political thread: should Dean have said this?

[Risa]

http://www.dailykos.com

"Well, certainly the president can claim executive privilege. But in the this case, I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, Hide the Salami, or whatever it's called."
--Howard Dean on Hardball

i mean... damn.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/05.html#a5235

excerpting from

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9601984/

DEAN: Well, certainly the president can claim executive privilege. But in the this case, I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called. He's got to go out there and say something about this woman who's going to a 20 or 30-year appointment, a 20 or 30-year appointment to influence America. We deserve to know something about her.

He just accused the president of the united states of.....

[Cicero]

He is an ignorant fucktard who is an accurate representation of the Dem party.

[Mikey]

Dean is undoubtedly a loose cannon.

That being said, here is somewhat more informed opinion on so-called "executive privilege" in this case...

Without the facts, there's no consent
By Martin Garbus
Attorney MARTIN GARBUS is the author of "Courting Disaster: The Supreme Court and the Unmaking of American Law" (Times Books, 2002).

October 6, 2005

DURING THE Senate hearings on the nomination of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the White House withheld documents Roberts created while working for the U.S. solicitor general. The rationale was that the documents were protected by attorney-client and what the government characterized as "deliberative" privileges. On Tuesday, President Bush made it clear that Harriet E. Miers' White House papers would be treated in much the same way.

But the action was unconstitutional in Roberts' case, and it is unconstitutional with respect to Miers as well.

Clause 2, Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution states that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court." As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 67, this means that "the ordinary power of appointment is confided to the president and the Senate jointly." James Madison and the other framers agreed.

The Senate's right to information that the president has about a nominee is thus essential in this process and constitutionally mandated. The Senate cannot exercise its obligation without it. The law about consent is clear — there is no meaningful consent if the consenting power has no knowledge of the facts.

Further, asserting that some information is privileged — that it can be withheld because of a right to confidentiality — cannot override constitutional obligations. The high court has dealt with the privilege issue before. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, in 1974, denied President Nixon's claim that executive privilege permitted him to withhold tapes and to refuse to go before a grand jury during the Watergate affair.

Nixon gave two reasons for asserting privilege: First, that the separation of powers protected the executive branch from the surveillance of the judiciary, and second, that there was "the valid need for protection of communication" in the executive branch. Both arguments were rejected by a unanimous 8-0 Supreme Court (Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist abstained).

Burger's decision acknowledged the president's need for complete candor and objectivity from his advisors. But, he wrote, when the assertion of executive privilege depends solely on a broad, unspecific claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises.

Unless confidentiality is needed to protect military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets, Burger wrote, the court would find it "difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of presidential communications is significantly diminished" by producing the information demanded by the courts.

In no case in its history, the chief justice wrote, had the court extended the "high degree of deference" requested by Nixon "to a president's generalized interest in confidentiality."

Burger asked rhetorically if there was a public good that required the court to recognize executive privilege even though it might hamper the courts in getting at the facts. No, he said. Rather, the public good is served by the denial of the privilege — so that "everyman's evidence" is made available to the people. That same rule should govern the Bush White House today.

Burger also wrote: "The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the judicial branch … would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Article III of the Constitution." In Miers' case now, the claim of privilege conflicts with the legislative branch's constitutional powers..

The Bush White House assertion of privilege, and its denial of information, is just as troubling as Nixon's. At least as much is at stake. A president is in office for up to eight years — justices have remained in office for nearly 40 years.

As important is the issue of precedent. If the White House successfully withholds Miers' documents, then any president can withhold information about an otherwise unknowable Supreme Court nominee.

Miers and Roberts, when working as attorneys for the president, actually had the people of the United States as a client. The people, through the Senate, must not be forced to make blind judgments. That would allow the executive branch to dominate the judicial and legislative branches. It would make the court primarily responsive to one man (or woman) in the Oval Office. It would create a serious malformation in our democratic process, and it is not an overstatement to say that it could end our democracy as we know it.

[Sirfindafold]

Doesn't matter. Dean is insignificant. So is Hardball.

[BSmack]

Dean is undoubtedly a loose cannon.

Nope, Dean is speaking for a rather large constituency who feel that the Congressional Democratic leadership has sold them out.

[Mikey]

Dean is undoubtedly a loose cannon.

Nope, Dean is speaking for a rather large constituency who feel that the Congressional Democratic leadership has sold them out.

That's true....but hide the salami?

[BSmack]

Dean is undoubtedly a loose cannon.

Nope, Dean is speaking for a rather large constituency who feel that the Congressional Democratic leadership has sold them out.

That's true....but hide the salami?

I know. We're so shocked when politicians use honest language in their discourse. This country is getting fucked by Bush. Why be surprised when someone finaly calls it like it is?

[Variable]

Nope, Dean is speaking for a rather large constituency

Link?

The fringe lunatics always think their cause is stronger than it really is.

[BSmack]

Nope, Dean is speaking for a rather large constituency

Link?

The fringe lunatics always think their cause is stronger than it really is.

Those "fringe lunatics" sure pumped a lot of money into Dean's campaign.

[Hapday]

This country is getting fucked by Bush. Why be surprised when someone finaly calls it like it is?

Why don't you tell it like it is and provide a link that proves the U.S. is getting fucked by Bush?

[BSmack]

This country is getting fucked by Bush. Why be surprised when someone finaly calls it like it is?

Why don't you tell it like it is and provide a link that proves the U.S. is getting fucked by Bush?

So have you moved to the US to take advantage of all the "opportunity" or are you still sucking off the Canadian welfare teat?

Got it.

[BSmack]

Those "fringe lunatics" sure pumped a lot of money into Dean's campaign.

Maybe "a lot" by homeless wino standards.

Sure are a lot of "homeless winos" with checkbooks.

Dean contributions during 2004 election cycle. Too many for Open Secrets to even list. How about you EAD as per your usual.

[Variable]

Link?

The fringe lunatics always think their cause is stronger than it really is.

Those "fringe lunatics" sure pumped a lot of money into Dean's campaign.

David Duke always had plenty of financial support too. What's your point?

[BSmack]

The fringe lunatics always think their cause is stronger than it really is.

Those "fringe lunatics" sure pumped a lot of money into Dean's campaign.

David Duke always had plenty of financial support too. What's your point?

You let me know when Duke is a contender for the Presidency and we can talk.

[Tom In VA]

Risa,

Maybe he's speaking to people in a language they understand.


Do you realize what would happen to the rest of the world should the Middle East suffer a nuclear detonation ?

Bush believes doing something other than what had/hadn't been done to combat terrorism is the right thing to do. Part of that was invading a country known to support terrorist organizations and was, as Bill Clinton put it when he ordered bombs to be dropped on Iraq in 1998,

Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world

It was Bush's way of saying he believes it to be the right thing to do, in a language people could understand.

[Variable]

You let me know when Duke is a contender for the Presidency and we can talk.

Let me know when Dean is a contender for the Presidency...

[BSmack]

You let me know when Duke is a contender for the Presidency and we can talk.

Let me know when Dean is a contender for the Presidency...

2004 you fucking retard.

[Variable]

BWAHAHAHA....he was barely even a contender in his own party! I'm sorry, he won which states in the primary again?

[Risa]

I erased the post I think you're responding to, Tom in VA, because I think it really is a Russian hack, as a freeper is suggesting because of a cookie that came up when he went to that 'BBC' site.

[deletion by me] I shouldn't have put it up. End story. I'm sorry, man.

[Hapday]

This country is getting fucked by Bush. Why be surprised when someone finaly calls it like it is?

Why don't you tell it like it is and provide a link that proves the U.S. is getting fucked by Bush?

I got nothing.

Got it.

[BSmack]

BWAHAHAHA....he was barely even a contender in his own party after the establishment dogpiled him! I'm sorry, he won which states in the primary again?

FTFY

[Variable]

And the establishment dogpiled him why? Oh yeah, because he wasn't a legitimate contender. Thanks for playing, slappy.

[BSmack]

And the establishment dogpiled him why? Oh yeah, because he wasn't a legitimate contender. Thanks for playing, slappy.

Yea, thats why Kerry and Gephardt sunk millions of dollars into attack ads against Dean in Iowa. Because Dean wasn't a "legitimate" contender".

:roll:

[Diogenes]

BWAHAHAHA....he was barely even a contender in his own party! I'm sorry, he won which states in the primary again?

He was entire legitime before (and entirely representative of a substantial part of the POP after) he demonstrated what a lunatic he was folowing Iowa.

Of course if by 'the establishment dogpiling him' you mean the media showing him being himself...

[Terry in Crapchester]

Gotta disagree with B_Smack on this one. I don't think the DNC establishment dogpiled Dean If he isn't part of the establishment, as chair of the DNC, then what is he? Dean lost because of a combination of three things:

• Kerry woke up in the nick of time.
• Dean imploded with The Scream.
• For once, Democratic voters voted for someone other than whom the MSM was telling them they had to vote for (the MSM had narrowed it down to a two-horse race between Dean and Clark before even a single vote was cast).

Gee, can you tell I'm a Kerry supporter who had been a longtime sufferer in Democratic Presidential primaries, in terms of whom I supported (posted this list before, but Jackson in '76, Kennedy in '80, Hart in '84, Tsongas in '92, Bradley in '00).

In fairness to Dean on the topic raised in the thread, the phrase he was looking for was "hide the ball" -- a common phrase in law school. Gee, how many times has W misspoke over the years?

[BSmack]

Terry,

Have you ever wondered about these ads?

Conservatives launch TV attack ad on Dean

By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A conservative advocacy group will begin running a TV ad in Iowa against Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, in a move questioned by some of President Bush's supporters.

The Club for Growth Political Action Committee said the 30-second spot against the former Vermont governor will begin running in Des Moines today — two weeks before the Iowa Democratic caucuses.

In the ad, a farmer says he thinks that "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ..." before the farmer's wife then finishes the sentence: "... Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs."

The anti-Dean ads puzzled some of Mr. Bush's strategists and supporters, who see Mr. Dean as the most beatable of the major Democratic hopefuls.

"The prevailing wisdom is that Bush can beat Dean hands down," said longtime Republican consultant Rod Smith. "So why would the Club for Growth or anyone else on our side be attacking him now? That doesn't make any sense to me at all."

Republican strategist Alan Hoffenblum said the Club for Growth should heed the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater's admonition: "Never interfere with your opponents when they are in the middle of destroying themselves."

The club has promoted Republican candidates who espoused fiscal conservatism. But the group also roundly has criticized Mr. Bush and the Republican Congress for recently enacted legislation federally subsidizing prescription drugs for the elderly and other examples of what it regards as spending excesses.

"We are a group trying to promote good policy for the nation, not to help George Bush," Club for Growth President Stephen Moore said in an interview.

Mr. Moore is not shy about stating his view of Mr. Dean: "For the last year, he has moved further and further to the left and admitted he would repeal the Bush tax cuts, which jump-started the economy. For that reason alone, Dean poses a grave threat to the economic well-being of all Americans."

Mr. Moore defended the ad campaign by saying that the "left-wing takeover of the Democratic party by Dean and his supporters is not a good thing for sound policy-making, even though it is a good thing for Republicans, because it makes it easier for them to win elections," he said.

Mr. Dean is "hopelessly out of step with the rest of America." Mr. Moore said.

The Club for Growth PAC plans to spend a relatively modest $100,000 initially on its Iowa anti-Dean campaign ads.

The Club for Growth was founded in 1999 to elect what it calls "pro-economic growth fiscal conservatives." Mr. Moore said the club and its members raised or donated more than $10 million to help elect 17 new members to Congress in the 2002 election cycle.

Mr. Moore said his PAC will announce next week a $4 million campaign to counter the expected, massive ad campaign by what he calls "left-wing groups" largely funded by liberal activists and businessmen such as George Soros and Peter Lewis.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 ... -1355r.htm

The Bushies didn't want the ads run but this conservative group ran them anyway. Ever wonder why? Do you think they thought Kerry or Gephardt viable alternatives?

Furthermore, did you see a single anti-Kerry or anti-Gephardt ad during the Iowa caucuses? No, you didn't. Because they were not attacking each other. They were attacking Dean. Dean was used as the chase rabbit. He fired up the base and got people interested. And then the "mainstream" candidates got busy attacking Dean.

The fact that Dean stayed in the game, built his own organization and eventualy took over the DNC speaks to both how well organized the Dean movement has become and how utterly bankrupt the DNC had become.

[DrDetroit]

"Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ..." before the farmer's wife then finishes the sentence: "... Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show

Talk about an accurate characterization...

And this guy is representative of the Democratic Party? And we're suposed to believe that the Democrats are capable of what they call "understanding" the plight of the poor, the middle class, and minorities??

Bwaahahahahaaaa!!!

[Terry in Crapchester]

Terry,

Have you ever wondered about these ads?

Conservatives launch TV attack ad on Dean

By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A conservative advocacy group will begin running a TV ad in Iowa against Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, in a move questioned by some of President Bush's supporters.

The Club for Growth Political Action Committee said the 30-second spot against the former Vermont governor will begin running in Des Moines today — two weeks before the Iowa Democratic caucuses.

In the ad, a farmer says he thinks that "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ..." before the farmer's wife then finishes the sentence: "... Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs."

The anti-Dean ads puzzled some of Mr. Bush's strategists and supporters, who see Mr. Dean as the most beatable of the major Democratic hopefuls.

"The prevailing wisdom is that Bush can beat Dean hands down," said longtime Republican consultant Rod Smith. "So why would the Club for Growth or anyone else on our side be attacking him now? That doesn't make any sense to me at all."

Republican strategist Alan Hoffenblum said the Club for Growth should heed the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater's admonition: "Never interfere with your opponents when they are in the middle of destroying themselves."

The club has promoted Republican candidates who espoused fiscal conservatism. But the group also roundly has criticized Mr. Bush and the Republican Congress for recently enacted legislation federally subsidizing prescription drugs for the elderly and other examples of what it regards as spending excesses.

"We are a group trying to promote good policy for the nation, not to help George Bush," Club for Growth President Stephen Moore said in an interview.

Mr. Moore is not shy about stating his view of Mr. Dean: "For the last year, he has moved further and further to the left and admitted he would repeal the Bush tax cuts, which jump-started the economy. For that reason alone, Dean poses a grave threat to the economic well-being of all Americans."

Mr. Moore defended the ad campaign by saying that the "left-wing takeover of the Democratic party by Dean and his supporters is not a good thing for sound policy-making, even though it is a good thing for Republicans, because it makes it easier for them to win elections," he said.

Mr. Dean is "hopelessly out of step with the rest of America." Mr. Moore said.

The Club for Growth PAC plans to spend a relatively modest $100,000 initially on its Iowa anti-Dean campaign ads.

The Club for Growth was founded in 1999 to elect what it calls "pro-economic growth fiscal conservatives." Mr. Moore said the club and its members raised or donated more than $10 million to help elect 17 new members to Congress in the 2002 election cycle.

Mr. Moore said his PAC will announce next week a $4 million campaign to counter the expected, massive ad campaign by what he calls "left-wing groups" largely funded by liberal activists and businessmen such as George Soros and Peter Lewis.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 ... -1355r.htm

The Bushies didn't want the ads run but this conservative group ran them anyway. Ever wonder why? Do you think they thought Kerry or Gephardt viable alternatives?

Furthermore, did you see a single anti-Kerry or anti-Gephardt ad during the Iowa caucuses? No, you didn't. Because they were not attacking each other. They were attacking Dean. Dean was used as the chase rabbit. He fired up the base and got people interested. And then the "mainstream" candidates got busy attacking Dean.

The fact that Dean stayed in the game, built his own organization and eventualy took over the DNC speaks to both how well organized the Dean movement has become and how utterly bankrupt the DNC had become.

I think the conservative group believed what they heard in the media -- that it was a foregone conclusion that Dean would be the nominee, and the primary season was ceremonial only. Remember, the media did its damnedest to make it into a two-horse race, between Dean and Clark, before a single vote was cast. Rack the Democratic voters for not letting the media define the primaries.

I supported Kerry all along in '04. As far as Dean goes, his supporters pretty much scared me away. With most of them, it seemed like a cult worship kind of thing, the same feeling I get when I look at the Republicans and W.

[DrDetroit]

Then you're reading the right very wrong, Terry. We recognized, like all others, that this was dilemma of two evils and recognizing, given our preferences, which was the worse evil. The first time around with Bush we recognized a man of principle going against the always-morphing Gore and Kerry. And that was a defining electoral issue for us, among several others. And, don't forget, conservatives were fired up about judges, in 2000 and 2004, in fact, for conservatives, it was probably a 1-2 issue and Bush was very clear what he thought about judges. That's why so many conservatives feel abandoned with this Miers nomination.

btw -- you know that ascribing bad faith motives to your opponents is bunk, so why rely on calling Bush supporters cult-like? It also denigrates their intelligence and calling people stupid does not make an argument more forceful nor persuasive.