DVO and DFA

The Christmas holiday is passed, the fiber-optic Santa packed away, and the campaigns for the March primary are about to swing into high gear. I am going to advocate again for my favorite Democratic candidate, and it's not to beg for money (though you would never be discouraged from donating).

David Van Os needs your help in securing the endorsement of his campaign for Texas Attorney General from the good folks at Democracy for America.

The seal of approval from DFA is a coveted one in progressive circles, and there’s no candidate who is more deserving. So click here, and write a few words as to why you think he merits their endorsement.

Don’t have the words? Don’t know the man well enough to do so? Let me help you with that.

Van Os has been fighting the Bush regime long before he went to Florida in 2000 to contest the recount in Bush v. Gore. He’s been fighting for working men and women long before he was the general counsel for the Texas AFL-CIO. He fought against the illegal and immoral war in Iraq way before he went to Camp Casey this summer. He’s been a warrior for economic and social justice for the people of Texas all of his life. You can read more about his life here, but you can also take my word for it. David Van Os walks the walk.

In 2004, Van Os ran for a seat on the Texas Supreme Court because he wanted to take that court back from the mega-corporations which have it bought, paid for, and tucked in their vest pockets. At a time when the PATRIOT Act was our biggest concern, he chose to fight to restore the constitutional checks and balances that protect the rights and liberties of all Texans.

He is running for the office of Texas Attorney General in 2006 in order to carry the same fight to a new front. Texas is under withering assault by swarms of corrupt Republicans lining their pockets with the millions of dollars flowing from ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco and the other big oil companies, from State Farm and Allstate and the other insurance companies, and all of the other assorted lobbyists and mouthpieces of greed. A strong attorney general in Austin, vested with the power inherent in the Texas Constitution’s Bill of Rights, can do more to achieve economic and social justice for Texans than twenty congressmen in Washington DC.

With your help, DFA will be influenced to throw the weight of their endorsement behind David’s campaign, and that will be a big push forward in returning the state of Texas back to the people (and away from corporate control).

Take two minutes and write a recommendation on behalf of David Van Os, and then click 'send'.

I got you a Christmas card

You can open it by clicking here.

Happy Holidays, and thanks for reading me this year.

The War on Terror (abridged version)

If you vote for Kerry, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you don't renew the Patriot Act, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you don't pass this spending bill, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you force us to leave Iraq, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you don't let us torture people, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you don't let us eavesdrop on you, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you challenge our authority, you will be attacked by terrorists.

Bush war powers, Tom Daschle, anthrax and September 18, 2001

The Washington Post details the backstory regarding the resolution passed after 9/11 (the one which Bush claims gives him the authority to spy on us):

The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post.

Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.

The Justice Department acknowledged yesterday, in a letter to Congress, that the president's October 2001 eavesdropping order did not comply with "the 'procedures' of" the law that has regulated domestic espionage since 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, established a secret intelligence court and made it a criminal offense to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant from that court, "except as authorized by statute."

... The congressional resolution of Sept. 18, 2001, formally titled "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," made no reference to surveillance or to the president's intelligence-gathering powers, and the Bush administration made no public claim of new authority until news accounts disclosed the secret NSA operation.

I'll explain why I added the emphasis to the date above in just a moment. As Daschle explains:

The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in the resolution adopted by Congress -- but at the time, the administration clearly felt they weren't or it wouldn't have tried to insert the additional language.

...

If the stories in the media over the past week are accurate, the president has exercised authority that I do not believe is granted to him in the Constitution, and that I know is not granted to him in the law that I helped negotiate with his counsel and that Congress approved in the days after Sept. 11. For that reason, the president should explain the specific legal justification for his authorization of these actions, Congress should fully investigate these actions and the president's justification for them, and the administration should cooperate fully with that investigation.

Now then.

The same day that joint resolution passed in Congress -- September 18, 2001, and a resolution changed at the last minute by Daschle to prevent Bush from declaring war on Americans in the name of terror -- that same day, Americans were targeted in a domestic terrorist attack.

Letters laced with anthrax were dropped in mailboxes around the country. One originally thought to be postmarked 9/18/01 was addressed to Tom Daschle (scroll down to just above "Elsewhere Monday"). This letter was actually mailed in early October. Here's some images of anthrax letters.

That was a heckuva job on that investigation, wasn't it?

(Special thanks goes to bettyellen and Syrinx for their research.)

Is flip-flopping patriotic?

SusanG at Kos points out the latest:

From MSNBC six days ago:

Mr Bush, in an effort to force passage of the bill, warned on Friday he would veto any temporary extension of the (Patriot) act.

From AP today:

The White House is hailing the Senate's vote to extend the Patriot Act for six months, a day after vowing President Bush wouldn't accept a short-term extension.

Press Secretary Scott McClellan calls Wednesday night's Senate vote "an important victory for the American people."

It's truly astounding how myopic and forgetful the administration presumes us to be.

Moneyshot Quote of the Week #2: Tom DeLay on Congressional Ethics

Joe Conason via David Sirota and kos. Originally from the Congressional Record, 11/16/95 (.pdf) :

"The time has come that the American people know exactly what their Representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know ... I say the best disinfectant is full disclosure, not isolation."

A few Christmas images

"The Grinch Factor"

(a poem by UVa law school professor Rosa Brooks:)

The Whos down in Who-ville

Were a tolerant lot:

Who Christians, Who Muslims — a Who melting pot.

Who Hindus! Who atheists! Who Buddhists, Who Jews!

Who Confucians, Who pagans,

And even Who Druze! The Who 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause

Said, "No creches in courts," and the Whos loved their laws.

Because somehow … they worked. The Whos rarely fought,

Mostly, each Who did just what he ought.

Every Who down in Who-ville

Loved the Consti-Who-tion a lot.

But the O'Reilly, who lived up in Fox-ville,

Did NOT!

The O'Reilly DETESTED the Who Consti-Who-tion,

He thought it was some sort of liberal pollution.

Now, please don't ask why, for I really don't know.

Perhaps it had something to do with his show.

It could be that his head wasn't screwed on quite right.

Or it could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight.

But I think that the most likely reason of all

May have been that his RATINGS

Were two sizes too small.

Well, whatever it was, bad ratings or tight shoes,

He stood there one Christmas, just hating the Whos.

"They're so multicultural," he sneered, "and wherever they're from,

They lack the good sense to just launch a pogrom!

There's no Who ethnic cleansing, no Who Inquisition,

If this PEACE can't be stopped, I may lose my position.

Those sensitive, tolerant Whos! It's quite grating.

I must think of something to fix my show's ratings!"

Go read the rest here.

Abramoff ready to flip

And this is quite honestly the worst news of the day for DeLay (and a few dozen other Republicans, and perhaps even a Democrat or two):

Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist under criminal investigation, has been discussing with prosecutors a deal that would grant him a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony against former political and business associates, people with detailed knowledge of the case say.

Mr. Abramoff is believed to have extensive knowledge of what prosecutors suspect is a wider pattern of corruption among lawmakers and Congressional staff members. One participant in the case who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations described him as a "unique resource."

Whatever Ronnie Earle does or does not accomplish with regard to DeLay's crimes in Texas, this case will result in all manner of Republican indictments, resignations, and defeats at the ballot box next year.

The tsunami is coming, and the corruption is going to be washed out.

And there isn't a damn thing that can be done to stop it.

The Chronic shows two faces

A few days ago the Houston Chronic published their opinion regarding the unfairness of Tom DeLay's current legal proceedings:

DeLay Monday asked the appeals court to expedite the case. The court should grant DeLay's request. For DeLay, justice delayed equals political downfall and the lost power and prestige that go with it. If DeLay is found innocent of the remaining charges against him, he deserves a chance to return to the status quo ante.

My opinion: the editorial board of the Houston Chronicle really ought to get out of the business of telling a judge how to run his courtroom, and let this case run its course. If the timing is unfortunate for the defendant, then that's too bad for him.

But the news department made up for the edit board's faux pas by publishing the news of DeLay's lavish lifestyle as the self-declared "Federal Government":

Public documents reviewed by The Associated Press tell the story: at least 48 visits to golf clubs and resorts; 100 flights aboard company planes; 200 stays at hotels, many world-class; and 500 meals at restaurants, some averaging nearly $200 for a dinner for two.

Instead of his personal expense, the meals and trips for DeLay and his associates were paid with donations collected by the campaign committees, political action committees and children's charity the Texas Republican created during his rise to the top of Congress. His lawyer says the expenses are part of DeLay's effort to raise money from Republicans and to spread the GOP message.

Put them together and a lifestyle emerges.

"A life to enjoy. The excuse to escape," Palmas del Mar, an oceanside Puerto Rican resort visited by DeLay, promised in a summer ad on its Web site as a golf ball bounced into a hole and an image of a sunset appeared.

The Caribbean vacation spot has casino gambling, horseback riding, snorkeling, deep-sea fishing and private beaches.

"He was very friendly. We always see the relaxed side of politicians," said Daniel Vassi, owner of the French bistro Chez Daniel at Palmas del Mar. Vassi said DeLay has eaten at his restaurant every year for the last three, and was last there in April with about 20 other people, including the resort's owners.

Wait a minute. DeLay eats a swanky French restaurant? Frequently?

It's over for him, then.

Moneyshot Quote of the Week: Cornyn vs. Feingold

Senator Box Turtle:

"None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."

Senator Russ Feingold:

"Give me liberty or give me death."

"Arrrgh! It's a Pirate's life for me"

Happy Hanukkah,
Bill O'Reilly!



Barbara Ann Radnofsky,
Texan for U.S. Senate 2006
No lyin'
No cheatin'
No stealin'
Read More...

I didn't realize that Andrea Mackris had poked Bill in the eye with her loofah ...