A Few Things We Can Do

By Mimikatz

Kagro X has a post at Daily Kos discussing whether the endgame on subpoenas is simply for Bush/Cheney to continue to defy the Congress and then to pardon anyone who has the misfortune to actually be found in contempt. Pretty depressing.

But not everything can be pardoned.  Bush and Cheney presumably will never face the voters again, but plenty of other people will, assuming we remain a Republic.  And while many of these people are beyond shame, the voters may not be impervious if the fundamental question is posed this way:  Are you with us (the people) or with them (the powerful) and against us?   This is the contrast that must be drawn, over and over--do you favor special treatment for the rich and well-connected or the chance at a good life for ordinary Americans?  End what Rick Perlstein calls The Big Con, the con job run on ordinary people who have been induced to vote Republican, thinking that some of the largesse will trickle down to them, while the con artists laugh all the way to the bank and the also-conneds in the press giggle with them.

One strategy for the blogosphere to undertake, through calls to Senators and Congressmembers, to ascertain where those Congresscritters stand on several issues and then through maintainance of a database like Josh Marshall's Fainthearted Faction on Social Security and through YouTube, hold them to their positions.  The Libby pardon is one that can be hung around their necks right now (hello Fred Thompson), but there will be more, many more. 

As a parallel strategy, and one that plays to their strengths and natural inclinations, the Dem leadership should engineer a series of votes where Congresscritters have to take a stand on issues that heighten this contrast.  Budget votes.  Votes on the War.  Votes on contempt for defiance of subpoenas.  Votes of confidence.  Votes to curtail presidential powers.  Votes on health care.  Student loans.  You name it.  Over and over.  Are you with us, the people, or with them, the powerful? The results can be added to the database.  The commercials will write themselves, like these being run against GOPers who voted against funding for veterans.  After all, the party Committees and candidates have to do something useful with all that money they are raking in.

In short, use the process against them--it is one of the most efficacious powers of the powerless, in Vaclav Havel's terms.  Make them go on the record.  Make them defend the indefensible, over and over.  And then hang it around their necks.

Comments

[Mimikatz]

And alother thing is to continue to speak the truth, as Marcy has been doing so eloquently, to break through the media narrative. From Havel's essay, discussing a greengrocer who refuses to go along with the Party and put a government slogan in his shop window:

By breaking the rules of the game, he has disrupted the game as such. He has exposed it as a mere game. He has shattered the world of appearances, the fundamental pillar of the system. He has upset the power structure by tearing apart what holds it together. He has demonstrated that living a lie is living a lie. He has broken through the exalted facade of the system and exposed the real, base foundations of power. He has said that the emperor is naked. And because the emperor is in fact naked, something extremely dangerous has happened: by his action, the greengrocer has addressed the world. He has enabled everyone to peer behind the curtain. He has shown everyone that it is possible to live within the truth. Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. There are no terms whatsoever on which it can co-exist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety. . . .

We who have so much freedom must use it every way we can in order to save it.

[KdmFromPhila]

There will probably not be any legal remedies for B/C's actions. But it's time for Democrats to use Bush's decision and the Libby case as a whole to brand the GOP for a generation. They had better not back off as they did in Iran/Contra. There has to be a series of investigations in which Democratic leaders ask the questions that EW posed in an eariler thread. But the answers should become part of a larger narrative that Democrats have to repeat over and over again: the serial lawlessness goes much deeper than the response to Kristof's column and is the natural extension of the Republican reckless policies to keep a wealthy clique in power.

Repeat reckless, lawless and destructive over and over.

[eyesonthestreet]

Speaking of not taking this admin to task:

I was just watching the Crooks and Liars video of Tony Snows press conference where he states, near the beginning, in answer to a question about Bush not seeking the advice of the Justice Department, that "the attorney general has recused himself from this case, as you know,"

But that's not true, FORMER AG John Ashcroft recused himself, but not this AGAG. why did Bush not seek advice from AGAG or DOJ in regards to the commutation?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/18973/2/Snow-presser-LibbyPardon.mov/

So since the media doesn't catch this stuff, the story just keeps being distorted. I am sure Marcy would never have allowed that to go unchallenged.

[Phoenix Woman]

Clinton comes close to saying what this is all about:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070703/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_interview

She doesn't use the language Marcy does, but the meaning's the same.

[Mimikatz]

I liked the part in Tony Snow's press gaggle where he said they didn't have to consult the Justice Dept because they all remembered what had happened, and didn't need "fuzzy memories" to be refreshed. I don't think he caught the irony.

It's not just the wars and the lies. It's being taken advantage of, over and over. Here Pick Perlstein explains it best, in "The e. coli Conservatives"

[Anon]

The whole point of the GOP Senators has been the opposite: To avoid going on the record, blocking Amendments. The real issue: What stopped the DNC from doing what the GOP is doing, and blocking votes on MCA, denial of Habeas, and other illegal things? Oh, that's right: "There is only a backlash againt the DNC, not the GOP"-argument.

Voters in November 2006 showed this was circular; the GOP showed, even when they lose, they can still make the DNC and the GOP minority-status less of a problem.

[Anon]

[ eyesonthestreet | July 03, 2007 at 14:53 ]

"why did Bush not seek advice from AGAG or DOJ in regards to the commutation?"

President's don't "have" to do anything before asseting their clemency-pardon-reprieve-commutation power: They can do what they want. The DoJ Guidelines are only advisory on DoJ Staff; and they do not constrain how the President uses his Article II power on clemency, commutation, pardons, or reprieves.

[Hit link under my name for the langauge], or this:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/julqtr/28cfr1.11.htm

[eyesonthestreet]

Anon- Tony Snow, as I saw after watching part 1 and 2 of the presser, said twice, first in the very beginning and then the end that the "AG has recused himself" and that is why the President did not consult with him. Now I understand that the President can go ahead without the AG advice, but why did he, and futhermore, why did Tony Snow comment TWICE about AGAG having recused himself?

If we follow Tony's logic, the President had noone to turn to, since his AG had recused himself(although that isn't true), so he made the decision himself, but wait, Bush has no legal training, so he must have had counsel, right? Or did he make a trip over to the law library and come up with the "commutation" cutting out the prison time. More likely he realized he had to eliminate the impending prison time, and then came up with a name for what he was doing.

[Mimikatz]

He had Cheney, feeding him Addington's analysis. It was just like the torture memos. Read the WaPo articles. Cheney worked it out and handed him the paper.

[Steve J.]

I think we should use Henry Hyde's argument - Bush has betrayed our trust!

"No greater harm can be done than breaking the covenant of trust between the President and the people; between the three branches of our government; and between the country and the world."

CLOSING REMARKS OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE AT IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF WILLIAM J. CLINTON JANUARY 16, 1999

http://www.sentryoveramerica.com/issue5p5hydeclose011699.html

[Curious]

What does it take to have Libby's trial be published for all of us to see?

[Neil]

Dear "Sand in the Eyes" Scooter,

I'd like to wish you a Happy Independence Day. You are my favotite convicted felon because your lies, probable treason, and obstruction of justice protects other senior White House officials from criminal prosecution. You're a stand up guy in a stand up White House. Have a hambuger and a hot dog (stay away from the pretzels) and don't forget tell your family how fortunate you feel to be with them on this great day.

[Publicus]

I agree. Make them go on the record. That's important.

But citing Vaclav Havel suggests a more important point. Why wait for impeachment? That may never come. We are losing our republic and Mr. Franklin warned us that we may have to work to keep it.

As the Declaration of Independence declares, the government derives its just powers from the governed. Well, WE THE PEOPLE may chose to withdraw our consent. I'd like to see a petition signed by millions saying:

"WE THE PEOPLE withdraw our consent from this government and demand its immediate resignation. We do not consent to warrantless wiretaps, torture, belittling of habeas corpus by the attorney general, or the continued occupation of Iraq. With this petition, we declare this administration illegitimate and its powers void."

Then, like the Czechs, we wait in the streets, refuse any cooperation with the government, and wait. They can't continue without WE THE PEOPLE -- because the thugs in Washington, DC are incompetent and incapable of doing anything productive.