Friday, July 27, 2007

You go John!

GOP Chickens!



Just goes to show you how out of touch the Republicans are and how the political world is changing under their feet. This election wont be won by likely voters, it will be decided by the UN likely voters who are disgusted and fed up with this administration and its party. Women, African Americans and the young people of this country will be the driving force behind this countries turn around and the much needed change that will be brought in 2008!

YOUTUBE, TAKE TWO Few GOP Candidates Commit to Debate
McCain Adviser Trims Advertising Strategy
Friday, July 27, 2007; A06

YOUTUBE, TAKE TWO Few GOP Candidates Commit to Debate

Four days after the Democratic debate in Charleston, S.C., more than 400 questions directed to the GOP presidential field have been uploaded on YouTube, as Republicans are scheduled to take their turn at video-populism on Sept. 17.

But only Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) have agreed to participate in the debate, co-hosted by the Republican Party of Florida in St. Petersburg.

"Aside from those two candidates, we haven't heard from anyone else," said Sam Feist of CNN, which is co-sponsoring the debate with the popular video-sharing site.

Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney, both with dozens of videos on their YouTube channels, have not signed up. Neither have the rest of the Republican candidates, including Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.), whose "Tancredo Takes" on his YouTube channel draw hundreds of views. Sources familiar with the Giuliani campaign said the former New York mayor is unlikely to participate. Kevin Madden, Romney's spokesman, said the former Massachusetts governor has seven debate invitations over a span of 11 days in September.

"We haven't committed to any of them yet," Madden said.

In an interview Wednesday with the New Hampshire Union Leader, Romney said he's not a fan of the CNN/YouTube format. Referring to the video of a snowman asking the Democratic candidates about global warming, Romney quipped, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."

The Sept. 17 Republican debate was announced last Friday by YouTube, CNN and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R), who called Monday's Democratic showdown "the people's debate."

Patrick Ruffini, former eCampaign director at the Republican National Committee who served as online adviser to Giuliani for a few months earlier this year, said it would "very problematic" if the Republican candidates declined. "What's worse -- questions from the public, many of whom are supporters, or questions from the media, who many Republicans believe are biased? This is YouTube. That's not something they'd want to snub," Ruffini said.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

BASE!!!!!






so there is this amazing store on lincoln road on south beach in miami called BASE. they are a clothing store/ homegoods/ fragrance/ music/ furniture/ design mecca. it is one of the coolest stores youve never been in! i discovered them back in '02 when i moved down to be with augie, and fell in love instantly. the first thing that hits you, besides the cool air from the blasting air conditioners rescuing you from the sweltering south florida heat, is the scent. THE scent. the whole place is permeated. its called sand. they make it there. in the back. bottle by glorius bottle. the next thing you notice is just how COOL the place it. everything is new. everything is fresh. everything is different. they make a lot of their own clothes. they cull the hottest accesories from around the world. they are on the tip of whats hot in music. and now they have opened a new store, called the annex, where they sell furniture. can you imagine... the coolest store in miami now sells furniture! so not only can you dress yourself in the hippest clothes, bath in the most amazing scents, and jam to the hottest songs... now you can fill your home with the most unique, off the wall, trendiest furniture this side of italy. if your boring little exisitence needs a jump start, head down to BASE on lincoln road in miami... follow their lead and they will transform your life.






Oh which oh which oh which...

so like everyone, i sit around contemplating, with much joy, what i would do if i won the lottery. clearly one of the first things i would do would be buy a car... or two... or three. one of them would obviously be a long wheelbase sedan, most likely european. and if it were a hybrid, id be in heaven! for the longest time i always said that if i could buy any car it would be an audi A8 W12. fast, stylish, suave, yet not crazy over-the-top. understated elegance, thats me. :-) but lately some other car companies have been upping their game. so now, the contestants...



Lexus LS Hybrid

$120,185.00




Mercedes Benz S600

$154,900




BMW 760Li

$123,375




Audi S8

$110,180




Audi A8 W12

$135,189


The 1 Series...

its so cute! and obviously itll be fast as hell and very go-kart-ish, much like bmw's mini cooper.










Monday, July 16, 2007

THE Ticket!




Quindlen: Hillary Should Make Barack Her Running Mate
By Anna Quindlen
Newsweek
July 23, 2007 issue -

TO: HRC
RE: VP

Well, senator, with the "Sopranos"-influenced video gone viral, you managed to convince millions of Americans that you do have a sense of humor. With the continuing massaging of your position on Iraq, you've managed to convince a significant number of liberals that you have a sense of urgency about the war. And with the most recent poll results, you must have a sense of yourself as the front runner.

Now it's time to show that you have a sense of history, a sense that this election is bigger than just one woman's ambitions. Make it your business to persuade Barack Obama to be your running mate.

Conventional thinkers like to make this sound risky, pairing a woman and a black man on the ticket. But it's not as wild as it sounds. The calculus of choosing someone for the second spot is always, first and foremost, whether the choice hurts your chances. The answer here is no. Anyone who would be put off by Obama isn't going to vote for you in the first place.

The second question is what you gain. The way in which that has been interpreted has usually been tediously predictable, and has centered on geographic balance. That's how John Kerry of Massachusetts wound up with Southerner John Edwards.

You have a more inventive and useful role model where this issue is concerned, and, I'm sorry, but it's Bill. You probably get tired of hearing about how good he was at all of this, especially since one key to how good he was, was you. But people forget that he stood the issue of how to choose a running mate on its head. Instead of balance, he and Al Gore were a double threat—two young Southerners with future-forward notions about government. Millennium squared.

But that was nothing compared with the excitement that would ensue if you eschewed your customary caution and asked Obama to join you in creating the first real 21st-century ticket. It's not simply that with one fell swoop you would solidify the two largest blocs of Democratic support, but that the historic nature of the pairing would galvanize the race and make any Republican slate seem so same-old. Every politician likes to talk about a new era. The day the Clinton-Obama ticket is announced would really be one for the history books.

Of course, maybe this memo should be going to Senator Obama, since running for vice president has often been a thankless non-job with a probable non-future. "There is an old story about a mother who has two sons," Hubert Humphrey used to say. "One goes to sea and the other becomes vice president of the United States. Neither is ever heard from again." The mantra of George Bush the elder's staff used to be "you die, we fly" because as Ronald Reagan's vice president he spent so much time attending state funerals abroad. Bush went from chief mourner to commander in chief, becoming the only vice president in the 20th century to be elected president immediately after his time in the second spot was over. Humphrey tried the same gambit after serving as Johnson's vice president, and became one of those who flamed out.

Obama might make the argument that being a member of the Senate is more like real work, but you could convince him otherwise. No one thinks it would be desirable to do what Reagan did out of desperation, trying to lure former president Gerald Ford onto his ticket with the promise of a kind of shared presidency. But there is another model and, sorry, but it's Bill again. He turned Al Gore into the most openly influential vice president in American history, letting him take the lead on issues like the environment and technology. (Gore ungraciously returned the favor by editing the Clinton legacy out of his own presidential campaign, which may have had something to do with the result.) And because the two were well matched in terms of intellect and experience, Clinton did it without the risk of being overshadowed.

You and Barack Obama are a good match as well—intelligent, eloquent, with similar positions but from different generations, which means he could afford to be patient in his ultimate ambitions. The elder Bush had to eat some crow when he joined the Reagan campaign. There were differences on policy issues and harsh words, most notably when Bush referred—correctly—to Reagan's "voodoo economics." Both you and Obama have taken care not to bicker. No apologies necessary.

He would have to decide he would be willing to coexist with a strong woman. But it seems as though he already does that at home. You would have to be willing to let a charismatic man steal some of your thunder, but you do that at home, too. This would be a political marriage of convenience, sure, but one that could excite the country. The president has driven the nation into a ditch, and the American people are standing by the side of the road with their thumbs out. Everyone is poised for big change, big ideas. Do the big thing that also happens to be the right thing. Your Web site says help make history. Go ahead. I dare you.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

The SHAME!

its all coming to light now, the total tonage of gross injustice that this administration has wrought on the world. 2008 can not come soon enough. only then can our country slowly, painfully begin to clear its once mighty name and begin to purge itself of the disgust that george w. bush has laid on our grand nation.


Could Bush administration officials be prosecuted for 'war crimes' as a result of new measures used in the war on terror? The White House's top lawyer thought so.

By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek

May 17 - The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.

The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes—and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves— is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined."

One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention protections is that it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," Gonzales wrote.

"It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441 [the War Crimes Act]," Gonzales wrote.

The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White House lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his decision—then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State Powell— to exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from Geneva convention provisions.

"Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that (the War Crimes Act) does not apply which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution," Gonzales wrote.

The memo—and strong dissents by Secretary of State Colin Powell and his chief legal advisor, William Howard Taft IV—are among hundreds of pages of internal administration documents on the Geneva Convention and related issues that have been obtained by NEWSWEEK and are reported for the first time in this week's magazine. Newsweek made some of them available online today

Absolutely Astounding!

July 11, 2007
Surgeon General Sees 4-year Term as Compromised

By GARDINER HARRIS
WASHINGTON, July 10 — Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional panel Tuesday that top Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.

The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm.

Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.

And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization’s longtime ties to a “prominent family” that he refused to name.

“I was specifically told by a senior person, ‘Why would you want to help those people?’ ” Dr. Carmona said.

The Special Olympics is one of the nation’s premier charitable organizations to benefit disabled people, and the Kennedys have long been deeply involved in it.

When asked after the hearing if that “prominent family” was the Kennedys, Dr. Carmona responded, “You said it. I didn’t.”

In response to lawmakers’ questions, Dr. Carmona refused to name specific people in the administration who had instructed him to put political considerations over scientific ones. He said, however, that they included assistant secretaries of health and human services as well as top political appointees outside the department of health.

Dr. Carmona did offer to provide the names to the committee in a private meeting.

Bill Hall, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said that the administration disagreed with Dr. Carmona’s statements. “It has always been this administration’s position that public health policy should be rooted in sound science,” Mr. Hall said.

Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said the surgeon general “is the leading voice for the health of all Americans.”

“It’s disappointing to us,” Mr. Lawrimore said, “if he failed to use this position to the fullest extent in advocating for polices he thought were in the best interests of the nation.”

Dr. Carmona is one of a growing list of present and former administration officials to charge that politics often trumped science within what had previously been largely nonpartisan government health and scientific agencies.

Dr. Carmona, 57, served as surgeon general for one four-year term from 2002 to 2006, but was not asked to serve a second. Before being nominated, he was in the Army Special Forces, earned two purple hearts in the Vietnam War and was a trauma surgeon and leader of the Pima County, Ariz., SWAT team. He received a bachelor’s degree, in biology and chemistry, in 1976 and his M.D. in 1979, both from the University of California, San Francisco. He is now vice chairman of Canyon Ranch, a resort and residential development company.

His testimony comes two days before the Senate confirmation hearings of his designated successor, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr. Two members of the Senate health committee have already declared their opposition to Dr. Holsinger’s nomination because of a 1991 report he wrote that concluded that homosexual sex was unnatural and unhealthy. Dr. Carmona’s testimony may further complicate Dr. Holsinger’s nomination.

In his testimony, Dr. Carmona said that at first he was so politically naïve that he had little idea how inappropriate the administration’s actions were. He eventually consulted six previous surgeons general, Republican and Democratic, and all agreed, he said, that he faced more political interference than they had.

On issue after issue, Dr. Carmona said, the administration made decisions about important public health issues based solely on political considerations, not scientific ones.

“I was told to stay away from those because we’ve already decided which way we want to go,” Dr. Carmona said.

He described attending a meeting of top officials in which the subject of global warming was discussed. The officials concluded that global warming was a liberal cause and dismissed it, he said.

“And I said to myself, ‘I realize why I’ve been invited. They want me to discuss the science because they obviously don’t understand the science,’ ” he said. “I was never invited back.”

Dr. Carmona testified under oath at a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee headed by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California. The topic was strengthening the office of the surgeon general. Dr. C. Everett Koop, surgeon general in the Reagan administration, and Dr. David Satcher, surgeon general during the Clinton administration and the first year of the administration of George W. Bush, also testified.

Each complained about political interference and the declining status of the office. Dr. Satcher said that the Clinton administration discouraged him from issuing a report showing that needle-exchange programs were effective in reducing disease. He released the report anyway.

Dr. Koop, said he was discouraged by top officials in the Reagan administration from discussing the AIDS crisis. He did so anyway.

All three men urged major changes in the way the surgeon general is chosen and the way the office is financed.

Dr. Carmona described being invited to testify at the government’s nine-month racketeering trial of the tobacco industry that ended in 2005. He said that top administration officials discouraged him from testifying while simultaneously telling the lead government lawyer in the case that he was not competent to testify. Dr. Carmona testified anyway.

Sharon Y. Eubanks, director of the Justice Department’s tobacco litigation team, was in the audience during Dr. Carmona’s testimony.

“What he said is all correct,” she said. “He was one of the most powerful witnesses. His testimony was very important.”

Dr. Carmona said that he felt that the duty of the surgeon general, often called the “nation’s doctor,” was to tackle many of the nation’s most controversial health topics and to issue balanced reports about the studies underlying them.

When stem cells became a focus of debate, Dr. Carmona said he proposed that his office offer guidance “so that we can have, if you will, informed consent.”

“I was told to stand down and not speak about it,” he said. “It was removed from my speeches.”

The Bush administration rejected the advice of many top scientists on this subject, including that of the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni.

Similarly, Dr. Carmona wanted to address the controversial topic of sexual education, he said. Scientific studies suggest that the most effective approach includes a discussion of contraceptives.

“However there was already a policy in place that did not want to hear the science but wanted to preach abstinence only, but I felt that was scientifically incorrect,” he said.

Dr. Carmona said that drafts of surgeon general reports on global health and prison health are still being debated by the administration. The global health report was never approved, Dr. Carmona said, because he refused to sprinkle the report with glowing references to the efforts of the Bush administration.

“The correctional health care report is pointing out the inadequacies of health care within our correctional health care system,” he said. “It would force the government on a course of action to improve that.”

Because the administration does not want to spend more money on prisoners’ health care, the report has been delayed, Dr. Carmona said.

“For us, the science was pretty easy,” he said. “These people go back into the community and take diseases with them.” He added, “This is not about the crime. It’s about protecting the public.”

Presidential GAY Debate!




Presidential Candidates In First Ever Gay Debate
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: July 10, 2007 - 1:00 pm ET

(Los Angeles, California) For the first time the leading candidates for the presidency will hold a televised debate devoted solely to LGBT issues.

The one-hour event will be held on August 9 and broadcast on gay network LOGO at 9:00 pm ET (6:00 pm ET) and through live streaming video at LOGOonline.com.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have confirmed they will participate. Several other Democratic candidates also may join the debate.

The debate will be conducted with a live audience in Los Angeles. On the panel questioning the two Democrats will be Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese and singer Melissa Etheridge.

The debate was put together by LOGO and HRC.

"In the 2008 presidential election, issues of concern to the LGBT community have already been at the forefront of the national conversation,” said Solmonese.

"From the repeal of “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” to the recent signing of a civil unions bill in New Hampshire, there is no doubt that voters will demand answers to important questions affecting our community."

The panelists in a statement said they plan to cover a range of issues including relationship recognition, marriage equality, workplace fairness, the military, hate crimes, HIV/AIDS and other important issues.

The LGBT vote is considered a decisive electoral force and according to exit poll data make up approximately 4 percent of the voting population.

Los Angeles was chosen as the site for the event because of the state’s early primary election, on February 5th, 2008.

"We're honored to give the presidential candidates an historic opportunity to share their views directly with the LGBT audience," Brian Graden, President, Entertainment, MTV Networks Music Group, and President, LOGO said in a statement.

"This forum continues MTV Networks’ tradition of engaging vital niche audiences with voting and the electoral process."

In addition to questioning by Solmonese and Etheridge people will be able to pose their own questions through LOGOonline.com and HRC.org.

LOGO is the owner of 365Gay.com.

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Definitely Not Voting For Him...

Romney Backs Libby Sentence Commutation

Jul 3 12:55 PM US/Eastern
By AMY LORENTZEN
Associated Press Writer


COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa (AP) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who as Massachusetts governor refused to pardon an Iraq war veteran's BB-gun conviction, on Tuesday called President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence "reasonable."
Defending Bush, Romney said at a campaign stop that "the president looked very carefully at the setting" before deciding to commute the 2 1/2-year sentence of Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, who was convicted in the CIA leak case.

The prosecutor in the case "went after somebody even when he knew no crime had been committed," Romney said. "Given that fact, isn't it reasonable for a commutation of a portion of the sentence to be made?"

As governor, Romney twice rejected a pardon for Anthony Circosta, who at age 13 was convicted of assault for shooting another boy in the arm with a BB gun—a shot that didn't break the skin. Circosta worked his way through college, joined the Army National Guard and led a platoon of 20 soldiers in Iraq's deadly Sunni triangle.

In 2005, as he was serving in Iraq, he sought a pardon to fulfill his dream of becoming a police officer.

In his presidential bid, Romney often proudly points out that he was the first governor in modern Massachusetts history to deny every request for a pardon or commutation during his four years in office. He says he refused pardons because he didn't want to overturn a jury.

During the four years Romney was in office, 100 requests for commutations and 172 requests for pardons were filed in the state. All were denied.

While campaigning Tuesday, Romney also threw a barb at former President Bill Clinton, who issued 457 pardons during his two terms in the White House.

"Wasn't it Bill Clinton who was handing out pardons like lollipops?" Romney said.

Pardon YOU...

The Vice President's Chief of Staff lied under oath. Period. He got sentenced to jail. Anyone else in the country who lied as he did would have gotten the same sentence. But the kicker? Today, the Vice President's boss, the President of the United States, decided to commute the sentence. What? Exactly. Yet another example of how corrupt this administration is and how above the law they still believe they are.

"In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing." - Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

“This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law. This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people’s faith in a government that puts the country’s progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years.” - Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

"When it comes to the law, there should not be two sets of rules - one for President Bush and Vice President Cheney and another for the rest of America. Even Paris Hilton had to go to jail. No one in this administration should be above the law." - Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

"Accountability has been in short supply in the Bush administration, and this commutation fits that pattern." - Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

"Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today. President Bush has just sent exactly the wrong signal to the country and the world." - former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.

"The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own vice president's chief of staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law." - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"The president said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the president shows his word is not to be believed." - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

"It is time for the American people to be heard - I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law." - Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.

"By commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, the president continues to abdicate responsibility for the actions of his administration. The only ones paying the price for this administration's actions are the American people." - Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

"The arrogance of this administration's disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking. Will the president also commute the sentences of others who obstructed justice and lied to grand juries, or only those who act to protect President Bush and Vice President Cheney?" - New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

"President Bush's 11th-hour commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence makes a mockery of the justice system and betrays the idea that all Americans are expected to be held accountable for their actions, even close friends of Vice President Cheney." - Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

"This decision sends the wrong message about the rule of law in the United States, just as the president is meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. How can we hold the line against injustices in other countries when our own executive branch deliberately sets out to smear its critics, lies about it and then wriggles away without having to pay the price in prison?" - Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif.

Amen.

7 comments
Updated 14 hours ago

Josh Wilson (Washington, DC) wrote
at 7:18am
Actually, you're wrong. The sentence that Scooter Libby received was ridiculous. The judge sentenced him to MORE than the prosecutor had asked for. That's not justice. And He still owes $250000.

Scooter Libby has served this country for decades. There remains a very good chance that the verdict will be overturned in court, because jurors following his sentence said that Karl Rove is who they really wanted to see prosecuted, but Scooter was the only one on trial. That suggests impartiality among the jurors and with the judge. It wasn't a fair trial.
Stupid democrats can bitch and moan all they want, but don't forget the Bill Clinton pardoned (not just commuted the sentence, but a full pardon) of Marc Rich, the husband of one of his biggest financial contributors, and there was no question that he was guilty of MUCH bigger crimes than Libby was even accused of. I never heard Patrick Leahy or Chris Dodd protest when all of Clinton's financial contributors were pardoned.

Joshua Holcombe wrote
at 10:31am
Actually, I think I am not. The President said he decided to commute the sentence only after the appeals process had been exhausted. So not only did he ignore the ruling of a jury and a judge, he also ignored the ruling of an appeals board. It is one thing to ignore the ruling of one court, but to ignore the ruling of two seperate judicial bodies after they both came to the same conclusion? Seriously?

Joshua Holcombe wrote
at 10:32am
And as for the sentence, from the outset the President vowed that he would hold his staff accountable if it was found that any one of them had done something wrong. He preached that on an almost daily basis. Because of this, the judge wanted to make absolutely sure that his sentencing fell right in the middle of the mandantory guidelines that had been set, that way no one would be able to call his ruling excessive. He knew this was a highly scrutinized case and he wanted to be above reproach when it came time for him to be held accountable. But of course this President, who is dead set on circumventing the law as he has throughout his entire Presidency, decided to ignore the bedrock judicial ruling just because he could.

Josh Wilson (Washington, DC) wrote
at 10:39am
Did you likewise condemn Bill Clinton for pardoning Marc Rich, whose wife was one of his biggest donors? I can't remember a single Democrat bitching about that.

The sentence was obviously excessive, and was more than what the prosecutor asked for. How is that justice? The guy still owes $250,000. He was not pardoned. He should be, though.

Joshua Holcombe wrote
at 10:42am
And as for President Clinton and Marc Rich, I will send you here, to read in the President's very own words why he stands by his decision... http://www.nytimes.com/200
1/02/18/opinion/18CLIN.htm
l?pagewanted=all&ei=5070&e
n=66ba82eaf117b24b&ex=1183
521600

Oh and by the way, FEC law states that individuals are only allowed to donate up to $2000.00 per election for any one Presidential candidate.

Josh Wilson (Washington, DC) wrote
at 10:54am
that's hard money. it doesn't count soft money (which was legal then) and it doesn't count the fact that as a fundraiser, she brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars through other contributors.

And if you accept those reasons for full pardons, but not Bush's for a COMMUTATION (which is NOT a pardon) -- the guy still owes $250,000. That's not a small fine for a lifetime government careerist.

Joshua Holcombe wrote
at 11:00am
And just so you know... a condition of the Marc Rich pardon? He had to pay $100,000,000.00. That is a tiny bit more than Libby's fine. Oh and guess who was Marc's lawyer from 1985-2000, defending the whole time that Rich was in fact innocent?

Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Josh Wilson (Washington, DC) wrote
at 11:22am
Except Marc Rich is worth $1.5 BILLION. Scooter Libby has no such wealth.

By the way, do you know who Marc Rich's lawyer was? Scooter Libby.

Further, Marc Rich was pardoned. Libby's sentence was only commuted, and he's still on probation.

Joshua Holcombe wrote
at 11:38am
I believe I just made the point that Marc Rich's lawyer was Libby. Did you miss that? That pretty much kills your argument, but since you continue to miss the forrest for the trees...

Today Tony Snow said for all to hear that the possibily that the President will pardon Libby is still open.

Joshua Holcombe wrote
at 11:38am
The thing that is of most concern here is that this is the first time in history a President has commuted the sentence of a member of his staff before any time for the crime has been served. The President did not let Libby serve time, and then commute the sentence after 6 months. That is what typically happens in commutations... if the President felt the sentence too steep, allow the GUILTY man to serve some time, and then cut the sentence short. He did not do that. I guarantee you that if either of us lied under oath and obstructed justice (as Scooter Libby did, two courts said so), we would both sit in a jail cell for however many years the courts decided was applicable. Libby lied. Period. In this coutry, when you lie under oath, you go to jail. PERIOD. That is of course unless you have powerful friends, like, say, the President of the United States.

Travis Holliday (New York, NY) wrote
at 1:12pm on July 3rd, 2007
so we're all mad that the President commuted Libby's sentence? hmm.. sounds almost as fair as when President Clinton lied under oath and pretty much got off scott-free.
Message - Delete

Joshua Holcombe wrote
at 5:33pm on July 3rd, 2007
perhaps you forgot that tiny little thing called... oh, whats it called... impiedment? oh, no, IMPEACHMENT! thats right, for the country delving into his personal life and investigating things that are in no way ANYONES business and then lying about it, yes, he got impeached.

Travis Holliday (New York, NY) wrote
at 5:55pm on July 3rd, 2007
he was never formally impeached you retard.

Travis Holliday (New York, NY) wrote
at 5:57pm on July 3rd, 2007
He was impeached by the United States House of Representatives, but was subsequently acquitted by the United States Senate and remained in office to complete his term.

Joshua Holcombe wrote
at 6:25pm on July 3rd, 2007
neither was andrew johnson, he was acquitted as well. and yet history now lists two u.s. presidents as being "impeached." so, i guess you can go talk to the world's historians who dont really make a clear distincition between the two.

and i am very impressed with the highbrow language you have chosen to use. elevating the public debate by using words like retard... you scholar you.

Travis Holliday (New York, NY) wrote
at 7:14pm on July 3rd, 2007
;) love to love you, joshy.

Bryant Courtney (Georgia State) wrote
at 5:45pm on July 4th, 2007
Josh, I'm utterly impressed by your direct, smart summary of this issue!! I have learned a few things reading through your post and the commentary that has followed.