January 13
I received an email that is interesting in light of the Abramoff scandal and the sudden Republican scramble to hide from it. Lisa, who asked that her e-mail be withheld and I've taken the precaution of withholding her last name too, said:
"What I DO know is that it's worthwhile to pester your Republican Congressmen. Mine is the Speaker of the House and I'm on his case every few months. I expect nothing out of it, but I do it anyway. Just this week I felt it worthwhile to congratulate him for giving Abramoff's money to charity (a sentence I threw in to hopefully 'red flag' that e-mail and have his people advance it upwards)--and on the same e-mail I wrote about another issue entirely that I really wanted him to read. Anyway, I like my first impression here and wanted to encourage you, too, to become an irritant to your Republican representatives, if you are not already. I'm afraid most Americans GIVE UP with their Congressmen and don't even communicate with them."All politicians have some sort of survival instincts, and I predicted that the Republicans' instincts would kick in when their leader was in enough trouble, although the leader I had in mind was the acting president. Can you give yourself a back-handed pat on the back? Anyway, like Lisa, I don't hold back from contacting my elected officials regardless of party because they do respond when the public appears to be strongly one way or the other. You want the politicians you agree with to think they can safely stay on the side of the angels, and the other politicians to at least figure they're bucking popular opinion, which they don't like doing. As evidence, I offer the sudden discovery by House Republicans of the virtue of reform. If they really believed in it, they could have reformed any time before this, but instead they put Tom DeLay in power. Therefore, we may thank their survival instincts for the change of heart, and thank letter writers like Lisa for their instincts kicking in.
What sudden movement to reform? For example, Gil Gutknecht has called for new leadership elections, which might have been nice when DeLay twisted arms to pass that prescription drug bill with the fake cost, or when he got spanked by the ethics committee, or blocked the bills to stop abusive employers in Saipan, or...well, you get the point. I wish Gutknecht had gotten it earlier. Likewise with Mark Kennedy, who proposed former congressmen be forever banned from lobbying. Sounds nice, except Abramoff was never a congressman so that law wouldn't have stopped him. While driving home this evening and listening to some right wing radio, the host announced David Dreier was going to be on later to talk about reform. I missed the interview, but I am glad that at least it's finally on the agenda. They've finally stopped pretending all is well.
So in keeping with Lisa's suggestion, those who made noise made a difference, and we can keep making a difference. Now we have to beat back this spin that both parties are equally at fault, the corruption issue's equivalent of blaming war opponents for the war going poorly. I suppose a 90%-10% split on corruption is both sides, but you'd think Abramoff's status as a Bush Pioneer (he raised at least $100,000 for the Bush campaign) would be a dead giveaway. Apparently, only true if we keep pointing it out.
January 8
Today is the anniversary of The Battle of New Orleans in 1815. The battlefield, which is in Chalmette, was flooded like the rest of the New Orleans metro area. It's restoration shouldn't come before housing of course, but as a War of 1812 reenactor, I hope to one day participate in the reenactment of that battle again. I was there once, in 1988, and had ideas of going this year. I just hope land developers don't try to grab the land to build on.
Some good news and something to remember:
The good news is three of Minnesota's Republican representatives had joined the call to elect a new majority leader. Better late than never, but something I ask all readers to bear in mind is that these guys are the ones who put DeLay in power in the first place. He built a political machine around making Washington lobbyists part of the Republican establishment, and if they didn't like it they were out of business. Instead he turned them in to a cash machine for the party, on top of the the other stuff he pulled like the gerrymandering of Texas. House Republicans were happy to support him or too intimidated to stop him before Abramoff's guilty plea made it look like DeLay is heading to jail. So when they try to distance themselves from him, recall how they put him in power in the first place. If you happen to get to ask a question of a GOP Representative, especially if he's just gone on about how he values ethics or thinks it's time for a change, ask why he backed DeLay in the first place, or why people who put DeLay in power should be trusted to change things.
Last April I had a "blogversation" with a conservative blogger, Dread Pundit Bluto, about Aljazeera. Bluto mentioned Mounzer Sleiman, who appears on Aljazeera, and whom Bluto denounced as a propagandist, as well as making unfavorable remarks about Rushmore University, where Sleiman got his doctorate. Sleiman recently saw the blogversation and wrote a response defending himself and Rushmore. It's too lengthy for a daily post, so I've added it to the blogversation. Click here to go directly to his response.
January 7
This is the fourth amendment to the US Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."So you see the part where the president, even a legitimate president and not an acting president like what we have now, can suspend thta right during emergencies, wars, or any other circumstances? You don't? That's because it isn't there. Where phrases like "at the pleasure of the president" might be familiar from Indian treaties, they're not found in the Constitution. Even if Congress has passed laws allowing the president to ignore the foutth amendment or anything else in the Constitution, his spying on Americans is illegal. Congress is bound by the Constitution too and can't authorize violations of it.
That simple point makes the arguments that Congress allowed Bush to do what he wants moot, but if they matter to you, you might want to know that the Congressional Research Service issued a report saying Bush's arguments are bollux. Rather than authorizing his activities, Congress intended specifically to stop a president doing what he did. So Bush isn't even finding a loophole, but blatantly breaking the law. Oh, you think it's a one time event? He just did it again. When he signed the new ban on torture, he also issued a signing statement saying he has the right to suspend the ban when he deems necessary for national security. Signing statements are the president's explanation of his understanding of a law when he signs it. In this case, he says the law grants him authority when the whole point of the law was to establish he has no such authority. Make no mistake that torture was already illegal, and this new ban really just reiterates that it's illegal and there no exceptions. None. Yet there goes he-who-should-be-impeached saying the law means what ever he feels like. Bush's whim has become law.
January 3
As much as 11 years in prison, and that's what Abramoff gets after cooperating with prosecutors. That's the best indication of just what they have on him. He's ready to admit giving loads of goodies to big shot Republicans "in exchange for a series of official acts." As someone who has watched in frustration as these corrupt Republicans seem to get away with everything, being detected but until recently avoiding investigation, I can only say yee-hah.
Actually I can say more than that. This shows the importance of getting investigations when corruption is suspected. Getting Abramoff investigated required senators willing to buck their party by investigating their most powerful lobbyist, and be under no illusion that Abramoff isn't merely a way to get to the higher-ups, but he's a big one himself. Unfortunately that's an exception. DeLay was investigated by the county attorney with jurisdiction over the state capital in Austin, TX, and he's limited to violations of Texas law. The investigation of the revelations of Valerie (Plame) Wilson's identity didn't start until several months after the dirty deed, and then only when the CIA demanded it. The House ethics committee still doesn't function, the Senate Intelligence Committee still hasn't investigated how the administration used intelligence, it took a year to get a 911 commission, there has been no investigation by anyone with subpoena power of election fraud that may have kept the acting president in power, nor of the Downing Street memos or 9-21-01 PDB. The investigation of the use of torture seems to have ended with establishing that something happened at Abu Ghraib and looking at pictures not shown to the public, and that's it. Oh yes, not to forget the latest, spying on Americans without warrant or probable cause is a blatant, dare we say impeachable, violation of the 4th amendment. And please note that not only is there not an exception for wartime, but it was written in response to events during wartime, so not only is war not an exception, but is in fact when it was thought likely to be needed.
So that's why Abramoff's guilty plea is heartening. It's a conviction, not an indictment like Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby and David Safavian, and much better than a possible indictment like Karl Rove. This is a conviction of a Bush pioneer who earned the nickname "uberlobbyist" which leads to the heart of the corruption, not an isolated fraud like Duke Cunningham. This guy is connected to DeLay, Ney, and Bush himself. This could be fun.




