Multi Medium

Two More Reasons Why Gonzo Must Go

Arlen Specter:

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the committee, said Monday that keeping Gonzales as attorney general will be ”harmful to the Justice Department because he has lost his credibility.”

”When he said that he wasn’t involved in discussions or deliberations, and then is contradicted by his three top aides and also by documentary evidence, … his credibility has been substantially undermined,” Specter said in Harrisburg, Pa. ”And I think it does hurt the administration, and inevitably it hurts the (Republican) party.”

Specter added: ”As long as (Gonzales is) the attorney general, I will continue to deal with him, but whatever he has to say I will take with more than a grain of salt.”

When Arlen Specter says you’re a shifty, untrustworthy weasel, your credibility is actually below zero, and well into negative territory.

George W. Bush:

”The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer — honestly answer — in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job,” Bush said.

If Gonzo’s testimony increased Dubya’s confidence in Gonzo’s ability to do the job, then we need to seriously ask ourselves just what job it is that Gonzo is supposedly doing.

2 comments April 23rd, 2007 at 06:28pm Posted by Eli

It’s A Trap!!!

This sounds good, but consider who we’re talking about here…

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter yesterday joined a top Senate Democrat to call for the creation of a multibillion-dollar public financing program for congressional races.

Mr. Specter, R-Pa., made the announcement one day after confirming that he already has started preparing to run for a sixth term in 2010, citing the exploding costs of modern campaigns and the need to raise tens of millions of dollars to be competitive.

“That time ought to be spent on our official duties,” he said yesterday, standing alongside Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Mr. Durbin’s office estimates that the average cost for the most competitive Senate races in 2006 was $34 million per campaign, double what it was four years before. To keep up, candidates often turn to interest groups for money.

(…)

“People who say the public shouldn’t pay for elections are missing the point. We already pay for elections,” Mr. Durbin said. “We pay when special interests are literally allowed to write their own bills.”

The public financing system would provide about $2.8 billion nationwide for each two-year congressional cycle. It would be voluntary.

(…)

Some of that money would go to vouchers for television air time, the largest cost for most campaigns.

Mr. Durbin said he expected resistance from both the television industry and many colleagues, who may be reluctant to give up their fund-raising advantages as incumbents. He said he would try to address their concerns.

“This really allows a senator to be a senator and spend less time on the road raising money,” he said of his bill.

(…)

Nick Nyhart , president of the nonpartisan group Public Campaign, praised the proposed legislation, calling it a “historic opportunity for every elected official in Congress to say ‘no’ to the politics of big checks and the endless money chase and ‘yes’ to putting voters first.”

I cannot understate how hugely important this would be, for all of the reasons cited in the story. Allowing de facto corporate sponsorship in our electoral system has crippled representative democracy by allowing wealth to usurp votes as the source of political power.

It might not affect Republican politicians much, as corporations and wealthy individuals are their natural constituents, but it might allow the Democrats to finally cut ties with the pro-corporate DLC and establish themselves as a more progressive, people-powered alternative.

Which is why I can’t believe that a two-faced toad like Specter would have anything to do with it. Either he calculates that it has no chance of passing, much less overcoming a filibuster or veto (and I think it’s going to face bipartisan resistance) and wants to burnish his bogus moderate credentials, or else the Republicans plan to use it as a velvet straitjacket on Democratic campaign spending (i.e., Democrats forego their own fundraising to opt in, and it turns out to be perpetually underfunded or slow to disburse, and the media vouchers are only valid between 2AM and 4AM…).

If Specter’s genuinely on board and can swing some Republican votes, good for him, that makes him 2-for-his-career (stem cells being the other, and probably only because he had cancer), but I have three words of advice for Durbin: WATCH. YOUR. BACK.

Add comment March 22nd, 2007 at 11:29am Posted by Eli

Oh. Joy.

And I was just wondering how I would ever live without him…

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, a moderate [HA!!!] who has often clashed with the Bush administration and his fellow GOP lawmakers, said Monday he plans to seek a sixth term in 2010.

“There are a lot of important things to be done and finally after being here to acquire some seniority, I’m in a position to do that,” said Specter, 77. “I’m full of energy and my wife doesn’t want me home for breakfast, lunch and dinner.”

Good thinking, Arlen. As long as there’s still some Constitution left standing, your work is not complete. Look at that stupid Constitution! It’s mocking you! Mocking you, I say! You show that Constitution who’s boss!

Specter said he has fundraisers planned, including a large one April 4 in Philadelphia.

“It’s an enormous task, and that’s why I’m starting early,” said Specter, noting that he spent $23 million in his 2004 race.

Can we please get a tough, mean progressive to run against this wanker? We’ve got two years to come up with somebody, right? How about some of the new blood, like Joe Sestak or Pat Murphy?

Whoever it is, they must call Specter on his consistent pattern of speaking out against the Bush administration’s rampant criminality, and then actively facilitating it.

Add comment March 19th, 2007 at 06:17pm Posted by Eli

Teeheehee!

Ladies & gentlemen, for your amusement, the comedy stylings of Arlen Specter:

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the committee, said he had a long talk with [WH Counsel Fred] Fielding on Friday and was reserving judgment. Specter said he would like to see Rove and Miers testify openly.

“I want to see exactly what the White House response is,” Specter said. “Maybe the White House will come back and say, ‘We’ll permit them to be interviewed and we’ll give them all the records.’”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Thank you, thank you, he’ll be here until 2011. Try the veal.

2 comments March 19th, 2007 at 07:13am Posted by Eli

Fool Me Once…

Spineless Senator Specter speaks strongly:

A Senate Republican on Tuesday directly challenged President Bush’s declaration that ”I am the decision-maker” on issues of war.

”I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider,” Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said during a hearing on Congress’ war powers amid an increasingly harsh debate over Iraq war policy. ”The decider is a shared and joint responsibility,” Specter said.

Yes, we’ve all seen what a firm believer in limiting presidential power Arlen Specter is. Check that: We’ve all seen what a firm believer in talking like a firm believer in limiting presidential power Arlen Specter is.

We’ve seen this same pattern repeat itself over and over again: Administration does something outrageous and/or criminal; Specter angrily denounces it in full-blown Guardian Of The Constitution mode; Specter quietly backtracks and gives Administration everything it wants. It’s only a matter of time.

Arlen Specter’s continuing employment, like Joe Lieberman’s, is proof positive that most voters just aren’t paying attention.

2 comments January 30th, 2007 at 11:40am Posted by Eli

The Constitution’s Body Isn’t Even Cold Yet…

Habeas Constitution corpus…

Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that “no court, justice, or judge” can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.

(…)

Habeas corpus, a Latin term meaning “you have the body,” is one of the oldest principles of English and American law. It requires the government to show a legal basis for holding a prisoner. A series of unresolved federal court cases brought against the administration over the last several years by lawyers representing the detainees had left the question in limbo.

Two years ago, in Rasul v. Bush, which gave Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their detention before a U.S. court, and in this year’s Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , the Supreme Court appeared to settle the issue in favor of the detainees. But the new legislation approved by Congress last month, which gives Bush the authority to try detainees before military commissions, included a provision removing judicial review for all habeas claims.

(…)

A number of legal scholars and members of Congress, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), have said that the habeas provision of the new law violates a clause of the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention “shall not be suspended” except in cases of “rebellion or invasion.” Historically, the Constitution has been interpreted to apply equally to citizens and noncitizens under U.S. jurisdiction.

Riiight. Arlen is so concerned about the Constitution that he happily voted for the very law that he’s complaining about. This is what the damn thing was for. Well, this and torture; but as long as the president doesn’t call it torture, it’s totally okay.

“We and other habeas counsel are going to vigorously oppose dismissal of these cases,” Warren said. “We are going to challenge that law as violating the Constitution on several grounds.” Whichever side loses in the upcoming court battles, he said, will then appeal to the Supreme Court.

And that is what Roberts and Alito are for.

The fate of our democracy rests in the hands of Anthony Kennedy and Tony Scalia. God help us all.

3 comments October 20th, 2006 at 12:06pm Posted by Eli

I Feel So Much Better Now…

Arlen Specter is on the case:

President Bush is pushing Congress to put the agreement into law before adjourning for the midterm elections, but Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Sunday he “vigorously” disagrees with the habeas corpus provision of the bill.

The provision would allow legal counsel and a day in court to only those detainees selected by the Pentagon for prosecution. Other terror suspects could be held indefinitely without a hearing.

“The courts have traditionally been open to make sure that individual rights are protected, and that is fundamental,” Specter said on CNN’s “Late Edition. “And the Constitution says when you can suspend the writ of habeas corpus, in time of rebellion or invasion. And we don’t have either. So that has to be changed, in my opinion.”

Of course, Specter being Specter, he will ultimately conclude that the only acceptable resolution for this kind of affront to the Constitution is to… rewrite the law to make it retroactively legal. I have to wonder if his problem is truly with the Bush administration’s contempt for the law, or with the law’s narrow-minded reluctance to accommodate Bush’s brilliance.

Specter is like a DA whose genius idea to eliminate all crime is to simply make everything legal. Problem solved!

2 comments September 25th, 2006 at 03:35pm Posted by Eli

Just A Quick Thought

John McCain is Arlen Specter with panache, plus the adoration of the media.

They’ll both talk a good game about holding the administration in check, and then hand them everything they want on a silver platter under the fig leaf of “compromise.”

Lord, deliver us from false moderates.

3 comments September 21st, 2006 at 10:16pm Posted by Eli

7/4 Changed Everything!

Christy at firedoglake has a great Fourth-Of-July roundup of excerpts from the Declaration Of Independence and the writings of the Founders. She focuses mainly on the dangers of an unchecked Executive, and how they attempted to thwart that accumulation of power.

Structurally, I believe the Constitution does about as fine a job of checking Executive powers as is humanly possible. The Founders understood that politicians’ lust for power is as immutable and constant as gravity, and used that fact to craft a balance, much as an architect or engineer factors in the pull of gravity when they design a building. Where their vision failed them was when Republicans in Congress began to make common cause with Republicans in the White House, to the extent of willingly yielding all their power to the Executive. No matter how far President Bush pushes the limits of his Executive powers (ignoring Constitution and law; using signing statements to override the will of Congress), Congress goes along with it. Occasionally they make some noise about expressing grave concerns, but they never actually act on it (I’m looking at you, Arlen).

But as bad as this consolidation of power is, it is only part of the problem with our democracy today. I believe that the larger problem, the problem which has in fact enabled this Executive takeover, is with the mechanisms of accountability, not balance. I have said it before, but I believe it is more important than all the issues combined, so it bears repeating, especially today:

…accountability is the hallmark of democracy, while impunity is the hallmark of dictatorship. A democratic government must look out for the interests of its citizens, or be voted out (or worse), while a dictatorship has no such worries, other than staving off the occasional coup attempt. Almost every policy disaster, fiasco, and scandal of the past 4+ years can be attributed to the ascendancy of impunity over accountability, as the U.S. under Bush has increasingly come to resemble a banana republic.

…I believe that the two most important pillars of accountability are elections… and the news media, which is where most of the electorate finds out about what their elected officials are up to and what it means to them and the country and world in general, and I believe that both have become severely, if not fatally, compromised.

The Republicans have been able to consolidate power within an increasingly all-powerful Executive because they have not paid an electoral price for it. And the reason that they have not paid a price for it is that the corporate-owned media has consistently promoted the Republican perspective, and the elections are rigged and gamed in their favor through vote suppression, voter intimidation, and probably electronic vote-tampering as well.

Until accountability is restored, we will be at the mercy of a party that looks at the Constitution not with reverence, but with the cold, appraising eye of an Enron lawyer looking for loopholes.

2 comments July 4th, 2006 at 03:01pm Posted by Eli

They Get Letters

I’m still pissed at Arlen Specter.

I’m sure I’m wasting my time, but if there is anything remotely human left inside that degraded, soulless husk, I would be remiss not to attempt to reach it. So…

Dear Senator Specter,

I read with interest your question, or perhaps lament, asking why it takes a newspaper investigation to get the Bush administration to comply with the law, and I have an answer for you.The answer is you, Senator Specter. You are the reason that this administration flouts the law on a regular, ongoing basis.

Every time the NSA or the CIA or any other government agency, or President Bush himself, is exposed as doing something illegal, you make a big show of questioning it, or saying that it is “troubling”, or even holding hearings to get to the bottom of it. And then you fold. You always fold. Instead of holding the administration accountable for the illegal actions you decry, in the end you seek ways to whitewash them, or even to make them legal. What incentive does the administration have to abide by the Constitution and the laws of the land if they know that the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to give them a free pass every time?

You do not get to throw up your hands and ask why this is happening. It is happening because you, the Constitution’s principal guardian in the Senate, allow it to happen. For the sake of all of us, for the sake of your own self-respect, for the sake of this country of ours and the Constitution that makes it great, I beg you to please take a good, long, hard look in the mirror. Run your fingers along your back and get reacquainted with your spine. For if you do not start to take your responsibilities seriously, you will go down in history as the man who let the rule of law slip away, the man who allowed America to devolve from a great democracy into a third-rate dictatorship. Is that really what you want as your legacy? To be remembered as the man who betrayed American democracy?

I understand that you have an obligation to your party. But your obligation to your country must come first.

Sincerely,

Eli

I’ll probably tinker with it a bit more before I send it, but that’s the general gist of it. I just had to get it out of my system.

UPDATE: I have swapped in the final post-tinkering version.

7 comments June 25th, 2006 at 12:48am Posted by Eli

Why I Hate Specter So Very, Very Much

Arlen Specter is such a humongous tool, he actually makes Joe Lieberman look integritty. I think the following quote, buried in the NYT’s Cheney-is-mad-at-us-for-reporting-on-the-government-spying-
on-financial-transactions article might just set some kind of world record for complete and utter lack of self-awareness:

“Why does it take a newspaper investigation to get them to comply with the law?” [Specter] asked. “That’s a big, important point.”

Because you never do, you posturing, useless, insincere little phony of a manturd. If you would for just once do your job instead of folding every time Cheney or Rove make that little snipping motion in your general direction, Bush Jr. might actually think twice about wiping his ass on the Constitution every time he messes himself. Jaysus.

(hat tip to The Heretik)

2 comments June 24th, 2006 at 08:23pm Posted by Eli

The Arlen, My Friends, Is Blowing In The Wind…

In case anyone was all excited about the possibility of Arlen Specter standing up to Dick Cheney and the rest of Dubya’s goons:

I’m not accusing anybody of anything. And I’m not saying the vice president acted in bad faith.

This is nothing personal between Arlen Specter or Vice President Cheney. This is a matter of civil liberties. It’s a matter of separation of power. And it’s a matter of important congressional oversight. And, so far, we’re not getting there. And that’s why I prepared a fairly strong letter. . . .

I don’t think the president has acted in bad faith here. I think he is functioning on something which he thinks needs to be done to protect the country. But he doesn’t have a blank check. He’s not the final word. We have a Constitution. The Constitution says that the Congress has oversight. And, on a constitutional issue, that’s the Judiciary Committee.

There, you see? Nothing to worry about, it was all just a big misunderstanding. The President is a fine man and he means well, and I’m sure that after Senator Specter conducts a thorough investigation, we’ll all see that the President has done absolutely nothing wrong. And if not, you can be sure that there are plen-ty more strongly-worded letters where that came from.

I don’t know about you, but I’m breathing easier already.

(Hat tip to The All-Seeing Eye Of Froomkin)

2 comments June 8th, 2006 at 06:45pm Posted by Eli

Yeah, Right.

Arlen Specter talks tough again. Y-A-W-N.

The powerful Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee all but declared war on the White House yesterday, and accused Vice President Cheney of sneaking around behind his back.

In a blistering letter to Cheney, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) laid out a long list of grievances over the White House seizing more and more power “at the expense” of Congress.

“It is neither pleasant nor easy to raise these issues with the administration of my own party,” he wrote. He cited the administration’s domestic spying, the gathering of Americans’ phone records and the recent FBI raid of a congressman’s offices.

Specter was particularly peeved that Cheney called Judiciary Committee members to kill closed-door hearings the senator had planned with phone company execs - and didn’t tell Specter, even when they were at lunch Monday.

(snip)

The irate chairman threatened to dish out subpoenas and suggested the two branches of government were headed for a “constitutional confrontation.”

I’ll believe it when I see it. Specter has a long, long history of talking tough and then caving (I guess he figures everyone will remember the talk, but not the walk… or lack thereof). The next time this useless toady stands up to Bush & Cheney will be the first.

Add comment June 8th, 2006 at 07:40am Posted by Eli

Oathiness

This sounds kinda familiar…

Monday’s hearing into the NSA program got off to a rocky start when Democrats protested that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be given a sworn oath before testifying.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel’s senior Democrat, argued that Gonzales should be sworn in like any other witness. At the very least, Gonzales should be asked if he would volunteer to being sworn in, Leahy said.

“It’s not up to him,” said Specter, who was upheld by a quick party-line vote by the GOP-led committee.

Is there an innocent explanation for this? The last time I remember Republicans opposing an oath was just before the oil executives lied their asses off about participating in Cheney’s super-duper secret energy task force (and before that, of course, there was our brave preznit’s 9/11 testimony with Cheney holding his widdle hand). I know the Republicans are anti-truth, but do they have to be so obvious about it?

Gonzales, who was not sworn in, told the committee he would voluntarily take the oath if the committee so desired. Either way, “my answers would be the same whether I was under oath or not,” he said.

Wow, he admits that he would lie under oath? Pretty ballsy.

9 comments February 6th, 2006 at 12:29pm Posted by Eli

Asbestoshole.

Arlen Specter calls shenanigans!

FOR over two decades, Congress has wrestled unsuccessfully with the difficult problem of asbestos. Now, with Congress about to produce legislation that will compensate Americans hurt by asbestos without clogging the courts and causing undue economic hardship, Dick Armey, a Republican and the former House majority leader, has led a huge and misleading advertising campaign to defeat the bill.

(snip)

…in radio ads that have run in 15 states, Mr. Armey says the bill would levy $140 billion in new taxes to create a federal trust fund for asbestos victims. He knows better. Manufacturers, which are liable for asbestos injuries, and their insurers have offered to create the $140 billion trust fund to avoid further liability. The bill is explicit that the federal government would pay nothing into the fund.

Mr. Armey also asserts that the fund would set aside billions of those tax dollars as payoffs to trial lawyers. In fact, the bill caps lawyers’ fees at 5 percent, compared with current contingent fees of 33 percent.

Just leave the check on the Dresser.

1 comment May 16th, 2005 at 07:59pm Posted by Eli