Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Democrats have to be the "grown-ups"

* digby:
"The Democrats have to be the "grown-ups" yes. And one of the unpleasant tasks will be figuring out what went wrong, putting safeguards in place so the same things don't happen again and making people take responsibility for their actions. That is what adults do. Letting bygones be bygones and simply blathering on about how we all need to put the unpleasantness behind us and get along will not win the respect of the American people nor will it fix the problems this nation faces. (That, after all, is the indulgent mommy model that the Republicans have been using as a club to beat us over the head with for the last 30 years. No more.)

Now, politicians can make speeches about bipartisanship and sing kumbaaya all they want. I'm sure it is a very soothing tune. But the Democratic party had best not forget that the actions a Democratic majority takes in the next two years will determine if the American people can trust them to defend the nation and fix the mess going forward. It's very hard to see how that will happen if they capitualte to John Cornyn's whimpering about how mean and nasty they are.

The polls show that the American people are behind them and the world is behind them. For the good of the party, the good of the country and the good of the planet, they just have to tough out the criticism they will receive from the mincing GOP courtiers in the press and the blubbering, wailing Republicans, and Do. The. Right. Thing."

* tristero:
"In short, christianism is a direct challenge to the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. It is as anti-American as Stalinism or the divine right of kings."

* USNews:
"The FBI and Justice Department appear to be expanding their probe into the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal in hopes of nabbing another member of Congress and aides, according to sources involved in the case. . . .

"We thought it was wrapping up, but they've indicated that it is really about to expand," said one source involved in the case. "It's not ending anytime soon or even when he goes to jail.""

* emptywheel:
' In her (Libby) pardon articles, de la Vega doesn't address the civil case, which (according to a recent email with Wilson) won't be settled before the trial is due to start. That seems to throw her analysis in question, since until the WH can be sure it will have the civil case dismissed, pardoning Libby would in no way prevent embarrassing court testimony. So I'm curious how a Libby pardon would affect his requirement to testify in the civil case.

And in a related question, as I understand it from 31 Days (about Nixon), a pardon is tantamount to admission of guilt (per Burdick v. USA). If that's so, it seems like a pardon would make it a lot harder to dismiss a civil case, since it would effectively be an admission that 1) Libby broke the law and 2) did something not included in his work duties (which is the hurdle to the civil case). So a pardon would mean the Wilsons could take Libby to the cleaners AND probably have an easier time getting to Dick's Halliburton-fattened wallet.

But then, IANAL, so I'm sure de la Vega has thought of these issues. I'd like to see her explain how the pardon relates to the civil case."

No comments: