best argument I've seen yet for strong regulation of automobiles, i.e. size and fuel economy:

Back in the nineteen-seventies, an economist named Thomas Schelling, who later won the Nobel Prize, noticed something peculiar about the N.H.L. [national hockey league] At the time, players were allowed, but not required, to wear helmets, and most players chose to go helmet-less, despite the risk of severe head trauma. But when they were asked in secret ballots most players also said that the league should require them to wear helmets. The reason for this conflict, Schelling explained, was that not wearing a helmet conferred a slight advantage on the ice; crucially, it gave the player better peripheral vision, and it also made him look fearless. The players wanted to have their heads protected, but as individuals they couldn’t afford to jeopardize their effectiveness on the ice. Making helmets compulsory eliminated the dilemma: the players could protect their heads without suffering a competitive disadvantage. Without the rule, the players’ individually rational decisions added up to a collectively irrational result. With the rule, the outcome was closer to what players really wanted.

Car owners face a similar dilemma whether it be concerns for safety (a bigger car is safer) or whether it's styling. The argument is also similar to the one made regarding uniforms in the schools. If you level the playing field, everything runs smoother.

I'm not sure I'd want to have just one model of car available for everyone. But if you could only buy cars with high fuel efficiency, wouldn't we all find different ways of "stylin"? Given the rules, wouldn't everyone find a way to express their individuality? And wouldn't it be in the public's best interests? Just ask any U.S. soldier in Iraq, they'll tell you.

Best Divorce Letter Ever

Go take a look. Be warned, it's quite .... colorful!

Subprime Mess

I found some interesting charts that show who is defaulting on home loans, and the extent of the subprime default problem ....

First up, who is defaulting:

Fixed rate borrowers are hanging in there. It's the adjustable folks that are falling out. I suspect that a lot of these are flippers, people who speculated in real estate with the assumption they'd never get stuck with a growing loan amount. Now that the music has stopped, they're finding out that there are not enough chairs or enough cash to keep these investments afloat.

Just where is the default rate a problem?

Looks like it's pretty much everywhere. California, and the Central Valley of California are some of the worst locations, all commuting distance to the high cost Bay Area. But the problem really exists everywhere.

It's also important to remember that the adjustable rate mortgage "resets" are just beginning. There are still a whole bunch of loans out there to reset with borrowers hanging on, ever hopeful that home prices and buying demand will soon rebound.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)