Advertise here: Contact FM.


Guevara With a Sweet Southern Tan
July 20, 2007 8:51 AM   RSS feed for this thread Subscribe

Do the Coup D'etat. The White House has made the Constitutional Crisis official: the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges against an official invoking executive privilege -- even if it's blatantly illegal.
posted by spiderwire (299 comments total) 39 users marked this as a favorite

Surely ...
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:53 AM on July 20, 2007


Don't call me Shirley.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 8:54 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


TIme for action
posted by parmanparman at 8:54 AM on July 20, 2007


Unbelieveable.
posted by BeerGrin at 8:55 AM on July 20, 2007


Marty Lederman also explains why this essentially cuts Senate enforcement off at the knees -- the only person with standing to bring suit against Harriet Miers or anyone else is a US Attorney, and by forbidding them from doing so, well... there's no other course of action to prosecute for contempt, so Congress can do nothing.
posted by spiderwire at 8:57 AM on July 20, 2007


July 20th, 2007. The day the President declared himself exempt from all American Law.

We shouldn't talk about this, though. Its PoliticsFilter, after all.
posted by Avenger at 8:57 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


now what? can it be revolution times yet? can we put backs against walls? pretty please?
posted by Mach5 at 8:58 AM on July 20, 2007


LOLZCONSTITUTION
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:58 AM on July 20, 2007 [8 favorites]


I was just thinking of this possibility the other day. For an actual military removal of W, it would take some combination of him invoking executive privilege to postpone the elections (terrorist are in the ballot boxes!) and some really pissed off generals and Secret Service commanders.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:59 AM on July 20, 2007


INHERENT CONTEMPT POWER!
posted by grobstein at 9:01 AM on July 20, 2007


You ultraleft demmycraps will stop at nothing to weaken and attack the executive branch. I bet your pals in Al Qaeda are cheering and hi fiving each other over this mefi post.
posted by fleetmouse at 9:02 AM on July 20, 2007


[sorry, been reading LGF again]
posted by fleetmouse at 9:02 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


"U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will."

Ew.
posted by grabbingsand at 9:02 AM on July 20, 2007


Write your representative. Now do it again.

Seriously, this is the same old trick Reagan made popular: "You can pass any law you wish, but you can't make me enforce it."

This will continue until people demand a change. So demand a change.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 9:03 AM on July 20, 2007


Look. I'm as conservative as the next guy, but isn't someone going to challenge this already? It's just like the Supreme Court - the Constitution doesn't give SCOTUS the duty of interpreting the Constitution, they just up and decided it was something to add to the job description. And no one ever called them on it.

That seems to have turned out ok.

This one, however, I have doubts about. Any Democrats around? Angry Republicans? Someone with half a brain? Call him out. Somewhere down the line, you'll be thanked. If not because of Bush, then because of whoever gets elected 15 years down the line.

Remember kids, whatever Bush gets, the next President gets too.
posted by niles at 9:04 AM on July 20, 2007


Congress can simply start impeachment proceedings. I don't think he'd get far with the "executive privilege" excuse if he tried withholding evidence from an impeachment trial.
posted by rocket88 at 9:05 AM on July 20, 2007


Why is our "democracy" looking more and more like a game of Calvinball?
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 9:05 AM on July 20, 2007 [21 favorites]


...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future...
posted by pantsonfire at 9:06 AM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


Dear Congress: He's been laughing in your face for six years! IIIIMMMMMPPPPPEEEAAAACCCHHH. THEN THROW THE FUCKER IN JAIL.

(I fully expect all my assets to be seized tomorrow for saying that.)
posted by fungible at 9:06 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Where the hell are those crazy Michigan Militia's when you need them!?
posted by milarepa at 9:06 AM on July 20, 2007


So, when the US Attorney for DC fails to bring the charges sought by the Senate, then what? Does the Senate hold the US Attorney in contempt (and if so, who prosecutes that)? Is there some jujitsu move?
posted by adamrice at 9:07 AM on July 20, 2007


consider me utterly shocked. if these guys were caught red handed having a bukkake with babies it wouldn't even raise my eyebrow.
posted by andywolf at 9:08 AM on July 20, 2007


INHERENT CONTEMPT POWER!

Leahy's already pointed out that the civil contempt powers exempt executive subpoenas, which pretty much ends the second two options discussed here. The first option is the US Attorney, and, well...

This really is a complete clusterfuck of massive proportions.
posted by spiderwire at 9:09 AM on July 20, 2007


Congress can simply start impeachment proceedings. I don't think he'd get far with the "executive privilege" excuse if he tried withholding evidence from an impeachment trial.

No, that's the point -- the invocation of "executive privilege" with Miers was already illegal. To bring a contempt charge, Congress has to turn to the US Attorney, b/c they're the only person with standing to bring the charge in court. If the US Attorneys won't do it, there's no way to prosecute for it.
posted by spiderwire at 9:11 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


This along with the new exec order seizing assets of anyone they want pretty much seals the deal.
posted by amberglow at 9:12 AM on July 20, 2007 [4 favorites]


I'm speechless. This is like some end-of-days law school hypothetical-- where your professor blows your mind with the reductio ad absurdem of an untenable position. But it's real.
posted by kosem at 9:13 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Inherent contempt to keep Fred Fielding distracted, then hit them with impeachment. That will allow Luke to get in close enough to hit the reactor core.
posted by DU at 9:13 AM on July 20, 2007 [9 favorites]


Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.
posted by NationalKato at 9:15 AM on July 20, 2007 [7 favorites]


"We shouldn't talk about this, though. Its PoliticsFilter, after all."

The content of this thread suggests that politics does not provoke our very best discussions here on the blue. Flagged.
posted by LarryC at 9:21 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


TLL: It's always been calvinball. It's just showing more now than it usually does.

More accurately, it's a giant game of Nomic.

It's just waiting for someone to slip through a law about victory conditions.
posted by Arturus at 9:22 AM on July 20, 2007


I'm tend to agree with Malor and DU here, dios, as I just mentioned -- the essential issue is that the White House is refusing the bring contempt charges, which hamstrings Congress wholly and completely. It's not particularly complicated.

Also, I dispute your claim that I was blatantly editorializing in my post -- the White House has, in fact, forbidden the USAs to prosecute for contempt any official claiming executive privilege, even if blatantly illegal. What about that constitutes editorializing?

Additionally, I did link to some more "nuanced" discussions (I am not a law professor -- nor are you -- so my analysis is potentially more misleading than my supposed "editorializing") for those wishing to investigate more deeply.
posted by spiderwire at 9:23 AM on July 20, 2007 [4 favorites]


Meanwhile, Cheney will be Pres temporarily soon while Bush gets a colonoscopy--i betcha he does something then too--some exec order or other shit.
posted by amberglow at 9:25 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


A colonoscopy for Bush? What are they hoping to find, his head?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:26 AM on July 20, 2007 [32 favorites]


Where the hell are those crazy Michigan Militia's when you need them!?

They're all on free republic, laughing their asses off. You didn't expect these people to be principled did you?

Well shit, there has been 30 comments without a single person discussing the actual issue here and merits/problems thereof, so why would I derail conversation by discussing the topic or anything that Lederman said?

The merits? Are you kidding me? People behave like criminals, and we should sit around and discuss the "merits"? Fuck that. I mean really, we don't sit around and have high-minded discussion about issues like child molestation and the "merits" thereof, why should we have high-minded discussion about constitutional molestation?

Look, if it was up to me, I would just impeach him. Not tomorrow, today. If he won't comply with congressional supena, then congress should declare him in contempt, and consider that a crime and impeach (both him and Cheney)

The problem, of course, is that you need a supermajority in the senate to actually impeach. In fact, 66 votes, not the normal 60 needed to break a filibuster.

But yeah, congress should cut of all federal funding until bush and Cheney resign.
posted by delmoi at 9:26 AM on July 20, 2007 [5 favorites]


30 comments without a single person discussing the actual issue here and merits/problems thereof

From my read of the article, once the president has invoked executive privilege, he absolves himself and his administration of any legal recourse by the Justice Department.

Merits: It openly demonstrates that this administration believes that it is above the law, if there was a question about this before, there isn't one now.

Problems: It openly demonstrates that this administration believes that it is above the law. Perhaps we, as a country, can show them that this is not the case.
posted by quin at 9:27 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


The content of this thread suggests that politics does not provoke our very best discussions here on the blue. Flagged.

One day, when the President (any President!) declares martial law, outlaws dissent and jails the opposition in Congress, somebody will make an FPP about it here on the Blue, and somebody, somebody will say "Meh. grind grind grind. Flagged."

Flag the goddamn President, please.
posted by Avenger at 9:27 AM on July 20, 2007 [34 favorites]


Can anyone clarify the connection between this snafu and the AT&T case outlined in the second link? How are the positions of Miers and Taylor similar to AT&T's back then? How are they the same? Is it really just a matter of the loyalty of these two people?
posted by carsonb at 9:28 AM on July 20, 2007


The "legal nuance" here is that the White House has decided to adopt, as it's marching orders, an extremely fringe academic position, most recently forcefully articulated by people like Professor John Yoo. This has been in the works for some time now, and this showdown is like the praxis of the Bush revolution as far as separation of powers is concerned.
posted by kosem at 9:28 AM on July 20, 2007


Well, the upside is that they're reaching so far here that they're ensuring they're going to lose this fight.

It's like the "I'm not in the executive branch" argument that Cheney put out there. It was so laughably false that they had to back down.

Same thing with this. If they claim that simply invoking "executive privilege" is enough to shut down any investigation then they're going to have a rude awakening.
posted by bshort at 9:28 AM on July 20, 2007


Another good discussion here at Volokh Conspiracy -- however, they, too, seem in agreement that this is either a Constitutional Crisis or as close as you can get. No one's really discussed any options outside impeachment proceedings.

Also, here is Leahy discussing why there's no way to bring contempt charges, and exactly what inherent contempt would entail. This really is an impasse, so dios, if you have any enlightened suggestions about any of this, feel free to throw 'em out there rather than just kvetching.
posted by spiderwire at 9:30 AM on July 20, 2007


And if the answer to my last question is 'yes', then why isn't there one person in the White House that doesn't have a fucked-up concept of loyalty that Congress can subpoena?
posted by carsonb at 9:30 AM on July 20, 2007


The some members of the media are getting pissy, too.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 9:31 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


We all complain that the president is acting as if he is above the law, but, really, isn't he?

We are the law, and so far our voices have been silent. Where is the uproar? Where is the outrage? Where are the protests in the streets? If our political systems are failing to protect us from this powergrab, we must take to the streets and make our voices heard. Who's with me?
posted by pantsonfire at 9:31 AM on July 20, 2007


Congress can impeach, but they cannot "throw the fucker in jail."

The constitution provides that the house can impeach, the Senate holds the impeachment trial, the Chief Justice presides (when impeaching the president), but the only punishment if the senate votes to impeach is removal from office and a life-time ban on holding office.

However, once impeached, the impeachee can be tried in criminal or civil courts, which can then jail or punish in other ways.

The last paragraph of the article is amusing: "Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view." Well, their recourse is impeachment. Honestly, I don't think it would be over-blown at this point. Compared to what Nixon and Clinton did, I think GWB has gone much further.

However, how important, really is this whole US attourney thing? Seems like if we prioritize all the crazyiness going on right now, this would rank well below a war of questionable legality and other such things. By forcing this issue, congress has forced the adminsitration into making this power grab. Perhapse, in the end, it would have been better to let them get away with this one?

No, I talked myself out of it. Either way bad precedents are being set. Congress needs to get off it's collective butt and do something.
posted by jeffamaphone at 9:31 AM on July 20, 2007


impeach or shut up. see this bet or fold.
posted by bruce at 9:34 AM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


I can't wait to see the creative ways Hillary will make use of the expansion of executive power.
posted by troybob at 9:34 AM on July 20, 2007


Since reklaw's been banned, I'll go ahead and tell you all how this one ends: badly

I used to joke about handing this country over to Jamaica. Now? Begging.
posted by bhance at 9:35 AM on July 20, 2007


I can only imagine they are trying all these things so the next democratic president can't do the same once they are inevitably voted into office.

WHY YOU BITEIN'?! BURRRRRN
posted by tittergrrl at 9:35 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Can anyone clarify the connection between this snafu and the AT&T case outlined in the second link? How are the positions of Miers and Taylor similar to AT&T's back then? How are they the same? Is it really just a matter of the loyalty of these two people?

The issue is that executive privilege doesn't extend to individuals or entities outside the executive branch. Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers are not members of the executive branch, so refusing to honor a subpoena constitutes blatant contempt. The precedent illustrates an incident where the President specifically instructed AT&T to refuse to comply with a subpoena and the court found in AT&T's favor, because AT&T was not the real party in interest -- the conflict was between Congress and the Executive.

dios or anyone else can correct me if I'm wrong there.
posted by spiderwire at 9:35 AM on July 20, 2007


Delmoi: The problem, of course, is that you need a supermajority in the senate to actually impeach.

Actually, you need a majority of the House to impeach. The Senate then is required to try the impeachment. You need a 2/3 vote of the Senate (67) to convict in an impeachment case. There is no filibuster option in an impeachment trial - the Senate has a special set of rules for conducting the impeachment trial.
posted by beagle at 9:36 AM on July 20, 2007


Yeah, it's important to note that while the Republican party was screaming that if the Democrats gained control of congress they'd start impeachment proceedings, the President is pretty much forcing the issue and demanding that the congress impeach him.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. Remember: the wheels of justice turn slowly, but they grind to an exceedingly fine dust.
posted by bshort at 9:36 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


This really is an impasse, so dios, if you have any enlightened suggestions about any of this, feel free to throw 'em out there rather than just kvetching.

Or, we could try thinking this one through ourselves. The constitution isn't that hard of a read.
posted by jeffamaphone at 9:37 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


Sorry guys I can't go out and protest I have some blogging to do and some you tube clips to watch. But someone should really do something about evil Bush!
posted by Foci for Analysis at 9:37 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


However, how important, really is this whole US attourney thing?

considering the whole thing is directly related to charges that the administration was engaged in illegal efforts to manipulate election outcomes, i'd say it's about as important an issue as you're gonna find.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:38 AM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


The constitution isn't that hard of a read.

Yeah, but then there's that more complicated part about hiring a medium and setting the location for the séance to discover what the founding fathers intended.
posted by troybob at 9:40 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Next week: Republicans set fire to the Reichstag U.S. Capitol, Bush declares National Emergency. (Previously)
posted by TrialByMedia at 9:40 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


[Big derail excised. More discussing, less discussing the lack or not of discussing, okay?]
posted by cortex at 9:42 AM on July 20, 2007


troybob you say that like you think there will be another president? surely its obvious that martial law will be declared before we ever get to that point.
posted by filchyboy at 9:42 AM on July 20, 2007


However, how important, really is this whole US attourney thing?

It could be just like the Cheney Energy Committee thing -- the Admin doesn't give ground on principle. However, there have been some very serious hints of systematic voter fraud and Hatch Act violations, among other things. Also, stonewalling this investigation means stonewalling all other potential investigations, so it actually makes more sense to play this game on an issue that's not easily encapsulated in a narrative like Watergate.

And if the answer to my last question is 'yes', then why isn't there one person in the White House that doesn't have a fucked-up concept of loyalty that Congress can subpoena?

Besides getting fired, and the general problems with being on Dick Cheney's bad side and waking up with a horse head in your bed, and knowing that the Admin won't have your back -- they have to have a reason to subpoena someone. They would need someone who was specifically involved with the incident they're investigating -- i.e., the Attorney firings. Additionally, all of the people involved presumably have a collective incentive to keep quiet -- there's no direct incentive to crack, a large potential downside, and a collective incentive for the veil of silence.

Or perhaps the answer is no, there isn't such a person in the White House.
posted by spiderwire at 9:43 AM on July 20, 2007



Why not have a general strike? I know we lack the union organization to carry out such a thing, but honestly all it would take is the few million Mexicans who did it last year during the immigration protests, plus a significant portion of the liberal white collar crowd and the universities, and voila, country is all but shut down - force their hand, make them impeach now.
posted by bukharin at 9:44 AM on July 20, 2007


Why not have a general strike?

Because "we" have, on average, $10,000 in credit card debt and uncontrollable ARM's to pay for. Sure, I'll strike for six months to force Bush out of office. But who's going to pay my 22% APR Visa Platinum?
posted by Avenger at 9:48 AM on July 20, 2007 [5 favorites]


Why not have a general strike?

That's an interesting idea, but I don't think enough Americans would care enough to try this until their gasoline ran out, their refrigerators were empty and they couldn't watch the next episode of American Idol or whatever.
posted by TrialByMedia at 9:48 AM on July 20, 2007


You know, there may not be much more to discuss besides impeachment. This is really just a big "fuck you" move and there's no obvious way around it that I can see.

I simply have no idea what's going to happen next, besides that I suspect it will be bad -- the Administration has very much forced Congress' hand here. As jeffamaphone and others said -- there's going to be some very bad precedents set here either way. If Congress doesn't act: Executive is king. If they act and fail: big crisis, mess court decisions, could totally screw up the balance of powers -- plus there's a lot of scandal strings attached to the whole thing.

I'm getting a headache just thinking about it.
posted by spiderwire at 9:49 AM on July 20, 2007


God, somebody please tell me that this isn't happening, or that there's something in our fucking constitution to stop this from happening. Please tell me that somehow this will be corrected for, and that my country will be okay in the long run. Please tell me that there are a few reasonable people left on the other side who realize that someday, someone who they don't like will be in office and may wield these powers accordingly. Goddamn it, somebody tell me that things will be alright someday.

Somebody? Anybody?
posted by Afroblanco at 9:49 AM on July 20, 2007 [4 favorites]


Even if they impeach, there's no conviction. So what's the real point of that? Or is the hope that they'll uncover enough dirty that 17 Republicans have to vote for it? Seems doubtful--I mean, they'll filibuster pay raises for soldiers and then lie about it, so it's not like they have any shame.

What's the problem with inherent contempt again? A few days in jail ought to loosen up Supreme Court material Harriet Miers' tongue.
posted by DU at 9:50 AM on July 20, 2007


Um, can I just say here, "Holy shit"?
posted by WCityMike at 9:50 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


I just phoned my representative's DC office just to remind him about the inherent contempt power.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:53 AM on July 20, 2007


A few days in jail ought to loosen up Supreme Court material Harriet Miers' tongue.

Personally, I would do my time rather than cross Dick Cheney, and I expect that Miers knows more about that than anyone.
posted by spiderwire at 9:54 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]



Has this been posted yet?

Former Reagan official warns of coming Bush 'police state'
posted by bukharin at 9:55 AM on July 20, 2007 [6 favorites]


Regarding the presence of a principled person in the White House, this whole issue really demonstrates (again) what a service John Dean did for this country during Watergate. He was that person then. His like appears not to exist now.
posted by hwestiii at 9:55 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]



Seriously, this is the same old trick Reagan made popular: "You can pass any law you wish, but you can't make me enforce it."


Andrew Jackson did the same trick. This concept, in various forms, has been around since the early 1800s.
posted by Stynxno at 9:55 AM on July 20, 2007


Yeah, personally I'd like to see the Inherent Contempt power exerciesed before impeachment.
posted by jeffamaphone at 9:57 AM on July 20, 2007


bukharin: it's linked in this article i was about to post, which points out that this whole thing is fishy... the timing is off. if the idea was to run out the clock until the next election, why throw down the gauntlet here and now?
posted by spiderwire at 10:00 AM on July 20, 2007


I can't help but see this as further evidence of the administration's pathological inability to see themselves as wrong.
God told Bush to invade Iraq and doing anything else other than continuing this horrible sanctimoniousness, in all areas of executive influence, would be admitting their myopic ideology of freedom spreading and knowing what is best in every situation, had some problems. They've lied, tortured, killed, stole and now a power grab.
I shouldn't have laughed when Bush said Jesus was his favorite philosopher, I should have been angered.
posted by PHINC at 10:01 AM on July 20, 2007


bukharin: that rawstory link you posted is scary as hell.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:01 AM on July 20, 2007


This seems valid to me. Since when does the Congress get to boss around U.S. Attorneys? They're in the executive branch & Bush is their boss. Impeachment or the inherent contempt power seem like reasonable comebacks. The Congress has marshalls or something right? How much force can they muster? In the end, in the US or elsewhere it comes down to who controls the military. That's not a fact that Bush invented. We think we're immune but maybe we get the gov't we deserve.

They also have control over purse strings right?
posted by Wood at 10:03 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Oh, and this from emptywheel (partially quoting KagroX from DK) is positively creepy:
But has the US Attorney ever done that before? Declined to prosecute a political friend on orders from the White House? Absolutely. The case was that of Reagan administration EPA chief Anne Gorsuch Burford in 1982.

And who was the White House counsel who ran the strategy? Why, it was Fred Fielding himself...

Know who helped direct Fielding's legal strategy on the Gorsuch case?

Guy by the name of John Roberts.

...And to add to the fun, the US Attorney for DC -- Jeff Taylor -- is one of the remaining PATRIOT provision USAs--plucked from among the Gonzales clique at DOJ and installed in DC just in time to prevent Democrats from exercising any real oversight.
Oh boy.
posted by spiderwire at 10:06 AM on July 20, 2007 [10 favorites]


They also have control over purse strings right?

One would assume so. Here's an interesting question that somebody here on the Blue might have an answer for:

What could the President do if Congress cut off all his funds? I mean all of his funds. White house tours, Secret Service, DoD, DoJ, the whole shebang?

Couldn't congress, theoretically, defund the entire government save itself and the courts? What then?
posted by Avenger at 10:06 AM on July 20, 2007 [4 favorites]


wood: your comments just reflect how fucked up the situation has gotten already, how tragically perverted even our expectations of the integrity of our democratic systems have become. the attorney's are supposed to serve the constitution not the president, and they're supposed to prosecute the laws as written, not the whims of the executive, even if the executive does have the power to appoint them. i'm gonna go cry for the future of my son now.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:07 AM on July 20, 2007 [4 favorites]


No one is going to stop this; not anyone in power, that is. It's a rigged game, and no one up there has been put into power because of their moral courage.

It's up to us.
posted by solistrato at 10:07 AM on July 20, 2007


filchyboy : troybob you say that like you think there will be another president? surely its obvious that martial law will be declared before we ever get to that point.

I'm not sure about that. Watching this administrations behavior; the power-grabs, the massive expansion of the Executive branch, etc. All of these things are antithetical to the core tenants of the Republican party.

I have a different theory. They are acting as spoilers. They went in, with the intent of making things as bad as possible in the most vulgar and public way. They break the law, they don't hide it, and they never apologize. They drain the federal reserves and attach us to a conflict guaranteed to keep it empty; much of this money goes into their own pockets (natch).

And right before they leave office, they go so far overboard that Congress is forced to react. To set the pendulum swinging the other way...

An angry nation demands change, they force the government back into a smaller roll, they strip the power of the exectutive and they do all of this when the Democrats are in office.

At the end of the day, the nation has a much smaller governement, the Republicans have a shitload of money, and the elected Democratic administration has been rendered completely toothless.

Which, as a long term goal, is more or less exactly what the Republican party from 1999 would want.

Now, the only real question is, are these people that clever? Are they that Machiavellian? And even if this wasn't the plan, how un-fucking-cool is it that there is a good chance that this is the way it could unfold?
posted by quin at 10:07 AM on July 20, 2007 [10 favorites]


Guy by the name of John Roberts.

Cheney has played the entire country for chumps. No wonder he's not running for 2008--he doesn't need to.

I feel ill.
posted by DU at 10:08 AM on July 20, 2007


"Americans think their danger is terrorists," said Roberts. "They don't understand the terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution. ... The terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism. Americans just aren't able to perceive that."

(from the rawstory piece)
posted by Afroblanco at 10:08 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


1934, eh. Seems like it might be time, although considering that lot, the idea of them exercising judicial power directly is kinda scary; almost more so the GW. Almost.
posted by Bovine Love at 10:08 AM on July 20, 2007


What will it take for Americans to wake up? There would be mass protests if this was pulled in a European country...maybe even guerilla warfare if it was France.
posted by fire&wings at 10:09 AM on July 20, 2007


quin's right, and it was going to happen anyway because no one would allow any Democratic president to have the kind of power this administration has had.
posted by amberglow at 10:10 AM on July 20, 2007


Well, the upside is that they're reaching so far here that they're ensuring they're going to lose this fight.

Don't count on it, bshort. We have a criminal in the Oval Office, and we will until 2008. Nothing of substance will be done about this shitting on the Constitution. Republicans are so corrupt, they enough of them will not join with Democrats, so nothing can be done about it.

We are fucked. George W. Bush has put a nail in the coffin of the USA. He will not be punished for this. The next president will be worse.

Thanks, conservative America. You've fucked us all. And you'll still support this lawless criminal who just declared himself king, because he has an R after his name (or, worse, because he doesn't have a D after his name).

It needs repeating: George Bush is no longer a lawful president. He's just some asshole claiming to be. Blatantly violating the Constitution makes him a tyrant, not an elected official. Sadly, the likes of dios et al. won't wake up to that simple fact until it's far to late. And the next "George Bush" we get will be worse. It's been a steady decline since the fuckers started with Nixon (Reagan and Bush I were much more lawless than Nixon, but they learned how to get away with it. Bush II has taken it to a new level. The next guy won't even pretend to believe in the US Constitution).

Oh, and this is THE BIGGEST NEWS STORY OF THE CENTURY. Funny how it's so hard for me to find it on the teevee. I remember long, pointless talks about hypothetical Constitutional crises during the Clinton blow-job affair. Funny, that. Liberal media my fucking ass.
posted by teece at 10:11 AM on July 20, 2007 [17 favorites]


Saul, in what sense can an individual member of the executive branch enforce his or her own vision of the constitution without the support of their peers or superior? Some cop is going to show up to grab Miers and the US Attorney is going to say, take her away & the AG is going to say "don't" and the cop is going to do what? It's an organization.

Maybe they can litigate congressional contempt issues in their "20% time".
posted by Wood at 10:13 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


which points out that this whole thing is fishy... the timing is off. if the idea was to run out the clock until the next election, why throw down the gauntlet here and now?

Because it either is being ignored by the media because of all the Iraq stuff, and they easily get away with all of it--and more--under the cover of darkness, or it will displace all the iraq stuff (which hurts them daily and is devastating 08 chances for the GOP) if it actually does get coverage.

So far it's not being covered really at all, and certainly not on front pages or tv. This is just the latest in a long line of refusals to follow the laws--almost none of them have gotten the coverage they deserved, so why should this?
posted by amberglow at 10:15 AM on July 20, 2007


wood--

splitting hairs on the head of a corpse.

i don't know what else to say.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:16 AM on July 20, 2007


Cheney has played the entire country for chumps. No wonder he's not running for 2008--he doesn't need to.

I feel ill.


I feel like:
I felt raped. The pig had done me on all fronts, and now he was going off to chuckle about it on the west side of town, waiting for me to make a run for L.A ...

They've nailed me! I'm trapped in some stinking desert crossroads called Baker. I don't have much time. The fuckers are closing in. They'll hunt me down like a beast!

posted by spiderwire at 10:19 AM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


fire&wings: There would be mass protests if this was pulled in a European country...maybe even guerilla warfare if it was France.

Nono... riots. France always riots. It is their colonies/protectorates/etc that conduct the gorilla warfare.
posted by Bovine Love at 10:20 AM on July 20, 2007



What will it take for Americans to wake up?

I have been thinking about this a lot. It is no coincidence that the denigration of the middle class over the last thirty years and especially the last 15 has corresponded to the weakening of democratic institutions and the fraying of civil society. (There's a lot of reasons for this - corporatism, privatization, suburbia, etc.) But our unions are very weak, our universities are filled with the complacent and indoctrinated upper class who have everything to gain from a system that is increasingly unfair to everybody else, and the wealth gap is widening such that we more and more have an underclass of service serfs who haven't the time or the stability to think politically. The Left has few social or community institutions that bring people together on an everyday basis the way the Right has the churches, making it difficult for even places like San Francisco to have a unified front. Only countries that have a strong, stable, healthy, independent middle class have democracies and are able to defend the principles of Enlightment - that was why, as idealistic as their left intelligentsia were, the Russians could never do it. So, it's not that Americans aren't awake, it's that they're busy, they're isolated, and moreover, they're frightened. It's a recipe for despotism.
posted by bukharin at 10:22 AM on July 20, 2007 [34 favorites]


Afroblanca: Wishful thinking will not save you.
posted by jeffamaphone at 10:25 AM on July 20, 2007


the timing is off. if the idea was to run out the clock until the next election, why throw down the gauntlet here and now?

Well, the fact that the CNN front page story is about Harry goddamn Potter seems to indicate that the timing is spot on.
posted by googly at 10:25 AM on July 20, 2007


Harper's has a article about this topic: A Republic, If You Can Keep It.
posted by chunking express at 10:26 AM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


You guys have come full circle. You're back to dealing with an insane tyrant named George who invokes the divine right of kings to justify his powers.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:26 AM on July 20, 2007 [21 favorites]


someone left the cake out in the rain and we'll never have the recipe again.
posted by hortense at 10:29 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Now, who thinks that U.S. citizens should have the right to purchase semi-automatic rifles?

The people are the ultimate guarantors of the Constitution.
posted by CRS at 10:30 AM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


Well, the fact that the CNN front page story is about Harry goddamn Potter seems to indicate that the timing is spot on.

don't forget the Dogfighting.

/disgusted
posted by amberglow at 10:33 AM on July 20, 2007


To be perfectly honest, CRS, I support gun control, espescially against handguns, but in the back of my mind I have always known that every one of us, eighteen and up really should have rifles trigger locked in our basements for just such an occaision.
posted by OldReliable at 10:33 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


This seems like kind of a big deal.

Hmm. CNN is leading with "Fans wait for Harry Potter".
posted by Artw at 10:34 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


What the hell is going on here? How could this once-proud nation have changed so much, so drastically, in only a little more than two years. In what seems like the blink of an eye, this George Bush has brought us from a prosperous nation at peace to a broke nation at war.

---

The utter collapse of this Profoundly criminal Bush conspiracy will come none too soon for people like me... The massive plundering of the U.S. Treasury and all its resources has been almost on a scale that is criminally insane, and has literally destroyed the lives of millions of American people and American families. Exactly. You and me, sport — we are the ones who are going to suffer, and suffer massively. This is going to be just like the Book of Revelation said it was going to be — the end of the world as we knew it.

posted by spiderwire at 10:37 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Bush played his Fourth Level Mage card.
posted by tkchrist at 10:39 AM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


Just to clarify my previous comment: I mean, shit! HOLY FUCKING JESUS GODDAMN SHIT!

George W. Bush frightened me before, but I think this is the first time I've actually revved up to full, utter, batshit terror. (Hm. One who inspires terror in others ... )

Seriously ... I have absolutely no faith in the U.S. populace doing anything but a very gentle "baaaaaa baaaaa." After all, Harry Potter is out, and America's got talent, and did you hear Earl disappeared a week ago? The cops came in and arrested him. His wife hasn't heard from him since, and no one down at the station's even confirmin' for her that he's there. Ah, well. Must've done somethin'.

Frankly, all of you who thought George W. Bush was engineering things so that he'd never have to leave office, and ranting about a "police state" — well, I thought you were a bit off your rocker. I thought you were taking a series of horrifying policies and taking them to a somewhat logical but nevertheless absurdist extreme. But I wasn't gonna say anything 'cause, hey, you were on "my side," even if you were a bit nutso.

Er, yeah, um, sorry 'bout that.
posted by WCityMike at 10:39 AM on July 20, 2007 [9 favorites]


I'll be just as honest, then OldReliable. I think y'all are getting your panties in a twist for no good reason. If Congress doesn't like what GWB is doing, they can impeach him.

I support the Constitution of the United States of America. As part of that support, I believe that the people should, at all times, be able to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That means we have to have access to weapons.

If any of you think GWB is really a dictator in the making and soon an iron wall of oppression will descend around the USA, you should be against any form of gun control and support easy access to law abiding citizens.

I would like to think this is a place where I could agree with all you lefties. (Or vice versa)
posted by CRS at 10:40 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


The people are the ultimate guarantors of the Constitution.

The people are frightened of loosing their jobs and houses.

As long as the President (or any would-be dictator) can convince most of the people that opposing him might cost them their life or even just their livelihood, he will be unstoppable.

70% of Americans hate Bush, but taking to the streets would do nothing but take gas out of our cars and food off our tables.

Its over, people. The coup has happened. Franco wins. Break out the whiskey and smash your watches. Bottoms up.
posted by Avenger at 10:41 AM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


Lead story on MSNBC -- Bush's colonoscopy! -- and NBC News highlights:
Shot airman ‘mystified by verdict’
Seven signs you've got 'Harry Potter' fever
Have the paparazzi gone too far again?

posted by ericb at 10:42 AM on July 20, 2007


"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." — George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
posted by Otis at 10:42 AM on July 20, 2007


This is not a thread about gun control CRS, take it somewhere else. It's noise and a derail.
posted by teece at 10:43 AM on July 20, 2007


This worries me and I don't even live in the US.

Hey American Public! Pull your pants down and grab your ankles! It's time for your weekly dose of 'democracy'!
posted by Totally Zanzibarin' Ya at 10:44 AM on July 20, 2007


Frankly, all of you who thought George W. Bush was engineering things so that he'd never have to leave office, and ranting about a "police state" — well, I thought you were a bit off your rocker. I thought you were taking a series of horrifying policies and taking them to a somewhat logical but nevertheless absurdist extreme. But I wasn't gonna say anything 'cause, hey, you were on "my side," even if you were a bit nutso.

Er, yeah, um, sorry 'bout that.


It's the frogs in slowly boiling water thing--an unending series of these executive orders and signing statements and refusal to complys and installing loyal people in all branches and agencies of govt to enforce --or not enforce -- things.

Mahablog explains it well, with an assist by Milton Mayer: Frogs in a Pickle
posted by amberglow at 10:45 AM on July 20, 2007


If any of you think GWB is really a dictator in the making and soon an iron wall of oppression will descend around the USA, you should be against any form of gun control and support easy access to law abiding citizens.

They don't want to be dictators. Dictators get overthrown. They want a new Gilded Age, a permanent underclass, and a political elite cloaked in legitimacy. And between this most recent move and the pardon power, among other things, they've got it. No matter how the next election goes, they have outmaneuvered us on every single front. They won. We got smoked.
posted by spiderwire at 10:46 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


So are Americans going to start rioting yet or what? What's the point of having an armed populace if you aren't willing to shoot shit up when your government stops representing you?
posted by chunking express at 10:48 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


Jesus!
posted by OmieWise at 10:50 AM on July 20, 2007


It's not even on CNN's Politics page at all.
posted by spiderwire at 10:51 AM on July 20, 2007


Why Isn't Harriet Miers in Jail?
posted by chunking express at 10:51 AM on July 20, 2007


It's not even on CNN's Politics page at all.

Of course its not. Why would it be? It's a non-issue. Everything is fine.
posted by Avenger at 10:53 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


Here are a long list of things to get riled up about.
posted by chunking express at 10:56 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


So are Americans going to start rioting yet or what? What's the point of having an armed populace if you aren't willing to shoot shit up when your government stops representing you?

Sadly, it turns out that the people who really like guns are more likely to support Bush than not.

Funny how that works, isn't it?
posted by Avenger at 10:56 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


For what it's worth, I sent the following note to my representative. My district elected a republican last time around, so it's not worth much:
Dear Rep. XXXX

I have never written to my representative before, but I feel I can no longer stay silent.

Our President has today has announced that his executive privilege trumps the ability of Congress to work with the Justice department to investigate wrong doings. He is attempting to say that the entire system of justice works at his pleasure, that he is above the law.

I am not writing to you because I expect you to do anything. Party affiliation is more important than country these days after all. I am writing to tell you that if your party goes along with this, does nothing to remind the President that he is subject to the same laws as every citizen, I will have to consider the Republican party as responsible.

I am not wealthy. I am not powerful. But I promise that should you do nothing, I will never vote for another Republican, no matter what office. And I promise that I will devote time and effort to seeing that you, personally, are not reelected when your term is up.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
posted by Eddie Mars at 10:56 AM on July 20, 2007 [9 favorites]


i wish people would quit saying we live in a dictatorship ... we live in a increasingly dysfunctional democracy full of corrupt and selfish officials, the most notable of which is bush
posted by pyramid termite at 10:57 AM on July 20, 2007


CNN is a joke, guys. You don't get any real news from CNN. The "Clinton News Network," as boneheads call it, is only a couple of notches above Fox News. They are a propaganda outlet, pure and simple: but they peddle happy-go-lucky, buy-our-product propaganda, rather than blatant political propaganda.

They are no longer a news organization, so it's not in the least bit surprising that they won't mention this. The trouble is that there are so precious few actual news organizations left...

Of course, that's no accident. That's part and parcel of the infrastructure Republicans have built since a couple of reporters brought down a corrupt Republican president.
posted by teece at 10:58 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


I agree with pyramid termite, there is still time to fix things. Heck, just look at the rampant corruption in government during the 19th century. There is no reason to give up, just work harder to get the people you want elected for the reasons you want, then hold their feet to the fire.

chunking express and avenger, please note that teece has decided we cannot discuss gun control here.
posted by CRS at 11:03 AM on July 20, 2007


You know why Americans aren't rioting? Because we believe in our process. Sometimes it takes a long time to work, but it does work.

We have a good process, and even when people try and screw it up it usually works.
posted by bshort at 11:05 AM on July 20, 2007


i wish people would quit saying we live in a dictatorship ... we live in a increasingly dysfunctional democracy full of corrupt and selfish officials, the most notable of which is bush

Yes, but at some point the Weimar Republic stops being a "republic". What is it going to take for people to stop calling us a Republic? Do we need to change our name to Das Amerikareich for that to happen or what?

We have a President who has now stated quite openly -- on several occasions -- that he considers the law to not apply to himself and his ever-growing number of "advisors". We have an opposition, a populace and a Press which has been cowed and browbeaten into silence. Or, at the very least, been rendered ineffective through fear of being accused of "treason". As far as I'm concerned, the difference between our current state of affairs and a "real dictatorship" is just semantics.
posted by Avenger at 11:05 AM on July 20, 2007


I've felt for quite a few years now like watching the news was like watching some weird puppet show.

It's really creepy to get the feeling that I predicted how the story was going to go.
posted by zebra3 at 11:06 AM on July 20, 2007


For those who are honestly looking for a discussion of the legal matters and precedents wrt this sort of executive privilege use... an online chat with Mark J. Rozell, professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of "Executive Privilege: The Dilemma of Secrecy and Democratic Accountability," just started at WashingtonPost.com.
posted by tittergrrl at 11:08 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


I don't see this being covered anywhere... the only politics news is about Bush's colonoscopy and how Cheney's in charge...

Which, you have to admit, has a certain irony to it.
posted by spiderwire at 11:11 AM on July 20, 2007


live q+a
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:12 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'm not sure this will be big. The press actually has to report on it for that to happen. This is what Olberman said a couple weeks back.
When President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre" on October 20th, 1973, Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously.

"Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people."

President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people.

It had been about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break in to a rival party's headquarters; and the labyrinthine effort to cover-up that break-in and the related crimes.

And in one night, Nixon transformed it.

Watergate—instantaneously—became a simpler issue: a President overruling the inexorable march of the law…of insisting—in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not previously understood—that he was the law.

Not the Constitution.

Not the Congress.

Not the Courts.

Just him.

posted by chunking express at 11:13 AM on July 20, 2007


I can't find anything about this story on Reuters, MSNBC, or CNN. What the hell is that about?

No, really. This is kind of a big deal. Why isn't it being broadcast on every American network? That's the part that really scares me.
posted by honeydew at 11:14 AM on July 20, 2007


Yes, but at some point the Weimar Republic stops being a "republic".

indeed ... say, when some populist who preaches justice for the common people, better jobs, a return to values and a determination to sweep all the bums out ... and, upon election, immediately starts neutralizing the opposition and declaring an extra-legal emergency

none of that has happened yet, has it?

We have a President who has now stated quite openly -- on several occasions -- that he considers the law to not apply to himself and his ever-growing number of "advisors".

when it comes to the decision making process of hiring and firing his employees ... it's questionable, but it's not a violation of the average american's rights, just a corruption of his government

We have an opposition, a populace and a Press which has been cowed and browbeaten into silence.

that just is not true ... period ... the posts in this thread are proof against that

Or, at the very least, been rendered ineffective through fear of being accused of "treason".

the populace has been rendered ineffective because they continue to elect ineffective officials

As far as I'm concerned, the difference between our current state of affairs and a "real dictatorship" is just semantics.

that's like saying the difference between being one of millions who are expressing their political opinions in public and having goons kick your door in, drag your ass away and shoot you in the back of the head is just semantics

if you guys want to persuade more people, lose the hysteria
posted by pyramid termite at 11:17 AM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


Let's make everything that is political, illegal!
posted by rockhopper at 11:18 AM on July 20, 2007


I can't find anything about this story on Reuters, MSNBC, or CNN. What the hell is that about?

No, really. This is kind of a big deal. Why isn't it being broadcast on every American network? That's the part that really scares me.


Libby commutation forced their hand on a Monday to keep him from spending a day in jail. Friday is the end of the news cycle. Harry Potter is coming out.

Seriously, I was about to explode over the Libby issue and this more or less makes that look trivial by comparison. The abuse of the pardon power is despicable, but quite legal. This is not. I am just speechless.
posted by spiderwire at 11:20 AM on July 20, 2007


Why do I feel like we are one freak colonoscopy accident away from some diabolical 30-year plan coming to fruition?
posted by uri at 11:21 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


that just is not true ... period ... the posts in this thread are proof against that

But not on any of the major news outlets. Compare the immediate reaction to the Libby commutation.

the populace has been rendered ineffective because they continue to elect ineffective officials

This is a much broader argument than we can cover here, but blaming "elected officials" is a cop-out for a whole number of reasons.

However, this argument is just inapplicable here. This is blatantly illegal. It doesn't matter what officials you elect if an entire branch of government is willing to ignore the law. The Senators and Representatives we elected are trying to be effective, but they've now been hamstrung.

that's like saying the difference between being one of millions who are expressing their political opinions in public and having goons kick your door in, drag your ass away and shoot you in the back of the head is just semantics

if you guys want to persuade more people, lose the hysteria


I agree on the hysteria point, but really -- with a whimper, not with a bang, man. There is such a thing as a silent coup. "Semantics" may be an overstatement, but it's likewise an oversimplification to say that all forms of dictatorship require direct oppression or violence. Totalitarians, psychopaths, and monarchs do not have a monopoly on the field by any means.
posted by spiderwire at 11:26 AM on July 20, 2007


There's a great piece in Salon about this.
posted by MythMaker at 11:28 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


As far as I'm concerned, the difference between our current state of affairs and a "real dictatorship" is just semantics.

Jesus, this is an inane comment. I mean, really. Get a grip. The more you think like that the less likely you are to do something.

Oh, and read a fucking book.
posted by OmieWise at 11:31 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


when it comes to the decision making process of hiring and firing his employees ... it's questionable, but it's not a violation of the average american's rights, just a corruption of his government

Did you read the article? This is 1000x worse than firing attorneys. The President is saying that he is above the law.

He's not pussyfooting around it, either. He had one of his advisors tell the WaPo that he will personally shut down any congressional investigation into his activities. Thats not "just" corruption. Its a whole new stratospheric level of power-grab.

that just is not true ... period ... the posts in this thread are proof against that


This thread is proof that some people are on the internet and making posts. It says nothing about the American people in general or the Press and their reaction to all this.

the populace has been rendered ineffective because they continue to elect ineffective officials

Well I agree with you here.

that's like saying the difference between being one of millions who are expressing their political opinions in public and having goons kick your door in, drag your ass away and shoot you in the back of the head is just semantics


Your definition of "dictatorship" is "goons kick your door in and shoot you". Thats fair enough. I can't argue with that because it's your definition. My definition is a little broader than that, but we'll see where our current trajectory takes us.

if you guys want to persuade more people, lose the hysteria

See, the problem is, "us guys" have been playing nicey-nice for a long time and this is where it's gotten us. Like a few others on this thread, I used to cringe when people compared Bush to Hitler (or Franco, or anybody else). I thought it was a bad PR move on our part. We can't let people mock us for Godwin'ing ourselves, can we?

But at some point a reasonable man must assess the political climate in his country and say to himself "No, I'm not just Godwin'ing myself. It really is getting that bad." I, personally, have reached that point. I suspect that I'll see you here eventually, too.
posted by Avenger at 11:33 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Jesus, this is an inane comment. I mean, really. Get a grip. The more you think like that the less likely you are to do something.

You're right. How wrong of me to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. After all, we can only smell the smoke. Maybe its not a real fire. Maybe the popcorn is just burning.

Oh, and read a fucking book.


Harry Potter comes out today, or so I've been told.
posted by Avenger at 11:39 AM on July 20, 2007


I emailed nytnews@nytimes.com, washington@nytimes.com, and letters@msnbc.com to tell them to cover the story. I also contacted CBS News and CNN from their websites. ABC News is limiting their coverage to this. The least inadequate MSM coverage apart from the original story appears to be from Fox.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:42 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


But at some point a reasonable man must assess the political climate in his country and say to himself "No, I'm not just Godwin'ing myself. It really is getting that bad." I, personally, have reached that point. I suspect that I'll see you here eventually, too.

I'm starting to agree with Avenger on this.

I don't like the knee-jerk tendency of some lefties to call any Republican a "Nazi" or a "fascist" or whatever.

But with Bush, we really are being governed by a man that thinks himself King. And Republicans have worked tirelessly over the last 30 years to make sure that essentially all elected Republicans will support King George I in that assertion.

This is not a good thing. We've been on a steady decline since Nixon. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all have themes in common. They also have people in common. Nixon did nothing as bad as Iran-Contra. Neither Bush nor Reagan nor the Republicans paid any political price for Iran-Contra. Bush II is getting off even easier, so far.

It's hard to argue that this is an accident. For 30 years now, Republicans have tried their hardest to elevate the President to King, and eviscerate any media that might really call them on their shit.

I'm afraid that they might have finally succeeded. I hope not. Maybe America will wake up. But I doubt it.

Without a media push, there will be no reaction to this. Republicans have spent a shit load of energy making sure there won't be a media push. So, well, there you go.

We are frogs in a gradually boiling pot of water. If the next President is a Republican, I think we are truly fucked (luckily, it looks like that won't happen. But 8 years of Clinton did nothing to stop the corruption in the Republican party).

CRS: I was not trying to be an asshole, but gun control topics will quickly send a thread into la-la land, and we don't need that here.
posted by teece at 11:42 AM on July 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


Just for fun, don't forget this from a few days ago: "By executive order, the Secretary of the Treasury may now seize the property of any person who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq. The Secretary may make his determination in secret and after the fact."

Yee ha!
posted by spiderwire at 11:42 AM on July 20, 2007


Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo.

Which are we at so far?
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 11:44 AM on July 20, 2007


Your definition of "dictatorship" is "goons kick your door in and shoot you".

there's that little thing about elections ... and free speech ... and political advocacy

we still have all that ... so we don't live in a dictatorship

See, the problem is, "us guys" have been playing nicey-nice for a long time and this is where it's gotten us.

living in a free country with a president that's corrupt, incompetent and leaving in a year and a half

free clue - that's where you were going to be, anyway

be as mean as you like - but sound SANE when you're doing it
posted by pyramid termite at 11:44 AM on July 20, 2007



there's that little thing about elections ... and free speech ... and political advocacy

we still have all that ... so we don't live in a dictatorship


Comedy gold.
posted by kableh at 11:49 AM on July 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


Don't blame me; I voted Kodos.
posted by spiderwire at 11:50 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'm thinking the chances of the 2008 elections being cancelled for "national security concerns" just jumped to 60/40.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:51 AM on July 20, 2007


there's that little thing about elections ... and free speech ... and political advocacy
posted by chunking express at 11:53 AM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


stop it, chunking. You're being hysterical.
posted by Avenger at 11:54 AM on July 20, 2007


I said it in 2000, I said it in 2004...I will be surprised if we are allowed to have an election in 2008. And if we do, I will be knocked out with awe if anyone other than a Bush crony is allowed to win.


Nevermind me, I'll be in the corner with my tinfoil hat.
posted by teleri025 at 11:55 AM on July 20, 2007


Guys, before the thread descends too far into hyperbole and noise, can I just ask, seriously: are there any practical tangible things that we as individuals or as a group can do about this? bukharin asked about a general strike - it may not be practical for everyone, but at least it's a tangible thing worth considering. What other things are worth considering? I mean, sure, we can write/fax/email our representatives in Washington, but (at the risk of triggering already-sensitive hysteria detectors) it feels like we've gone beyond the point where this kind of thing is really going to make a difference.

So I'm asking - seriously - what can we as concerned citizens do, that will make a difference? Is there anything? Or are we all still just fucking around on the internets? I understand that we need to maintain perspective - today's actions by the administration don't signal the immediate end of American democracy as we know it - but when these kinds of things continue day after day, at what point does these threads stop being a venue for us to vent and snipe at each other and start being a practical discussion of our rights and responsibilities as citizens to respond in some meaningful way to these events?

Is this a question I should take to AskMe? Or to MeTa, to talk about meetups and such? If we need to raise the question in a more appropriate venue, that's fine, I'd just like for once to see a rational hysteria-free discussion of options (or lack thereof).
posted by herichon at 12:01 PM on July 20, 2007 [8 favorites]


I'm thinking the chances of the 2008 elections being cancelled for "national security concerns" just jumped to 60/40.

Why!?
1. Elect a Democrat, let them triage for four years and go down in flames trying to put out the fires Bush started.
2. Meanwhile, all the Young Republicans that have been furiously clawing their way up the government pay scales for the last 8 years swap out for commensurate jobs in the private sector and chill there for a term or two. See: Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc., etc.
3. Elect Republican. Swap back in and do it again. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
posted by spiderwire at 12:02 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Herichon, this is the question I have been trying to figure out how to ask. Thanks. I am officially piggy-backing. In a tin-foil hat.
posted by metasav at 12:03 PM on July 20, 2007


Y'know, this is probably the time for people to go to their windows and scream, when they leave their desks and walk out into the streets, when they stand up and say "This is wrong. This is not right. This is not America."

But that don't put Favorited Bys on the user page.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:03 PM on July 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


"The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," Roberts continued. "Chertoff has predicted them. ... The National Intelligence Estimate is saying that al Qaeda has regrouped. ... You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda's not going to do it, it's going to be orchestrated. ... The Republicans are praying for another 9/11."

"the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop tripping on acid.
posted by prostyle at 12:07 PM on July 20, 2007


Aw, c'mon guys. Don't be so hard on Bush. He has just magnanimously decreed that the torture of the disappeared prisoners will stop.
posted by mullingitover at 12:08 PM on July 20, 2007


herichon: Glenn Greenwald voiced my feelings precisely in the Salon article linked above:
I confess some difficulty here in becoming particularly outraged over this latest theory. There is nothing new here. As has long been known, this administration believes themselves to reside above and beyond the reach of the law. What else would they need to do in order to make that as clear as can be? They got caught red-handed committing multiple felonies -- by eavesdropping on Americans in precisely the way the law we enacted 30 years ago prohibited -- and they not only admitted it, but vowed to continue to break our laws, and asserted the right to do so. And nothing happened.
He then says, "The only real question is what, if anything, we are willing to do about that," and I agree with that as well. But I got nothing. The Libby thing drained me utterly. I wish I had a substantive contribution, but I don't -- I really believe what I said above about getting completely smoked. They were just better. Sounds despondent, but I can't lie about being baffled and confused. I expect some others feel the same.

Speaking with all possible sincerity, if anyone does come up with an answer you find interesting, don't hesitate to send it my way.
posted by spiderwire at 12:09 PM on July 20, 2007


But at some point a reasonable man must assess the political climate in his country and say to himself "No, I'm not just Godwin'ing myself. It really is getting that bad." I, personally, have reached that point.

Of course, I agree with you. Bush is horrible and things are getting worse and worse. Seriously.

But that doesn't mean that this is a dictatorship. We don't have an absolute ruler, we don't live in a country with despotic rule. Which is not to say that there aren't threats to our freedom or to our democracy, but those threats do not a dictatorship make.

The distinction matters for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most important is because people don't respond we