The Republican YouTube Debate

It looks like that stellar cast of GOP presidential hopefuls isn't warming to the idea of their own YouTube debate. You know those questions from...ummm...people?

Well, I want them to be comfortable in the format, so I have suggested some questions that would put them at ease:

1) Should we kill all the brown people or just the A-rabs?

2) How would you help Jesus to stop boys from kissing?

3) Which one of you is the most Reagan-y?

4) On global warming, is the earth warmer than when the Lord God created Adam in Eden 6000 years ago? And if it is, doesn't God want it that way?

Please add your own...

He knows where the bodies are buried...

Alberto Gonzalez will never voluntarily give up his position, and Chimpy will never ask him to step down. There are two inter-related reasons (actually hundreds, but two I'll write about):

1) Fredo knows WAAY too much about the inner workings/dark side of GWB (remember DUIs and jury duty?), and knows that he himself is a parasitic little worm that has no value other than where he sits. Gonzalez doesn't want to go out in at least official disgrace, and he knows that Chimpy has his back.

2) Der Chimpenfuhrer cannot risk appointing a new AG. He couldn't get another crony confirmed, and the Senate would demand someone with at least a modicum of integrity. Those pesky types tend to investigate, you know, impeachable offenses?

AG for Life Fredo. All hail.

Wut?

So, we here at The Thinker just got an entirely unsolicited email from some guy who runs a political blog, asking us to vote for his blog for some award, and offering to trade links. On his blog, he interviews some woman who admires James Inhofe.

Thanks, but no.

Stupid quotes from stupid people

From Salon's War Room: Asked today about a new Congressional Budget Office report that puts the price tag of the war on Iraq at more than $1 trillion, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said: "Well, if you take a look at what happened on September 11th, 2001, it's estimated that the aftershocks of that could have cost up to $1 trillion."

First of all, what "aftershocks"? Secondly, your boss still hasn't gotten around to do anything with the whole in the ground, so we have no idea what it will cost. Third, and I can't stress this enough - the response to an attack that cost us a vast amount of money was to spend a vast amount of money on a totally irrelevant and illegal war? There wasn't anything better that could have been done with that money?

While on that topic...

Ah, the Wall Street Journal editorial page...

Not long ago they brought back one of their favorites, law professor, authoritarian, author of the Bush administration's torture memo (and as Glenn Greenwald accurately states, "the most partisan and intellectually dishonest lawyer in the country"--think about that...) John Yoo. They needed to dredge up SOMEONE who would defend the ridiculous administration claims of "executive privilege," so who? John Yoo.

The afore-mentioned Glenn Greenwald is all over the shocking hypocrisy of John Yoo. He was against executive privilege (insert "Bill Clinton"here) before he was for it, saying that Clinton could fairly be impeached for refusing subpoenas and then lo and behold in 2007, secrecy is the key to the survival of the republic.

Let's look at what Yoo wrote on the law, though. He shamelessly cites Barenblatt v. U.S. (a House Un-American Activities Committee case, by the way) and says that "The Supreme Court held in 1959 that, `Since Congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of one or the other branches of the Government.'"

Excuse me, they didn't HOLD that. The opinion said that IN DICTA. It's not a HOLDING. Beyond that, Congress may certainly "legislate" on voter caging matters, and WELL beyond legislating, they certainly are constitutionally empowered to ACT--on impeachment.

RIP Wall Street Journal

Sorry, been one poor correspondent....

It looks like Rupert Murdoch has squared away control of the Wall Street Journal. It has always been a bizarre paper, with rock-solid business reporting on one side, and bat-crazy editorial page screed writers on the other. It was always my theory that the news group never even told editorial where the Christmas party was. Now, that the paper will be Fox-ified, what do you think stays..rock-solid business reporting or bat-crazy editorial page screed writers? The Murdoch virus can't help but infect the newsroom, and the paper is history.

Oh, for crying out loud

I would be willing to have a reasoned argument with anyone about the practicality of impeaching either President Bush or his puppeteer - not whether they deserve it, mind you, but whether pursuing it would accomplish anything. On the other hand, all politics aside, why does Alberto Gonzales still have a job? He's apparently unaware of virtually everything that has occurred under his watch in the Department of Justice. If I knew that little about the way my department functioned, I'd be fired. Even if you completely agree with everything the Decider has done, how is it a good thing for the country for the Department of Justice to have an Attorney General who is utterly clueless about, well, everything?

Note: A similar version of this was sent to Congressman Tim Johnson (IL-15)

To us, he's the President of Pakistan

To the rest of the world, he's viewed as (from the first 'graph of a Financial Times story):

General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's US-backed military ruler, faced calls to resign yesterday after attacks by Islamist militants claimed at least 54 more lives, bringing the death toll since Saturday to 184.

Yep, he's our "good friend".

We've got a way with our good friends...until we don't need them any longer.

Thanks for playing

Read these words carefully

President Bush signed an executive order Friday prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment, including humiliation or denigration of religious beliefs, in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects.

NOW these things are bad?????

Music issues in Music City?

Shamelessly stolen from Love Boat crew member Em, who should post more here. And remember, this is the WHITE HOUSE transcript:

Q Mr. President, music is one of our largest exports the country has. Currently, every country in the world -- except China, Iran, North Korea, Rwanda and the United States -- pay a statutory royalty to the performing artists for radio and television air play. Would your administration consider changing our laws to align it with the rest of the world?

THE PRESIDENT: Help. (Laughter.) Maybe you've never had a President say this -- I have, like, no earthly idea what you're talking about. (Laughter and applause.) Sounds like we're keeping interesting company, you know? (Laughter.) Look, I'll give you the old classic: contact my office, will you? (Laughter.) I really don't -- I'm totally out of my lane. I like listening to country music, if that helps. (Laughter.)

I left the "laughter" lines in because you know they are laughing AT him. Hmmm, you visit a city known for its music industry and you KNOW NOTHING about a local concern?? Good work.

Bush: "I...AM...THE...LAW!"

Washington Post: Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings
White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
...
Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "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."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."
...
[Always observant Representative Henry] Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."
...
But Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence -- without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."

Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

It gets more clear every day. Impeach.

Oh, wouldn't this be sad...Bwhahahahaha

From Think Progress:

Former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert has indicated to a close former aide that it is likely he will not run for a 12th term from his northern Illinois district and may even resign from Congress before his present term concludes. That runs counter to widespread speculation on Capitol Hill that Hastert will continue in the House for another two years as a private member with no leadership responsibilities.

Bonds

My main reaction to what Bonds is doing is sadness. Growing up a baseball fan, I'd never thought I'd see someone break Aaron's record, and I always envisioned it as something quite exciting. The cloud over Bonds (we know he cheated, but how much, for how long, and how much did it actually affect his play will never be known) diminishes the event, no matter what.

I don't condemn him as much as others do, because excluding him from the record books, etc, would require going back through history and doing the same to all of the myriad cheaters throughout the history of baseball - Gaylord Perry, Whitey Ford, every player in the 60's and 70's who took amphetamines, and so on and so on. That's not realistic (and we don't know who did what exactly).

I won't celebrate the accomplishment the same way I want to, and might if ARod gets there someday. If I had a vote, I'd still vote him and Sammy and McGwire into the HOF, although not with joy.

Barry Bonds will hopefully retire at the end of the year as the all-time HR leader (although there's an interesting article on Baseball Prospectus about how, in today's game, Babe Ruth's 714 are equivalent to over 1000 dingers). Rather than being perceived as the truly great player he was, however, his legacy will be that of doubt and anger and sadness.

A home run dumbass

Wow. Check this one out from a Sandeep Mehta of Naperville:

Bonds innocent until proven guilty

Can we all stop complaining about Barry Bonds? I know there's a strong chance that he took some kind of performance-enhancing drugs and maybe he did do it on purpose, but does it really deserve the type of vilification that Bonds has received? The fact of the matter is Bonds is an exception baseball player. He hit at least 30 home runs in every season between 1992 and 2004; since his rookie season he's never struck out over 100 times in any season; he's accumulated over 500 stolen bases; and he's batting almost .300 for his career. These are not numbers that can be accumulated by an average player on steroids. In addition, during the current season Bonds has received more walks than any other player in the league, evidence that pitchers still don't want to pitch to him even at the age of 43. And with all testing procedures in place and no suspicion of steroid use this year, Bonds still ranks among the top 25 in the majors with 17 homeruns.So before we all stand up and boo the man without mercy let’s consider what he has accomplished and whether the supposed crime fit the punishment.

With all those impressive years behind him, does he really deserve to be treated like a criminal every time he takes the field just because he is SUSPECTED of steroid use? There is no way of knowing if Bonds did purposely take steroids or how much they might have helped his numbers. Also, there are many others under suspicion of steroid use and none of them have come close to matching the numbers that Bonds has put up. With or without steroids, Bonds has been a tier above the rest in his abilities as a baseball player. Steroids did not create the numbers Bonds has put up. In my humble opinion instead of boos, this man deserves many more cheers and standing ovations.

Wow, that is staggering, on so many levels. I will let most of it stand on its own because of its obvious ridiculousness, but let's just note:

1) Bonds was a Hall of Famer before he started doing this. We know that. That compounds the tragedy and the farce of this.
2) He isn't SUSPECTED of using steroids. We KNOW he
did.
3) MLB and its testing is WAY behind the dopers.
4) On the #s, you think it was natural to go from 37 home runs in 1998 (when we had the Great Juicer Race) to 73 in 2001?
5) Besides that, he's just a miserable person.

Sandeep, look at his rookie card and him now, and

Draft College Republicans

h/t TPM

Plame lawsuit dismissed

A federal district judge dismissed Valerie Plame's civil suit for outing her against Cheney, Rove and Libby on "jurisdictional" grounds. I'm guessing, without having seen an opinion, that it is based on some form of sovereign immunity. As the repulsive Drudge would say---developing!

Cruise Lines from Hell

A reporter for the Independent, a paper in Britain, recently took part in a cruise organized by the National Review, that bastion of hate and ignorance. Apparently, they do this every year, so if after reading the article, you want to share in the experience, you can.

It's a fascinating and terrifying read, and I'll post one sentence here just to give you a taste.

The familiar routine of the dinners – first the getting-to-know-you chit-chat, then some light conversational fascism – is accelerating.

h/t Glenn Greenwald

Who let the dogs out?

The notion of a dogfight conjures up images of daring aviators in mortal combat, but no--AN NFL QUARTERBACK? Dogs?

You've heard by now that Falcons QB Michael Vick was indicted on charges connected to dogfighting.

I am a dog lover (I have the world's cutest, sweetest and dumbest Pomeranian, Gizzmo, who can't be housetrained for anything but I love him to death.) I have to wonder how anyone could subject dogs to such cruelty, not only the horrific fighting but HANGING or DROWNING those no longer needed? And who enjoys this, who bets on this? (I can't claim PETA perfection on animal gambling, nor would I want to, as I do enjoy 3 or 4 afternoons a summer at Arlington Park, and as Rousing knows, the most exciting two minutes in sports, but that is betting on who wins, not who survives!)

And again, an NFL quarterback???

Vote for "None of the Above"

AP Poll: GOP pick is 'none of the above'

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 17 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - And the leading Republican presidential candidate is ... none of the above.

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.

In sharp contrast, the Democratic race remains static, with Hillary Rodham Clinton holding a sizable lead over Barack Obama. The New York senator, who is white, also outpaces her Illinois counterpart, who is black, among black and Hispanic Democrats, according to a combined sample of two months of polls.

A half year before voting begins, the survey shows the White House race is far more wide open on the Republican side than on the Democratic. The uneven enthusiasm about the fields also is reflected in fundraising in which Democrats outraised Republicans $80 million to $50 million from April through June, continuing a trend from the year's first three months.

"Democrats are reasonably comfortable with the range of choices. The Democratic attitude is that three or four of these guys would be fine," said David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political scientist. "The Republicans don't have that; particularly among the conservatives there's a real split. They just don't see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable."

More Republicans have become apathetic about their top options over the past month.

A hefty 23 percent can't or won't say which candidate they would back, a jump from the 14 percent who took a pass in June.

Where's Richard Pryor when we need him?

From the archives

I was browsing through some old posts, and I came across this comment from Schmidlap:

I see one last hope of knocking the evil fuckers down, but it may not be too solid.

The one thing that is really killing them right now is a vigorous, aggressive, non-politicized Justice Department. Fitz and the boyz are crawling up into each and every orifice, examining each rancid dingleberry. And because the evil cabal is the most gutless, chickenshit bunch of bastards on the planet, at the first sign of DoJ involvement, they are going hoarse from all the squealing they are doing on their "pals." The whole Ponzi scheme is collapsing.

But I say it may not be too solid for two reasons. One, Chimpy McGlowstick-in-Anus can just pardon everyone. Two, he can keep appointing cronies to head Justice and then nothing will really get done. Why Ashcroft recused himself at the beginning of the Plame investigation is one of the great mysteries of our time. You can be sure Abu Gonzalez is more of a team player than that and this breach of trust won't happen twice.

Prescient.