Can Obama take a punch?

conyat · March 24, 2007, 9:12am

Two things they had to gain (the biggie is #2–holding on to the Presidency is 2008 no matter what the voters want):

<ol>
<li>Immunity from prosecution for their friends. For the past six years, there have been instances when investigators or inspectors have uncovered fraud in crony contracts and the Republicans in Congress reacted by simply eliminating the inspector or investigator positions. But without a majority, they can’t stop fraud and corruption from being uncovered anymore. So the next logical step is to intimidate and manipulate the US Attorneys to make sure that whatever is discovered doesn’t result in prosecutions. </li>
<li>Voter suppression in 2008. US Attorneys were changed out almost exclusively in the battleground states. The new guys? Some of them have a pretty significant history with voter suppression. A couple of them crafted legislation that was so unconstitutional it got overturned. Another, the Karl Rove aide turned USA, was directly involved in the Republicans using caging lists to challenge the votes of African American soldiers serving in Iraq. And as you can see from the excuses they’re making for dismissing David Iglesias (he refused to bring charges of voter fraud because there wasn’t any evidence to support them), it’s going to be very important to them to have a US Attorney who is willing to indict people on trumped up charges in order to help swing elections.</li>
</ol>

Hanna · March 24, 2007, 4:38pm

“A president can fire a US Attorney to block an investigation if he wants to take the heat”

It’s a crime to interfere with an investigation. The fact that someone may have gotten away with it in the past (I don’t know every detail about past firings) does not make it legal. Plenty of people have gotten away with murder, rape, etc. That doesn’t mean that you can commit rape & murder if you “want to take the heat.” I expect the president to obey the law.

higherlead · March 24, 2007, 4:59pm

“It’s a crime to interfere with an investigation.”

By that logic then you could never fire a US Attorney since there are always investigations going on. I am afraid you are just hoping it is a crime for a Reoublican president to fire a US Attorney. It is a fine dream if you want to have it but it doesn’t make it so.

conyat · March 24, 2007, 5:04pm

Higherlead, don’t be obtuse. You can fire a US Attorney in the midst of an investigation; you just can’t fire him to block that investigation.

You’re the one with the “fine dream” of the Imperial Presidency that answers to no one and is above the rule of law. When you succeed in destroying our Constitution to get it, please do post again and tell us how you like it…assuming you’re allowed, of course.

fundingfather · March 24, 2007, 5:32pm

“You’re the one with the “fine dream” of the Imperial Presidency that answers to no one and is above the rule of law. When you succeed in destroying our Constitution to get it,”

I assume that you have equal disdain for the Imperial presidencies of Carter and Clinton who both fired attorneys to block an investigation?

<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945941,00.html[/url]”>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945941,00.html</a>

conyat · March 24, 2007, 5:41pm

The Clinton thing has been debunked innumerable times. I don’t even think Fox is trying to push it anymore.

And Clinton hardly had an Imperial Presidency. He allowed investigations to go forward that were very embarrassing to him, some that even resulted in convictions that hurt the Democrats deeply. And dozens of his aides testified under oath before Congress.

He could have claimed Executive Priviledge and blocked them from doing so, the way Bush is attempting, but he didn’t. When Congress wanted the visitor logs to see how often Monica was at the White House, he even turned over those voluntarily. When Congress asked for the same thing about Jack Abramoff, Bush made the visitor log a state secret.

If you can’t see the difference, you have truly been blinded by the outlets where Cheney himself brags of “control[ling] the message.”

conyat · March 25, 2007, 2:17pm

Unbelievable: <a href=“http://mediamatters.org/items/200703220018[/url]”>http://mediamatters.org/items/200703220018</a>

O’Reilly insisted to his viewers that the White House offer includes having Karl Rove testify with a transcript. (It doesn’t).

When his guest said that the White House offer was based on no transcript, and tried to read the actual offer, he ordered her mike cut.

(Link includes sound file)

Imagine if these people get the control they want.

hereshoping · March 25, 2007, 3:05pm

O’Reilly has a nightly audience of about 2 million. You’d be better off focusing your obsession on Limbaugh (20 million daily).

interesteddad · March 25, 2007, 3:23pm

One of the big frustrations I have with the media is that they get so caught up in the political battle that they fail to fully report the news.

For example, the provisions of the House bill on Iraq this week are very interesting. Nobody in the media is reporting the details:

a) No troops above the January 1st levels can be sent to Iraq unless they meet full military readiness standards. The President can waive this requirement by stating to Congress that each specific unit is being sent at less than full readiness standards.

b) No troops above the January 1st levels can be sent to Iraq unless they meet the military standards for time between deployments (365 days for Army, 210 days for Marines) . The President can waive this requirement by stating to Congress that each specific unit is being sent without the required time between deployments.

c) The President must report to Congress by July 1, 2007 that the Iraqis are making progress towards achieving the benchmarks laid out by the President. Failure to report sufficient progress requires a pull-out of combat troops starting July 1st and completed by Oct 1, 2007.

d) The President must report to Congress by Oct 1, 2007 that the Iraqis have achieved the benchmarks laid out by the President. Failure to report sufficient progress requires a pull-out of combat troops starting Oct 1st and completed by March 1, 2007.

e) If the Iraqis have met the benchmarks (including Iraqi security), the surge will have been successful and combat troops must be removed from Iraq beginning March 1st 2008 and completed by Oct. 1, 2008.

f) Following the removal of combat forces under any of the above timelines, the President can leave forces in the US for protection of US bases, protection of the Green Zone and diplomatic operations, training of Iraqi forces, and continued attacks on Al Queda and other terrorist groups.

g) An across the board 5% reduction in payments on contracts to defense department contractors in Iraq. Reports to Congress on defense contractor overcharge in Iraq. No expenditures for permananent bases in Iraq.

higherlead · March 25, 2007, 4:27pm

Yes interesteddad and would you like to list out all the pork Pelosi had to include in the bill to buy 218 votes while you are at it?

conyat - yes Fox News is terrible because they report stuff. What they should do is just flat out make up crap like CBS does. You know it is no accident that the liberal media (NY Times, WahPo, network news, CNN, Air America) are in a financial death spiral. When you deliberately lie because you wish the lies were true sooner or later the fre market produces an alternative source for the news. If that alternative consistently proves to be more accurate then the next thing you know you are off the air (Air America), busy selling off your profitable assets and robbing your investors in the process (New York Times), changing you business model to become an educational testing service (Washington Post), or just fading quietly into the night like the major networks and CNN. FOX and the internet are driving a stake through the hearts of the partisan media simply by reporting the facts.

interesteddad · March 25, 2007, 5:32pm

Higherlead:

Most of the non War on Terror spending was directly related to Katrina:

$145 million in appropriations to fund Katrina Agriculture relief bills passed in 2005.

$203 million to the Commerce Department to reimburse NOAA and NASA for Katrina related expenses.

$1.34 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers for Katrina related levee construction and flood control efforts in New Orleans.

$25 million to the SBA for disater relief small business loans.

$4.3 billion to FEMA to fund a variety of continued Katrina relief efforts.

$60 million to states effected by Katrina to reopen schools and colleges.

$80 million in tenant rental assistance to HUD for Indian housing. This new appropriation offsets the rescinding of $80 million from a previous legislation [basically a wash, extending the time frames for spending previous committed money].

$10 million to HUD Inspector Generals office to investigate Katrina related housing fraud.

$428 million in disaster related crop relief (the so-called spinach and peanut money)

$48 million to the Farm Services Agency for salaries

$60 million to the Marine Services Agency to compensate for marine fisheries losses.

$90 million rescinded from the Homeland Securities budget. This is accompanied by a long list of provisions about awarding contracts and appears to be “punishment” defunding some specific project that involved contractor corruption.

$100,000 million for wildwire suppression.

$13.2 million to the various agencies related to birds and Avian Bird flu tracking.

$200 million for Low-income energy assistance

$970 million to the Public Health Service for the acquisition of a strategic reserve of vaccines and other preparations for dealing with a large-scale outbreak of bird flu. Additional $50 million to compensate victims of side-effects of bird flu vaccine.

$9.5 million in additional Education funding that appears to be related to mandated census taking. [I can’t really figure out what this is all about…it relates to mandatory provisions of previous Education bills].

$165 thousand as a survivor benefit to the widow of deceased Congressman Charles W. Norwood, Jr., Republican of Georgia.

$50 million for asbestos abatement in the Capitol Power plant.

$10 million to the International Boundary and Water Commission for some kind of construction on the US/Mexico border.

<hr>

It think that covers it. Everything else in the emergeny appropriations bill is related to the Defense Department, Homeland Security, Iraq State Department expenses, etc.

BTW, it’s important to remember that the previous Republican controlled Congress failed to pass a comprehensive budget bill and funded the government with a serious of continuing resolutions that are now expiring.

conyat · March 25, 2007, 6:25pm

So it’s all right to dupe unsuspecting people as long as you only do it to 2 million at a time? How morally and intellectually bankrupt.

What an odious misrepresentation of what I said. How on earth is lying about whether Rove is to have a transcript or not “reporting?”

I cannot believe you are pretending that Bill O’Reilly deceiving his viewers and preventing them from hearing the truth is some kind of “new truth telling.”

It’s OK to lie and deceive the public as long as it gets the right wing what it wants, eh, HH?

A lie becomes a “fact” if Bill O’Reilly tells it often enough? That’s not just wrong–it’s evil. Your hero got caught in a lie. Admit it. Don’t pretend lies are the New Truth.

Oh and by the way, HH, Fox is not doing nearly as well financially as predicted. It’s one reason they and you throw such as hissy when anyone points out how biased they are.

But thank you for proving my point. Whenever a Republican points a finger, you can be darn sure there should be 4 pointing back at him. O’Reilly gets caught in a very obvious, easily verifiable lie, and you try to turn it around and make it seem like he’s telling the truth and everyone else is lying.

higherlead · March 25, 2007, 6:28pm

“BTW, it’s important to remember that the previous Republican controlled Congress failed to pass a comprehensive budget bill and funded the government with a serious of continuing resolutions that are now expiring.”

Nancy has had two and a half months now to fix that. Time for her to stop jet-setting back and forth across the country on the Air Force’s dime and get something done. It is her problem now and her parties majority in both houses of congress.

Allmusic · March 25, 2007, 6:31pm

Always the Democrats’ responsibility to clean up the mess (and this is one fine mess) left by the Republicans.

conyat · March 25, 2007, 6:44pm

What a joke.

You people don’t want your messes cleaned up. All you care about is borrowing us to economic collapse, so you can replace our democracy with your own goverment. And finding some lie or distortion you can use to pretend it wasn’t your idea.

hereshoping · March 25, 2007, 7:20pm

My hero???

Whoever said Fox is not biased? Not moi. They are obviously biased–but they balance out the rest of the MSM.

I’m surprised (?) no one here is up-in-arms about MSNBC. ;)

I watch both.

conyat · March 25, 2007, 7:30pm

Bill O’Reilly told a lie. There is no doubt about that. An easily disproved lie, and he turned the mike off of his guest in order to keep his audience from finding out he lied.

You chose to spin this as “reporting the facts.”

Why would you do such a dishonest thing if he isn’t your hero? Is it that important to you to perpetuate O’Reilly’s lie for its own sake?

Did you really think you could trick anyone here into believing O’Reilly was telling the truth and the White House really offered a transcript?

conyat · March 25, 2007, 7:36pm

Do you even remember what you type from one post to the next? This is what you said:

You can fool some of the people some of the time, I guess, but not with statements that are easily disproven by reading your last post.

hereshoping · March 25, 2007, 7:43pm

no, that was higherlead.

O’Reilly will probably retract his statement on Monday’s show and once again look like an idiot. :)

Everyone knows that the White House wanted no transcript (I guess unless their only source of info is O’Reilly).

I use only one screen name.

conyat · March 25, 2007, 8:39pm

Odd. When I typed this:

Directly in response to something I quoted of higherlead’s, you quickly responded “My hero???”

So you can see why I have a hard time thinking of you as different people.

Do you have prior examples of O’Reilly retracting his lies? I don’t. I have numerous examples of his lying with no retraction whatsoever. Don’t try to compound the deception by pretending he is going to come clean.

Can Obama take a punch?

CONNECT WITH US