The Dead Guy

We continue to hear the usual names as the talk about a McCain Vice Presidential running mate continues: Charlie Crist (Gov-FL), Bobby Jindal (Gov-LA), Mitt Romney, Tom Ridge, Meg Whitman (CEO-eBay), Fred Smith (CEO-FedEx) and, of course, Mike Huckabee. These individuals have been tossed around the MSM, as well as general circles of chatter. However, one name is suspiciously missing every time - that of Palin. (more…)

On tonight’s The Colbert Report, Dr. Stephen T Colbert D.F.A. played host to four very strong Democrats - Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, Former Senator John Edwards and Congressman Patrick Murphy. Below is a blow-by-blow analysis (with video!!!):

(more…)

(more…)

This is an update to “The Cult of Popularity” from April 11 about the final ten contests in the Democratic Presidential Preference elections. Since we are just under one week until the Pennsylvania Primary - I thought now would be a good time for us to visit that “popular vote” strategy that Senator Clinton is trying to employ to sway delegates (both superdelegates and elected delegates) to her side.

I will repeat the same response I have whenever someone tries to rewrite the rules. The DNC determines the Democratic Nominee by only one measure: Delegate count in sanctioned, legitimate elections. However, to quell the cries, I’ve laid out the math of the popular vote scenario. Since the first post, Clinton has made a little headway in the projection (about 11,000 votes) due to a .8% increase in her Real Clear Politics average lead in PA and a new SurveyUSA poll in Kentucky. However, at the same time Obama has tightened the race in Indiana and increased his numbers in Montana and South Dakota while losing a smidgen in North Carolina.

(more…)

In “George Bush … War Criminal” - I lay out one case in which I believe that President Bush and his cronies can be tried by the United States and International Courts.

Last night, over at Philadelphia Daily News, Will Bunch asked Senator Barack Obama a very important question about if he is elected President whether his Justice Department “would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed.” Obama’s response?

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued … You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it.

Now Mr. Bunch takes the answer that Obama has ruled out impeachment, but I don’t see that. Obama says he doesn’t think it would be “fruitful” and follows up with “a basic principle … is nobody above the law.” That doesn’t say to me that impeaching Bush (or his cronies) is ruled out, but that he wouldn’t actively pursue it. However, if it is found that there are impeachable offenses found that impeachment would be an option.

I’ve been doing a bit of research on impeachment and Presidential pardons. A major source I have used is Brian C. Kalt’s article in the December 1996 issues of The Yale Law Journal - “Pardon Me?: The Constitutional Case against Presidential Self-Pardons.”

Can an ex-president be impeached? The answer is - Yes. Since a former President receives a pension and other resources from the Federal Government, Congress’s impeachment power can strip these benefits. So, when Bush leaves office in January 2009 - he is not free from possible impeachment.

Can Bush pardon his cronies? The answer is - Yes. But not if Congress decides to impeach them. A Presidential Pardon holds no power over impeachments.

Can Bush pardon himself? The answer is - it’s never been tested. Again, impeachment is a moot point since a pardon holds no power over impeachment. However, against Federal criminal cases this is a grayer issue. The decision would have to be determined by the Court System first. The Court would look at the entire Constitution, not just the Pardon clause for its answer.

What is pointed out is that the Constitution is written to prevent self-dealing, as in:

• Congress cannot give itself a raise (but it can give the next elected Congress a raise).
• The presidential salary cannot be raised until after a presidential election.
• No member of Congress cannot simultaneously hold another federal office and cannot resign from Congress to take a job that was created or whose pay was increased during that Congress’ term.
• During a presidential impeachment trial in the Senate, the Chief Justice presides not the Vice President as it normally would be. Reason? If a President is impeached and removed from Office - who becomes the President? Exactly. This also implies that the Vice President cannot preside over their own impeachment trial, but does preside over other impeachment trials in the Senate.
• “Without the Bill of Rights, a self-dealing Congress and President could control the press, take away guns, search houses, seize property, and jail people indefinitely, all in order to further their own interests at the expense of the will of the majority.” (from “Pardon Me? …”) - Huh, sound familiar?

So a President shouldn’t be able to give a self-pardon as it would bypass the right and responsibility of the Congress as it would be self-dealing and allows the enjoyment of the fruits of the office without control by Congress.

Now you’ll ask - okay, but let’s say Bush does pardon his cronies and no impeachment proceedings occur, but the future Attorney General considers Federal criminal proceedings. Wouldn’t the pardons of his cronies pretty much mean that President Bush is safe because there is nothing to use as leverage against his cronies for testimony? Well, the fun thing about that is - if they are pardoned, they are immune from prosecution and can’t hide behind the Fifth Amendment. So, if they decide to withhold testimony, they can be held for contempt of court - which they are not immune from. And we all know that if the chickenhawks are faced with falling on their sword for Bush or crowing at the sunrise, the sun can’t rise quick enough!

Also, another interesting note about Presidential Pardons. They only work on Federal crimes. Not on civil and not on state criminal charges. So if some plucky state Attorney General can build a strong case on state charges, the Presidential Pardon holds no power over those charges, either.

Thank you, Mr. Bunch, for asking a question that deserved an answer. Thank you, Senator Obama, for the courage and strength to stand up for the Constitution, the United States and the People by responding that President Bush will not escape scrutiny, nor will his administration.

So once again, lifelong politicians have taken words out of context and wielded them as weapons back at the person who spoke those words.

Senator Obama was 100% correct when he said after all the promises we have been given about improving the economic conditions, not just in Pennsylvania - but across America, and yet nothing has truly changed, that we are bitter and many of us blame that which we are told to blame: immigrants, people wanting to restrict the 2nd Amendment, the government supposedly trampling our religious rights, and so forth.

That’s what Obama was saying. And if you hear the whole conversation in context - you know that is what he said. The American people have been given scape - goats to blame by the people that are really to blame - the politicians that won’t do a damn thing to bring about the change needed to restore jobs and better conditions for our country.

But let me tell you something - I’m not bitter - I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!

I could go on, but these folks have said it much better than I. The first one, Robert Creamer, is the person who trained me in grassroots organizing back in 1998 while I was working on a campaign in Washington State. The others I don’t personally know - but they sum up the sentiment pretty well.

When it comes time to vote in your upcoming primary and the general election in November - don’t vote because you have to - vote because you want to … because you want to change the status quo … because you want things to get better … vote who you believe truly shares the real American values and who will best represent us to change the system back for the people, instead of turning its back on the people.

Vote because you are mad as hell, and you’re not going to take it anymore!

(more…)