The Little Bomblet for Turdblossom in the New Rules

Kagro has been tracking the passage of the new House rules package over at his new digs.

As he described earlier, John Conyers stuck something in the new rules that will allow the House Judiciary Committee to continue its lawsuit against Harriet Miers and Bolten to get their testimony in the US Attorney scandal.

One nice goody buried in the new House Rules package: the House will authorize the Judiciary Committee to continue its lawsuit seeking to enforce its subpoenas and contempt of Congress citations against Bush White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

Technically, Miers and Bolten were in contempt of the 110th Congress. But with its adjournment, the 110th Congress no longer exists, so there’s nothing to be in contempt of, nor any plaintiff in the lawsuit. The courts had indicated that this might give them cause to moot the whole case and drop it. But the Rules package specifically authorizes the Judiciary Committee in the new 111th Congress to continue the suit. And we had earlier word that the 111th was considering reissuing those subpoenas.

And, as Kagro now points out (now that the rules have passed), there’s a little bomblet in there specific to Rove.

There’s one more juicy nugget in the rules package that just passed. Regarding the Judiciary Committe’s power to continue its suit against Miers and Bolten.

From Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s fact sheet (PDF):

In addition, it authorizes the Judiciary Committee and General Counsel to add as a party to the lawsuit any individual subpoenaed by the Committee in the 110th Congress who failed to comply.

Who else was subpoenaed by the Judiciary Committee in the 110th Congress and failed to comply?

Karl Rove.

And Michael Mukasey.

Nice going, Chairman Conyers and Speaker Pelosi.

In other words, Rove–and Michael Mukasey, who refused to turn over documents particularly relating to the Siegelman prosecution–is about to get added to HJC’s lawsuit forcing him to testify before HJC in the 111th Congress.

image_print
  1. klynn says:

    Sometimes, when I read your posts, I think there is a hidden stand-up comedian in you. You have a way with words, which brings me to a deep belly laugh! And you find great material at that!

    Thank you!

    • Arbusto says:

      Me too! In the 110th, he’d get all hot, wanting to stick it to Bolton & Miers, then get soft and fail to push home the subpoena or contempt citations. I hope can keep it up and nail some bad actors.

  2. BoxTurtle says:

    Hmm…nothing about taking their passports, is there?

    This puts Rove in personal jeopardy. Without somebody to back his executive privilege/National security claims, he’ll be reduced to pleading the 5th.

    Now, would Conyers grant Rove immunity to remove that 5th amendment and force him to testify? If he thinks it goes higher than Rove, he will.

    My bet is that Rove is the boss. And Conyers believes that as well. So I think he’ll either offer or force immunity on whichever of Bolton/Meiers can finger Rove.

    Boxturtle (Seems to me theres potential felonies there)

  3. perris says:

    man I wish these tidbits didn’t become public till president bush left office

    showing are cards a tad too soon as far as I am concerned

    • lllphd says:

      not sure about this, perris, but given that this new tidbit is part of the 111th house rules, my suspicion is that the timing of now is required.

      hard for the house to move forward without the new rules in place, it would seem.

  4. JohnLopresti says:

    In usual MaxEscher fashion, I have concern about retributive politics, though each seems mutually immersed in most lands. In the Burris matter, for example, I was concerned the Republican unemployed caging artists might turn party campaign coffers toward displacing secretaries of state or whichever officials in states control vote oversight, then work toward placement of stooges who would refuse to certify close votes, like Gregoire’s first election to governor, or Franken’s first term in the Senate. The Republicans remain a minority party, one bent to reliance on whatever contrivance overcomes the public’s natural predisposition to vote for the majority party. I think that is how Rove will be passing his time during the next two years as Republican consultant, dreaming of ways to corrupt process.

    • BlueStateRedHead says:

      Living in a blue bubble, I don’t get to see these specimen Repubs. upclose. It is my impression and not my knowledge then that this is a fine tuning of the way they work already. Everyone is screened for orthodoxy, beginning with candidates for school committees. If I understand, you are saying they will now add criminal propensities to orthodoxy.

      If so, how do we react now.

      • JohnLopresti says:

        I worked to elect a statewide elections official here, it takes state vigilance, and reading ew and kagro to stay apprised, or actual participation in process. I think the distance the dirty tricks folks have to run is shortening, as soon as FEC and EAC become effective, and Sequoia, Premier and other evoteMachine mfgrs are producing reliable apparatus. Too OT. If Cornyn did it, I will believe it when I see the practicum.

        • lllphd says:

          ah, clearly you are aware of this stuff.

          i would say, however, that getting the e-voting machinery to ‘work’ is a fool’s game. we most definitely need to revert to paper everything, and hand everything, hand voting and hand counting.

          this is not a cash transaction we’re talking about here; it’s your vote.

          most other countries count by hand, and their accuracy rate – as judged by exit polling (which still is held in high regard in the rest of the world, only mangled and maligned here) – virtually never varies beyond .03% from those predictions.

          it takes longer, but not nearly as long as the godforsaken REcounts and questionable tape readings and – in states like GA where ALL voting is by machine and there is NO paper trail at all – 100% more reliable.

          that’s my fervent hope and active push:
          HANDS ON VOTING!!!

    • lllphd says:

      john, the republican machine worked diligently on precisely the corrupt process you describe all through the 90s. that’s what brought us katherine harris and kennie blackwell, to name just two.

      on less public notes, these religious fanatics – migrants from the deep south to deep blue states like MN – had an agenda that included infiltrating not just the republican party leadership positions, but positions like ed commissioner and yes, sec of state.

      you may be more aware of this than i am assuming, and if so, apologies. if not, check out greg palast’s website, as well as markcrispinmiller.com, bradblog.com and velvetrevolution.org; there are tons of others, but these are a start.

      very scary stuff.

  5. JohnLopresti says:

    And thanks for kagro’s new location, a voice of sanity, even if sometimes it says impeach, please impeach.

  6. RAMA says:

    So they’ve got the tools. The question is whether they’ll do anything with them. After so much disappointment, it’s almost too much to hope for. So I’ll just wait and see, thank you. Based on their past track record, I’m still not optimistic Congress will actually suck it up and do their jobs.

  7. acquarius74 says:

    I opened the DIGG and commented there.

    Thank you, EW!! I don’t think I would want to be in Rove’s situation now. He done spit on Superman’s cape.

  8. freepatriot says:

    I got an off-topic question about Al-Haramain prosecution and immunity

    as I see it, the immunity would cover a violation of the defendant’s civil rights during the collection of evidence

    now, if you have to grant a pardon for the collection of evidence, what does the pardon do to the evidence collected ???

    did george bush just INVALIDATE all the evidence against the fookin terrorists ???

    immunity for terrorists ???

    is that what the congress and george bush hath wrought ???

    cuz that would be kinda the opposite of “Protecting And Defending”

    bmaz, labdancer, anybody ???

    • plunger says:

      Yes, Bush intentionally violated all of the so-called terrorists rights so that none would ever be called to testify as to the true nature of their “employment.”

      We’re all supposed to think that warrantless wiretapping to catch “the bad guys” was always supposed to remain secret. In fact, it was always intended that these “terrorist” cases would be thrown out on technicalities – such that no actual evidence of the Administration’s complicity in false flag operations would see the light of day.

      Welcome to opposite world.

      “Every conversation monitored under Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program is a missed opportunity to get someone who is talking with terrorists off the streets and behind bars.

      Why? Because evidence obtained by Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program is probably not admissible in court. Convictions obtained with evidence from this program may be overturned.”

      STOP RIGHT THERE! THINK.

      Clearly the Bush Administration knew that to be true. So what EVIDENCE do you have that Bush actually wants potential terrorists prosecuted? How many terrorists have been CONVICTED AND SENTENCED since 9/11?

      Do the math folks. Think like a criminal. The clearest explanation is often right under your nose. False flag terrorism is a TACTIC of the Mossad and the CIA. The terrorists are merely doing the bidding of this administration and their surrogates. Any actual TRIAL with TV CAMERAS and EVIDENCE would blow their entire operation.

      If they really want to arrest AND CONVICT terrorists, they would absolutely follow the letter of the law. They CHOSE not to. Coincidence? NOT!

      What more do you need to know?

      http://www.countercurrents.org…..050405.htm

      Let’s start out with a recap of some highly disturbing events in this country, as reported by a mainstream newspaper on the United States in August of 2005:

      http://www.timesherald.com/sit…..#038;rfi=6

      Now can you help me out with a plausible explanation for this:

      http://www.informationclearing…..le7545.htm

      And this official DEA report:

      http://www.whatreallyhappened……pying.html

    • bmaz says:

      Um, no. The normal evidentiary rules and considerations applicable to whatever case or prosecution at hand would maintain.

      • LabDancer says:

        [psst…psst…don’t pass this on to Ms E Wheel, but it appears everyone at the Great Orange Satan and Hullabaloo may be baiting her up her riffs on this al-Haramain business. It does seem to have something like the same potential as the Wilson-Plame thing.]

          • JThomason says:

            my vote–keep up the riffs re: El-Haramain … i read these with rapt attention this AM…i have had my say many many moons ago about the corporate culture that resents disclosure, responsibility and liability represented by the charge against “trial lawyers” and the dismantling of the tort system…it is the mind-set that has informed Bush and used in further implementing Cheney’s corrupt fixation on expanding the power of the executive…I would love to see Judge Walker shred this veil of unaccountable entitlement which is part and parcel of the impulse to tyranny against which the idea of the rule of law sprang in the first place…just for a moment with these threads i had a sense that the chickens might come home to roost….

            • lllphd says:

              no sh*t.

              corporations are the LEAST democratic institutions on the planet, aside from maybe the military coup of myanmar. how anyone can bend the mind and language to equate the ‘free’ market with democracy is beyond me. unbridled market forces lead only to monopolies, almost by competitive definition; then what?

              so i’m therefore not so sure what to make of this new commerce nominee, his being a ceo type and all.

  9. MadDog says:

    I know it is OT to this post and late to the party, but in EW’s Oops! They Pissed Off Judge Walker Before He Finalizes Immunity post, EW had this to say:

    If you look at your calendar, you’ll see that’s just one day before BushCo leave office and Obama takes over (though, with their stall tactic on Eric Holder, it will be before Obama’s got an Attorney General ready to take this over).

    (My bold)

    There is a way around this, and it is one that I highly recommend that Obama take.

    That is immediately upon his inauguration on Janaury 20th, appoint Eric Holder as Acting Attorney General.

    This would allow the Obama Administration to immediately lay some wood on a number of pending Bush Administration pixie dust issues such as the States Secret claim in the al Haramain claim, the immunity claim in the Hepting v. AT&T claim, etc.

    As a matter of fact, I would highly recommend that Obama immediately upon inauguration, name all of his pending principal positions to Acting so as to hit the ground running.

    I include places like the Secretary of State, Treasury Secretary, DOJ, CIA, DNI, DHS, etc. I would also encourage similiar immediate Acting appointments like DAG and AAG for the OLC.

    Lastly, and definitely NOT OT, I would then have the US Marshals Service immediately serve those subpoeanas on Turdblossom, Miers and Mumbles Mukasey, and frogmarch them in handcuffs to appear before Congress.

    Take that you turds and turdlettes!

    Now, does anybody have an in with the Obama Team so we can apprise them of this most marvelous strategy? Pleeeeeeeze?

    • bmaz says:

      How bout we get rid of the turd Eric Holder altogether and not have him anywhere near the DOJ? Then he can keep “acting” as the Banana Boys’ consigliere.

      • MadDog says:

        I’m no Eric Holder fan, so I can empathise with your point.

        Regardless of whom the Attorney General nominee is, does the idea of immediate Acting appointments make sense?

        Is there any reason that Team Obama shouldn’t do this?

          • MadDog says:

            Yes, but hearings are one thing, actually taking office is another!

            What guarantee exists from the Senate that the nominees will actually be able to take office on January 20th?

            And would you trust “Hit me again” Harry Reid’s word on anything?

        • bmaz says:

          Heh, dunno. There may be some deal that to be “Acting AG” you have to already be confirmed into some position there, but I certainly am not aware of such; so maybe he can. Not sure.

    • lllphd says:

      brilliant, maddog!! as usual.

      but a bit too ‘drama’tic for no drama obama, i fear. just think of all those neocon shorts in wads (not to mention soiled), and all the media calls for their vapahs and “i nevah’s.”

      it just would not do.

      sick, i know. but there it is. obama strikes me as someone who is most astute at dealing with reality, while keeping – let’s hope – ideals always in view.

        • eCAHNomics says:

          PEBO is subject to criticism at every moment. But as for the countdown, by recent standards, he ought to get at least 2 FUs, and 3-4 Friedman Units.

          • eCAHNomics says:

            Hey, Raven. You are often on my case for being so negative on PEBO. So do I get any credit with you for cutting him some slack on the countdown? *g*

              • foothillsmike says:

                3-4 F.U. would be 18 to 24 months – eCahn this really you – what have you done to eCHAN where is she>

                327 hrs & 33 min

                • eCAHNomics says:

                  W got 7 years before the countdown. Given the starting point, you got to give PEBO at least 2 years. As I said, criticism is permitted all along the process, but crossing him off is a very different judgement. Besides, my training was in science, so nothing is ever proved; everything is just an hypothesis waiting for evidence to disprove. Despite my ego tied up with my chosen profession of forecasting, I would so love to be wrong in my PEBO forecast, and will gladly change my mind if the evidence warrants it.

                    • RevBev says:

                      Thanks…do whatever I can. We all need O to succeed. I love that FDR comment: Make me do it. Well, yes we can.

                  • lllphd says:

                    my guess/hope is that obama is going to play it very centrist, very embracing for two years and then watch how the mid-terms go. maybe shift into higher gear then, and then hyper-drive in second term.

                    i know that seems like a pansy approach, but these days with this media and the machinery, it actually makes sense to me. if he were to come in all gangbusters the way most progressives want him to do, he’d instantly meet up with an impenetrable wall, and that would be the proverbial that.

                    better to gather, unify, seduce, get everyone on the same page, and then showing them how being on the same page means ‘this’, all this hopeful, we’re all in this together, yes we can stuff, and gosh everyone is already here, so let’s put on a show!

                    and hardly anyone will notice they’ve been …seduced.

                    at least, that’s the way i hope it goes. it could just as easily seduce in the wrong direction. but i just don’t think he’s that stupid. or that corrupt.

  10. klynn says:

    OT

    Diane F must have seen Jane on MSNBC…She is sounding a bit like Jane right now IRT seating Burris.

    Very funny in so many ways.

    A game of poker Harry?

  11. Mary says:

    14/19 – I doubt there will be any way to tell from the pardons the extent of illegal surveillance and how many discovery and other court orders are in violation bc I don’t think he’ll detail the illegal acts. And DOJ has been knowingly burying their knowledge and evidence of illegal surveillance in all kinds of cases so far, with no fallout. So I don’t think things will change – it’s a very different bench than it was during Judge Keith’s and the Church commission days.

  12. foothillsmike says:

    SOP is a confirmation hearing, committee vote to recommend (or not), recommendation goes to full senate for a vote. An acting is usually an existing employee in whatever dept. stepping in temporarily. Some positions might entail obtaining security clearances etc. (Not sure if pres can grant sec clearance.
    328 hrs & 54 min

    • MadDog says:

      A couple points in response:

      1. Regardless of SOP, there is no guarantee of a date certain on nominees taking office. In particular, one needs to go no further than Eric Holder’s nomination. The last I heard, the Senate Judiciary confirmation hearing was re-scheduled to January 15, 2009.

      As a number of Repugs have vowed to broil Mr. Holder over a slow fire, I would not put it past them to also slow roll any attempt to move it through the full Senate.

      2. As to existing employee being the typical Acting appointment, I don’t think that is the case, nor do I believe there is any requirement that one be an existing employee. That it may be in some cases does not mean it must be in all cases.

    • MadDog says:

      I take it back. You are correct regarding existing employees. sheepish *g*

      It appears that the guiding law is the Vacancies Act [5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d] of 1998:

      The Vacancies Act [5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d] prescribes requirements for filling, both permanently and temporarily, vacancies that are required to be filled by Presidential appointment with Senate confirmation (PAS appointments). The Act was substantially amended in 1998…

      …Under the Act, there are generally three categories of persons who can serve in an acting capacity for vacant PAS positions.

      o First, the “first assistant” to the vacant office. The Act does not define this term, but legislative history generally refers to the top deputy to the position. The law also appears to permit creating a first assistant by regulation where there is no statutory first assistant.

      o Second, an existing PAS ( from the agency at issue or from any other agency) designated by the President (and only the President).

      o Third, certain senior agency employees designated by the President (and only the President)…

  13. RevBev says:

    And Newshour conversation about the Panetta appointment including some open discussion about war crimes and rendering and torture. If you can find it on the site, very interesting. I do not recall the name of the one so outspoken

    • lllphd says:

      bev, it was ray mcgovern, who has been extremely vocal on all aspects of the us intelligence nightmare all along, from the plame affair to abu ghraib and renditions and gitmo.

      michael scheur (sp?) was also on and has also been vocal and against torture, but he has been much more cautious and status quo, even defending that renditions and secret imprisonments (which from all i can tell are illegal) actually serve that default purpose of securing the american people. blablabla.

      you’re right that this was an important debate to be having on national tv, with judy woodruff of all folks.

      • barbara says:

        Ray McGovern is principled and fearless. An unbeatable combo. I dazzled selise earlier today with news that I had dinner with Coleen Rowley and Ray McGovern a few years ago. Mighty impressive man.

      • bobschacht says:

        Even better than Ray McGovern on PBS was Rachel Maddow tonight on Accountability– or, as the web page lamely puts it, “Intel Showdown” This was the first segment on her show, and is an absolute classic, IMHO.

        Excellent! This is high quality TV journalism. More like this, please! I like the way she interprets Panetta’s anticipated appointment as a rebuke to Feinstein and Rockefeller. Rachel also puts down the media kerfuffle about the Panetta announcement being a “misstep”. Rachel has it right, I think, and I hope! Her guest, Bob Baer, was also excellent.

        This was the best segment on her show, and one of the best news show segments I’ve seen in a long time. Almost as good as an EW diary (heh.)

        Bob in HI
        Home again, Home again!

      • Bluetoe2 says:

        eCAHNomics, seem to be on the same page. Should put on the Statue of Liberty the quote, “Give up all hope, ye who enter here!”

        • eCAHNomics says:

          Heh. Will be in the city for a couple of days, but don’t think I have the time to change the quote. Will keep it in mind for my next extended stay.

          On a serious note, changing the slogan would seem to be appropriate for recent immigrants, and the domestic workers they displace.

      • eCAHNomics says:

        Can’t wait to hear. Last night Rachel did a shout out to anyone in the know in DeeCee to tell all about all the parties, etc. going on there.

      • freepatriot says:

        Why would the Bushes say it was booked if it isn’t?

        why would bush claim that Bill Clinton trashed the whitehouse before he left, most notably creating the lie that the “w” was removed from computers ???

        the answer is”

        george bush is a pathetic little shit of a man

        in order to maintain any semblance of dignity in that pea sized brain, george bush must create false transgressions by others, so that george can rationalize his pathetic lack of morality by believing that everybody is more corrupt than he is

        the LIE fits the man. It’s a small lie for a small person

          • freepatriot says:

            not because he can

            because HE HAS TO

            if george doesn’t create his little false narative, reality creeps in, and he begins to understand what a complete fool he is

            for pathetic shits like george, self awareness is the enemy

          • RevBev says:

            So true: same for Sarah Palen. Those lies just slip on out, no trouble, just tell a little tale. Crazy

        • LabDancer says:

          “pathetic little shit of a man”

          – freepatriot at emptywheel

          “self-centered, authoritarian jerk”

          – digby at hullaballoo [tinyurl.com/7mcxbs]

          Maybe it’s time we all got over our natural inclinations towards reticence and thinking well about others, and just let it all hang out.

          The wingers and fringoid clinging to the cliffs over the Reagan rainbow past reality already think everyone who sees things differently than they do are just a bunch of Bush haters anyway – so why not have a good, old, DFH-southpaw-progressiphere competition for who can come up with the top 100 putdowns of the Water Boy.

      • PJEvans says:

        To mess with the next boss, I’d think. (Remember what they did when they moved into the offices? Blamed everything, real or not, on the Clintons. These are not nice people.)

        • Loo Hoo. says:

          I don’t conclude that there was any reason to exclude the Obamas from the Blair House other than racism.

          I do not use that term lightly, by any stretch, but when you consider both the Dallas neighborhood the Bushes are moving to, along with the Blair situation, it looks like this could well be the last racist act (by government as a whole) in the USA.

  14. eCAHNomics says:

    OT
    W was for social security reform as his biggest accomplishment (though failed) before he was against it. Now he thinks it’s immigration reform. I NEVER understood why the Rs raised immigration reform to front & center. It is not only completely divisive for the Rs, it’s completely divisive for the country.
    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/…..migration/

    • lllphd says:

      um, you did notice that EVERY banner issue they’ve taken up has been divisive, right? abortion, gay marriage, immigration. that’s their AGENDA; divide the country so it’s a slugfest and no one asks any real questions about any real issues.

      which is why their dawgawful party is in such pathetic shape right now. instead of playing it straight and saying what they were FOR in real terms, they were all about what they were AGAINST, and in fake terms. so now, no one has a clue what they’re about, including them.

      pretty sad, really, the party of lincoln and all. especially that they have proven perhaps his greatest observation to be true:
      can’t fool all the people all the time.

    • foothillsmike says:

      That is the third time i’ve seen it today. I mentioned it this AM. By the International fellowship of Christians and Jews. Didn’t you like the guys flack jacket
      327 hrs & 11 min

      • eCAHNomics says:

        Didn’t look, as I was otherwise engaged during ads. Will watch more closely next time. Not sure we’re talking about the same ad. The one I listened to had to do with the existential threat to Israel and what we all could do to help the poor beleaguered country. Is that what you’re referring to?

  15. Loo Hoo. says:

    Margaret Carlson reporting that the Blair House there are no foreign dignitaries, except an Austrailian dignitary (Howard) for one night. Security costs we pay are far greater where the Obamas are now staying.

    • foothillsmike says:

      He was afraid that Barack and Michell would have so much space that they could really practice up on the Madrassa two step which they would then spring on an unsuspecting amaerica at the presidential balls.
      326 hrs & 57 min

  16. FrozenNorthObserver says:

    Oh puuleese, Conyer’s is a joke who never enforces subpoenas, they are tripping over them in the Whitehouse and Pelosi is a bigger protector for Jr and BushCo Inc than the secret service. The both of them should be getting subpoenas of their own for deriliction of duty.

    • prostratedragon says:

      How can you ask someone to be the last person to provide cover for a walking historic disaster?

  17. freepatriot says:

    ot, but important

    Ball State and Tulsa don’t rate some trash talk around here ???

    what’s up with that ???

    Ball State just blocked a punt, gaining good field position to make a comeback

    17 – 7 Tulsa

  18. RevBev says:

    OT: on PBS, special on New Orleans, Katrina. I did’t get in on the start so don’t know if it is new…but fascinating.

  19. RevBev says:

    W in Jackson Square promising we will do everything we can to bring you back..restoring the Gulf Coast “yesterday’s problem”.

  20. randiego says:

    ot, but important
    Ball State and Tulsa don’t rate some trash talk around here ???
    what’s up with that ???
    Ball State just blocked a punt, gaining good field position to make a comeback
    17 – 7 Tulsa

    We can just start our own little one in protest… right here. Better to ask forgiveness than permission, no?

    That Ball State coach is about to come west to coach SDSU.

  21. barbara says:

    I was impressed, too! *g* Rowley was running for U.S. Congressional seat and I was running interference for her with DCCC, CNN and even cadged time for us to meet with George Lakoff. McGovern and Rowley have been friends forever, and we hooked up for a quick dinner one night. The sad part of this story is that I had only a vague inkling of who he was at that point. It has been absolutely stunning to me to think that this little MN hicklet hung out with him, even for a little while.

    • lllphd says:

      oh this is too funny.

      one, i had george lakoff and his wife over for dinner years ago. that’s a long story, prior to politics (in his metaphor incarnation, my passion. metaphor, not his incarnation). am preparing to renew contact with him on that.

      two, so you hail from MN? i mentioned MN in an earlier comment on this post, wrt how repugs set up rearranging the election process. another long story, you probably know it? at any rate, plan to spend may and june a couple hours north of st paul. you still there?

      • barbara says:

        btw, I’m laughing, too. I am such a big Lakoff fan. So you’re way ahead of me on that one! Was very disappointed when Rockridge was discontinued.

        • lllphd says:

          got the poor guy so drunk on maker’s mark, and then badgered him with the good question he needed to answer but dismissed. i’m embarrassed to admit that i did that, but it was way good for me and my thesis. he’s absolutely fun and a good guy. have been totally psyched he’s been so politically active.

  22. lllphd says:

    OT, obama will nominate parsons – who’s been on his econ transition team and just left as CEO of time/warner – for richardson’s non-slot at commerce.

    anybody know anything about him?

    • barbara says:

      Looks as though he resigned from Time Warner before he was given the boot, on the heels of the ill-fated AOL deal. Read on CNet that he was considering running for mayor of NYCity in 2006.

  23. freepatriot says:

    i know that seems like a pansy approach, but these days with this media and the machinery, it actually makes sense to me.

    it took 14 years to get into this mess

    we’ll be lucky if we can reverse the damage in 8 years

    one thing I DO know, the repuglitards’ divisive bullshit is gonna leave them out in the cold for a long time

    (actually, if you’ve been following my comments for a while, you know I don’t think the repuglitards are gonna survive)

    arlen specter has “reservations” about Holder ???

    does he think people forgot abu gonzo ???

    how’d ya vote on abu gonzo, Arlen ??? That’s what I thought, now sit down and SHUT YOUR FUCKING PIE HOLE

    shooting fish in a barrel ain’t as easy as this is gonna be

    anybody seen DiFi’s comments about Pannetta ???

    how’d ya vote on bush’s nominees, Di ??? That’s what I thought, now sit down and SHUT YOUR FUCKING PIE HOLE

    I don’t know how stupid these people are, but I’m mean enough to find out

    • lllphd says:

      agreed; though i think 14 years is a gross underestimation. er, misunderestimation. i think this agenda has been in the making since at least nixon, frankly.

      which is why, sadly, we’ll need a magical seducer to reverse the trend. hope it works.

      hope; it works.

      and i completely agree about the repug party’s demise. have been interested in sullivan’s take on this topic, and he seems to think it’s been taken over by aliens (a line from my MN pal a decade ago) in the guise of the religious fanatics, and that the ‘real’ conservatives of the buckley ilk will regroup somehow some way. in the meantime, the meltdown is nothing short of delicious to watch.

      and just to push that disintegration along a bit faster, check out the graph here:
      http://downwithtyranny.blogspo…..kfire.html
      seems gallup finally unpacked those stupid “congress is less popular than ever” numbers. seems that the public is pretty much nailing where the problem is. the congressional republicans are at 25%, even lower than bush!!

      even lower than bush!!

      i can’t help but snort out loud. they think 2010 will be their return, and it’s sure to be their last gasp.

      • freepatriot says:

        arlen specter is objecting to Holder because Holder “MIGHT” turn out like abu gonzo

        I am convinced that many of Attorney General Gonzales’ missteps were caused by his eagerness to please the White House. Similarly, when Mr. Holder was serving as DAG to President Clinton, some of his actions raised concerns about his ability to maintain his independence from the president.

        I didn’t belive it was possible till I read it on the innertubes

        once again

        I don’t know how stupid these people are, but I’m mean enough to find out

        keep talkin, arlen

        ya DICKHEAD

        • lllphd says:

          ditto on all that.

          i keep praying that the american people continue to see through all this double talk. if that graph i reference in 108 is any indication, we might have a prayer.

      • freepatriot says:

        they had to do SOMETHING to generate a little excitement

        I’m thinkin one of the bands did something to piss the primordial ooze off

  24. barbara says:

    Wiki says Parsons is a 60-year-old African-American who, among other things, is on the Citigroup board. He was born in Hawaii (!), is 6′4″ and played basketball. Read on if you like here.

  25. bobschacht says:

    Rachel Maddow, continued–
    She also considered Panetta’s appointment as a comment on the LACK of Senate Oversight by Feinstein and Rockefeller. YES! More insights like this, please!

    Bob in HI

    • kspena says:

      I quite agree. I read Rachel’s analysis as a reduction of Feinstein as chairman of Senate intell committee with the appointment of Panetta’s as similar to the reduction of Lieberman with the appointment of Napolitano as head of Homeland Security. When a committee becomes complicit with administration policy, it is no longer ‘oversight’. It is an ‘oversight’. I gather Feinstein got the message and realizes she got punked…

      • bobschacht says:

        Rachel was also a guest commentator on Olberman’s Countdown, and pulled no punches there, either. “Our” Rachel is becoming a talking head! Keith was talking with her like she was the authority! Rachel is not just reading wire service reports, she’s doing her own analysis and commentary, and I’ll bet she’s getting kudos for it.

        Bob in HI

  26. wavpeac says:

    Here’s my hope…O is playing up the bipartisanship like crazy. To such a degree that it is driving some of his lefties a little crazy. It’s getting a lot of publicity. I hope this is in prep to ameliorate the absolute rage that is going to occur when he begins to go after these folks. I think the set up is there…and he is doing a good job of making it appear as if bipartisanship (*I shouldn’t say “appear” perhaps this is what is required to get rid of the lawbreaking) very important to him. And I think that dems are going to come down with the stinky republicans…which will be very bipartisan…as well.

    I hope this is the strategy…but he is getting a lot of negative attention for his “reaching across” the aisle style. It makes it much hard for “he’s going after republicans” meme to stick if has made a big deal of being bipartisan. I could live with this and it’s consequences as long as accountability for the worst crimes occurs.

    Well have to wait and see. But there is a huge cynic in me that has been well trained by 8 years of bushco.