2007

All in for McCain

McCain releases a bunch of Illinois endorsements:

LLINOIS STATE LEADERS SUPPORTING SENATOR MCCAIN

Senator Pam Althoff

Senator Dan Cronin

Senator Kirk Dillard

Senator John Jones

Senator Dave Luechtefeld

Senator John Millner

Senator Dale Risinger

Senator Dan Rutherford

Senator Frank Watson

Representative Dan Brady

Representative Rich Brauer

Representative Mike Fortner

Representative Paul Froehlich

Representative Sid Mathias

Representative Mike McAuliffe

Representative Jim Meyer

Representative Rosemary Mulligan

Representative JoAnn D. Osmond

Representative Raymond Poe

Representative Randy Ramey

Representative Jim Sacia

Representative Jil Tracy

Representative Jim Watson

Insane Arguments

Yeah, any sense of reasonableness goes out the window when they start saying this garbage:

The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn’t have oversight ability. So what we’ve said is we’re going to reach out to you – we’ll give you every communication between the White House, the Justice Department, the Congress, anybody on the outside, any kind of communication that would indicate any kind of activity outside, and at the same time, we’ll make available to you any of the officiels you want to talk to …knowing full well that anything they said is still subject to legal scrutiny, and the members of Congress know that.

Yeahhhhh..no.

In 1792, the House conducted a major investigation by appointing a committee
to inquire into the heavy military losses suffered by the troops of Maj. Gen. Arthur St. Clair to Indian tribes.  The committee was empowered “to call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to assist their inquiries.”   According to the account of Thomas Jefferson, President Washington convened his Cabinet to consider the House request.  The Cabinet considered and agreed,

first, that the House was an inquest, and therefore might institute inquiries. Second, that it might call for papers generally.  Third, that the Executive ought to communicate such papers as the public good would permit, and ought to refuse those, the disclosure of which would injure the public: consequently were to exercise a discretion.  Fourth, that neither the committee nor the House had a right to call on the Head of a Department, who and whose papers were under the President alone; but that the committee should instruct their chairman to move the House to address the President.

The Cabinet concluded that “there was not a paper which might not be properly
produced.”   The House committee examined papers furnished by the executive
branch, listened to explanations from department heads and other witnesses, and received a written statement from General St. Clair.   The general principle of executive privilege had been established because the President could refuse papers “the disclosure of which would injure the public.”  The injury had to be to the public, not to the President or his associates.  

This administration has consistently flaunted the law and conflated its interest with the nations.

As the principle has stood, communication between Gonzalez and the President is probably  covered under executive privilege, but none of the discussions between subordinates.

Typically this has been a tension not between parties, but between branches. How perverted the system has become over the last 6 years is exemplified by the notion this is a partisan issue.  The damage to the Republic is great when the executive assumes he is the sovereign and not a portion of the sovereign.

From US vs. Nixon:

…But this presumptive privilege must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. This is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that “the twofold aim [of criminal justice] is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.”…The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive. The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts…. To ensure that justice is done, it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the defense. …The [evidentiary] privileges are designed to protect weighty and legitimate competing interests… [and] are not lightly created nor expansively construed for they are in derogation of the search for truth.

One More Shot to Flip Someone

Rich points out Fitzgerald is indicting Al Sanchez of the Hispanic Democratic Organization (everyone remember to type this out–it’s rather mysterious as just HDO to readers who aren’t familar) (HDO) and Streets and Sanitation Department Commissioner to Daley.

The key to me is that Sanchez isn’t a Bridgeport pal and as such may not have the same loyalty to the Mayor that Sorich had.  If a case can break against Daley, and I’m still not betting it will, this is the way to do it.

Lowering the Standards

Watergate has been used to append gate to all sorts of scandals, but I tend to think that a plan to essentially undermine the checks and balances of the United States government would then be used to modify fairly serious scandals and not, some guy made a web video and is marginally tied to some campaign. Apparently Hotline on Call disagrees

Reserve the circumstances of de Vellis-gate just a bit. Let’s say an employee at a major Bush vendor or a major Clinton vendor was caught engineering a stunt like this. The presumption of innocence would be gone. The press would treat the matter as it were a real scandal.

US Attorneygate works, especially given the lame executive privilege claim is about as ludicrous as Nixon’s when he tried to invoke it–though to be fair, nearly all President’s try and push the issue and few have any merit. Bush and Nixon have just taken the argument to the extreme. Let’s save the ‘gates’ for serious scandals.

And, ummm…Swift Boat Vets for the Truth wasn’t the same situation? And how many press outlets pointed out just how close to the Bush campaign the SBVT’s were?

The Kid is All Right

I’m stealing the line from Rich’s Headline a while ago, but Alexi Giannoulias has been an incredibly pleasant surprise for his performance so far.

He finally put to bed the damn hotel deal.  He has worked hard on Bright StartFritchey covered this as well.

And today, he pushes back against the Governor’s really stupid idea.

But more than that, he’s been playing well with others generally (I think we can rack up the disagreement with Blagojevich as such since everyone, but the Governor is against the idea).

I was critical of Alexi during the campaign and given what I knew at the time, I wouldn’t change that.  At the same time, all of that is irrelevant now and the question is can he perform and by all early indications, he can and he is.
Here’s his statement from the Appropriations Committee:

Read More

Daily Dolt

The NY Times.

 From Skeptical Brother
Apparently Obama’s pastor wasn’t so upset after all.

March 11, 2007
Jodi Kantor
The New York Times
9 West 43rd Street
New York,
New York 10036-3959

Dear Jodi:

Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a “Spiritual Biography” of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.

For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run.

I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn’t I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family? I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed.

I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just “in word only.”  I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed.

Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack’s spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, “What is that in your hand?,” that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it “in his hand.” Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that.

As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on Barack’s taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print? You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed “sound byte” and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.

I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation’s first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.

Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama’s “Spiritual Biography.” Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of “Hannity and Colmes” is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years.

The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth. I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or “spin” because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.

Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party’s national “blog.”  The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior.

Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana.  Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie!

Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. ,
Senior Pastor
Trinity United Church of Christ

Layer Upon Layer of Absurdity

To kick-off the new site, Illinois Reason, here is the first crosspost. From more about Illinois Reason go to the about page.

The fine folks at Illinois Review are referring to the newest Insight Magazine for the reference to how ‘wacky’ Obama’s church is.

Yes, the magazine run by a right wing cult leader who declared himself the Messiah is trying to criticize a UCC church.  Fantabulous.   The article is an AP based story, but the notion that one would treat a cult’s magazine as reputable while criticizing Obama is just hysterical.