Funny how 60 Minutes managed to get exclusive access to Henry Paulson during the two weeks in which he was preparing to pitch his heads-I-win-tails-the taxpayers-lose $700 billion bailout.

I wonder who Paulson called to set that up? Maybe CBS President Les Moonves? As one of the highest-paid CEOs in the country, I’m sure old Les has got a lot on the line in terms of stocks and other investments.

And funny how while Scott Pelley, in voiceover, told of Paulson’s history as CEO of Goldman Sachs, Pelley never mentioned how Paulson was known as “The Hammer” and “Mr. Risk” during his tenure as CEO, or that he took Goldman Sachs debt position from $20 billion to $100 billion during that same period.

Nor did Pelley ask how Paulson’s leadership as CEO of Goldman Sachs led to the very bailout Paulson is now asking the taxpayers to swallow whole.

Pelley also failed to ask what the thinking was behind Section 8 of Paulson’s initial 3-page plan presented last week:

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

All in all, a win-win for Paulson - he presents his side of the story, looks humble and apologetic, and convinces a few more congresspeople to bend to his will in the final negotiated plan that will give Congress oversight but - at least with the current makeup of the House and Senate - little control over how much money the President gets to give Treasury:

Lawmakers could block half the money and force the president to jump through some hoops before using it all. The government could get at $250 billion immediately, $100 billion more if the president certified it was necessary [HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - just like Congress gave him authority to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "if it proved necessary"?], and the last $350 billion with a separate certification - and subject to a congressional resolution of disapproval.

Still, the resolution could be vetoed by the president, meaning it would take extra-large congressional majorities to stop it.

If you haven’t yet, please read Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine. No book has ever made me angrier or more clear-eyed about BushCo, and on her blog she describes how this bailout is right out of the Chicago School, and intended to scare us all into giving up everything out of fear.

I don’t think it’s working this time, but it’s the Congress, and not the taxpayers, who are caving.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

1 Comments

• At September 29, 2008, Pat wrote:

  I think if you review the history of the Depression that you will see FDR placed a few "foxes" in charge of making up the new regulations designed to prevent a reoccurance. Perhaps Paulson is the new Kennedy?

Building weapons that we don’t need, don’t work, and aren’t necessary, and have no mission — that’s not bad politics, that’s robbery.

I don’t think there’s anything exceptional or noble in being philanthropic. It’s the other attitude that confuses me.

Being on President Nixon’s enemies list was the highest single honor I’ve ever received. Who knows who’s listening to me now and what government list I’m on?

Just when things look darkest, they go black.

I’ve been accused of being aloof. I’m not. I’m just wary.

You only grow when you are alone.

I’m a supporter of gay rights. And not a closet supporter either. From the time I was a kid, I have never been able to understand attacks upon the gay community. There are so many qualities that make up a human being… by the time I get through with all the things that I really admire about people, what they do with their private parts is probably so low on the list that it is irrelevant.

If you’re playing a poker game and you look around the table and and can’t tell who the sucker is, it’s you.

The light that you think you emanate is not necessarily the light that other people see. You think of yourself as a shy, retiring whatever it is, and some other people will see you in an entirely different way. … You have to constantly learn. Obviously, you have to start with some kind of gift, but people don’t understand that. … I don’t have a gift for anything. I’ve only had a gift of pursuit.

I’d like to be remembered as a guy who tried — tried to be part of his times, tried to help people communicate with one another, tried to find some decency in his own life, tried to extend himself as a human being. Someone who isn’t complacent, who doesn’t cop out.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Your Department of Justice at work:

NEW YORK (AP) — Former Justice Department officials will not face prosecution for letting improper political considerations drive hirings of prosecutors, immigration judges and other career government lawyers, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Tuesday.

Mukasey used his sharpest words yet to criticize the senior leaders who took part in or failed to stop illegal hiring practices during the tenure of his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales.

But, he told delegates to the American Bar Association annual meeting, “not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws.”

Tell that to Don Siegelman.

The funniest bit:

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said more needs to be done to prevent political hiring at the agency. “Even if it is true they didn’t commit a crime, it would be appropriate to make what they did a misdemeanor so that in the future, those who violate the civil service laws cannot escape unscathed,” Schumer said in a statement.

Remember this, Chuck?

“While he is certainly conservative,” Mr. Schumer said, “Judge Mukasey seems to be the kind of nominee who would put rule of law first and show independence from the White House, our most important criteria. For sure we’d want to ascertain his approach on such important and sensitive issues as wiretapping and the appointment of U.S. attorneys, but he’s a lot better than some of the other names mentioned and he has the potential to become a consensus nominee.”

How’s that working out for all of us now, Sen. Schumer?

The Dems will never learn. You try to play ball with the GOP and they’ll bean you with it at the first opportunity.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Senator Don Benton claims that his campaign is funded by small business owners and individual citizens at a clip of 60% of his total haul. Aside from the other 40% of his funds coming from places like the National Rifle Association, payday lenders such as Money Tree, tobacco companies like R.J. Reynolds, and corporations like Wal-Mart, Benton’s claims may be correct. One of those individual contributors is Washington philanthropist David Nierenberg.

Nierenberg is the founder of D3 Family Funds of Camas, WA. A longtime contributor to Democrats statewide, Nierenberg invited the senator to invest in D3, which he did, to the tune of $75,000. Benton saw a return on his investment of at least $2,900.

Why is this troubling? David Nierenberg, filing as an individual citizen (and CEO of D3) contributed $2,900 to Don Benton this election cycle. Nierenberg has stated in the past that he supports candidates not by party, but those who exhibit “independent thinking.” David Nierenberg is certainly an independent citizen, but is Don Benton the type of independent thinker Nierenberg thinks he is?

While there is no specific indication that contributors like Mr. Nierenberg are purchasing access through campaign donations, relationships like this one deserve scrutiny, especially considering similar recent scandals with the Alaska state legislature. The meaning of independence, both by those contributing and the legislators whose campaigns they fund, is what’s at stake here.

Was Don Benton thinking independently when he launched his subscription-only legislative news website for registered lobbyists (which ultimately failed)? When state legislative ethics counsel Mike O’Connell warned Benton to “erect firewalls” between his legislative duties and business dealings, Benton ignored them. He signed the solicitation himself and referenced his legislative experience as reasons to subscribe to his service.

Was Don Benton thinking independently when he accepted donations well over the $2,500 contribution limit as head of the GOP state party? Even members of his own party were embarrassed by his actions. King County GOP chairman Reed Davis said Benton left the party in “near chaos.” These incidents paint a picture of the wrong kind of independence needed for voters of the 17th District.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

WASHINGTON — Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in the U.S. Senate and one of the chamber’s most powerful members, was indicted Tuesday in Washington, a result of a year-long investigation into corruption in Alaska politics.

The 7-count indictment comes nearly one year after federal agents raided Stevens’ home in Girdwood, a resort town about 40 miles south of Anchorage.
…
A broad federal investigation of public corruption has been under way in Alaska for more than four years, although it didn’t become widely known until Aug. 31, 2006.
…
The government has since brought indictments against five state legislators. Three have been convicted by juries and two are awaiting trial. Four others — two former top officials with Veco Corp., the former chief of staff of Gov. Frank Murkowski and a private-prison lobbyist - have entered guilty pleas and are cooperating with the government.

The investigation continues, with grand juries hearing secret testimony in Anchorage and Washington, D.C.

Federal agents searched the Stevens’ Girdwood home on July 30, 2007. Alaska’s sole congressman, Don Young, is also under federal investigation.

Couldn’t happen to a bigger prick:

• On a vote on drilling in ANWR: “People who vote against this today are voting against me and I will not forget.”

• Would not allow a vote on whether to have oil executives sworn in before their Senate testimony.

• On New Orleans after the federal flood: “Why would we want to rebuild these homes in an area below sea level?”

• On the Bridge to Nowhere, which the Senate decided to de-fund in order to spend more on rebuilding NOLA: “I will put the Senate on notice — and I don’t kid people — if the Senate decides to discriminate against our state and take money only from our state, I will resign from this body.” [Of course, he didn't.]

• Blamed former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel for the death of his (Steven’s) wife in a plane crash that also injured Stevens:

Stevens hobbled into a Senate committee hearing a couple of months later on crutches and in bandages. With Gravel present, Stevens raised the topic of his reason for flying that fateful day. “I don’t want to get personal about it,” he told the stunned audience, “but I think if that bill had passed, I might have a wife sitting at home when I get home tonight, too.”

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

“Even if you never met [Obama], you know this guy,” Rove said, per Christianne Klein. “He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.”

It’s classic Rove: Plaster over the racist truth (that many country clubs in the U.S. still won’t admit blacks) by doubling down on the lie: not only is Obama elite, but he is right now at the country club you could never have gotten into, with a woman you could never hope to even approach. And he’s laughing at you.

It’s a twofer for Rove: not only does he give crackers an excuse not to feel bad about their bigotry, but he gives them an acceptable reason to hate Obama that they can wedge into their bigotry’s place. TA-DA!

Because Rove wants you to forget, first and foremost, that this is the country we live in:

And to remember that being black gives Obama an unfair advantage. He’s one lucky Negro!

It’s putting the Swift Boat in reverse. Instead of stripping Kerry’s military service of meaning and then doubling down on that lie by calling him effete, elite and French - the equivalent of calling him a decadent gay traitor - this new lie takes away an actual societal impediment (racism) and replaces it with the kind of affirmative action which only men like George W. Bush actually get to take advantage of.

I can only hope that (1) this is too obvious to succeed; (2) voters are too smart to fall for it; (3) that the 24-26 percent of voters that voted for Bush in 2004 but hate him now are in too much economic pain to vote against their interests again, even if a racist appeal does work on them; (4) that the 24 percent who still love Bush but hate McCain will stay home in November; and (5) that Dems bring enough new voters into the process to overwhelm this and any other dirty tricks the likes of Rove and Roger Stone have up their fetid sleeves.

But given that Bush was actually re-elected in 2004, I’ll have to pin my hopes on (4) and (5).

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Image via Wikipedia

Despite several PCO votes against the motion, the 17th Legislative District Democrats put their bylaw on hold that bars endorsing a candidate before the primary and bowed down to the Democratic State Party’s edict to nominate ONE candidate per race in the primary election.

Politics seems to be local only when it suits the powers that be. Washblog also has a post on this failure to abide by democratic principles appropriately entitled:

A bad taste in my mouth. . .

Hope no one is surprised. Given the way the party leaders have treated certain primary challengers in recent memory, this is just more of the same old same old.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Oh, how I wish we lived in a country like this fantasy:

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Cranky conservative curmudgeon Ben Stein’s (Bueller?) anti-Darwin film is getting slammed for some lapses of integrity. Surprise surprise.

Six Things in Expelled that Ben Stein Doesn’t Want You to Know…
…about intelligent design and evolution
1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.
When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein’s narration quotes from Darwin’s The Descent of Man thusly:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

This is how the original passage in The Descent of Man reads (unquoted sections emphasized in italics):

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

And much, much more.
Michael Moore was rightly called out for similar dishonest parts in his films, but this is definitely much more brazen.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

He is an IDIOT.

With all due respect to Jane Hamsher, I don’t give a rat’s ass if anyone “set him up.” No one slipped him GBH and forced him to pay $4,300 for a “7-star” hooker.

Republicans are supposed to be this stupid, not Democratic, former-2-term-AG Governors.

MORON. ASSHOLE. JUDAS. BILL CLINTON.

How come our assholes are always so smart? We’re not talking David Vitter or even Charlie Sheen here, but Elliott freaking Spitzer.

Jesus H. Christ at a clambake, this kind of stupid only comes with a king-sized scoop of arrogance.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

3 Comments

• At March 11, 2008, bushtool wrote:

  I once dated a lady with a phd degree who would repeatedly say that men don't stop thinking with their "you know whats" until they reach age 45.

  Spitzer made it to 48 and counting. A sad story for someone with a glorious background and career.

  Oh well, maybe he will enjoy life in the private sector too because his public days or hours are numbered.

• At March 11, 2008, Allen wrote:

  Slim, it doesn't really matter what political party a person belongs to, there is sex scandles on both sides. One thing I have noticed is nobody, NOBODY, mentions that they are elected employees of the taxpayers. (I call those elected employees BOTTOM FEEDERS.) Why have most of them forgotten they took an oath of office to protect our Constitution? Ever attend one of the so called town hall meetings and asked that person about that?

  Admitted thief Moller thinks its ok for illegal people to receive a WA drivers license. Excuse me, but what F**king part of illegal doesn't he understand. His oath of office, he has forgotten, (and he is not the only one) and they do not deserve to be paid to represent us taxpayers.

  Why is "Duke Cunningham", ex rep from San Diego, Ney, from Ohio, after pleading guilty to crimes, and in jail, will still receive their taxpayer retirement? Christ, when will the taxpayer/voters start to wake up? Am I the only one who sees the rotten stench from the people we pay to represent us?

  And another question to ponder. If you, as a resident, and taxpayer, are legally eligible to vote, why do you have to declare what party you stand for. You should be able to vote for who ever you want, primary thur the general election. Guess what, our elected employees will never, never let that happen. Ask yourself why, and then ask your elected employee why is he/she is denying your right to vote.

  And yes, most men think with the little head instead of the big head. But until a person knows the private life of the man involved, and his wife, who knows? To many headaches, back aches, etc. is a possible excuse, but IMHO, any person who cheats on their spouse is a piece of MANURE.

• At March 13, 2008, bushtool wrote:

  Here is another post on Spitzer by my favorite blogger.

  We have lost a good public servant but gained another scandalous, privacy invading media story. And as Nader says "It's as though Congress is saying to us that Bush is so impeachable we can't impeach him". Will somebody please make him a sexual offer he can't refuse?

when his time comes, Alan Greenspan would fall directly from his lofty platonic perch down to the deepest circle of hell, where he would live in a flooded New Orleans shotgun with Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, each given only a tablespoon to bail with while fetid water continued to seep through the walls, rank with the stench of forgotten corpses and slick with a toxic stew of petroleum derivatives.

But even that punishment might be insufficient for Greenspan to recognize that there are actual people suffering under the burdens of his laissez faire capitalism:

“It’s very critical that this thing reach a selling climax — if I may put it in other words, exhaust itself,” Greenspan said. “It’s only when the markets are perceived to have exhausted themselves on the downside that they turn. Trying to prevent them from going down just merely prolongs the agony.”

Why is this bastard is still on the teevee when it was his enthusiasm for “innovative loan products” that helped build this Big Shitpile*? Let’s take a trip down memory lane with the guru, shall we?

April 17, 2002: “The ongoing strength in the housing market has raised concerns about the possible emergence of a bubble in home prices. However, the analogy often made to the building and bursting of a stock price bubble is imperfect. . . Even if a bubble were to develop in a local market, it would not necessarily have implications for the nation as a whole. …[B]ecause the turnover of homes is so much smaller than that of stocks and because the underlying demand for living space tends to be revised very gradually, the speed and magnitude of price rises and declines often observed in markets for securities are more difficult to create in markets for homes. ”

November 13, 2002: “[I]t is important to recognize that the extraction of equity from homes has been a significant support to consumption during a period when other asset prices were declining sharply. Were it not for this phenomenon, economic activity would have been notably weaker in the wake of the decline in the value of household financial assets.”

February 11, 2003: “Moreover, owing to continued large gains in residential real estate values, equity in homes has continued to rise despite sizable debt-financed extractions. Adding in the fixed costs associated with other financial obligations, such as rental payments of tenants, consumer installment credit, and auto leases, the total servicing costs faced by households relative to their incomes are below previous peaks and do not appear to be a significant cause for concern at this time.”

July 15, 2003: “”[H]istorically low mortgage interest rates have helped to propel a solid advance in the value of the owner-occupied housing stock. . . We expect both equity extraction and lower debt service to continue to provide support for household spending in the period ahead…”

February 16, 2005: “The rapid rise in home prices over the past several years has provided households with considerable capital gains. . . [F]rom the perspective of an individual household, cash realized from capital gains has the same spending power as cash from any other source.”

June 9, 2005: “Although a ‘bubble’ in home prices for the nation as a whole does not appear likely, there do appear to be, at a minimum, signs of froth in some local markets where home prices seem to have risen to unsustainable levels.”

July 20, 2005: “The increase in the prevalence of interest-only loans and the introduction of more-exotic forms of adjustable-rate mortgages are developments of particular concern. … some households may be employing these instruments to purchase homes that would otherwise be unaffordable.”

August 25, 2005: “History has not dealt kindly with the aftermath of protracted periods of low risk premiums… What [homeowners] perceive as newly abundant liquidity can readily disappear. Whether the current elevated level of wealth-to-income ratio will be sustained in the longer run remains to be seen.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A little slow on the uptake, our buddy Alan. For further proof, here’s Greenspan on the chances of a U.S. recession, yesterday:

“The probabilities of a recession have moved up to close to 50 percent — whether it’s above or below is really extraordinarily difficult to tell,” Greenspan said.

And here is Greenspan 5 weeks ago:

On Nov. 7, he told a conference in Sao Paolo that the chances of a recession were “less than 50-50.”

And here is me, in April 2006:

Add to [the housing bubble] the “stings” of a concurrent slowdown in construction, high oil prices, the cost of the war, and the continuous purge of skilled, decent wage jobs out of the U.S., though - it’s a recipe for recession.

It’s not that I’m so smart (I got a D+ in high school pre-calculus, and I think the teacher just gave me the “+” for effort); but, if I can outguess Greenspan by 1½ years, why is anyone still listening to him?

[emphasis added.]

*as Atrios calls it.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

From our international banker this morning:

The G-20 meeting in Capetown met expectations, which were low. There were the concerns over the falling dollar and subprime but no fresh approaches were suggested. IMF officials even seem to welcome the dollar’s decline was needed medicine to address global imbalances. And regarding imbalances, …bonuses on Wall Street for the five largest investment banks will be around $38 billion this year with the average payout to 186,000 investment banking community averaging $201,000. Merrill Lynch will pay out $9 billion.

That would be these top five investment banks:

Bear Stearns:

Bear Stearns Cos.’ credit rating was cut by Standard & Poor’s after the securities firm said it would write down the value of subprime assets by $1.2 billion, leading to its first quarterly loss since becoming a public company.
…
Chief Executive Officer James “Jimmy” Cayne has cut 900 jobs, or about 6 percent of the workforce. Even as he pursues “significant steps” to contain costs, Cayne’s efforts may be hampered by “the company’s need to remain competitive in terms of compensation,” S&P said.

Goldman Sachs:

Goldman, of course, has made its share of mistakes. It took among the most serious write-downs in the third quarter on loans that were made to private equity firms, totaling $1.5 billion. The firm runs one of the largest hedge fund operations in the world, but its flagship funds — funds whose investors include marquee Goldman clients and employees — have had two years of abysmal performance.

Lehman Brothers:

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc said on Tuesday quarterly earnings fell 3.2 percent on writedowns linked to mortgages and leveraged loans…

Lehman said it wrote down some $700 million of residential mortgage positions and loan commitments, after accounting for gains in its hedges, and said the outlook for credit looks better.

Merrill Lynch:

But now is no time to be buying Merrill’s stock. Simply put, the company still faces immense mortgage-related losses and a market for investment banking services that is looking wobbly at best.

…Estimates for next year’s profits are sure to slip. After writing down the value of its subprime-related securities by a stunning $8 billion last month, Merrill still has about $21 billion of subprime exposure.
…
Merrill also faces the prospect of declining profits in its investment banking unit. Retreating from lucrative bond underwriting activities could cut the firm’s net income by $1.4 billion next year, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. analyst Brad Hintz.

Morgan Stanley:

The drumbeat of subprime losses continued on Wall Street on Wednesday. After the closing bell, Morgan Stanley said it had suffered $3.7 billion in losses over the last two months on its portfolio of mortgage-related investments.

Worse yet, the brokerage said its losses may balloon to $6 billion if the markets continue to sour.

The bankers get the bonuses, while the taxpayers bail out the bankers.

[emphasis added.]

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Oy vey…

State Rep. Jim Dunn will be stripped of his committee assignments and denied travel reimbursement after the 17th District lawmaker made what even Dunn acknowledged was an “inappropriate” remark to a woman at a legislative function in the Tri-Cities last month…snip…

“I opened my mouth inappropriately and apologized for it,” Dunn said. He said he couldn’t recall exactly what he said to the woman, who was a stranger to him, but it was along the lines of “I bought you a drink because I want to take you home.”

Dunn, who is married, said he was pressured to resign but refused. “I’m elected by the people,” he said.

Aneurin’s all over it:

If you have zero committee assignments, how are you supposed to represent your constituents effectively? Like Richard Curtis, he’s using per diem for hotel rooms to score. But Dunn’s not a playa, legislatively or otherwise, having introduced no substantial legislation whatsoever, period. Now Debolt is knee capping him, requesting that Speaker Chopp strip him of his committee assignments and that per diem be stripped after the 2008 session. In this case, we all hate the playa, and the game.

Read the rest of his post.

Link to the Columbian’s article.

I am speechless.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

1 Comments

• At November 6, 2007, bushtool wrote:

  Why things happen in life are a mystery sometimes, this isn't one of those sometimes. Now can we get someone in the 17th to represent us that is competent?

  Tim, you there?

Brain-dead morning chat show on high tech devices with which to spy on your own children.
What better way to simultaneously say to your children that you are too damn lazy to parent correctly and that they are also untrustable?
Watch it here.
It starts out with the expected internet and computer monitoring devices and gets more and more Orwellian, finally culminating in an uber-creepy medical rape-kit repackaged for the Generican public.
There is a psychologist on hand to say that these measures are perhaps going too far, but she gets drowned out by the relentless sheep bleating of the captive zombie audience.
Talk about Domestic Spying!
Yick!

Found at Bulldada News

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Cry for America

Loyalty has its rewards.

Digby has an intelligent article on the pros and cons of impeachment.  What always gets me about these articles is why it was OK to impeach Clinton even though the conviction failed in the Senate but it is not OK to impeach Bush even though it will fail in the Senate?

Is not the principle that Cheney and Bush most certainly warrant impeachment more important than whatever the political fallout that may occur?  So what if the Senate fails to convict.  The State of California failed to convict OJ and Blake too.  Does that mean they should not have been indicted?

The House of Representatives should bring articles of impeachment even if that ends up getting the entire House voted out of office.  Whatever happened to doing the right thing for our country rather than the politically smart thing?

I know, I know, I am being delusional.  You can't expect altruistic behavior from these people.  Never mind.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

7 Comments

• At July 2, 2007, g. kortes wrote:

  This is sick. We have dictators running our country. The sad part is they are accountable to no one and their low probably hasn't hit bottom.

• At July 2, 2007, bushtool wrote:

  This had to occur. One of the ways I suspect they kept Scooter from "spilling the beans" was that he was assured he would not spend a day in prison.

  So the Bush crime family is just paying back the loyalty earned from Scooter's failure to incriminate others in the White House.

  Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon set the precedent that top officials are "special" when it comes to being able to break the law. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton's pardons also set a low bar for what is OK behavior. It seems hypocritical to me for anyone to yell foul too loudly on this.

  Perhaps a solution would be to change the way pardons are handled, possibly requiring Congressional approval. But since it seems "we, the people" can no longer get anything changed with respect to our government, I wouldn't hold your breath trying to change this.

  We can't even conduct an honest election.

  We desperately need someone who actually will "restore honor and integrity to the White House". Again I wouldn't hold your breath.

• At July 2, 2007, Aneurin wrote:

  You have got to be kidding -- complaining about this egregious pardon would be hypocritical? Come on. The Mark Rich pardons pale in comparison to this. This pardon is even worse than Ford's pardon of Nixon.

  Pardoning a high placed staff member in covering up a treasonous crime, treason to shut up a critic of the war, a war which was launched illegally, far outweighs ANYTHING Clinton did.

  The White House even went so far as to shut off their comment phone lines today. But you know what? You can call tomorrow:

  202-456-1111

• At July 3, 2007, Allen wrote:

  I don't think that Bush cares about the Republican Party, as this will/might come back to hurt the pubbies in the next election.

  The pubbies claim they are the party of Law and Order. This action shows what they think of the law. Of course both parties will SPIN this different ways. But what about the swing voters?

  Just recently Paris Hilton had to do her 23 days of time, her money didn't mean s$$t, but she wasn't political connected. Libby was.

  Does this mean that all the people sitting in jail now, and future people who are convicted for perjury, obstruction of justice, can have their jail time commuted? A good defense lawyer might be able to make this happen. A whole new can of worms may have been opened by this action. I guess time will tell.

• At July 3, 2007, bushtool wrote:

  I wonder who is going to pay Libby's $250,000 fine? Surely he will be reimbursed by someone.

  I heard yesterday that Libby will probably also be pardoned, if his appeals all fail (or right before Bush's term ends, whichever comes first). So does that mean he gets pardoned from paying the fine? I would think so.

  The Supreme Court would almost certainly overturn his convictions in any event.

  These people are truly above the law. Never thought I'd see things come to this...

  Update: Just read that Libby's defense fund will pay his fine. And that he will probably be offered a cushy job for his trouble by the Republican elite. So there does not appear to be any need to actually pardon him. His won't need his law license to make a hefty salary. Case closed. Mission Accomplished.

• At July 4, 2007, bushtool wrote:

  Noticed this comment over at OpEdNews.

  Leaderless Democrats

  By taking Impeachment off the table,' Pelosi and Reid have forfeited their right to leadership' of the Democratic party. Stopping the Cheney/Bush criminal regime in it's tracks is imperative, and no other issue confronting America is greater than stopping the Almighty Republican Establishment's national and international crime spree.

  "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Quote by an anonymous Republican.

  That quote exactly describes the situation today, for tomorrow, and for the last six years. You can't stop a national and international crime wave while allowing the criminals responsible for the crime wave free-reign to continue committing crimes. Republicans are burying us alive under a mountain of corruption that's getting bigger every day.

  Demand that Pelosi and Reid step down and relinquish control of congress. They are either unable to understand that stopping a crime wave requires that you stop the criminals, or they are complicit in the corruption.

  Leaderless Democrats can't win the 2008 presidential elections, and leaders who fail to lead won't be reelected either. We little' democrats might not be able to punish Republican criminals, but we damn sure can punish incompetent, or suspiciously enabling Democratic leaders.'

  Impeach, or we'll stay home on election day.

  It's beginning to look that maybe the only way to crush the greater of two evils is to abandon the lesser evil. After that, Republicans will crash and burn a surely as the sun will rise tomorrow.

  No pain, no gain.

  by rabblerowzer (0 articles, 192 comments) on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 8:21:14 AM

  Perhaps the Dems, by trying to play it safe, will end up losing rather than gaining power. Life is like that sometimes. I know my spouse is not going to vote anymore and she has been (unlike me) a lifelong Democratic voter. Actions and non-actions have consequences.

  But then one can make the argument that voting is meaningless anyway because it is so swayed by media propaganda, corrupted voting systems and illegal acts by partisan election officials.

• At July 4, 2007, bushtool wrote:

  Sorry Senator Biden. No Can Do.

  I don't think calling the White House or Congress will change a damn thing besides maybe allow you to let off some steam.

  The Bush crime family is not running a popularity contest. And Congress has shown they will not act according to the will of the people. So phone calling your discontent is not going to make a difference.

  Real campaign finance reform such as voluntary clean election systems might make a difference; real lobbying reform might make a difference, instant runoff voting might make a difference; removal of paperless voting machines might make a difference; but calling, writing, and emailing your elected officials will not make a difference because they are not listening to you. They are only listening to moneyed interests, political pundits and their own self interest. But they will be sure and tell you otherwise.