Food For Thought

There are so many things that are keeping me up at night that I'm finding hard to find a single topic to write about, so I'll just put a bunch together, buffet style.

I think my favorite idea that the press is throwing around these days is the "why doesn't Obama have a bigger lead" storyline. It is almost identical to the "Why can't Obama close the deal" storyline of the primary season. I love it when the press throws around terms like, "the public still doesn't know him". I mean WTF??? The public doesn't know any of the people that run for President! Personally I'm still waiting for George Jr. to come to my house for dinner so that I can get to know him (of course I'm not sure he'd like what I'd have to say). The public knows him just as well as they "know" John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney. The reason for his lack of a lead is as plain as the color of the nose on his face and everyone in the press knows it. As I've stated before, I don't think that the majority of people who will vote against Obama are racists, but the life long Democrats who are now refusing to vote for Obama are certainly taking more than just his voting record into account. Does that mean that they want to string him up from the nearest tree? Of course not. But there's a big difference between wanting equal rights for minorities and wanting that minority dating your daughter or living next to you or (heaven forbid) representing you as your President. As my co-contributor Sandy would say, there are those who believe that a vote for Obama is a vote for a big black di@k in your mouth. The McCain campaign has shown over the past few weeks that their strategy is clearly going to be to make the American public as uncomfortable with Obama as possible (I'm still waiting for the ad that says, "Barack Obama is Black, and you know what that means America. Vote McCain, or else. "), so that even those Independents or Republicans who might be predisposed to vote for Obama will be given reason to pause once they get into the voting booth.

Tim Kaine (Governor of Virginia) would be a less than inspired choice for VP by Obama. He currently polls under 50% in his home state and I don't think that he would be able to deliver it in the election. Also, he is practically an unknown across the country, brings no foreign policy experience and would do nothing to assuage the anger of the multitude of disappointed Hillary Clinton supporters. Personally I think his name is being put out in the press as smoke screen for the real work being done. The Obama campaign has dreams of turning the red states of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina, Indiana and Colorado into a blue heaven of sorts. In order to even have a chance to flip half of those states, his VP choice has to be a little more inspired than the unknown, unpopular Governor of Virginia, regardless of how well they get along. I've already made my opinion known on this subject and I would be shocked if Obama actually ended up picking Tim Kaine as his running mate. Of course, I have been wrong before.

The vote by the Judicial Committee in the House (to recommend a contempt charge against Karl Rove) is just another example of sound and fury signifying nothing. Nancy Pelosi has already stated that she won't even consider submitting this recommendation to a vote until September (when Congress gets back from it's month long summer vacation. It must be nice.), and even then there is no guarantee that it will make it on to the agenda. There are two reasons why Karl Rove will never have to testify in front of this Congress; first Nancy Pelosi is terrified of stirring up the Republican base and secondly Congress is afraid of being exposed as having no actual authority to compel testimony. The Justice Department certainly isn't going to force Rove to testify (having already decided that once the President even thinks the words "executive privilege" they are powerless to do anything), and the Congress doesn't really have any other way to get Rove to appear before them. Everyone on the Judicial Committee is aware of this fact, so this was all for naught. And seriously, what's with the Republicans on the Committee voting against the contempt recommendation? Karl Rove has ignored a subpoena to appear before Congress. Whether you agree with the reason for him appearing or not, it would seem a no brainer to vote to try and bring some sort of sanction against an individual who is openly defying the authority of the Legislative branch. Karl Rove is just laughing his fat jellyroll ass off at this whole thing.

By the way, did you guys know that Bill Clinton is planning on opening up a counseling center that will focus on teaching couples the importance of fidelity and the sanctity of marriage? No? That's because it's not true, but it should be just as believable as Pat Robertson having his own Law School for Christ sake!!! I still can't get over that one. Perhaps we should put Karl Rove in charge of the Center for Ethics in Politics. To quote Karl Marx, or was it Don King who said, "Only in America!".

And last but not least, I have a few more words for our distinguished Speaker of the House. Hey Nancy, I hope you enjoy your vacation. And while your taking a month to celebrate Labor Day (most of the rest of us have to make do with a long weekend), I want you to think about the fact that Congress' approval rating is even lower than that of our esteemed President. Think about that. This President, who has led us into an unjustified war, cost thousands of people their lives, rung up the biggest deficits in history, destroyed the Constitution and left our economy in tatters, is more popular than you and your associates (by a wide margin, in fact) who claim to represent the interest of the American people. Do you think that trying to enforce the laws of the land or protect the interest of the American people could really do you more harm than good? Just something to think about.

Justice is Blind

Yesterday the Inspector General, in a scathing report, concluded that the Justice Department broke the law by using politics to guide their hiring decisions. The IG office is expected to release a report on the firing of U.S. Attorneys in the upcoming weeks. It has been clear for some time that this administration has no shame when it comes to actually adhering to the laws of the land, but their practice of filling high profile slots with unqualified and incompetent people has caused irreparable harm to the American people.

By allowing the Justice Department to hire people based on questions such as, "Why do you want to serve George Bush" and "Why are you a Republican", they lowed the level of competency and impartiality in the arm of government that is supposed to ensure that the law of the land is followed. The person who was in charge of these practices was Monica Goodling, who graduated from Pat Robertson's law school (that's right, Pat Robertson of the 700 Club has his own Law School. The man who believes that there is a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, the man who said that the world would end in 1982, the man who called for the assassination of the leader of another country, the man who blamed the 9/11 attacks on abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians and the ACLU among others, has his own Law School!). Apparently her greatest strengths were that she was a conservative and that she believed strongly in the President and his mission. Oh, and she went to Pat Robertson's Law School (Surprisingly she beat out all the Ivy League graduates that year. Go figure)

She was obviously not the architect of this plan, but like Scooter Libby before her, there has to be a fall guy or girl for the administration. Alberto Gonazalez, who resigned under massive criticism from members of Congress and the threat of impeachment hearings, was clearly the one who gave the go ahead to implement this plan, but it is also clear that this was just business as usual for the Bush administration. The FEMA mess surrounding Hurricane Katrina is the most famous example of the Bush administration practices when it came to filling positions. The head of that department, had no emergency management experience before being named deputy director of that federal agency, which occurred just one year before he was named Director.

The U.S. Department of Justice is supposed to objective and independent, but under this administration, it just turned into another tool for the White House to carry out their plans without any possible oversight. Filling senior positions with sycophants from Pat Robertson's Law School is probably not going to lead to providing the American people with the best protection of their rights. The Justice Department is supposed to serve the American people and the Office of the Presidency, not serve the individual to the detriment of the American people. I know I sleep so much better at night knowing that the people who are entrusted with ensuring that the laws of this country are followed were hired because they came up with a good answer to the question, "Why do you want to serve George Bush". It comforts me to know that when I want to find the best and brightest in America, I only need to turn to one source, Pat Robertson. I think I'll go make a donation to the 700 Club right now.

The Fix Is In

The revelation from Scott McClellan on Friday that the White House was feeding talking points to Fox News is shocking on one level, but on another it is absolutely and completely in keeping with the standard operation of this administration. The idea that this administration was basically using a press outlet as a propaganda tool should outrage most of this country, but as we have seen throughout the past 7-1/2 years, the majority of the country is simply not paying attention.

It is against the law for the government to utilize a "private" media outlet in this manner. However given the public's seeming indifference to offenses such as government sanctioned torture, lying in order to enter a baseless war, treasonous retribution for political enemies, whole scale illegal wiretapping, etc., this latest revelation will certainly not cause anything that could be even akin to outrage among the general population. Last weeks ridiculous hearings to discuss the many "crimes" of this administration were did absolutely nothing to address the core issue. This administration has repeatedly and seemingly without fear of retribution, broken the laws of this country and infringed on the individual rights of citizens and caused the deaths of untold thousands.

Does one public hearing in front of a Congressional committee somehow make up for that? Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership has already made it clear that impeachment is not an option. I understand that for political reasons, the actual removal of the President is next to impossible, however having this President have to stand up and answer for the multitude of crimes that have been committed on his watch would be worth the political cost. Would there be a negative reaction from the conservatives? Of course. Will the be some backlash from independents? Yes. But will the Constitution and the American people be served best by ignoring the problem or by this Congress standing up for the rule of law and the rights of individuals?

Everyday I ask myself how we could have possibly gotten to this point. It would be easy to just blame the Bush administration, but clearly they had to have a lot of help in order to pull this off. The Democratic leadership has clearly been complicit in many of the illegal activities of this administration. It is a desperate situation that we find ourselves in when our elected officials are no longer working in the interest of those that elected them. We now find ourselves having to rely on the whim of the Justice Kennedy (who now stands as the swing vote on the Supreme Court bench) in order to try and preserve what little is left of the Bill of Rights. We also have to rely on Justice Stevens continuing to serve until his 89th birthday.

We are in a seemingly hopeless situation. Perhaps I'll turn on Fox News tonight and listen to the latest talking points from the White House. Perhaps the fantasy of our safety and economic stability will make all my concerns just float away. And if you are waiting for the November election to provide some relief, I offer you this quote from a story on Politico as one voter describes why she as a Clinton voter is now planning on voting for McCain:

"I feel John McCain is a true American and I want to support a true American,"

But isn't Obama a "true American?"

"I don't know," she said after a measured pause. "I question it."
Why?
"I don't know — maybe because of his name?"

That is level of political discourse in this country. Good luck America, but I think we're F#$@ed.

Together Again for the First Time

Barack Obama is coming off a near record month in fund raising and he is currently holding a 4 point lead in the RCP average of polls, however his standing heading into the convention next month will depend a lot on his choice of Vice President. There have been many candidates discussed since Obama clinched the nomination at the end of the primary season. There are candidates who are favored because of state considerations (Even Bayh of Indidana, Senators and the Governor of Virginia, Ted Strickland of Ohio), experience (Sam Nunn of Georgia, Joe Biden of Delaware), party balance (Chuck Hagel - Republican from Nebraska ), gender balance (Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano), and even though they all have their pluses, I have come to the conclusion that the only logical choice, is the most obvious one, Hillary Clinton.

I know that there are Obama supporters who will scream bloody murder if she is added to the ticket and there are those that will claim that she will do more harm than good, but as time goes on, it becomes clearer to me that she is the best choice. Her most often quoted negative is that having her on the ticket will energize the Republican base. Her biggest negative as Vice President would be her husband Bill Clinton running around the White House with nothing to do. These are valid points, but I don't think that they outweigh the positives that she can bring to the ticket. She has a very loyal base of support, and while they do not number the 18 million that some of her supporters like to claim, they are very vocal and would add a great deal of enthusiasm and money to the Obama campaign. Since Obama has turned down public financing, he needs all the money that he can get to compete against the Republican attack machine which will undoubtedly get rolling soon.

Bill Clinton can also be a great asset in the White House. I think a bored Bill Clinton might be some trouble, but as a former President and still a greatly admired figure all over the world, he would be able to play a much larger and more important role than any second spouse has ever done before. He could become a sort of roving ambassador for an Obama administration. Also having the full support and cooperation of the Clinton's over what will certainly be a very combative fall campaign is invaluable. Hillary can spend the campaign talking to those "white working class" voters that she claims have trouble supporting Obama and Bill can "feel the pain" of every working class family in the country.

There are Hillary Clinton supporters who will still not be happy with her in the second slot on the ticket, but the vast majority of her support will be more willing to join her for the ride. I have already stated here that I don't think that Obama can win the election in November (and I'm sticking to that thought), but outside of picking a Republican or an independent to run with him, Hillary is the choice that will make the greatest impact on fund raising and in his poll numbers. At this point, I think the only thing that is really stopping him from making her his running mate, is his pride. At the end of the primaries, Hillary's supporters were openly campaigning for the VP slot. Obama could not have chosen her then because he would have been seen as bowing to pressure. Enough time has gone by, however, that I believe that he should now be able to see things a little more clearly.

My personal choice for VP would be Joe Biden, because of his experience and his willingness to mix it up with the opposition over controversial topics. I think he would make a great second in command and would bring a level of competency and integrity to the position that clearly is lacking in the person who currently occupies the position. That being said, I don't think picking the "best qualified person" for the job is what is required here. Obama needs a bold stroke. Earlier in the season, I suggested picking Chuck Hagel would make an appropriate choice for someone who had made his campaign about more than partisan politics. But the reality of the situation is that Chuck Hagel, while he has been steadfast in his opposition to the war, has a very conservative voting record in the Senate. I don't think that he would be able to honestly support the progressive policies of an Obama administration.

So I'm back where I started. Picking Hillary Clinton would be a bold and historic choice (I know it didn't work out too well the last time the Democrats picked a woman, but even her most vocal of critics would have to concede that Hillary is a much better choice than Geraldine Ferraro was). Will picking Hillary Clinton cause some headaches for Obama? Without a doubt, but I think the upside is far greater than the potential pitfalls. And of course the final point, if Obama is going to go down in what should be an easy win for any Democrat, then he might as well take the Clintons down with him. I'm sure he doesn't want to take the blame alone for screwing the unscrewable pooch.

Peace In Our Time

Today, the Senate will vote to deny American citizens their fourth amendment rights and they will do so with an overwhelming majority. They will also provide immunization from prosecution for the telecoms and the Bush administration for their blatant disregard of the laws of this country. The proposed amendment by Sens. Dodd and Feingold to eliminate the immunization for telecoms will fail and the bill will be sent to the White House for the President's signature immediately.

This is a very sad day for everyone who believes in the individual rights guaranteed every citizen of this country by the Constitution. My disappointment in the Democrats in the Congress and the Senate cannot be understated. This "compromise" bill, not only forgives any crimes that have already taken place, but legalizes the very offense that took place before. They are retroactively making illegal search and seizure, legal. This isn't a compromise, it is total capitulation by the Democrats. I continue to be amazed by just how terrified of the Republican attack machine that this once proud party has become. Their members are so afraid of being labelled "soft on terror" that they are now willing to assume the role of Neville Chamberlain.

What right gets attacked next? This administration has already shown that they are willing to ignore the Constitution and the laws of this country when it suits their needs and the Democrats are apparently more than willing to provide them with cover for these transgressions. We don't have to wait for the next administration for "bi-partisanship", because we already have it. I can assure you that the Republicans would not have done the same if a Democrat were in office. The Republicans actually tried to get Bill Clinton removed for lying about having an affair! How do you think they would have reacted to a Democratic President playing fast and loose with the Constitution? I doubt that we would have seen the spirit of appeasement the Democrats are so willing to display.

I look forward to the press conference when Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi talk about what a triumph of bi-partisanship this bill is (Chamberlain would be happy). The President will of course proclaim that we are once again safe from the evils of terrorism and he will applaud the hard work of everyone who made this bill a reality. I can only imagine the party that he and the Vice President will be having with all the lobbyists for the telecoms. They will have a big cake that says, "today the IV amendment, tomorrow...". The Democrats (including their presidential candidate) can talk all they want about what this bill does or doesn't do, but one thing that history has made abundantly clear, appeasement is no way to deal with a tyrant.