The Beat

Calling Cheney's Bluff

posted by John Nichols on 06/25/2007 @ 08:50am

Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel has come up with the right response to Dick Cheney's attempt to suggest that the Office of the Vice President is not part of the executive branch.

The House Democratic Caucus chairman wants to take the Cheney at his word. Cheney says his office is "not an entity within the executive branch," so Emanuel wants to take away the tens of millions of dollars that are allocated to the White House to maintain it.

The root of the controversy is in a fight that the vice president has picked with the National Archives, which is charged with keeping tabs on how the offices of the president, the vice president and their appointees handle classified documents.

Under federal legislation enacted in 1995, members of the executive branch must work with the Archives to preserve classified documents. The law was backed up, at least in part, by an executive order issued four years ago by President Bush. But Cheney and his staff have refused for five years to file reports that are required as part of the oversight process. Why? Because the vice president -- that's the vice president -- claims he is not exactly a member of the executive branch.

So what is Cheney? Because the vice president serves in the frequently ceremonial position of president of the Senate, Cheney's office now claims that he is a member of the legislative branch -- and thus unburdened by any responsibility to cooperate with the Archives.

Forget the fact that the Constitution clearly defines the vice presidency as an executive position.

Forget the fact that, since then-Congressman Cheney wrote the Iran-Contra investigation minority report defending the "right" of the Reagan administration to set its own foreign policy, he has been a consistent and aggressive advocate for increasing the authority of the executive branch.

Forget the fact that, since the Supreme Court handed power to the Buch-Cheney ticket in December 2OOO, Cheney has fashioned himself as the most powerful vice president in history.

Forget the fact that when Cheney has steadfastly refused to share classified information with the U.S. House and Senate.

Forget the fact that when Cheney actually makes his way to Capitol Hill it is famously to spew obscenities at Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy.

O.K., says Emanuel.

If Cheney's a member of the legislative branch, the Democratic Caucus chair suggests, the vice president won't need all the money that currently goes to pay for his executive office, extensive staff and that secure undisclosed location that is so often his haunt. So Emanuel plans this week to offer an amendment to a spending bill that would defund the Office of the Vice President.

Of course, there would still be funding for the Office of the Senate President. But, let's be frank, the rare tie-breaking duties and ceremonial administrative functions associated with that position won't require more than a smidgen of the money that now goes to the vice president's epic executive-branch operations.

"This amendment will ensure that the vice president's funding is consistent with his legal arguments," say Emanuel, a former aide to President Clinton who, like Cheney, has served in both the legislative and executive branches.

Come to think of it, no matter what branch of the government he happens to occupy, doesn't it make sense to defund Cheney? At this point in the Bush-Cheney interregnum, any move that disempowers Dick Cheney can only benefit the Republic.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols's book The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press) is available nationwide at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com. Publisher's Weekly describes it as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says it "reveals the inner Cheney." The London Review of Books says The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney "makes a persuasive case…that the vice-presidency is the real locus of power in the current administration: Cheney runs the show."

Comments (153)

  1. So the same crowd that wouldn't defund a FAILED WAR....are going to "step up" and defund Cheney's office?!?!?!?

    As for Cheney's claim, though seemingly idiotic (How could a man a "heartbeat away" from the Presidency NOT be in the Executive Branch?)....he may be able to fight it out in the Supreme Court.

    Consider...the Vice-President is ALSO Constitutionally...the President of the Senate, overseeing procedures and able to cast a tie-breaking vote. The President nor any other Executive Branch person has a vote in the Senate, therefore it opens up the possibility that the Veep has BOTH Executive and Legislative powers.

    And the Bush/Cheney guys aren't stupid. They can figure this as well AND figure that if it goes to the USSC, that with Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas....ALL they need is one more Justice on their side to win.

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 08:59am

  2. Is the Vice President a part of the Executive Branch?

    Conservative Constitution experts?

    Posted by conshame at 06/25/2007 @ 09:01am

  3. Defund, defang, defeat, discredit, dislodge, dismiss.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2007 @ 09:17am

  4. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2007 @ 09:17am

    Hey HSUB, heard a new one on impeachment on Air America this morning.....

    Guy called in and said "Maybe Pelosi and Bush cut a deal. She doesn't impeach him and he doesn't attack Iran". RESE maybe, but I'm sure it'll play well in Kook-ville!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 09:20am

  5. Masky oh please, ever the new con water carrier. The constitution clearly states the vp's duties are to only count votes and break a tie in the senate. Senators have votes and select their own leadership and agenda. The vp has to have the same qualifications as a president and not a senator. A former president cannot be a vp. Plus once impeachment of a president starts the vp is out of the senate. The constitution is pretty clear. Plus contractually once cHeney accepted the funds the first two years and complied with the rules without going to court for clarification he pretty much violated his oath the following years.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2007 @ 09:26am

  6. Does anyone actually think Rahm's ploy is armed with actual teeth?

    I don't.

    You're telling me that the left branch of the party is going to defund the VP office 18 months BEFORE they're going to get it back???????

    Puhlease!

    Don't expect too many more stories on this topic and definitely don't expect Cheney to fully comply with the National Archives mandate (although he will make a token gesture and then everyone will claim victory and the only loser will be democracy).

    Posted by freedomplease at 06/25/2007 @ 09:56am

  7. Poorly reasoned, also shows scarce knowledge of the English language, its poorly written. There's nothing wrong with strongly sustaining YOUR political view (I happen to concur with it) but please do so with both intelligence & propriety?

    Posted by Martin2007 at 06/25/2007 @ 09:56am

  8. "The President nor any other Executive Branch person has a vote in the Senate, therefore it opens up the possibility that the Veep has BOTH Executive and Legislative powers."

    IF the Vice-President has power in both the Executive and Legislative branches (and, it appears he does have limited Legislative power), he should be required to comply with the rules of both branches. He cannot pick and choose which laws apply to his office.

    Posted by engineer at 06/25/2007 @ 10:00am

  9. "IF the Vice-President has power in both the Executive and Legislative branches (and, it appears he does have limited Legislative power), he should be required to comply with the rules of both branches. He cannot pick and choose which laws apply to his office."

    Posted by ENGINEER 06/25/2007 @ 10:00am

    This is just too fucking logical.

    Posted by drhammer at 06/25/2007 @ 10:20am

  10. First....8 of 23?!?!? Geez, the guy is predictable. Mention "Cheney" or "Israel" and RESE comes up with 15 posts on "chemtrails" and "Jesuit sex slaves".

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2007 @ 09:26am and Posted by ENGINEER 06/25/2007 @ 10:00am

    Again, read my post...I am NOT offering up my belief that Cheney is right. It's idiocy prima facie to say that the guy who can become President with one more pretzel...is "not part of the Executive".

    I'm SAYING that Cheney & Co can make a CASE to the Supreme Court that he has some "nebuluous" office that goes between Executive and Legislative. TECHNICALLY, Constitutionally, the Veep has few powers. ONE is President of the Senate.(Article I, Section 3) and the other is succeeding the President (Article II, Section 6).

    Again TECHNICALLY, Cheney and the gang MAY argue before the USSC that since his only OFFICIAL function is "President of the Senate" until or if Bush is removed or dies...that he IS part of the Legislature.

    Do I think this is right?...no. Would Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito (strict constructionalists) think so?...maybe. Could they get ONE more Justice (like Kennedy) to join them?....possibly.

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 10:25am

  11. Its about time that we all think outside the box. The Vice President should not be pilloried for drawing the argument that the Office of the Vice President occupies a unique position in that it may not be a part of the Executive Branch. I view this as a healthy side of an argument that needs to be resolved sooner than later. This issue is a legitimate argument that should not be left unresolved any minute longer. While most of us think that it is obviously consitutionally infirm, his argument is backed up by certain facts that also gives credence to his side. The best thing therefore is to lay this issue for the public to debate upon and eventually for the Supreme Court to decide. These matters are best resolved when it is sent in the open and debated and let democracy prevail.

    The Vice President mean well for America. He may have issues that directly contradicts our very own and I do not see anything wrong with that. He has every right to air his opinion on political and policy matters. That is his job. If we feel he is wrong, we have the right to air our side too. This particular issue is an entirely different one alltogether and his views on Iraq, the conviction of Scooter Libby, his accidental shooting of a friend, and so many more, has nothing to do with the issue on hand.

    I feel that history will judge Vice President Cheney kindly on tis matter and he will be found to have done his part in shaping the future of America's democratic ideals.

    Posted by alexdelapaz at 06/25/2007 @ 10:36am

  12. Okay, see, HSUB and ENGINEER........THIS-

    Posted by ALEXDELAPAZ 06/25/2007 @ 10:36am

    is what apologia for that doofus Cheney looks like! Not what I was doing!

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 10:46am

  13. Alex,

    Rahm's proposal essentially removes the office of VP. He would just be a person standing around waiting to fill in. However, without funding....he would not have the staff to be kept up to speed with what's going on. In the event of sudden death he/she would be sworn in and would have to try to pick up the balls but without essentially any inner knowledge of what is going on.

    Since Rahm's party is likely to hold that position in 18 months and since they've clearly demonstrated they could give a damn about anything other than ruling over their minions do you honestly think they are seriously considering defunding an office that themselves will soon be holding?

    Posted by freedomplease at 06/25/2007 @ 10:49am

  14. It seems to me that this is a long workaround rather than just impeaching him, which is what his behavior deserves. Why the clever back-paths to reprimanding this fascist?

    Posted by jylcat at 06/25/2007 @ 11:22am

  15. Gotta give credit to the Dem Congress trying to come up w/work for themselves!

    IF Cheney is wrong, then what Rahm Emanuel wants to do to defund the VP's office is right???? Isn't Emanuel's cartoonish attempt, a "Bluff" per Nichols, bolstering Cheney's claim?

    We should put this on America's Funniest Video! The Nation's best 14%-ters!

    BTW, Nichols, you even look like a fruitcake!

    Posted by Happy at 06/25/2007 @ 11:26am

  16. I would love to have the dems defund the VPs office..looks like they have picked another winning batltle...is impeachment next?

    Mask,

    You really think the dems will hold congress in 08? I see them losing it all at this point, and the repubs don't even have a cnadidate yet...

    Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 12:07pm

  17. The argument that Cheney is not part of the Executive Branch is ludicrous, at best. His only functions in the Senate are tie breaking and vote counting. Other than that he has nothing to do with the Senate, he can offer no bills, set no agenda or offer any amendments.

    Just think about it apologists, cheney is ignoring an executive order given by Chimpy. And to hear ya'll tell it chimpies orders are always spot on and deserve no inspection.

    cheney wants to be King, he abhors the democratic process and any oversight by his employers. If this is the way the apologists want to see a dem admin run, admit it now and don't ever come around and offer criticism of the next dem president.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/25/2007 @ 12:12pm

  18. Maasch,

    Even you would have to agree at this point that you are the WORST pundit on these boards. However, being so bad, your political predictions are not useless, as they can quite reliably be used as an inverse indicator!

    Posted by freedomplease at 06/25/2007 @ 12:28pm

  19. Mask,

    You really think the dems will hold congress in 08? I see them losing it all at this point, and the repubs don't even have a cnadidate yet...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2007 @ 12:07pm

    Yep. Numbers, as well as polling, are on their side. Despite the 14% approval rating, nobody is showing a massive up-tick in the Republican vote in the districts they lose in November '06.

    Pelosi and Reid may be in the doghouse, but as Tip O'Neill said "All politics is local" and right now you've got enough swing districts that STILL don't trust or like the Repubs to keep the Dems a SLIGHT majority.

    Plus you've got enough Repub Senators in tight races up for re-election.

    As for the White House, even with Hillary, I see a 60-65% chance of a Dem winning the Presidency. Higher with Edwards, lower with Obama, but still both. I know, I know...the polling shows Giuliani beating all comers, but I think that's shallow support. (else why all the THOMPSON TALK???).

    The ONE thing that might help the GOP....Bush initiates the pull-out from Iraq. The neo-cons and 29% Club blame him for "losing" (or MORE LIKELY....BELIEVE him when he says we've "achieved victory")....and Repubs (including the Presidentials) can run on "We won in Iraq, while the Dems and libs wanted to surrender a year ago!" (or similar nonsense and then they PRAY that Baghdad doesn't fall until AFTER November 8th).

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 12:40pm

  20. And the Bush/Cheney guys aren't stupid. They can figure this as well AND figure that if it goes to the USSC, that with Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas....ALL they need is one more Justice on their side to win.

    If Cheney thinks Scalia and Roberts will go along with this birdbrain legal argument that even a first year law student wouldn't make, he is sadly mistaken.

    What a ridiculous waste of our federal court's time!

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2007 @ 12:47pm

  21. He is the vice president of our cherished democratic republic, and he will not answer to us, for anything.

    Fuck him and all the bootlicking apologists who support his outrageous fascist behavior.

    Every last one.

    Posted by drhammer at 06/25/2007 @ 12:47pm

  22. Don't you whiners ever tire of giving each other reach-arounds?

    Posted by TheBigDee at 06/25/2007 @ 12:55pm

  23. I just watched 'The Family Stone'... What a perfect portrayal of the 'ideal liberal family'!

    Liberals are warm and sensitive to EVERYONE WHO THINKS EXACTLY LIKE THEY DO. If you have a differing opinion, you have two options: 1) Leave or 2) Become just like they are.

    Liberals are bigots, pure and simple, with extra emphasis on 'simple'.

    Posted by TheBigDee at 06/25/2007 @ 12:58pm

  24. Fuck him and all the bootlicking apologists who support his outrageous fascist behavior.

    Every last one.

    Posted by DRHAMMER 06/25/2007 @ 12:47pm

    Seconded, whole heartedly and without reservation.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/25/2007 @ 1:26pm

  25. Don't you Conservalosers ever tire of giving each other reach-arounds?

    Posted by THEBIGDEE 06/25/2007 @ 12:55pm

    Don't give a shit about the Constitution or the Rule of Law, do you?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/25/2007 @ 1:27pm

  26. he will be found to have done his part in shaping the future of America's democratic ideals.

    Posted by ALEXDELAPAZ 06/25/2007 @ 10:36am | ignore this person

    black humor at its best. my compliments.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/25/2007 @ 1:30pm

  27. Posted by MASK 06/25/2007 @ 10:25am

    Look cHeney hasn't a leg to stand on. Next hsuB will be saying that he himself 'is' the legislature because he has the ability to veto legislation and tack on signing statements that 'he' passes.

    So why indeed do we have a congress?

    To impeach an exec branch that 'acts' the way hsuB/cHeney does-- unconstitutionally, breaking their oath to defend our constitution.

    Beyond the obvious when the framers placed the vp in the exec branch:

    President and Vice President

    Section One

    "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, ..."

    (Notice that election of congress is separately discussed in article 1-- not in article 2, nor 3. Thus clearly stating where the vp's office is by how it originates and voted upon.)

    Section 3, Clause 4: Vice President as presiding official

    The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

    (Notice that the framers identified the ‘office holder' first as vp-- to that of the duty to break ties. They did not say the president of the senate will be the vp…)

    And to this all the previous reasons sited in my previous post and the supremes will laugh this out of court as totally ridiculous and frivolous claim tying up the courts for no reason than to stall prosecution of their crime.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2007 @ 1:41pm

  28. "I just watched 'The Family Stone'... What a perfect portrayal of the 'ideal liberal family'!"

    Posted by THEBIGDEE 06/25/2007 @ 12:58pm

    And Jack Bauer saves the free world every week.

    And Fred Thompson is surely one of the wisest public figures in the nation.

    Maybe you should remove your head from the television and put it back in your ass where it belongs.

    Posted by drhammer at 06/25/2007 @ 1:46pm

  29. As for the White House, even with Hillary, I see a 60-65% chance of a Dem winning the Presidency. Higher with Edwards, lower with Obama, but still both. I know, I know...the polling shows Giuliani beating all comers, but I think that's shallow support. (else why all the THOMPSON TALK???).

    Posted by MASK 06/25/2007 @ 12:40pm

    Masky masky masky, don't forget Al Gore polls better in a general election than any dem against any repub-- including Giules. And he hasn't ven enterred the race yet.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2007 @ 1:48pm

  30. er, even

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2007 @ 1:50pm

  31. Nuke the Neo-Cons!

    Posted by TheBigDee at 06/25/2007 @ 2:16pm

  32. And he hasn't ven enterred the race yet.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2007 @ 1:48pm

    No he hasn't....but you know, HSUB, IF he does and IF he can somehow crush Her Nibs, Obama, and Edwards three months before the primaries....and he gets the nomination....

    He'll win the Presidency.

    (can't you just feel the love...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 2:17pm

  33. Cheney and his vitriolic, bootlicking, blathering, neocon, oily minions vitriolically blather while licking the boots of vitriolic bootlickers! Kill them all!

    Posted by TheBigDee at 06/25/2007 @ 2:18pm

  34. I don't know Mask...If this bunch is the best the country can do, then we are indeed in a free fall...

    I have been wrong about 2 of the last 3 predictions, so maybe it is my turn,...I don't think Hillary can win and I don't see this congress as having the confidence of anyone...so maybe the repubs will figure it out, go back to conservatism, which got them elected by safe margins, and with Thompson, whom I believe could win...It should be interesting..

    Can't you just see Thompson asking Hillary all the questions the press is a fraid to ask her (since they all send the dems checks anyway)to an empty podium on Fox during a debate...and Frank declaring her the victor?

    My friend just holes out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!What a shot...........

    Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2007 @ 2:33pm

  35. He'll win the Presidency.

    Posted by MASK 06/25/2007 @ 2:17pm

    Masky, you're right, and that's because Al Gore polls better against all the repubs. And hey, not one of the candidates can say that he/she has already won the popular vote, like Gore... None of them has the best cure for buyers remorse than Al Gore, as in we should'a had an Al Gore, or "Re-elect Al Gore '08", Oh ok, plenty of time for that discussion in a few more months.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2007 @ 2:38pm

  36. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2007 @ 2:33pm

    Well, first, Presidential debates are covered by ALL networks, not just Fox, so be hard for her to refuse to attend.

    Second, she could hold her own against Thompson, as many of those "questions the press refuse to ask her" are things that are out of the scope of the political issues of the day...or (as she would likely recount) "old news" (what? Cattle futures? Bill's affair? Her vote on Iraq?...she's walked it back as much as she can without apologizing)

    Third, Iraq.....fourth, Iraq....fifth, Iraq. Thompson, like all the GOP except Ron Paul, are married to the "stay til victory" Bush outlook. If we're still there in October '08, and Thompson hasn't flip-flopped, she's got the polling on HER side.

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 3:06pm

  37. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2007 @ 2:38pm

    If A and if B, then C, HSUB. And I don't see "A" or "B" happening. (No point recounting what "A" and "B" are...we both know). If they do, then yes...."C"...he wins.

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 3:08pm

  38. Oh and I found this:

    Democratic National Committee Internal Poll - April 22-25, 2007:

    Al Gore - 71%

    Barack Obama - 10%

    John Edwards - 10%

    Hillary Clinton - 8%

    Others - 1%

    http://kentroversypapers.blogspot.com/2007/05/ hillary-clintons-horrible-internal-poll.html

    Anybody know about this first hand?

    I've already emailed the DNC asking for comfirmation of the validity and methodology of the poll. No response yet. Probably unscientific as the numbers look way too exaggerated, but it would be beyond incredible if true and surely Al Gore already knows...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2007 @ 3:12pm

  39. Probably unscientific as the numbers look way too exaggerated...

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2007 @ 3:12pm

    Yes, they do. How does Hillary poll on top (even with Gore in the mix) in state after primary state...if those numbers are right.

    Smells like an ONLINE poll! You know the kind that show that "92% of Americans support Bush's immediate impeachment", while the real polls showed him with a 33% approval, meaning that "25% of the people who approved of Bush's job performance...wanted him impeached!"

    And WE ALL know how crazy that sounds!....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 3:43pm

  40. Yeah until I get a response the only other consideration is that the DNC 'internal' polling, is the dem precinct/state/national leadership and/or membership and not the public at large, which could also skew the numbers, but not necessarily in a bad way considering that these are the active 'backbone' membership!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2007 @ 4:01pm

  41. itmfvpa

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/25/2007 @ 4:09pm

  42. You really think the dems will hold congress in 08? I see them losing it all at this point, and the repubs don't even have a cnadidate yet...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2007 @ 12:07pm

    How did your '06 predictions turn out?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/25/2007 @ 4:11pm

  43. BTW, Nichols, you even look like a fruitcake!

    Posted by HAPPY 06/25/2007 @ 11:26am

    Still in high school?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/25/2007 @ 4:12pm

  44. Liberals are bigots, pure and simple, with extra emphasis on 'simple'.

    Posted by THEBIGDEE 06/25/2007 @ 12:58pm

    Another erudite conservative visits thenation.com ....

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/25/2007 @ 4:14pm

  45. BTW, those with memories....little ironic that Mr Nichols now LIKES Rahm Emmanuel....

    BLOG | Posted 12/27/2006 @ 10:15am A Democrat Who Thinks Like A Democrat by John Nichols

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 4:58pm

  46. And just to be clear, Masky, Gore's favorbility polls better than Clinton in state primaries. CA is a big one: Favorable Gore 84%, Clinton 74%, Edwards 70% and Obama 65%. (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/Default.aspx?ci=27019&VERSION=p) And Gore is moving up electability-wise polling 2nd at 25%, Clinton 31% (http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/ new_california_and_iow a_2008_p.html). Even in NY, Clinton went from 44% in Feb to 43%- June, Gore went from11% in Feb to 19%- June, and is now 2nd, with Obama 3rd at 11% and Edwards 4th at 9% (http://www.siena.edu/level2col.aspx?menu_id=562&id=7072).

    And then there's this :

    Despite his claims to the contrary, many Washington insiders are anticipating a Gore-Clinton showdown for the Democratic nomination. Odds on Gore winning the 2008 election have jumped markedly from 70-1, when betting opened a year ago, to 20 -1 currently. This significant shift reflects the sizeable increase in bets wagered on Gore over the past six months, a probable reaction to rampant media speculation of a second Gore candidacy. 12.8% of all bets at sportsbook.com are now being wagered on Al Gore compared to 12.5% for Clinton. Most of Gore's support is coming from California and New York where he has respectively received 37% and 47% of all wagers.

    http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY= /www/story/06-20-2006/0004384096&EDATE=

    Al Gore Sportsbook Betting Odds to Win 2008 Presidency at 6-1 Many Americans, as well as the online sportsbooks, are not buying the fact that he says he will not enter the race. The odds for him winning the election were always high, but they jumped even higher with the release of his new book.

    "I think the country is desperate for a president with intelligence, who knows how to write, who knows how to talk, who insists on basing decisions on rational thought over irrational emotions," said Gordon Price, analyst and President of CasinoGamblingWeb.com. "The country is basically looking for the opposite leadership of what they have now. If Gore enters the race I think you will see his odds increase to as high as 2-1."

    http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/sports- gambling/al_gore_s portsbook_betting_odds_to_win_2008_presidency _at_6_1_46362.html

    Gore to win 5:1 (http://www.2008horserace.com/)

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2007 @ 5:10pm

  47. DEFUND CHENEY FIRST!

    DEFUND CHENEY FIRST! Say it louder!

    DEFUND CHENEY FIRST! Louder still!

    DEFUND CHENEY FIRST! Everybody now!

    DEFUND CHENEY FIRST!

    DEFUND CHENEY FIRST!

    "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

    itmfvpa

    Posted by COProgressive at 06/25/2007 @ 7:50pm

  48. OK... You all hate Dick and you all hate Bush...

    So does that mean you're all into bestiality, or what?

    Posted by TheBigDee at 06/25/2007 @ 8:06pm

  49. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2007 @ 5:10pm

    HSUB, I acknowledged the part where Gore wins if he gets the nomination....why are still belaboring the point?

    You often accuse ME of "sounding desperate"...but I'm not on that topic any more and you're starting to get obsessive like RESE and Jesuits and "chemtrails"!

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 8:37pm

  50. BTW, throw that Air America theory out there again....

    What if Bush and Cheney told Pelosi and Reid "come at us with an impeachment, and before the bills leave the House of Reps, we'll launch the fighters and missiles into Iran....throw the oil market to hell, crash the world economy, and leave 'President Pelosi' and her successor a depression that'll make the 30s look like the 80s"?

    Seriously, you guys give Dick and Dubya credit for almost every evil machination....yet discount that possibility or that Pelosi would cave to it?

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 8:40pm

  51. I think the dems in congress will be viewed as a do nothing congress as long as they do not impeach hsuB/cHeney as hsuB will veto anything progressive and substantial congress can get a vote for. And much how more difficult will it be to impeach once hsuB/cHeney launce another war against Iran-- a lot. Congress must simply do what's right -- it's job. Masky would have all good men do nothing, as himself, for comfort in a group of cowards.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2007 @ 9:30pm

  52. Remember:

    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you...

    I just want to thank all of you for making these hard times bearable... Without you guys, life would be dull... You are WAY better than Monday-night reruns!

    Posted by TheBigDee at 06/25/2007 @ 9:33pm

  53. HSUB, I acknowledged the part where Gore wins if he gets the nomination....why are still belaboring the point?

    Posted by MASK 06/25/2007 @ 8:37pm

    I stated before that I'd pop up the signs as I found them. I'm not repeating old info.

    Also, just preparing you for the inevitability of your minority status as one believing the impossibility of a Gore run.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2007 @ 9:38pm

  54. er, And how 'much' more difficult...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2007 @ 9:40pm

  55. er, launch

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2007 @ 9:41pm

  56. Also, just preparing you for the inevitability of your minority status as one believing the impossibility of a Gore run.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2007 @ 9:38pm

    Never said "impossible"...said "unlikely" or "don't think it will happen". I grant ANYTHING "possible" status, even impeachment.

    Never asked, but....if no "Gore in '08"...who's your "fall back"?

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 10:37pm

  57. A rare agreement between David Corn & John Nichols.....from DavidCorn.com:

    June 25, 2007

    Can Democrats Dethrone King Cheney?

    The Washington Post is doing a big take-out on Dick Cheney and the strings he pulls at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The articles in the series are not shockers.....

    ......Democrats ought to go on a tear regarding Cheney and his anti-constitutional shenanigans.....This middle-finger approach to open government should not be tolerated. There ought ot be hearings, and congressional Democrats ought to call Cheney and his staff as witnesses. This is certainly worth a constitutional showdown.....

    .....It's time for Democrats to force him from the bunker.

    Posted by David Corn at 01:08 PM

    Posted by Happy at 06/25/2007 @ 10:55pm

  58. I am a bit confused. Does it depend on Chaney how he wants his office to be characterized? Is there not anything in the constitution that defines the office?

    Posted by kevin99999 at 06/25/2007 @ 11:01pm

  59. I don't agree with Emmanuel. It's time to impeach Bush and Cheney for the war crimes they've committed. Stop the games and get on with it.

    Posted by candot at 06/26/2007 @ 12:23am

  60. "Forget the fact that the Constitution clearly defines the vice presidency as an executive position." Actually, it doesn't. The writer would do well to read the Constitution before he introduces it as evidence.

    Posted by klosskid at 06/26/2007 @ 06:24am

  61. Posted by KLOSSKID 06/26/2007 @ 06:24am

    Then he's part of the Legislature and subject to Senate Ethics Rules

    AND, by law, he cannot work for the Executive and the Legislative branches, simultaneously.

    Posted by Mask at 06/26/2007 @ 07:16am

  62. Posted by KLOSSKID 06/26/2007 @ 06:24am |

    care to post the pertinent articles, then?

    these apologists will grasp any argument, no matter how bizarre. If Cheney said the moon was made of cheese, the neo-cons would line up for anti-pasta buffet.

    Had the term "enemy combatant "ever been used prior to Chimpies decision to kidnap people and hold them indefinitely? How many of you ever heard the term "unitary executive" before Chimp and The Howler came along? Can you find that term in the constitution? If one reads closely, one can determine that the 3 branches of guvt are there to hold each other in check, not to give chimpy the green light for everything he wants to do.

    How's that war going? Are we safe from the tons of anthrax yet? How about the thousands of litres of Sarin?

    truly, if you think the VP is part of the legislative branch, please, please, don't vote. A basic understanding of the structure should be needed before one casts a vote.

    Sheep all.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2007 @ 08:29am

  63. "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs, is to be ruled by evil men." Plato,

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2007 @ 08:34am

  64. Posted by KLOSSKID 06/26/2007 @ 06:24am

    KLOS,

    I was going to say, 'as apparently you have not read' the constitution, but then there is always an obvious separation between something read and again comprehending what it was one reads. Either of those explains your lack of logic and acceptance that you're simply a new con sopporter, servicer of dic'tator philosophy.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2007 @ 09:00am

  65. Never asked, but....if no "Gore in '08"...who's your "fall back"?

    Posted by MASK 06/25/2007 @ 10:37pm

    If not Gore/Obama, Gore/Clinton, Gore/Richardson, Gore/_______, then Clinton/Obama, Clinton/Richardson, Clinton/_______, Obama/Clinton, Obama/Richardson, Obama/_______, ...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2007 @ 09:09am

  66. I've actually said this before, but perhaps not in that order. And the order may change as stuff comes up as always. That's where it is now.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2007 @ 09:10am

  67. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/26/2007 @ 09:09am

    Okay, with some summarizing....no Al, Clinton/Obama?

    That seems strong, except it would be a RADICAL leap into "firsts"....."first woman Dem candidate for President COMBINED with the first African-American candidate for Veep"?

    Sounds dicey politically.

    Clinton/Richardson seems more workable (despite Richardson being Latino and another "first").

    Posted by Mask at 06/26/2007 @ 10:09am

  68. Posted by CRABWALK 06/26/2007 @ 08:29am

    Had the term "enemy combatant "ever been used prior to Chimpies decision to kidnap people and hold them indefinitely?

    Yes.

    How's that war going? Are we safe from the tons of anthrax yet? How about the thousands of litres of Sarin?

    The absence of any recent chemical weapons attacks is far from evidence that they are not a danger.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/26/2007 @ 10:16am

  69. Excuse me!

    It wasn't that long ago that Cheney was claiming executive privilege about who was at his Energy meetings. He seems to think he can have it both ways. No one is above the law...

    Posted by bsnedek at 06/26/2007 @ 10:29am

  70. Had the term "enemy combatant "ever been used prior to Chimpies decision to kidnap people and hold them indefinitely?

    Yes.

    when/where? where "enemy combatants" held for years without charges or trials? In America, not in the Soviet Union or Burma. Where is the precedent? Japanese internment camps? A shining part of our history to you, no doubt.

    The absence of any recent chemical weapons attacks is far from evidence that they are not a danger.

    Posted by THRAWN 06/26/2007 @ 10:16am

    the absence of them makes them a danger? Delusional. Obviously a requirement to be a neo-con, the ability to turn the absence of something into a threat.

    BOO!

    don't wet yourself.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2007 @ 11:27am

  71. No one is above the law...

    Posted by BSNEDEK 06/26/2007 @ 10:29am

    BSNEDEK, meet Dick Cheney.

    Been drinkin', shot your friend in the face? No Problem, don't call the cops, chase them away. Sit on the news for a day till everyone sobers up.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2007 @ 11:31am

  72. Bad english, just like Chimpy. I grow up to be president sum day.

    After I bail on my service to TANG, that is.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2007 @ 11:33am

  73. How long will Americans continue to allow this presidency to make a mockery of our system? Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves. They would have removed them from office long ago. Bush and his croonies continue to act like dictators and we allow it. How much longer?

    Posted by jalagi07 at 06/26/2007 @ 11:46am

  74. Conservatives: WRONG on Dick Cheney, WRONG on George Bush

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 12:26pm

  75. And the Bush/Cheney guys aren't stupid. They can figure this as well AND figure that if it goes to the USSC, that with Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas....ALL they need is one more Justice on their side to win.

    Posted by MASK 06/25/2007 @ 08:59am

    HAH!...

    In this case,I'd have to argue that the sheer cleverness of Emanuel's VP-defunding tactic is sufficient to make the point whether or not (as is likely) it succeeds. At any rate, it serves as a kind of back-door Cheney impeachment. Love it!

    Posted by w_m_bear at 06/26/2007 @ 12:27pm

  76. The GAO is now "debating" whether the VP is part of the Executive Branch.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 12:29pm

  77. Hey, Republicans: IS the VP part of the Executive Branch.

    YES / NO / I DONT KNOW

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 12:31pm

  78. Well, is he or isnt he? Hello? Conservative Republican Cowards? Do you know?

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 12:32pm

  79. "The VP is not part of the Executive Branch"

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 12:34pm

  80. The Republican cowards are waiting for the GAO to figure this question out for them. Will the Republican cowards abide by the GAO decision - even if they don't agree?

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 12:35pm

  81. Sounds dicey politically.

    Posted by MASK 06/26/2007 @ 10:09am

    All are the face of the future US: Gore/Obama, Gore/Clinton, Gore/Richardson and any combo thereafter of those sans Gore.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2007 @ 12:42pm

  82. Posted by W_M_BEAR 06/26/2007 @ 12:27pm

    Sorry, W_M_, that same Rahm Emmanual was asked by Chris Matthews on "Hardball" about impeachment....he said no.

    Posted by Mask at 06/26/2007 @ 12:49pm

  83. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/26/2007 @ 12:42pm

    Conventional wisdom says that Hillary needs somebody that is less "charming" than she is (so as to not overshadow the top of the ticket)...hence (aside from the other reason I stated) I think Obama is out.

    She's got to try to win back the liberal base (who are dubious of her at best), but can't pick some far-left winger for Veep or lose the Middle when November 2008 comes. So, likely she'll go with another "evil DLC'er".

    She needs somebody with "executive" as well as foreign policy experience.

    And the future "majority minority" are Latinos and garnering their votes is a prime concern.

    All four are satisfied by Bill Richardson.

    Posted by Mask at 06/26/2007 @ 12:54pm

  84. Republican cowards are terrified. They are scared to stand up for the Commander in Chief! Why do Republicans hate George Bush and Dick Cheney so much, that they run away from a simple question.

    Is the VP part of the Executive Branch?

    (Oh, well gee, uh, I don't know. We better wait for the GAO report, and the courts, and the appeals. Then if the decision is what we wanted, we will support it.)

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 12:55pm

  85. Why do Republican Cowards hate George Bushs spokeswoman, Dana Perino, so damn much, that you cowards won't stand by what she said. She said, the VP is not part of the executive. Why do you hate her so much you won't agree with her? Dana Perino is the spokeswoman for the Commander in Chief, why do you Republican cowards hate her guts?

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 12:57pm

  86. Republicans hate the Vice President. Republicans hate the Commander in Chief. Republican cowards won't support the White House position that the Vice President isn't part of the White House.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 1:01pm

  87. George Bush threw Dick Cheney out of the Executive Branch, for having a lesbian daughter and daughter in law with a test-tube grandson, little Sammy Cheney. How hateful of those Republicans.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 1:03pm

  88. W_M_, here's the transcript from "Hardball"--

    MATTHEWS: Are you going to try to impeach him? What will you do, will you go along with Kucinich?

    EMANUEL: No. No because what I‘ll say is, I agree with you now, you‘re a member of the legislature, here‘s $100,000 and your Senate presidency office, and that will be your staff.

    MATTHEWS: Wow. You think you can carry this, Congressman.

    EMANUEL: I think I‘m going to have this fight, and I think what people are going to know at the end of the process--we have a vice president who exudes a level of arrogance and unaccountability to the American people, that thinks he‘s above the law. And we are going to take this to him, and understand that there are consequences to an argument--

    June 22nd show

    Posted by Mask at 06/26/2007 @ 1:03pm

  89. George Bush said Dick Cheney, take your gay daughters, and get the hell out of the Executive Branch.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 1:03pm

  90. Only straight Americans, who raise their daughters right, are part of the Executive Branch.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 1:06pm

  91. If your grandson has 2 mommies, you arent in my Executive Branch.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 1:07pm

  92. It's time to end this madness by any means necessary. When democracy reaches it's end phase, the people welcome their rights being stripped from them by saying, "we have to protect ourselves from the bad guys" never realizing that the bad guys have become their leaders.

    This plan is perfect. God is really the devil and the wolf in sheeps clothing. It's perfect! He points His finger away from Himself, claiming the devil to be out there somewhere, lurking, waiting to pounce on we unprotected needy little servents, yet all the while He (God/Chenney) is the mastermind behind the deception. Go for it America! Let these right winged assasins of our Constitution destroy the fabric of this country. You get what you deserve you pathetic little mindless drinkers of cool-aide.

    While i have no doubt that Noah and the story of him building the great arc to save 2 of every animal is a fairy tale, the point or moral of the story, however, is not lost on me. Today we have several Noah's warning us of our impending doom. Some of them are trying to build an arc, but few are listening.

    Good Luck folks because when the next major killing event takes place here at home, most of you will be looking to kill Noah and burn his arc in order to find "protection" in the arms of the true enemy. Fascism is alive and well in our own house. We now love the Chinese. does anyone remember that they're Communists and that we spent trillions of dollars trying to stop Communism from taking over the world, but now that labor is so cheap and our corporations are looking for slaves to build their products, China is just fine with us. HMMM! Fools all of you. The devil in sheeps clothing is us you idiots.

    Posted by Lucem ferre at 06/26/2007 @ 1:09pm

  93. I see/hear people talking ‘impeachment', just about everywhere I go. Some repubs too! I'm talking neighbors, at the market, at school, on the highway-- more bumper stickers, I do not think the cowardly MSM talking heads rule what people are feeling and thinking in increasing numbers. We're seeing a tipping point before our eyes as we speak. Congress will start getting tons of hate mail for not impeaching this hsuB/cHeney admin. They will fear their constituency more than getting shot in the face by the other coward. It'll be a stop the presses moment when the repubs and the dems look at each other with a startling resolve--"we gotta save our own butts, screw cHeney and hsuB"… Ahhh, fear when well placed, IS a wonderful thing.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2007 @ 1:19pm

  94. All four are satisfied by Bill Richardson.

    Posted by MASK 06/26/2007 @ 12:54pm

    And I do not disagree if both Clinton and Obama do not take a Gore offer as vp per a choicier spot in the admin. A Gore/Richardson ticket would exude experience and intelligence. Totally the opposite of the GOP cronism and incompetence. However, start looking for a lot more GOP caging the hispanic and black vote as well as deportation if that were to happen 2008. Another great reason to get Frito out of the DoJ asap.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2007 @ 1:31pm

  95. Dick Cheney and George Bush are not Conservative Republicans. Theyre both Liberal Democrats.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 1:37pm

  96. The Vice President is NOT part of the Executive Branch, Liberals.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 1:39pm

  97. Liberals, READ your (I mean America's) Constitution. WHERE DOES IT SAY that the Vice President is part of the Executive Branch?

    Look, the fact of the matter is, the Vice President IS NOT part of the Executive Branch. End of discussion. The VP casts the tie breaking vote in a 50-50 tie in the Senate!!! Liberal socialists do not understand the Constitution that they hate.

    I know my Constitution, and I also happen to know IT DOES NOT SAY, ANYWHERE, "the VP is part of the Executive Branch". Not one mention. Zilch. Zip. Nothing. It is not there.

    I challenge any America-hating Liberal Socialist left-winger, PROVE TO ME, WHERE DOES IT SAY, in the US Constitution, "the VP is part of the Executive Branch". It does not, and you liars know it.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 1:44pm

  98. The `water' is infested w/CONSHAME!

    Hey, wrap up your mumbling w/something concrete!

    Posted by Happy at 06/26/2007 @ 1:54pm

  99. I am sick of so-called Conservatives like you, Happy.

    You "claim" to support the Commander in Chief. You "claim" to support the Vice President.

    Look, Happy, the Vice President IS NOT a part of the Executive Branch. If he is, fine, TELL ME WHERE it says in the Constitution, that he is. You can't? I thought so.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 2:29pm

  100. Some Republicans (like Happy) want to support the Commander in Chief and the Vice President of the United States of America on fair weather days only.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 2:31pm

  101. The fact of the matter is, Happy, the VP is not part of the Executve Branch. You may find some support for your twisted views, from the liberals here on The Nation msg board, but you will not find any decent, good, sturdy Conservative Americans who will go along with you on that. The VP is simply stating the truth. The Constitution does not say that. Not on page 1, not on page 2, you name it. Period. You tell me, Happy, what page does it say, in the US Constitution, "the VP is part of the Executive Branch." It does not, Happy.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 2:35pm

  102. I thought so. Go read your Constitution.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 2:37pm

  103. I thought so. Go read your Constitution.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 2:37pm

  104. the constitution says nothing about abortion either or homosexuality or cocaine or Jupiter or Mars or space ships or fiction and non-fiction books carried in libraries or whether or not I should use the missionary position when having sex and jesus never said a single F_ _ _ _ _ g word about homosexuality yet most so called christians swear he was against.

    ask any right winged nut, it's not always about the exact wording, it's about interpreting that wording and if the right is on the bench the idiot conservatives win and if the left rules the bench the idiot liberals win. that's that folks!

    now, more proof that these morons running our country are fascists. read the story in cnn.com at the following link about our beloved and trusted CIA. and if you clowns think it stopped in the 70's or 80's or 90's you're more foolish than even I give you credit for.

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/26/cia.family.jewels.ap/index.html

    Posted by Lucem ferre at 06/26/2007 @ 2:43pm

  105. CON,

    I don't give a CRAB about where the VP belongs!

    My `wisdom of the day', free, for you to cure you of this "I am sick of so-called Conservatives like you, Happy.", is to use the "ignore".....let me know and I'll honor you w/same!

    Posted by Happy at 06/26/2007 @ 2:45pm

  106. You tell me, Happy, what page does it say, in the US Constitution, "the VP is part of the Executive Branch." It does not, Happy.

    Then what branch is he in, Conshame, the Branch Davidians?

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/26/2007 @ 2:50pm

  107. Cheney and David Koresh are similar in that they isolate themselves from the rest of us, and then go up in smoke when we stop listening to their nonsense!

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/26/2007 @ 2:52pm

  108. Protect oursleves before we climb into another nation and tell them how to live. how many of you brilliant Scholars are aware that you can do a simple legal search for modeling or models on msn, google, scroogle, yahoo, and all the rest and in the image section will eventually pop up child "moldels" wearing thongs etc, and posing in adult sexual positions. Now I'm not against porn but if any of you really care about children you'd be incensed and writing letters to msn, yahoo, senators, congressmen and women and others to protect them from such exploitation. Where are your family values guys eh? You're so concerned over winning in Iraq, bombing Iran, killing Castro and Chavez, Paris Hilton, George Michael, and Peter F _ _ _ ing Pan yet you say and do nothing about priests screwing children and Internet providers allowing sexually seductive child porn to pass through their search engines. Go to Hell with your hypocrisy!

    Posted by Lucem ferre at 06/26/2007 @ 2:53pm

  109. While I'm at it, let's pat the CIA and FBI on the backs for breaking major durg rings around the world (laugh laugh) while our military sits in Afganastan and allows the largest heroin producing crime family in the world to gorw opium and ship 80% of it's heroin to America, and let's thank our local police and DA's offices for prosecuting such hard criminals as those that smoke grass, while monsters roam the streets. Shame i was born here because if i had a country to go back to i would. since i'm here though i'd like to vomit on the hipocrites out there. take your best shot naaaazzzisss

    Posted by Lucem ferre at 06/26/2007 @ 3:01pm

  110. I think I just solved our energy problem.....

    build cars that run on adrenaline and...

    hook up them upto CONSHAME and LUCEM FERRE!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 06/26/2007 @ 3:06pm

  111. Thank you, Happy, for being a man and admitting that you cant prove your position. Of course, the Vice President is not a part of the Executive Branch. He casts tie-breaking votes in the Senate!!!!

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 3:18pm

  112. I don't give a CRAB about where the VP belongs!

    Posted by HAPPY 06/26/2007 @ 2:45pm

    Thank you, Happy, for being a man and admitting that you cant prove your position....

    Posted by CONSHAME 06/26/2007 @ 3:18pm

    Are you high on crack, drunk, speed, LSD, qualudes? What am I trying to "prove"?

    Posted by Happy at 06/26/2007 @ 3:29pm

  113. What am I trying to "prove"?

    Posted by HAPPY 06/26/2007 @ 3:29pm

    We're all waiting with bated breath....

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/26/2007 @ 3:32pm

  114. Like most whiners who find their solace and comfort in talking without action, you've truly solved the energyless problem. you see, there is no energy problem, there's an alleged energyless problem, but I do not expect you to understand something so "out of the box."

    I assume you have a problem with my bitching about things but let me bore you some more okay.

    I don't know any of you personally but I've earned the right to bitch. I grew up on welfare, yet I paid for most of my college education out of my own pocket. Unlike many who bitch about everything and do nothing, I've voted in most primaries and elections since 1984. I pay my loans and credit card bills on time, pay my taxes, donate money, food, time and energy to people and organizations in need, am politically active, have organized, developed and run non profit organizations that were set up to computerize inner city schools, homeless shelters, transitional housing facilities and community centers. I sit on the board of an inner city library that reaches poor and lower income families. I've helped homeless men and women and ex-cons and others write resumes and learn how to interview for jobs. I've taught inner city children how to use computers. I'm the guy that stops and gives the homeless person money rather than walking by with my superior attitude. And why give money to a homeless beggar? Because they asked for it. Even if only to get a drink of whiskey. That's right you self-righteous, stuck up freak for a human being. So what if they drink it down! Haven't you spent money on booze or cigarettes or sex (movies, videos, Internet porn, messages, or some other form?) Haven't you spent money on useless or even harmful things??? So why are they not allowed to feel good just because they're down and out?

    Who are you to pass judgment on them and escape the same? You have no idea what brought that homeless man or woman to where they are and you have no idea how impossible it is, whether for mental health reasons or another reason, to get on his/her feet, so who are you make a rule that they have no right to drink or smoke or get high and to feel good?

    I have every right to bitch and complain about how this country is full of selfish little children out to screw us all for a dollar. But it's the American way…Bullshit! There is not a single day in my life that I don't help someone less fortunate than me in some way. But what is it you do on an every day basis that gives you the right to bitch about things besides criticize those of us that actually try to make a difference and then pass judgment on others less fortunate than you?

    How's that for energy production. Perhaps when we lose engery and can no longer produce it, we can bottle up what i just used and drive off in our Porche or BMW watching the energyless sun set over the energyless ocean waves crashing into the energyless sand. If I'm wrong about you just say so and I'll use what energy is left to say I'm sorry.

    Posted by Lucem ferre at 06/26/2007 @ 3:40pm

  115. Hard to argue with that, Lucem, though I'm sure some will try.

    My hat is off to you.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/26/2007 @ 4:02pm

  116. Posted by LUCEM FERRE 06/26/2007 @ 3:40pm

    Actually, Doc Deci, I'll argue with it.

    Argue that LUCEM is ...not alone in this country, for his altruism and philanthropy. And if he had made mere mention of that in his screed, I'd have no problem with it.

    Instead it was a SELF-righteous rant on how "I'm doing good works, while ALL OF YOU aren't, so I'm entitled to call you on it and talk about how lousy this entire country is".

    Well, it isn't. There are LOTS of folks out there doing the good works that LUCEM FERRE is doing. Many not, it's true, and those cut across ALL sides of the political spectrum. But that doesn't detract from the fact that there are folks who are volunteering, helping at community centers, working with the poor, etc., etc.

    But you know what? Not all of them are pointing a finger at those who aren't (or aren't "doing enough" in their opinion) and claim some moral highground. Many try to ENCOURAGE others to join them, talk about all the folks who have joined them in that "good fight", and ask "Why not join us? It helps you as well as those you help!"...

    and DON'T take a self-righteous air or spew vitriole or make generic statements about the country as a whole.....

    atleast not until maybe they've reached a "burn-out" point, which may be what we have here.

    Posted by Mask at 06/26/2007 @ 4:18pm

  117. June 26, 2007

    Quote of the Day

    "Rate the task above the prize; will not the mind be raised? Fight thine own faults, not the faults of others; will not evil be mended?" – Confucius

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2007 @ 4:28pm

  118. Conshame,

    You should read the opininion in the Cheney v. US District Court, DC Circuit case.

    There, Cheney asserted "executive" privilege and won! You can only assert this privilege if you are part of the executive branch, so he will really look stupid now if he continues to claim he is not!

    From LA Times:

    In June the Court voted 7-2 that the vice president, at least for the present, did not have to turn over the secret details of his energy task force. The majority agreed with the administration's argument that private deliberations among the president, the vice president and their close advisers are entitled to special treatment under the constitutional principle of executive privilege.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/26/2007 @ 4:34pm

  119. Posted by MASK 06/26/2007 @ 4:18pm

    Perhaps when you are walking the walk, it's not a terrible thing to talk the talk?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/26/2007 @ 4:35pm

  120. "And the Bush/Cheney guys aren't stupid." -Mask. Start out with a false premise and build......what?

    Posted by brantl at 06/26/2007 @ 4:51pm

  121. Posted by CONSHAME 06/26/2007 @ 1:37pm

    Fricking hardly...and we damned sure don't want him

    Posted by METTEYYA 06/26/2007 @ 4:34pm

    So maybe now he will have to turn the transcript sof the meetings over to the Senate...after all he IS a legislator now, right?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/26/2007 @ 4:53pm

  122. Mask calls Dick Cheney, idiotic. Idiotic. Right there on post #1 of this thread. Its right there, people. Mask says he is idiotic. Well, Mask: YOU TELL ME, what page of the US Constitution does it say, "the VP is part of the Executive Branch"?

    I am waiting for one Cheney-hater to TAKE MY CHALLENGE. Where, in the US Constitution, what page? What page?

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 5:17pm

  123. The Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote in the US Senate!!!! Duh! And, Liberals never cite any, any, any Constitutional evidence of their position that he is, whatsoever.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 5:19pm

  124. It is Masks position, not the Vice Presidents, that deserves to be called what he said about Dick Cheney in his #1 post on page 1.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 5:20pm

  125. US Constitution. Page #. ...(silence... I thought so.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 5:21pm

  126. But... in article 1, it says and I quote, "the Vice President of the United States shall not be Executive". BAM! Ouch liberals, the truth hurts.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 5:25pm

  127. Cheney is basically the president and has been running things from the office of the vice president. The SOB can't hide behind the not being part of the executive office crap. I mean, isn't that what kept his fat ass out of the Libby proceedings? Was it not executive privelege that has been the excuse both he and Bush have been using during their stonewalling over the Department of Justice proceedings? From what has been going on, Bush and Cheney seem to be able to choose what laws they wish to follow and which ones they don't wish to follow. Once again, reverse the tables. Would you want a tree hugger in office pulling these secret meetings with the Sierra Club and "welfare recipients". Hey, the vice president could stage secret meetings with union reps, the gay crowd, the NAACP, pro-choice, atheists, and the list goes on and on to mortify the neocons. A true nightmare to Happy, Ponti and the rest of the Hitler Youth. The reason for the checks and balances in our government is so that no one branch can declare itself above the law and has someone looking over them. Now, we have Mr Dick and Mr Dick Jr. in there crapping out this horsesh*$ about how they know what is best for the country and we are to trust them. This is some serious roughage. They know what is best for Shell, Exon, Haliburton and the international business conglomerates. They could give a crap less whether or not Joe Blow makes it in the good old U.S. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding him or herself.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/26/2007 @ 5:25pm

  128. Liberal = Constitutionally Illiterate

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 5:30pm

  129. What again does cHeney legislate?

    Here are some of the words that popped up in my thesaurus:legally responsible, legal tender, legend, legible, legion, legitimacy, leg-puller, leisure.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2007 @ 5:34pm

  130. Liberal = Constitutionally Illiterate

    Posted by CONSHAME

    Hey Weiner Head, try reading this. This is under Article II of the executive branch. Since the vice president is mentioned, he must be part of this branch. Notice the word together? See below. He isn't the supposed to be the main man in the executive branch, but he is non-the-less part of the executive branch. How else would he be next in line to replace the president? So, now, who is the illiterate one?

    The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/26/2007 @ 5:43pm

  131. Article 2 does not say "the Vice President is part of the Executive Branch". Maybe Mask's copy says that. Maybe Happy's copy says that. The US version does not. And I have it here, and NOWHERE in Article 2, is that quotation found. Nowhere.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 6:03pm

  132. However, Article 1, DOES say, "the Vice President of the United States SHALL NOT be executive". FACT.

    Posted by conshame at 06/26/2007 @ 6:08pm

  133. Conshame, it is obvious that you did not go to law school.

    Article II, Section 4 calls for removal of office by impeachment "any member of the executive branch" and specifically names the Vice President as one of those members.

    Cheney should fire his attorney immediately since he clearly is not serving him well as a professional lawyer.

    Article II, Section 4 - Impeachment

    The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Persons Subject to Impeachment

    During the debate in the First Congress on the ''removal'' controversy, it was contended by some members that impeachment was the exclusive way to remove any officer of the Government from his post, (footnote omitted) but Madison and others contended that this position was destructive of sound governmental practice, (footnote omitted) and the view did not prevail. Impeachment, said Madison, was to be used to reach a bad officer sheltered by the President and to remove him ''even against the will of the President; so that the declaration in the Constitution was intended as a supplementary security for the good behavior of the public officers.'' (footnote omitted) The language of Sec. 4 does not leave any doubt that any officer in the executive branch is subject to the power; it does not appear that military officers are subject to it 753 nor that members of Congress can be impeached. (footnote omitted)

    Is Cheney trying to set us up to avoid impeachment?

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/26/2007 @ 8:03pm

  134. Posted by DR DECIBELS 06/26/2007 @ 4:35pm

    Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Dr. King....they walked the walk, but didn't rant about how much work they were putting in and how the rest of us were lazy slobs!

    Posted by Mask at 06/26/2007 @ 8:13pm

  135. Posted by CONSHAME 06/26/2007 @ 6:08pm

    So, uh, what is it? Trying to be ironic, sarcastic?

    Sorry, CS, humor is not your strong suit. Political Religion fervor isn't either, but it's your schtick.

    Here's what the ol' Connie says....

    Article One, Section 3, Clause 4---"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."

    Article Two, Section 1---"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows..."

    and then in Section 6---"In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."

    And as I noted, common sense says "He's in the Executive"....but there IS some "wiggle room" that a Roberts/Alito/Thomas/Scalia/+1 court might go for.

    Either way, he can be removed (expelled) as a member of the Senate or removed from office (Senate trial with impeachment) ONLY by a 2/3 majority of the US Senate.

    Rahm Emmanuel can force Cheney to accept ONLY his Senate office and $100K in funding....but Cheney could call Emmanuel's bluff....and pay the staff out of his own pocket.

    Posted by Mask at 06/26/2007 @ 8:29pm

  136. Oh please, you all are straining credulity. The answer consists of where the office originates and where qualifications are discussed. Article 1 discusses the structure and creation of congress, qualifications for election to congress and it says that ‘a' duty of the already established 'vp' is to act as president of the senate ‘w/no vote' other than to break a tie. Again the position of vp is created in article two where it discusses criteria for the position, which is the same as a president and same term-- not 2 years, not six years----- FOUR years. He can't preside over impeachment of the pres-- because of conflict of interest. A former president cannot be a vp, but a senator or congressperson can!!!! Wow I wonder why?

    For dumdums, does it say vice senator or vice congressperson has the duty as president of the senate--- NO-- it says vice PRESIDENT. What is the title in the house of reps? Do they have a 'president' of the house? NO. Oh duh. If the president, ‘may' veto a bill as one of his/her duties-- why doesn't that make the president part of the legislature? It's an interaction that's even more prominent than the rarity of breaking a tie in the senate-- and a hell of a lot more powerful; it literally nullifies all the work by that got the bill that far. Thus the president is also part of the legislature, right? NOPE. But that's same assbackwards logic as saying ‘a' duty determines the branch. Like saying if the supremes strike down a law as unconstitutional it then becomes part of the legislature…

    Has the supporters of new cons, servicers of dic'tator philosophy so divided us that we see no single government anymore? The branches were meant to interact as equals, not overstep their co-equal power.

    The only thing the interaction of the branches proves is that they are each part of the same government and meant to check and balance each others power in order to curb tyranny, TYRANNY.

    BTW when ‘hasn't' the lame ass-backwards hsuB/cHeney not lied and misled us about anything? And so many are just gullible enough to believe cHeney is clucking serious! Part of the reason he hides so much, apart from being a multi-deferment chicken-hawk, is that he makes shit up all the time and hides; hides and lies; lies and hides. He still lies about the war and here he is making up more shit and the gullible gobble it up like the little imprinted chicks you are. No wonder they keep fucking the constitution-- the public is so dumbed-down the hsuB/cHeney hopes we'll fall for anything--- ANYTHING.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2007 @ 10:47pm

  137. ER, it literally nullifies all the work 'by the legislature' that got the bill that far.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2007 @ 10:51pm

  138. The vp, in the senate, is an extention of the president's/executive office, and it's function to veto or sign legislation into law--- can everyone see the parallel? The senate works on a different level than the house and thus has the vp to break ties as the presidential/exec branch and thus called the president of the senate with it's limited duty. Yet the president has the ultimate say to veto or pass. They, pres/vp, are both clearly in the same exec branch.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2007 @ 11:07pm

  139. take the mofo down..... hard...

    Posted by davidraph at 06/26/2007 @ 11:20pm

  140. executive = ego (HD)

    legislature = thinking (ram)

    supremes = conscience (motherboard)

    we, the people = the body (moniter and key board)

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2007 @ 01:16am

  141. And the Bush/Cheney guys aren't stupid. They can figure this as well AND figure that if it goes to the USSC, that with Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas....ALL they need is one more Justice on their side to win.

    Posted by MASK

    You do dream, do you...the clock is ticking fast on these crooks...they won't have an opportunity to overturn this before their time is up (oh joy, oh bliss!), so it will happen, whether they try any legal wrangling with the help of their enablers on the Court. No, with passage, this is a done deal...Dick can say goodbye to his perks...legally...since we know that won't stop him...why would any law do that???

    Posted by MCE337 at 06/27/2007 @ 05:15am

  142. He'll win the Presidency.

    (can't you just feel the love...heheh)

    Posted by MASK

    You go from maniacal to psychopathic without stopping! Darth as President? I have a nice, very attractive jacket for you in a nice room full of rubber.

    Posted by MCE337 at 06/27/2007 @ 05:18am

  143. I have had similar reports from all over America, such as especially in MONTANA, where people told me repeadedly of sightings of these foreign troops in ALL BLACK, in the mountains surrounding cities such as BOZEMAN MT and other major cities in Montana, that "GREAT PATRIOT NWO RESISTERS STATE"....Posted by RESE

    RESE, Just how much crack have you been smoking? Why in the hell would the Russians have troops training with U.S. special forces to control the U.S. We've been talking about the constitution and whether or not Cheney is part of the executive branch and you come up with this? CONSHAME, what constitution have you been reading? Evidently you and Cheney share the same one. Maybe you've been reading the constitution that Cheney and Bush have blacked out similar to how they black out any damning evidence before they release it to public in the name of national security. I'll bet every criminal wishes they could pull a Dick Cheney. First, they get to the crime scene and destroy as much of the evidence as they see fit, and then, they get to tell the police which particular laws apply and don't apply to them, because they don't feel like having to be burdened by some of those pesky laws. What a deal. What's to stop these power hungry folks from just saying that the whole constitution really doesn't apply to them since it was written so long ago that the statute of limitations has run out...therefore, they declare themselves sole monarchs of the country and can do whatever they want....Oh, that's where the Russians come in, I see. So now we have to buy as many arms as possible to defend ourselves against the Russians?! Uh oh, now I'm starting to sound like RSE.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/27/2007 @ 08:20am

  144. Posted by CONSHAME 06/26/2007 @ 1:44pm

    If he isn't an Executive, then I don't suppose he needs all that "Executive privilege" he's always claiming, right? Guess we'll start seeing all his paperwork released - as he's just a humble legislator and all.

    As to the VP being an Executive..the choosing of the POTUS and VP are clearly outlined under Article 2 - The Executive Branch. So the reason no one is debating you is that there is no basis for the claim. That is why the entire nations is laughing at it, and anyone who believes it.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/27/2007 @ 10:33am

  145. Posted by CONSHAME 06/26/2007 @ 6:03pm

    Likewise, it doesn't say the POTUS is an Executive either - but the fact that the job description falls under Article 2 kinda says it all...

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/27/2007 @ 10:35am

  146. nice editorial on Darth Cheney:

    http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005115817

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/27/2007 @ 12:19pm

  147. Everyone -

    CONSHAME is joking around.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/27/2007 @ 12:33pm

  148. Thanks Dr. Decibels. Hi MASK, how are you today. I'm not going to fight with you over your comments because, although they did not represent me or my words accurately, they were rather gentle in nature and quite non hostile, which I appreciated. On the other hand, I do have to respond in some way to clear some of those comments up.

    Everyone who has become as "popular" as "Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Dr. King...." has not only walked the walk but been so controversial and so outspoken about negatives in the world that it would be hard not to think of them as putting others down, and as people who, at least occasionally, "tooted their own horns." But there's nothing wrong with that. However, if you do good works simply for that reason, you're probably an egotistical person who has few true friends, yet the people you help might not care because at least you're helping and they're benefiting. Someone like Donald Trump comes to mind here. i'm sure he's given lots to lots of people yet his apparent arrogance is really hard to take so I say, so what! Don't like him but love what he does.

    In my case, since I use the name Lucem ferre, and only my closest friends know who Lucem ferre is, and none of them read this stuff because i don't tell them I'm writing here, there is no way I can receive credit for anything I "bragged" about yesterday. However, if I were to reveal my true name, where I'm from and perhaps other details that would give people a clue as to who I am, then your comments might reflect a more accurate depiction of me.

    As for blasting the rest of the country for not doing good things and bitching (of course i'm paraphrasing), I never blasted everyone, i simply speculated about you and others who bitch and tried to express the idea that those who bitch and do noting to make a real difference are useless. In response, I saw no ones resume that included things they've done, and if i had, they would not have been the folks I was (blasting) speaking about.

    No one is calling anyone a lazy slob. I'm simply responding to the fact that when someone takes a passive agressive shot at me like you did with the energy piece, I'll respond a little harder and more directly.

    Posted by Lucem ferre at 06/27/2007 @ 12:52pm

  149. Posted by MCE337 06/27/2007 @ 05:18am

    MCE...I was talking to HSUB about....Al Gore! Not Cheney. Read the whole thing, ditzoid!

    Posted by Mask at 06/27/2007 @ 1:06pm

  150. Posted by LUCEM FERRE 06/27/2007 @ 12:52pm

    "lucem ferre"- Latin term for "bringer of light", deriving the name "Lucifer".

    Also the name of a MySpace blogger from Idaho into heavy metal.

    (aint Google great?)

    My hit on your original posts and "adrenaline-powered cars" was just a joke on the rampant posting and "high energy" (maybe shrill?) tone of them.

    My second hit was based on the fact that you seem to be saying "Look at me! I am doing all these wonderful things and can hold myself as superior to you guys who DARED mock my 'energy'"

    Well, as I said, altruism is not a "get out jail free" card for being able to say any and everything you want. If you do all those good works, good for you...need more like you. But tone down the EGO a bit and try to develop a sense of humor about yourself!

    Posted by Mask at 06/27/2007 @ 1:11pm

  151. Go to this site and watch the video. AMAZING STUFF http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/june2007/240607Goats.htm

    Posted by Lucem ferre at 06/27/2007 @ 11:43pm

  152. lucem ferre"- Latin term for "bringer of light", deriving the name "Lucifer".

    also, another name for "Bright and Morning Star" which was the term used by a much more attractive (to most anyway) mythological character than Lucifer, in the holy book. Jesus called himself the "Bright and Morning Star," a clear reference to being Lucifer or perhaps the low sitting morning star Venus who rises first in the sky but never reaches the height of the (Sun or Son or God).

    Check out the last chapter in the book of Revelations and you'll see Jesus refer to himself as Lucifer. Funny thing about that book called the bible, when looked at closely, all kinds of interesting things pop out at you, but are you ready to see them for what they are?

    only once in the entire two books, old and new testaments, is Lucifer referenced by name and in no way is he ever referred to as the devil or satan, as the jews did not nor do they believe in hell or lucifer. the name lucifer was put into the book of Isaiah (i think around ch. 14 vs 12 or close to there anyway) in or about 300 or 400 AD by a Catholic named St. Jerome i believe. It's a latin word not Hebrew, therefore, it could not have been put into Isaiah by the original writers of that book.DUH! but what christian really wants to know this about their religion? there was no lucifer in the old testament and other than christ calling himself the definition of Lucifer in Revelations, there is no other legitimate place for Lucifer to exist other than in the the form of the man/god who called himself the messiah or Jesus.

    But I digress and have gotten off the topic of the other insanity i was speaking about, our system of corruption and hypocricy in America. But then again, it's easy for me to see the parallels between them and how and why we're so screwed up as a people when our religion is such a hoot. Denial is beautiful baby. the greatet protector on the planet. denial about iraq, about 9-11, about Bush, Clinton, and the rest of these yahoos running our country. Does anyone care that Bush senior was best friends with Hinkley's father? Does anyone care that Bush senior has been on the payroll of the Messiah Reverened Moon and flew to South America to help Mr. Moonie open up a Spanish version of the Washinton Times. Yes, the Moonies own the Washington times. Does anyone care that Ruport Murdock, mr. family values in America puts naked women in his paper in Europe and owns a European tv show where the goal is to get two people (male and female of course because he hates homos) to have sex live on television? Wake up folks, this is real. Check out the site below and have fun watching our leaders and future leaders squirm when questioned about 9-11. I hope it opens from here but if not, just copy and paste it.

    http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/june2007/240607Goats.htm

    Posted by Lucem ferre at 06/28/2007 @ 12:12am

  153. HMAN, CONSHAME

    Oooops....my bad

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/28/2007 @ 10:18am

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Bill Moyers Tells a Tale of Two Quagmires: Vietnam & Afghanistan | "Once again, the loudest case for enlarging the war is being made by those who will not have to fight it..."
John Nichols
Posted 40 minutes ago

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
58 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» Editor's Cut

An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
58 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
204 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
61 Comments