vice president cheney indicted

In the waning days of the Bush administration, we've come to not expect a lot of action from the lame ducks. But a Federal grand jury doesn't think we should forget about what's happened over the last eight years.

A grand jury in south Texas indicted Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on separate charges related to alleged prisoner abuse in federal detention centers, Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra told CNN Tuesday.

On the southern tip of Texas, Willacy County is on the United States-Mexico border.

Democratic state Sen. Eddie Lucio, Jr. is also charged in the indictment. Michael R. Cowen, an attorney for Lucio, issued a statement calling Guerra a "one man circus."

Cheney is the first vice president to be indicted by a Federal grand jury since Aaron Burr in 1803. We're going to be following this story closely, as the outcome could be very, very interesting. What do you think should happen to the outgoing vice president?

All we can say is, "Wow!"

biden v. palin

Thursday night's vice-presidential debate was hands down the most-watched VP debate ever and the second most-watched political debate in U.S. history, according to the Style section of today's Washington Post. That means more people tuned in to see Joe Biden and Sarah Palin debate the issues than than the number that have tuned in to almost every presidential debate in history. And these guys don't even get to run the show.

Along with a projected seventy-three million Americans, we tuned in to see Biden v. Palin. Many thought that Palin, the governor of Alaska and Republican John McCain's running mate, would fall flat on her face (figuratively, at least). Her expectations were low following a series of Katie Couric interviews that were released last week that made Palin seem like she didn't know what was going on. She couldn't name any newspapers that she read or any Supreme Court cases that she disagreed with other than Roe v. Wade.

Palin surprised us all, though, by generally seeming as if she knew the issues when pressed on them. She employed the age-old tactic of skirting the question, but that's to be expected of most honed politicians. She at one point even claimed to be such a Washington outsider that she likely wouldn't answer questions in the way that Biden or moderator Gwen Ifill may like.

Palin also employed colloquialisms and her famous Alaskan accent to her advantage, making her seem more appealing and real. If the debate were judged solely on style, she'd be a sure winner. Unfortunately for Palin, we judge debates on substance.

Biden, Democrat Barack Obama's running mate and the senior senator for Delaware, was more substantive. His deeper understanding of the issues was glaringly apparent. He made a clear case against a McCain administration while remaining friendly and cordial toward Palin. He outlined to the American people why they can't afford to re-elect the Republicans, and spoke of a better future offered with an Obama administration.

Biden also seemed to have a better understanding of the role of a vice president. While Palin argued that the Constitution allowed for an expansion of the VP's role, Biden countered that Vice President Dick Cheney "has been the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history."

Other standout moments found the governor and senator practically agreeing on their respective stances against same-sex marriage, followed up by stark contrasts on foreign policy. "Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq," Palin told her opponent.

It was an interesting debate and seemed to captivate a large audience, but historically vice-presidential debates haven't had much, if any, of an effect on the outcome of an election. Eileen Smith at Poll Dancing sums it up nicely:

In the end, do VP debates matter? Probably not. Palin had the most to lose, and could have possibly done damage to the ticket, if she had given a lackluster performance. But she didn’t. Biden didn’t all of a sudden turn into Rick Lazio, and there were more than a few opportunities for that to happen.

So, Biden did well and Palin did well, and nothing changes. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming, also known as McCain versus Obama.

cheney in charge

Tomorrow, President Bush is set to undergo a colonoscopy, during which Vice President Dick Cheney will assume the position of acting president.

The medical procedure, according to CNN, will take place at Camp David and is expected to last for 2 1/2 hours, during which time the United States will send another surge to Iraq while declaring war on North Korea and Iran.

So that's an overstatement, but seriously... think about it. President Dick Cheney. It's a scary, scary thought, isn't it?

No wonder Nancy Pelosi says impeachment is off the table.

Cornyn Wants Courts to Decide on Subpoenas

First it was Cheney, and now President Bush, who declares himself emperor of the universe. Using the "because I said so" defense, the President has decided not to honor requests by the congressional oversight committee for documents related to the firing of nine federal prosecutors.

In a letter sent last Friday to Leahy and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), White House counsel Fred F. Fielding said that the privacy of the documents must be respected to ensure that presidential advisers feel free to provide "candid and unfettered advice."

In other words, what good are political blackmail and dirty tricks if everybody knows about them?

Earlier this year, when sponsoring the Open Government Act of 2007, our learned and erudite constitutional scholar and Senate Judiciary Committee member Senator John Cornyn posted this on his website regarding the need for open government.

Open government is one of the most basic requirements of any healthy democracy. It allows for taxpayers to see where their money is going; it permits the honest exchange of information that ensures government accountability; and it upholds the ideal that government never rules without the consent of the people......

Our government is based not on the need to know, but upon the fundamental right to know.

But now that his pals in the White House are directly defying a subpoena issued by his own committee, the junior senator seems a little more sanguine about the whole thing.

"Let's go ahead and have the courts decide it, and we'll honor whatever they decide," said Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) Thursday afternoon on CNN's Situation Room program.

Oh, yeah, because they've never been wrong.

The Real Reason Bush Wants to Revive the Immigration Bill

After suffering a humbling defeat only a few short weeks ago, the Bush administration is pushing a revised immigration bill like its life depended on it. Current editorials opine about how Bush's experiences growing up with Hispanics in Midland, Texas shaped his compassion for immigrants, and that he's fighting for this legislation as part of his legacy, that it will be the signal piece of legislation for Bush's second term.

Bull.

There are plenty of good reasons to tackle the immigration policy and bring a sensible and humane piece of legislation to the floor. But don't kid yourself. With polls slipping, the Republicans (especially those outside the executive branch who will soon be facing re-election challenges) would like to get this issue behind them. The debate on our borders always had the potential to split the Republican Party like no other issue. You know when you hear stalwart conservatives denounce the zealots on rightwing radio that the Republican Party isn't helped by this debate.

No, the real reason is much more cynical. It's exactly because the issue is red meat to conservatives that it is important to have this debate now. Because no other issue besides abortion can so galvanize the public. And what the Republicans need now is something to grab the headlines, something that will send the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters over the deep end. Because what else could distract the public from Vice President Dick Cheney's absurd assertions that he is no longer subject to oversight or accountability?

Think this is too cynical? That risking the future of conservatives who will soon be defending their records to a disgusted public puts the stakes too high? It's as Rovian a strategy as attacking an opponents strength. Or dumping unfavorable news on the Friday before a holiday weekend.

Remember when just after the elections the Democrats were riding high on their recent election victories, and politicians like Jack Murtha were suddenly talking credibly on withdrawal plans? The administration had gone on record saying a new war plan was in the works.

What happened next? Daddy Bush brought in James Baker to craft the report of the Iraq Study Group. Bush Sr. might have actually thought he was buying his son a way out short of total capitulation, but he underestimated Dubya.

Bush grabbed onto the report and immediately challenged it. So rather than the Iraq Study Group recommendations being the compromise to begin winding down the war, it reset the debate. He also immediately signalled he was delaying the announcement of his new war strategy, which then coincidentally came out at the beginning of the legislative session. Instead of having the spotlight to themselves to highlight their agenda on popular issues such as the minimum wage, Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the Democrats were relegated to the business section while front pages and editorials debated the pros and cons of the President's new strategy.

And what was the President's new plan? A surge. In the light of almost unanimous opposition from his own military advisors, he called not for a withdrawal, but for a plan to increase troop levels. It was the most inflammatory decision he could make. Of course, it wasn't going to work, but again, it reset the debate. When was the last time you heard anyone discuss Murtha's proposals? Or even the Iraq Study Group? Yes, our brave men and women are fighting and dying every day, not for a military strategy, but a political one, not for winning wars, not even for winning elections, but simply to preserve power.

So we will have another bitter debate on immigration, one only slightly more likely to succeed than the last one. But it might still serve its intended purpose - to distract the public from the fact that our second-highest elected official has declared himself above the law.

Rahm Emanuel is introducing legislation to defund Cheney's office.

....if you really believe that you're not part of the executive branch, we should[n't] fund you in the executive branch....."

"It's not like I'm looking for this fight," replied Emanuel. "But if the vice president wants to act like he's unaccountable and above the law ... I'll meet that."

In any other presidency, in any other time, this would be the run-up to a constitutional crisis. In the Bush administration, its a good reason to whip up the immigration debate.

Op-Ed Takes a Flame Thrower to von Spakovsky

Cynthia Tucker has a column in the Baltimore Sun giving her views on the confirmation of Hans von Spakovsky to the Federal Election Committee (FEC). It would take a rather long post just to list the scandals of the Bush administration to date (and those are only the ones we know about), so don't feel badly if you can't place the name Hans von Spakovsky right away. Here's a refresher by The Nation's Katrina Vanden Heuvel to bring you up to speed.

With all the brouhaha about Cheney's co-presidency, you may have missed this Tucker's op-ed, but it's too good to be overlooked.

Hans von Spakovsky is among the GOP hacks who perverted the U.S. Department of Justice - trashing constitutional principles, rewarding partisanship over competence and converting the entire machinery into an arm of the Republican Party. His specialty was suppressing voting by Americans of color, who are more likely to support Democrats; he played a starring role in a nationwide effort to disenfranchise poor blacks, Latinos and Native Americans.

Now, Mr. von Spakovsky is seeking Senate approval for a six-year term on the Federal Election Commission, which enforces federal campaign finance laws. (President Bush gave Mr. von Spakovsky a recess appointment in January 2006, but he must have Senate confirmation for a full term.) The vote ought to be easy: No, no and no way.

A group of former Justice Department professionals - including a former chief of the Civil Rights Division's Voting Section - have stepped forward to oppose his nomination. According to The Washington Post, more than half the career lawyers in the Voting Section left in protest during his tenure.

Mr. von Spakovsky's blatant disregard for the constitutionally guaranteed right to the franchise should disqualify him from even serving as a volunteer poll worker,much less a commissioner on the FEC. He is a leading light among the Republican activists who have whipped up the bogeyman of fraudulent voting, claiming that illegal ballots can only be stopped by stringent requirements, such as state-sponsored photo IDs, at the ballot box.

Actually, illegal voters are about as common as honest Bush appointees in the Justice Department.

Read the rest here. In addition to denouncing von Spakovsky's bitter and partisan role in the Civil Rights Divison, those former career professionals to whom Tucker referred in her column had some very interesting insights on voter ID legislation. Definitely worth a read.

And after all this, should there still be any doubt, read Gerald Herbert's breakdown of von Spakovsky's confirmation hearing testimony.

See previous post Voter Suppression and Politics at the Justice Department.

All in a Day's Work

Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. Unless, of course, you're Lee Raymond, the Irving, Texas CEO of Exxon Mobil. Mr. Raymond is leaving Exxon and his golden parachute is worth $400 million. From 1993-2005, Mr. Raymond made $686 million, which amounts to a total of $144, 573 each and every day.

Raymond, you will recall, was one of the oil executives who may or may not have conferred with Vice President Dick Cheney on his 2001 Energy Task Force. He denied it before Congress, testimony which the Republican leadership made sure was not under oath. That same congress (whose members earn an average annual salary of $165,200) also scoffed at the concept of a windfall tax on Exxon Mobil's $36 billion profit (a profit, mind you, greater than the GDP of more than half the world's nations.) Of course, you can bet the Republican Party, and to a lesser extent the Democratic Party, too, have seen a bit of that largesse. But what's a million here or there when you have the Bush-Cheney cabal to make your dreams reality? The energy bill of 2005 was such a corporate give-away, critics have deemed it the "No Oilman Left Behind Act." That's what the board of Exxon no doubt would consider a good investment.

As far as oil dependency, Raymond has some advice for America. Better get used to it. Global climate change? Raymond is from the Ronald Reagan school of science -- blame it on the plants. Concerns over drilling in the Arctic National Refuge? See Ted Stevens, he'll be happy to explain. In a business hardly known for its tree-huggers, Raymond stands out, unwilling to concede an inch no matter how many people prove him wrong. Kind of reminds you of some other Texans we know, doesn't it?

But back to that corporate compensation package. It isn't all sweetness and light. Even though Bush's tax cuts mean that Mr. Raymond can keep millions more than he might have, he'll still need a few tax breaks. May we suggest a charity?

How about the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund? This group is building a rehabilitation center at the Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston to assist wounded soldiers from Iraq or Afghanistan (average daily combat pay bonus $7.50). Or maybe the Fallen Patriot Fund? Established by our own Mark Cuban-- who earned his billions the hard way, by founding a company-- this fund awards grants to families who have lost soldiers in the war. Mark will even match you dollar for dollar up to one million. Too depressing? Well, there is the Texas Military Family Foundation, run by Julie Curtis-Win, who provides soldiers departing Fort Hood things they won't easily find at the front. It would be only fair to send them a little something, considering we sent these folks to war to project our military might over the oil fields of the Middle East.

We launch an illegal war against Saddam Hussein, thousands die and oil moguls get rich. Iraq's oil production is lower now than it was before the war, Iraqis suffer, and oil moguls get rich. Bush sounds the drumbeat of war in Iran, markets get the jitters and oil moguls get rich. Obscenely rich. In today's corporate welfare system, charity begins at home.

The hand protecting our Constitution

Scalia gives obscene gesture at church

(UPI) - A Boston Herald reporter asked the 70-year-old conservative Roman Catholic if he faces much questioning over impartiality when it comes to issues separating church and state. "You know what I say to those people?" Scalia replied, making the obscene gesture and explaining "That's Sicilian." The 20-year veteran of the high court was caught making the gesture by a photographer with The Pilot, the Archdiocese of Boston's newspaper. "Don't publish that," Scalia told the photographer, the Herald said.

Dick Cheney says "Go f#*k yourself" on the Senate floor. George W. flips off reporters in Texas, later recorded calling them "a*sholes." Supreme court justices now too? What does this really prove?

It proves that they have nothing but contempt for the people, for reasonable discourse, and for our fourth estate (you know that little idea of a free press mentioned in the first amendment?). A Supreme Court Justice, one expected to uphold our Constitution, feels free to exercise his first amendment right in a crass, juvenile manner, but expects his orders not to publish to be obeyed? They aren't hiding their agenda, their lust for power, their disdain for the ideals of this country. They really believe they've won and they can spit on us and any institutions that question them. What an embarrassment, again.

Thank God two of my best friends cleared this situation up for me before I really got depressed. Joe knows Boston, and took the liberty of enlightening me:

"Jennifer, for shame. How quick we are to hate.

Being that I am from the great Bay State, allow me shed some light on what you have OBVIOUSLY misconstrued to be some type of insult to his detractors. In the great city of Boston, the middle finger is synonymous with and common as a hand wave. It is our special way of saying, "How is yous guys doin'?"

So please, before you pass judgment on the great and august Justice Scalia, take a moment to attempt to understand (dare I say "embrace") the cultural diversity that makes up this great land. I think we will all be better people for it.

F*#@ you all,
Joe"

Thanks, Joe. I feel better now. And from my best spin-sister Holly back home:

"Justice Scalia clarified his comments and accompanying hand gesture made March 26th on his way out of Catholic mass. Regarding Scalia's use of his middle finger pointing upward, representatives for Scalia assured shocked supporters that when used by a person ordained by God to judge the morals of others, like Scalia, the gesture actually means "see you in heaven my child." Members of the religious right breathed a sigh of relief at the revelation and immediately thanked God for this neatly packaged and convenient answer, which allowed them to stop considering whether or not Scalia is just a prick. President Bush, in a statement issued today, praised Scalia for his uncompromising ability to 'see the Christian spirit in others, even his opponents and to express hope that even the Godless will receive salvation'. Bush, however, stopped short of expressing his approval of the gesture as the new symbol of the restructured Supreme Court. Unnamed White House sources report that Bush does agree that the gesture sums up the stance the new Court intends to take on established precedent inconsistent with its preconceived notions of morality and on Constitutional freedoms deemed unnecessary."

Thanks, Holly. Those degrees in journalism and law will take you far. Don't be surprised if Fox News calls with an offer if they read this.

Maybe It Should Be A Law

An open house at a local public school featured essays by second graders on the topic If I Were President... Among the thoughtful musings on why we should provide medicine for sick people and all toys should be free, was this entry:

Vice Presidents can not shoot people when they're out hunting birds.