My Hair Is Not On Fire

(Click on image to enlarge, and then get back here.)

A confession:  this post is written before the debate.  Since I don't have television, I won't be watching it, and it's entirely possible I won't listen to it on NPR and check in on the internet to see what folks are saying about it.  I am that tired of the campaign.

But David Horsey's cartoon and column did get my attention, if only because it addressed one of my profound peeves about politics in this country.  To be fair, Horsey does raise some good points about Mr. Etcha-A-Sketch and his campaign.  Obama missed a lot of easy opportunities in the last debate, and apparently it has cost him.

The Republican nominee came prepared to disavow his own nasty comments about the allegedly government-dependent 47% of Americans, but President Obama failed to bring it up, so Romney had to do the disavowing on his own the next day. Perhaps Obama's failure to fully engage in the debate can be ascribed to the shock of seeing Romney abandon his entire campaign persona with such ease.

And Romney has been rewarded for it. Apparently, undecided voters admire a candidate who can turn on a dime and abandon yesterday's convictions in favor of today's more convenient ones. But what happens if Romney has run out of convictions to abandon? Is there anything left, any small principle to which he still clings?

Well, there is one.

In tonight's debate, look for yesterday's Mormon to show up as a guy who can't remember ever visiting Salt Lake City.

Like I said, Horsey's point is well-taken, up to a point. 

Quite frankly, I don't care if Mitt Romney is a Mormon, just like I didn't care that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were Southern Baptists or John Kennedy was a Catholic.  I know, I know, this should be fair game because Obama keeps getting smeared by the Reich Wing as a Muslim.  But I wouldn't care if he were, just like I don't care that Rep. Ellison (DFL-Minnesota) is, or, in a non-political arena, Maher Hatout is.  Professed religion should not be a touchstone for public office or for a public voice.

I don't even have to raise the "our founders" argument and their expressions in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  I can go back further.  The people from England and Europe who initially settled this country were, to a large extent, driven here by those in the old country who couldn't abide their religious beliefs and who were making life so difficult that folks like the Puritans came to this country just to exist.  While I'm not a huge fan of the Puritans, I do appreciate the troubles they faced, and I don't want that repeated now.

And it's not like we don't have the mechanisms to check any untoward intrusions into our rights by a zealot of any stripe.  We just have to have the ovaries to invoke them.

So, maybe tonight will be enlightening for those who still haven't made up their minds or those who are wavering.  I suppose that's a good thing.  I just hope I can get through the next three weeks without taking a hostage.

Oh, and all that popcorn I have on hand?  I've donated to the nice young man next door who is a NY Giant fan.  I think he'll make better use of it.

A New Tool In The Kit

The Citizens United case has really made a huge difference in campaign finance, a difference that both major parties have cheerfully exploited. By allowing corporations to make huge donations, those far beyond what are allowed individual donors, the case makes it easier for candidates to quickly snap up huge amounts of cash without much effort.

The Supreme Court decision, which I consider absurd on its face and tortured in its logic, opened the door to the potential for abuse and we might have just been handed the first clear-cut example of that abuse.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Federal Elections Commission records show that $1 million was given to Restore Our Future, a so-called super PAC backing Romney, by W Spann LLC. Under the law, corporations can now give such donations.

However, NBC News reported Thursday that the firm was incorporated only in March, made the donation in April and was dissolved on July 11, just before the super PAC was required to disclose donations.

Given the time line, the only inference which can be drawn is that the "corporation" was a dummy shell, created solely to slip Romney a cool million to his already bloated war chest. Pretty tricksy, eh?

Perhaps just a tad too tricksy, at least I hope so.

While federal election law permits corporations to donate to super PACs, it prohibits the use of conduits to conceal the identity of actual donors. That could lead to an official inquiry by the FEC or the Justice Department.

"There is FEC precedent to conduct an investigation to determine if this corporation used it own funds to make a contribution --- which would be legal after Citizens United -- or whether the corporation was just a conduit for a person or persons who did not want to disclose their identity," said Brett Kappel, an election lawyer at Arent Fox law firm in Washington. [Emphasis added]

Of course, even if the FEC opens such an investigation, it is unlikely that the investigation will be completed and the predictable law suit resolved before the 2012 election, much less before the GOP convention. It is also unlikely that Mitt Romneywill return the money (where would he send it?) although he could score some major integrity points if he did.

This is what we can expect for as long as the Citizens United decision stands.

All that dry powder accumulated during the 110th Congress is emitting a deadly odor at this point.

An Unpatriotic Act

Today's Los Angeles Times has a totally mealy-mouthed editorial on the Patriot Act. Oh, the "center-left" editorial board got some of it right, but it apparently still doesn't get that the Patriot Act, the entire act, not just those provisions about to expire and not just the national security letters, was among the most devastating assaults on constitutional guarantees in our history.

The editorial was right to concentrate on the national security letters, that I will grant, but a more helpful explication would have made it clear that those letters are emblematic of just why the entire act is blatantly unAmerican. Instead, the editorial board chose to nibble along the edges, much the same way Congress is doing.

The Patriot Act's greatest threat to personal privacy lies not in any of the provisions set to expire but in the law's expansion of the use of national security letters, subpoenas that allow the FBI to obtain records without a warrant. In 2008, the FBI issued 24,744 letters involving the records of 7,225 people. Not surprisingly, there have been abuses. In 2007, after an investigation of four FBI offices, the Justice Department's inspector general found irregularities in 22% of documents related to the issuance of national security letters. Last year, he found that the FBI had made "significant progress" in correcting violations.

Even so, the criteria for issuing the letters are too vague. At present, the government must merely certify that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation. The bill approved by the Judiciary Committee would increase the burden on the government slightly by requiring a written statement of specific facts demonstrating relevance. A narrower amendment by Feingold and Durbin -- which would have required issuance of national security letters to be related to a suspected foreign agent or terrorist or a possible confederate -- was rejected by the committee. It should be added on the Senate floor or in an eventual conference with the House.

The other problem with national security letters is that the companies or other institutions that receive them are not allowed to reveal that fact publicly, though they can appeal them in a closed hearing in federal District Court. Feingold proposed that the government certify that disclosure of the request would result in serious harm, and that the gag be lifted in a year's time unless the government presented new evidence that secrecy was necessary. The final version of the Patriot Act extension legislation should include those safeguards.

National security letters are nothing more than a way for the government to avoid the oversight of the judiciary with respect to search and seizure. They replace the warrants, applied for with an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury that there is good cause for the search and then reviewed by a court. That the Justice Department's inspector general found evidence of abuse was no shocking revelation. It was expected. The FBI didn't and still doesn't care because its agents will get away with such abuse 90% of the time, primarily because of the secrecy surrounding them.

These provisions don't need to be tinkered with by inserting "safeguards;" they need to be repealed in toto, just as the rest of the Patriot Act should. The 109th Congress, pushed against the wall by the Bush-Cheney White House, passed the act in response to 9/11, an attack that the CIA and the FBI had warned the president about a month before it happened. That information wasn't garnered with national security letters or warrantless wire taps. The attack was successful because a president was too lazy, too stupid, and too incompetent to listen to his own government's briefing.

The 110th Congress, with a Democratic majority did nothing but allow for expansion of those unconstitutional police powers, and the 111th Congress hasn't seen any need to rectify matters so far either. And they won't, unless they are pressured to do so. Weak editorials such as this aren't going to provide any pressure.

What a wasted opportunity.

Teh Stupid, It Burns!

I hate getting up in the morning and being slapped with yet another example of Congressional Democrats' stupidity. Today was just one of those days. The source of my irritation was this article in today's Washington Post. It seems the President was whining about the slow confirmation process when it comes to the federal judiciary to a bunch of conservative lawyers:

President Bush stepped gingerly into the presidential campaign on Monday, offering an implicit endorsement of Sen. John McCain's judicial philosophy and accusing Democrats of contributing to a "broken confirmation process" for federal judges.

Broken confirmation process? Say, what? Last I checked, the Mr. Bush has gotten just about everything he has wanted in this respect. Lots of other folks who are keeping track feel the same way:

Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy group, said that 10 of the nation's 13 federal appellate courts are now "dominated by conservatives" and that Roberts and Alito are part of a "conservative juggernaut."

"This administration has cemented a transformation of our federal judiciary begun by Ronald Reagan, which has resulted in less freedom, less privacy and fewer constitutional protections," Aron said.

OK, the facts are that the federal judiciary has swung to the right as a result of the Republican majorities and the Republican presidents the past 20 years. Here comes the really stupid part, however.

Democrats expressed surprise that Bush would revive such allegations, arguing that the Senate has confirmed more of Bush's nominees in the past two years than were approved under the previous six years of GOP control.

The White House says 324 of 376 federal court nominees have been confirmed during Bush's tenure, with 34 current vacancies. By comparison, Democrats say, there were 84 judicial openings at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency.

Our Democratic legislators are freakin' bragging about their complicity in turning the federal judiciary, including the US Supreme Court, over to those who have essentially demonstrated a total disdain for due process and civil rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Well, to be fair, at least one senator sees the problem for what it is:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said in a statement that the "balance on our nation's federal courts is precarious," with 60 percent of the federal bench appointed by Republican presidents. "We cannot afford more of the same if Americans' rights and liberties are to be preserved," Leahy said.

More like Sen. Leahy, please.

And gags for the rest of those clowns.

Very Expensive Sausage

Yesterday I got a long email from my congressman, David Dreier, in which he explains his votes on the Wall St. Bailout Plan. Here's an excerpt:

I said NO to a bailout for Wall Street, no to golden parachutes for bums who caused this problem, no to a blank check for Secretary Paulson, no to taxpayer funding for partisan groups like ACORN, no to allowing judges to reduce the value of our homes, no to mandating union leaders to serve on boards of private business, no to government manipulation of the housing market. I fought for and voted YES for a plan to unclog the banking system, yes to increased protection for family and small business savings, yes to ensure that sons and daughters have access to student loans so they can get a college education, and most important of all, yes to guaranteeing that the taxpayer dollars are going to be repaid in full and made whole.

Actually, David, you did no such thing. You voted "yes" both times the bill was before the House. I think that pretty stunning for an avowed "Free Market" Republican, but I'm not really surprised. You've marched in lockstep with your GOP colleagues on just about everything the White House wanted.

What I was surprised by, however, was the vote of Democrats, both in the Senate and in the House. And I was shocked by those Democrats in the House who switched their votes from "No" to "Hell, Yes!" in the second vote. I shouldn't have been, I guess. Joel Stein had already warned me about this in his column in yesterday's Los Angeles Times, which was obviously written before the House vote:

Every representative who voted no on the bailout got something totally sweet in the bill that passed the Senate. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.) changed his mind once he got the health insurance for mental illness he's been fighting for. The Senate is trying to bribe Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) with tax breaks for Arizona solar companies. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who rides a bicycle, is supposed to be tempted by a tax deduction for bike commuters, as Democrats Adam Schiff of Burbank and Brad Sherman of Sherman Oaks are by tax breaks for movie producers. If they all vote no again, the next version of the bill will include a federally funded movie about a schizophrenic guy who rides his solar-powered bike to work. Which will win 8,000 Oscars. ...

It's become clear that we're not so desperate that we should give so much away so quickly. On Sept. 18, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that if a bill wasn't passed that week, "we may not have an economy on Monday." Not only did we have one, but in the coming days some smart, conservative investors (JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Warren Buffett) scooped up some troubled banks (Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Goldman Sachs) and the crappy mortgages they held, and the government hardly did anything. The only thing we have to fear is the government making us scared.

Any representative who voted against the world's largest economic bailout last week but votes for this bigger, uglier, more dangerous version has been bought. Whether you think this bailout is good or not, the people who changed their minds on such a monumental matter for such flimsy, unrelated reasons do not deserve to be trusted with your vote this November. [Emphasis added]

And that, my friends, is how congressional sausage is made: bribe the recalcitrant congress critter by including a bill important to him or her with the obvious unstated suggestion that it's the only way that bill is going to see the light of day. And the suckers caved.

My disgusto-meter just broke.

Meanwhile, Back In Congress

The financial crisis the US is facing and the bailout proposed by the current administration have taken up everyone's attention the past several days, and rightfully so. While I don't think the situation is quite as dire as Messrs. Bush, Bernanke and Paulson would have us believe, it is serious and Congress should move quickly (rather than hastily) towards a reasonable response to the crisis.

Congress has other issues facing it, however, and many of them are are not being reported on. One of those issues is a retooling of the 1973 War Powers Act now being considered. That law was passed in response to the Viet Nam war, which was waged without Congressional approval. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed by Congress did not authorize the military action taken by the executive branch, but presidents involved used the ambiguities of that resolution to prosecute the war. By 1973, the American public had had enough of that war, and the 1973 Act was a direct response. It made clear that approval for war-making had to come from the Congress, which is what the US Constitution mandated.

Two members of the Congress that passed that 1973 War Powers Act (Paul Findley, R-Ill., and Don Fraser, D-Minn.) have an op-ed piece in today's Los Angeles Times about the updating of the 1973 act and they are outraged at one proposal which has issued.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee is conducting hearings on proposals to amend the War Powers Act of 1973. One proposal, House Joint Resolution 53, would wisely tighten restrictions on executive war-making by the president. Another, proposed by a 12-member commission led by two former secretaries of State -- Republican James Baker and Democrat Warren Christopher -- but not yet introduced as a bill, would dangerously expand the authority of the president to order acts of war without authorization by Congress. Baker and Christopher are scheduled to testify before Congress on Wednesday about their proposal. ...

...the Baker-Christopher panel urges scrapping the War Powers Act of 1973 in favor of a so-called War Powers Consultation Act of 2009, which would increase the war powers of the president far beyond the limits allowed by our Constitution. This commission is asking Congress to approve legislation that would enable the president to start a war -- or in any way use military force -- without even a report to Congress, much less consultation. The proposed legislation has loopholes big enough to allow major military operations by the president alone.

Among these loopholes we find that "limited acts of reprisal against terrorists or states that sponsor terrorism" are exempt from reference to Congress. But who identifies "terrorists"? Who defines "terrorism"? Who determines which are "states that sponsor terrorism"? Who defines "limited"? The president alone. Congress is consigned to the role of an uninformed, unconsulted bystander.

Under this exception, the president could, without even a nod to Congress, ignore historic rights of national sovereignty and commit acts of war against any country that he determines is a haven of suspected terrorists. He could, for example, declare Iran a state that sponsors terrorism and carpet-bomb its nuclear facilities. The language is sufficiently ambiguous to enable a willful president to start a major war without constitutional authority, exactly as occurred in Vietnam.

Another expansion of presidential war powers proposed by Baker and Christopher would allow "acts to prevent criminal activity abroad." But who defines "criminal activity"? Who decides what "acts to prevent" such activity should be used? Again, the president alone decides.

Still another loophole is the exclusion of "covert activities" from approval by Congress. With recent revelations of CIA bombings in Pakistan and the scandals at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo fresh in mind, it must be obvious that the country needs more oversight, not less.

It's time for Congress to step up to their constitutional responsibilities and to quit passing them over to the executive branch. If the past eight years has taught us anything it is that giving the president unlimited power has been disastrous, from the current Wall Street debacle, to the one in Baghdad and Guantanamo Bay, from the unwarranted domestic spying to the scrapping of regulatory oversight of polluters.

Yes, a president has to be able to respond expeditiously to attacks, but he or she must consult with and gain the approval of Congress before taking the country to war. The US Constitution requires it. The 1973 Act has worked for 35 years. It may need updating, but it doesn't need trashing.

Head, Meet Desk

Like most bloggers, I've been concentrating on the presidential campaign now that both national conventions are over. As a result, I completely overlooked this article in yesterday's NY Times.

Congressional Democrats have scrapped plans for another vote on expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, thus sparing Republicans from a politically difficult vote just weeks before elections this fall.

Before the summer recess, Democrats had vowed repeatedly to force another vote on the popular program. But Democrats say they have shifted course, after concluding that President Bush would not sign their legislation and that they could not override his likely veto.

Mr. Bush vetoed two earlier versions of the legislation, which he denounced as a dangerous step toward “government-run health care for every American,” and the House sustained those vetoes. [Emphasis added]

To be fair, the Democratic leadership defended the decision not only on the fact that they couldn't deliver the votes for a veto override but also on the change in cost of the program which would not be offset completely by the tobacco tax envisioned as part of the bill. That means they would have to search out a way to pay the difference, perhaps by cutting funding elsewhere and there just isn't much time between now and the end of the session to do that. They promise a new and improved bill will be introduced in the 111th Congress.

That said, I must admit that I'm disappointed in the Democratic leadership for overlooking the obvious. Most of the country wants health care access for children and the SCHIP program has delivered that access. Voting against the bill is going to be a heavy burden for those congress critters seeking re-election this November, and that means there is a better chance for electing a Congress that will be strong enough to pass that new and improved bill.

Partisan politics? You're damned right. That's why we have more than one party in the country. Democrats should be proud of their history of providing for the middle and lower classes and they should be doing everything possible to show the difference between that history and the last eight years.

It's time for some cranio-rectal surgery. Maybe then the vision of that Democratic leadership would be improved.

Morons

That 1872 Mining Law

Earl Devaney, the no-nonsense Inspector General for the Interior Department, which has the responsibility for all things mining, including abandoned mine sites, has issued a report on the dangers those abandoned sites posed. Today's NY Times has an editorial on that report's findings.

After an extensive one-year investigation, Mr. Devaney concludes, in language that is always blunt and at times incendiary, that both the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service have “put the public’s health and safety at risk” by failing to clean up or seal off abandoned mine sites. Several deaths and injuries have already occurred — one mine swallowed an entire vehicle, the report says — and “the potential for more deaths and injuries is ominous.” ...

Among the many flaws of the 1872 mining law is that it has never forced mining companies to clean up their messes. Last fall, the House passed a reform bill that would strengthen environmental controls on new mines and raise money to clean up old mines by forcing companies that mine gold, silver, copper and other hard-rock minerals to pay royalties just like oil companies do.

The House Bill, while not perfect, does go a long way towards ameliorating the dangers these old mines pose. The Senate, however, has yet to make even the slightest move to consider the issue. Odd? No, not really.

The House bill has some support in the Senate, but it also has one powerful opponent: Harry Reid, the majority leader who is a miner’s son and whose home state of Nevada does a brisk business in mining.

Sen. Reid, a Democrat, has shown no interest in forcing the mining companies to clean up their messes and certainly is not interested in the royalty system the House has proposed, a system which oil and natural gas companies have been forced to comply with (well, sorta kinda these past seven years). Now, you'd think that Sen. Reid would be concerned enough about the people of his state and the people who visit his state to make certain of their safety. Apparently, however, you would be wrong.

I guess there are just more important considerations than public safety, namely the interests of campaign contributors.

Heckuva job, Harry.

The Enablers

Excuse me, desk, but my head needs some banging space.

Just when I think the critters in Congress are finally getting it, they go out of their way to prove me wrong. In the last month, Congress has finally shown that it has spines and the intestines to go with it. It has passed a bill the president made clear he would veto by a substantial margin, and then, after the promised veto was executed, managed a veto override. It has stood up to members of the administration who ignored congressional subpoenas, and had a federal court judge agree that there is no such thing as blanket immunity from such subpoenas. It has even allowed a motion for impeachment to actually get heard (although even I know it won't go far).

However, apparently there is a limit, and that limit has "Iraq War" stamped on it. Three quarters of the American public have finally figured out that this war was wrong and want us to get out. Four quarters of the Iraqi people want us out. The UN mandate for our presence in Iraq runs out at the end of the year. So what do a couple of House Democrats do? Introduce a bill that would allow us to stay for a while longer.

Bill Delahunt, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, justified their action in an op-ed piece in the July 31, 2008 edition of the Boston Globe.

A TIMETABLE for the withdrawal of US troops has long been a priority for Iraqis - 70 percent want the United States out, according to the latest polls. This sentiment is also reflected in Parliament - the only directly elected branch of government. Two months ago, the political parties representing a majority sent a letter to Congress opposing any US-Iraq security agreement without a timetable.

The Iraqi executive branch, usually allied with the Bush administration on this issue, has joined this consensus. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki insists that the agreement must "either remove US forces from the country or include a timetable for withdrawal." ...

The reality is that US troops will still be in Iraq on Jan. 1, and they will need combat authority and immunity from prosecution. We have introduced legislation calling for an extension of the mandate to meet these needs. ...

With time running out and with a valid bilateral agreement in doubt, the administration and the Maliki government should approach the Security Council now to work out a brief renewal of the UN mandate.

This not only protects US troops, but also gives sufficient time for the next administration to negotiate a security agreement that truly reflects the wishes of the American people and Iraqis, that is supported by democratically elected legislative bodies, and that provides for a responsible redeployment of American troops. [Emphasis added]

WTF?

Both esteemed members of Congress admit that the Bush administration is dragging its feet at this point because it doesn't want to be associated with anything like a time table for withdrawal (or, for that matter, a "time horizon", whatever in the hell that is). Rather than let the administration stew in its own self-made juices, these two stalwarts have tossed a life preserver to BushCo by introducing such a measure.

Now, that's bad enough, but the language of the of the bill apparently includes one of the very things the Iraqis object to: immunity from prosecution by the Iraqi government for crimes committed by the troops.

This approach, they claim, will free up the next administration to do the right thing, even if that next administration is headed by a man who has been busy backing the President on Iraq and everything else.

Somebody please pass me the whole bottle of aspirin. I feel a ginormous headache coming on.

One Trick Pony

UpDate:

Oil companies cut production this p.m. - and oil costs went back up - since demand is down. The law of supply and demand doesn't apply when it comes to public savings, evidently. It is the law oil companies aspire to use, through their monopoly powers, to extract the last penny from consumers who are helpless before that law, when it is used against them.

********************************************************
The Big Lie technique has been adopted wholeheartedly by the right wing, and you can be sure to hear it dunned on viewers under any pretext on the floor of congress.

The idea that oil companies should be given drilling leases on every inch of the continent that we can possibly lease, and that that will give the driving public lower prices, is patently absurd. That hasn't dampened the continual urge of the wingers to declare it the solution, and that those public-spirited oil companies would be drilling away on the leases they already have except that mean ol' environmentalists won't let them.

Hard to believe that the wingers themselves can continue on against the tide of facts, but it seems to be these ponies' one trick. Feed the hungry? Drill. Clothe the naked? Drill. End the recession? Drill. Give the pony its treat, now.

When I had a little pony farm I had a one trick pony. Interrupt it during its trick, and it panicked and started over from the beginning. Right wingers on the floor in congress remind me that it is learned behavior, and getting out of the groove means thinking for themselves. My pony couldn't do that either, he did his one trick and that's all he was capable of.

That drilling, and giving out unprecedented numbers of new leases, has not done anything to bring down prices just hasn't made a dint in the tin oilwell tree hat the party of oil seems all to have been fitted for.

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

The drilling mantra is the other arm of wingers' resolute obstruction of Congress, and as much aimed at a public lack of intelligence. What the right wing is doing is dishonest, dishonorable, and attacks the public interest they are supposed to serve. The only way they can believe in it and practice it is by seeing the public as incapable of understanding the truth, and their job as keeping their opponents from achieving anything valuable.

Presently the wingers are keeping the Senate from voting on alternative energy research. If the grants are kept from passage, solar and wind energy will be interrupted and in many cases stopped. The tactic for obstruction has been used 79 times so far, in this Senate session.

I listen to CSpan and watch congressional proceedings while I'm doing other things like blogging, so, for some time, I have seen this going on. For those of you who don't, I will post part of one among many of senators' discourses on the subject, this time Sen. Durbin's from April 15.

Why were we involved in a filibuster until last night by the Republicans on the bill before us today? This is a technical corrections bill. When we passed the highway bill, the Federal highway bill years ago, it was a huge bill affecting the entire United States of America. Then, as we combed through it, word for word, line for line, page for page, we found there were technicalities that needed to be changed: punctuation, references to a road instead of a trail. You find them in here. They go on for hundreds of pages.

But they are technical in nature; it is not a big policy debate. This kind of bill usually passes in the Congress by a voice vote late at night and no one notices. It is housekeeping. That is ordinarily what we do when we try to catch up and make sure everything is done just right.

Senator Boxer has worked long and hard to bring it out of her committee and bring it to the Senate floor, and the Republicans initiated a filibuster against the technical corrections bill. That is like having a resolution to salute motherhood and having them initiate a filibuster. Where is the controversy? There is no controversy in this bill. If they want to offer amendments, we said on this side: If they are germane amendments to the bill, have at it. That is what the Senate is all about, after all.

But the Republican strategy of filibusters, as indicated by this chart, in the history of Congress, the minority party has initiated no more than 57 filibusters in any 2-year period of time. That is the record, 57 in 2 years.

So far in this Congress, we are barely a few months into the second year. The minority party, the Republicans, has initiated 65 filibusters, and we are still counting.

You say to yourself: Well, they must have been some pretty controversial issues they had to filibuster. A technical corrections bill? So why do they filibuster? So that we burn the clock and eat up days so we cannot address the issues that are even more important to this country.

Would it not be great for us as a Senate to consider and debate a national energy policy to bring down the price of gasoline in the United States? No way. The republicans insist on filibustering a bill that focuses on punctuation. Would it not be timely for us to consider the cost of health insurance to businesses and families across America and find a way to make it more affordable and accessible? No way. The Republicans want to debate a bill which changes the word ``trail'' to ``road'' and filibuster it.

The disgust that the public has exhibited for the congress in polls is well deserved. As long as the right wing can keep the public from being served, it will deserve no more.

We have to bring this travesty to an end, and we need to vote in a new wave of public servants.

In the 4th District of Texas, I am working to elect Dr. Glenn Melancon and his Democratic running mates. You can get to work, too. We can't let the enemies of the country continue to keep us all from the benefits of good government.

OMG! Spine!

Well, I'll be gobsmacked. Congress really has re-discovered it's Constitutional role, at least for the nonce. This time the subject is the nation's intelligence gathering. From today's Washington Post:

The House yesterday passed by voice vote the fiscal 2009 intelligence authorization bill, which limits the funds available for covert actions next year until all members of the House intelligence panel are briefed on the most sensitive ones already underway.

As included in the bill, 75 percent of money sought for covert actions would be held up until the briefings are held.

If that provision remains in the bill when it reaches President Bush, his senior advisers will recommend he veto the measure, a White House statement said yesterday. Current law requires briefing on the most sensitive covert actions only for the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence panels and their ranking minority members, the speaker of the House and the House minority leader, and the Senate majority and minority leaders.

In its report on the bill, the committee said that the Bush administration has not kept lawmakers "fully and currently informed," and that without a briefing on all covert actions for the members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the panel cannot "conduct its inherent oversight function." ...

The bill would also prohibit the hiring of private contractors to carry out interrogations for the intelligence agencies, a provision the White House also opposes. [Emphasis added]

How about that: the House actually wants to exercise some oversight, and is willing to use the power of the purse to get its way. Stunning, isn't it? I'm surprised that members of the House of Representative even remembered those two basic concepts, given their total refusal to exercise either the past 7+ years.

All snark aside, that the House chose this subject to get riled up over is a welcome development, linked as it is to Guantanamo Bay and the black prisons in Europe and the Middle East and who knows what else. Maybe, just maybe, this kind of stance will actually rein in an intelligence system that has run amok for too long.

Bravo!

Some Heroics

Thanks are due to quite a few people this week, among them Senator Dodd and Senator Kennedy.

The vote that saved Medicare legislation came from a Senator Kennedy who should have been recuperating from removal of a brain tumor, but who wouldn't let the bill die. After he appeared, to cheers from everyone present, an additional eight right wing senators inspired to leave their usual obstructionism, and to add their votes, giving the bill a majority that would deny the occupied WH a veto.

Caring more about the country than they do about party politics, the Dems have shown again today that they are determined to keep the country from disaster. Senator Dodd held a press conference as the stock market plummeted, insisting that the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage loans were for the most part sound. As Dodd stated, the majority of their loans are 30-year, not ARM, mortgage loans.

The threat that the two agencies would not be able to get funding for loans was allayed, and the stock market stopped its plunge. It just closed at a loss of more than 128 points, not altogether saved but up from its 200+ point losses earlier in the day.

It's been a really rotten year in the Senate, with 82 filibuster actions by the GoPervs thus far making it wait 30 hours every time action is needed. Without a majority in the next congress, the 111th, capable of gettting action, the public interrest will again be thrown down the drain. The wingers are not pretending anymore. They don't serve the public, they serve themselves, and lie about it.

A standing cheer for Senators Kennedy and Dodd, for heroic action.

An Old Dog Still Has Teeth

I read an op-ed piece in yesterday's Sacramento Bee written by Eugene Robinson (who usually publishes in the Washington Post). Mr. Robinson reminds us that while George W. Bush is in the twilight of his term in office, there's plenty of mischief he can still get into, and all signs point to the determination to do so.

George W. Bush's presidency seems exhausted and irrelevant, but that's a dangerous illusion. The Decider remains in command of the world's most advanced and powerful military force, and he has just a few months to tie up what he might consider loose ends – a thought sobering enough to send Amy Winehouse to rehab.

We can only hope he considers his "denuclearization" agreement with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il a sufficient legacy. Assuming the deal keeps North Korea from making more nuclear weapons, Bush will be 1-for-3 in dealing with his Axis of Evil. (If you ignore the fact that Pyongyang went nuclear on Bush's watch, that is.) As for the other Evils, we know the story: Iraq is a bloody quagmire that has claimed more than 4,000 American lives, and Iran is more powerful than at any time since the fall of the shah. Bush's legacy on the world stage is defined by Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, secret CIA prisons and waterboarding. His successor will face an enormous task restoring America's image and moral standing.


Now, while Ruth will vehemently dispute that the North Korean agreement was a good thing, at least the administration accomplished something without bombs or the threat of bombs. At least they used what verbal skills they possess (and I happen to think Chris Hill is one of our better negotiators at State, no matter who the president is), without lacing their words with that ominous phrase, "All options are on the table."

Mr. Robinson's point, however, is that Bush can still muck things up for the next administration in two primary areas: Iraq and Iran.

It's not hard to fathom the ominous, potentially catastrophic implications of a U.S. attack on Iran's enrichment plants and other nuclear installations. Meanwhile, on another front, Bush is working as hard as he can to cement an agreement on the long-term status of U.S. forces in Iraq before the new president takes office. The basic issue being negotiated appears to be whether the United States military will retain much of the authority and responsibility of an occupying power, even as it ostensibly surrenders control to the Iraqi government.

The Iraqi government is stalling on the agreement the Bush White House wants, and with good reason. It knows that Mr. Bush is a lame duck, and the next administration, whether headed by Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama, will have to start from scratch anyway. Besides, what is the White House going to do about it? Bomb Iraq? Again?

Iran, on the other hand, is a different story. Many in the White House are just itching for another fight, and with a huge chunk of our military already next door, taking the next step along the axis looks to be a natural. The White House has admitted that it has committed several hundred millions of dollars towards infiltrating and undermining the current Iranian government. The infiltrators are also presumably gathering intelligence on the nuclear program, including the location of target sites.

Will that be Mr. Bush's "October Surprise"? His way of saying "So long, suckers!" It's more probable than not, unfortunately, because this Congress has made it so abundantly clear that they will do nothing to stop the madness in any way.

I am not optimistic.

198 days is a long time.

A Few Milestones

From The Seminal today, a few points to ponder. Diane and I have been invited to post at The Seminal and I have been privileged to have a few posts up there.

We have so negative a party of wingers that they've gotten more filibusters than the Music Man had trombones!

This Monday marked the 77th filibuster by Senate Republicans against legislation in the 110th Congress, obliterating the record for an entire two-year session of Congress. For those who wish for clarification, a filibuster in the Senate is when one Senator or a group of Senators hold the floor during debate and don't let a vote occur, keeping debate going indefinitely. To stop a filibuster, 60 votes are needed in what is called a cloture vote — after which 30 hours of debate are still allowed before a final vote is taken. With only 51 members of the Democratic caucus — and really only 50 members when foreign policy is invoked — getting any truly substantive bills through the Senate has become difficult.

In the past two weeks Republican filibusters have included:

* The Climate Change Bill — While the Republican leadership claimed they were objecting to limiting the debate, their claim is dubious since they supposedly wanted the bill to be debated for weeks, knowing that the Democratic leadership needed floor time for other business as well.
* The Consumer First Energy Act – would have repealed tax benefits given to the oil industry in 2004 and 2005 and redirected funds to renewable energy. Obviously upsetting Big Oil is not what Republicans want to do.
* Reversing Medicare Cuts — Payments to doctors for Medicare reimbursements is set t fall over 10% on July 1st. Republicans claim their objections are about how the bill will be paid for.
* Extending Unemployment Benefits by 13 Weeks – This would be a temporary extension of unemployment benefits with the understanding that getting a new job as the unemployment rate rises is a difficult task.

Overall the filibusters by the Senate Republicans have included preventing votes on: A Voting Representative for Washington, DC; Fair Pay legislation; Putting restrictions on the number of troops in Iraq and length of stay; and, Restoring habeus corpus rights. As Democratic Whip Senator Dick Durbin explained on the Senate floor yesterday:

Mr. President, this month the Senate Democrats have tried to confront many problems which face families across our Nation. From lowering taxes and addressing high gasoline taxes to ensuring quality health care for America's seniors and providing a helping hand to American workers who have been unemployed for more than 6 months, time and time again, the Senate Republicans have refused to give us an opportunity to address these issues. Republican obstruction has gone so far in the Senate that they will not even allow the Senate to debate legislation anymore, refusing to admit that these important concerns are worthy of Senate debate.

The filibuster is an important tool of the minority to prevent the tyranny of the majority and potential excess. but in the current Congress it seems as though the Republicans have decided that the filibuster is an important tactic to prevent anything substantive from getting done before the election.

This is a dismal showing, and the voters need to take note. It is past time that the country had real representation, and the right wing isn't providing it.

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

Rep. Donna Edwards was sworn in to represent the 4th Congressional District of MD today, on Juneteenth. A wonderful moment.

While You Were Watching Dogs and Ponies

It's always fascinating to see what's missed when there's a major event sucking all attention to it as Scott McClellan's Tell-All is doing right now. Don't rush to check if the war is over. Instead, it's the override of the occupied White House veto.

Farmers' lobbies, while earning a lot of the credit, are not all that's responsible. Those voters are raising their ugly heads as the election approaches. Those GoPerv legislators who have been fighting against anything at all just to work on their line that the Dems were ineffective have learned that the voters aren't buying it.

Hunger is an issue, as are the foodstuffs we do count on even though most of us are buying them in brightly colored plastics most of the time. Okay, I'm having salad fresh picked from the garden, but I identify with you who don't have a big plot of land to play with.

Jonathan Weisman writes in The Washington Post: "With an overwhelming 82 to 13 vote, the Senate yesterday completed the override of President Bush's veto of a comprehensive farm bill, shrugging off Republican concerns about an embarrassing legislative glitch to make the $307 billion bill the law of the land.

"House GOP leaders continued to grumble that Democrats had violated the Constitution by pressing forward with the veto override after they discovered that a whole section of the bill on trade policy had been inadvertently dropped from the version vetoed Wednesday.

"But Democratic leaders said they had court precedent and constitutional scholars on their side. 'The veto override will have the force of law,' said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) . . .

"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) were among the 35 Republicans who joined in the most significant legislative rebuff of Bush's presidency.

"'By overturning the president's veto, we are making substantial investments in nutrition programs to help millions of families afford healthy food, in help for farmers hit by disaster and to protect our nation's natural resources,' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)."

Several readers e-mailed to complain that in yesterday's column I gave Bush too much credit for his veto by focusing on the bill's crop subsidies and not its desperately needed anti-hunger provisions. So for the record, as Alan Bjerga writes for Bloomberg: "Assistance to poor families takes up about 74 percent of the spending authorized under the measure, according to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson. Crop subsidies account for about 16 percent, he said."

While farmers are having a very good year in many areas, the vast Western states are suffering through yet another year of drought, and not everyone can irrigate enough to grow the feed corn used for ethanol at present. When switch grass is more developed as a source for ethanol, the dry areas can share more in that particular boom. Of course, raising the price of fuel and feed has made animal husbandry (word safe for work) more expensive, which is another reason why your hamburger is soaring out of reach. Congress isn't acting just to please the farmers, it also is acting to keep America self-sufficient.

The public is being served and that is regrettably rare enough in recent years to merit applause. It would be heartening if there weren't still so many recidivists in the congress. Without a solid majority of Democrats, this milestone will remain a monadnock on the legislative landscape.

A rebirth of conscience is worth attention - and here we have an echo of the bigtime dog and pony show the media is celebrating in the middle ring.

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

Mentions of the veto override were carried in the Seattle Times, Accountingweb.com, cornandsoybeandigest.com and WaPo.

Stuff Happens

Yesterday, Ruth made clear her displeasure with the White House for the President's veto of the Farm Bill. I had hoped to cheer her up this morning with news of a veto override by both the House and the Senate.

Alas, a technical screw-up made that impossible, according to this AP report.

Oh, the House vote to override wasn't even close, 316-to-108, and the Senate vote looked to be a similar rejection, but somebody noticed something quite embarrassing:

... action stalled after the discovery that a 34-page section of the bill had been omitted from the printed bill sent to the White House. That means Bush vetoed a different bill from the one Congress passed, raising questions that the eventual law would be unconstitutional.

That means the process starts all over again.

...House Democrats hoped to pass the entire bill, again, on Thursday under expedited rules usually reserved for noncontroversial legislation, and the Senate was expected to follow suit. The correct version would then be sent to Bush under a new bill number for another expected veto.

The new version will have a little tweaking in it, mostly in the form of a tiny reduction in the subsidies to farmers Mr. Bush allegedly objected to (like the veto was really about not handing corporate "farmers" more money), but the meat of the bill will remain intact (the part I suspect Mr. Bush really didn't like):

About two-thirds of the bill would pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps, about $40 billion is for farm subsidies and additional $30 billion would go to farmers to idle their land and to other environmental programs. ...

-Boost nutrition programs by more than $10 billion over 10 years and expand a program to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to schoolchildren.

-Cut a per-gallon ethanol tax credit for refiners from 51 cents to 45 cents. The credit supports the blending of fuel with the corn-based additive. More money would go to cellulosic ethanol, made from plant matter.

-Require that meats and other fresh foods carry labels with their country of origin.

It's hardly a perfect bill, but it contains enough good stuff for everyone, including the Republican congresscritters, that it's hard not to hope the new bill gets to the President's desk by Friday.

Here's the beautiful part:

Congressional Republicans overwhelmingly abandoned Bush in voting to override the legislation Wednesday, overlooking its cost amid public concern about the weak economy and high gas and grocery prices. GOP lawmakers are anxious about their own prospects less than six months before Election Day.

You know, if the Democrats really have overcome their scoliosis, this could be a really productive six months for Congress.

So, Ruth, hang in there.

St. Laurita and The Borrowed Halo

I really tried not to listen to the occupied White House presser on Burma, but my hands were full during the NewsHour so I did hear St. Laurita declaim how she'd been drawn by the house imprisonment of Democratic advocate Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party was elected to lead Burma in 1990. Needless to say, that was quite intriguing, and I do hope that the Clinton and Obama households are well equipped with home entertainment and nutricious snacks in November of 2008.

When the white-clad St. Laurita went on to diss the repressive tactics of the military junta in establishing a false constitution, I did have to turn off the sound although it meant putting away the digital camera/binoculars I'm working on setting up. This from the cabal that has falsified its oath to uphold our now falsified constitution?

They have no shame. Or else, they simply have no respect for the demonstrated lack of powers of comprehension of anyone who supports them after their demonstrated uselessness. The military junta in D.C. that has imposed a war on this country, and denies American people their freedoms and the benefits of their taxed earnings hardly is in a position to criticize another of the same ilk, yet they did.

"The response to the cyclone is the most recent failure of the regime to meet its people's basic needs," Bush told reporters.

She asked the Burmese government to admit US state department disaster response teams that so far have been barred from entering the country. The regime has accepted targeted foreign cash assistance through the US embassy in Yangon.

The administration of Bush's husband has levied harsh economic sanctions on the senior members of the regime, leading to concerns that the Burmese would refuse aid from their American foes.

Bush acknowledged the tension between sanctions and disaster aid, saying economic blocks "seem to be the only kind of pressure the US has put on Burma". (Emphsais added.)

That parallels the economic blocks that the regime in the occupied White House has put on the American people. Perhaps we would be in a better position if we had a delegation to negotiate for our interests ... oh, right, we elected Democrats to Congress. There, the junta has its minions to keep them cut off from the administration of all programs, such that even basic repairs and education, economic parity and rights, legal redress and constitutional powers are denied.

If only New Orleans had been represented by a military junta, the St. Lauritas would have been bewailing not being able to get in and assist.

Somehow, it looks as if that happened in New Orleans. The St. Lauritas showed their true colors. Response teams were on the scene, there. They worried about their camouflage shirts. The true colors of this cabal are still flying in the destruction that lives on there.

When disaster strikes in America, it has been in the form of continuing violation of our constitution, our rights, the misallocation of our taxes, and undermining all the rights we have as a people.

If the democratically elected President Suu Kyi in Burma is ever able to regain the control she won, she might be well advised to keep the tight and damaging hold of this junta off the controls there.

Some Momentous Quiet News

Something about this NY Times article has been bugging me for hours, and it finally dawned on me what it was. Here's the pertinent information:

The Bush administration violated federal law last year when it restricted states’ ability to provide health insurance to children of middle-income families, and its new policy is therefore unenforceable, lawyers from the Government Accountability Office said Friday. ...

In a formal legal opinion Friday, the accountability office said the new policy “amounts to a marked departure” from a longstanding, settled interpretation of federal law. It is therefore a rule and, under a 1996 law, must be submitted to Congress for review before it can take effect, the opinion said.

But Jeff Nelligan, a spokesman for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said, “G.A.O.’s opinion does not change our conclusion that the Aug. 17 letter is still in effect.”

Here's what the letter had to say:

The letter told states what steps they needed to take to be sure the children’s health program would not displace or “crowd out” private coverage under group health plans. The White House cited the policy as a justification for rejecting a proposal by New York State to cover 70,000 additional youngsters. ...

Under the Aug. 17 directive, states cannot expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover youngsters with family incomes over 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($53,000 for a family of four) unless they can prove that they already cover 95 percent of eligible children below twice the poverty level ($42,400).

Moreover, in such states, children who lose or drop private coverage must be uninsured for 12 months before they can enroll in the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and co-payments in the public program must be similar to those in private plans.

It turns out that BushCo can't do that: it's freakin' illegal.

And how did the GAO get around to making that conclusion? Simple: two senators asked for an opinion:

The legal opinion was requested by Senators John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, and Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine. In view of it, they urged the administration to rescind the Aug. 17 directive.

Now, neither senator is hardly a charter member of DFH, and that's what's so intriguing about all of this. After 7+ years of signing statements and grandiose theories of the Unitary Executive, two somebodies in Congress finally had second thoughts about a particular issue. They asked for an opinion, and voila!, they got an answer.

It was as simple as that, yet nobody else had the intelligence, the temerity, or the ovaries to even question the administration's right to do whatever it damned well pleased. Nobody in the 109th Congress, and only two in the 110th.

I'm thinking we're needing more than a new administration at this point.

Free Trade Fraud

Thank you, Speaker Pelosi, for refusing to let the worst administration in history make a shambles of the legislative process, as it has done to so much of our constitutional system.

The Colombia 'Free Trade' agreement proposed by the occupied White House does nothing for the workers, and nothing for this country. So much that the cabal has done is like this, it is only more welfare for our corporate sector.

Head of the AFL-CIO John Sweeney writes an op-ed today to try bringing light onto the matter. What he outlines for union workers there is more of a nightmare than our workers here have to deal with.

Globalization and trade should lift up and promote democratic societies. They should empower the many and lift the poor. They should create a fundamentally better world.

That is at the heart of an emerging and hopeful new consensus on trade.

For decades trade rules have protected business interests but offered few enforceable protections for workers' rights and human rights. Millions of good jobs have been shipped away from the United States, while living and environmental standards have been eroded in our trading partner countries. That is why we have fought to guarantee labor and environmental standards in our trade agreements.

But now the Bush administration's determination to ram through this agreement with Colombia before it has the capacity to uphold the rule of law threatens all the progress that has been made.

It's of little use to include a paper commitment to respect "freedom of association" when workers who organize and speak out for economic freedom -- and their families -- face an implicit death sentence. That is why working people in Colombian and American unions are united in opposition to ratification of this agreement.

President Bush and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe are pulling out all the stops to persuade Congress to approve the trade deal in this session. The Bush administration has mobilized its Cabinet to lead congressional delegations on sanitized field trips to Colombia. The Colombian government is reportedly spending more than $100,000 a month to lobby for the agreement.
(snip)
Colombia claims to be taking steps to reduce the violence. That's good. But so far, it has done too little. And it has failed to bring its labor laws into compliance with international labor standards or enforce them effectively.

How many murders are "acceptable"? How many is too many? I can't answer those questions with a number other than zero.

And I know this: Unless working people can exercise their right to lift their families out of poverty and exploitation, trade cannot strengthen democracy or advance a better world.

The decimation of public interest, which is the purpose of the cretin in chief, has been so total under the present executive branch, that it is no longer even a consideration in their actions. Nothing in this 'agreement' benefits the U.S. Like the present attempts to forge a commitment to the Iraqi government, the executive branch has made an offer of benefits to another country that does nothing for U.S. workers.

Realization of the White House aims is widespread, and reader comments at WaPo do an excellent job of explicating the mess they are trying to create.

Comment from a reader:

iacitizen wrote:
As bad as the trade unionists and the workers in Columiba have it--and they are living under terrible circumstances--workers in America are also losing jobs. That alone should be enough to kill this deal. I can't believe we're negotiating trade deals in these hard economic times. Any member of Congress who approves any more trade deals will lose my vote.

Another informed opinion;
Southeasterner wrote:
.............So the same Republicans who claim to be against NAFTA now want to create another free trade agreement with Colombia?

Why in addition to the billions of aid we already give Colombia do we also need to give them a one-way free trade agreement for them to be our friends? We want to open trade, which will decrease the amount of cargo checks on Colombian imports by over 85%, to a country that supplies most of our cocaine? They don't sound like an ally they sound like a welfare recipient with a gun pointed at our head telling us what to do.

With or without a free trade agreement Colombia will still be our ally and still help us with our war on terrorism because we are the ones funding their “drug war”. The supporters of this bill could care less about our political agreements and are only concerned with shipping even more US jobs to a country with zero labor laws and bringing back more cocaine illegally.

Lula and Brazil = US ally
Uribe and Colombia = Bloods, Crypts and MS 13 ally
Chavez and Venezuela = Chevron and BP ally

My comment:
jocabel wrote:
That the government of Colombia violates basic standards of decency toward workers is enough to make this 'free trade' agreement unacceptable. Its complicity in murders makes it offensive. The administration sanctions any business interest no matter how lawless and abusive. That it calls Colombia successful shows its own lack of standards, and lawlessness.

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

WaPo editorialanimists have reached a new apex in aggressive ignorance in "Lapsed Principle" today. The Hiatt team gallops in, slamming Obama for campaign financing that results in lots for him to spend, while totally ignoring John McCain's violation of campaign finance laws.

I will ignore the idiot editors entirely, and give a few responsible and intelligent comments.

FergusonFoont wrote:
I know that the partisan Republican who wrote this editorial would very much like to see Obama only have available to him somewhere between a quarter and a tenth as much to spend during the general election phase of this campaign as John McCain had, but even his archest enemies do not accuse Barack Obama of being blithingerly stupid.

What is much more interesting is John McCain's acceptance of public financing funds during the primary phase of this election and then "opting out" of its limits so he can attrack more contributions after he has the nomination sewn up, to spend on trashing Democrats, thereby accelerating the general election phase for himself.

One can support a change in our election financing toward public financing while continuing to operate under current rules, as Obama has done. It's a bit dicier to permit McCain to shift back and forth, accepting public money at need but rejecting the conditions for its acceptance.

That's called "fraud."

Then succinctly:
Avedon wrote:
So, the fact that McCain is breaking the law on campaign finance is no biggie, eh?

Why should Obama be hamstrung if McCain isn't even going to play by his own rules?

And you're going to give McCain cover for it, too.

And a neat exposition of just the facts:
cassidyt wrote:
How utterly absurd. In contract terms, Obama made an offer and McCain failed to accept. Now McCain - and the Post - want to argue that Obama gave McCain and open-ended option! Look, McCain didn't accept the offer, as evidenced by his recent attempts to exit the public financing system. Obama certainly didn't offer to give McCain the option of first determining whether private or public funding was more advantageous to his campaign before accepting or rejecting Obama's offer.

Another ridiculous editorial from the Post. Obama should, and will, spend McCain into oblivion. Sorry, Freddie.

Then there's mine;
jocabel wrote:
John McCain's violation of campaign financing laws will not be prosecuted because of a lack of members on the regulatory board. Still, WaPo editors seems to be ignoring it entirely. Strange that only Mr. Obama's practices, not Mr. McCain's are the object of concern. Law breaking by GOP candidates, it would seem, is so standard a practice that is assumed in any campaign.

The WaPo editors continue to feature shameful collections of bias rather than facts in the 'editorials' they post.

He Said It Better

Last week I gave the back of my hand to the 110th Congress for giving DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff the power to "waive" laws in order to facilitate the building of The Wall. I was wrong, at least technically. It was the GOP-led 109th Congress that did so. Still, however, the 110th Congress has done absolutely nothing to repudiate that law, or the dozens of other laws that violate the Constitution when it comes to the tri-partite system of government we have, or at least used to have.

In Adam Liptak's brilliant column in today's NY Times, he points just what the long-term effect of those laws will be.

Securing the nation’s borders is so important, Congress says, that Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, must have the power to ignore any laws that stand in the way of building a border fence. Any laws at all. ...

The secretary of homeland security was granted the power in 2005 to void any federal law that might interfere with fence building on the border. For good measure, Congress forbade the courts to second-guess the secretary’s determinations. So long as Mr. Chertoff is willing to say it is necessary to void a given law, his word is final. ...

No one doubts that Congress may repeal old laws through new legislation. But there is a difference between passing a law that overrides a previous one and tinkering with the structure of the Constitution itself. The extraordinary powers granted to Mr. Chertoff may test the limits of how much of its own authority Congress can cede to another branch of the government. ...

It is the combination of those two factors — the broad granting of power to the executive branch and cutting the judicial branch out of the process — that makes the 2005 law so pernicious ...

It is true, of course, that Congress gave up its powers here voluntarily. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy had a response to that point in his concurrence in the line-item-veto case.

“It is no answer, of course, to say that Congress surrendered its authority by its own hand,” he wrote. “Abdication of responsibility is not part of the constitutional design.”

Justice Kennedy made a broader point, too, one perhaps more apt today than it was 10 years ago.

“Separation of powers was designed to implement a fundamental insight,” he wrote. “Concentration of power in the hands of a single branch is a threat to liberty.” [Emphasis added]

The abomination known as the Unitary President has no place in the US Constitution, and deliberately so. And the fact that Congress willingly ceded its power to the Executive branch does not matter. It cannot do so. Nor can it nullify the power granted by the Constitution to the judiciary, the third branch of our tripartite system.

Mr. Liptak's column should be emailed or faxed to every member of Congress and to every candidate running for national office in November as a fundamental primer in Constitutional Law 101.

Brilliantly done, Mr. Liptak.