Falling all over george w with glorious grins and puffs salivating over the ‘heroic’ flight suit clown as he bounced around on the deck of the USS A Lincoln and cherping on how ‘girls’ like a guy who looks like a hero puts him in a whole new and different catagory. ‘Tweety’ does not go far or deep enough.

Gerald Ford started off with a 70% approval rating when he stepped in to the Presidency…but that dropped 35% after the Pardon.

Nixon/Ford Approval Ratings

I suspect that any action by Bush to pardon his cronies or destroy records will be met with attacks on the only dogs associated with him…Republicans in Congress. The way to do this is to insist on “post-incumbency impeachment” – which would ban those “pardoned” and exempt from criminal prosecution- to be banned forever from holding any government position, receiving their pensions, being able to have the power to subsequently act as the “retired officer” (e.g. non-incumbent Presidents still have access to some powers and benefits that could be stripped). They or companies they work for could be forbidden to receive government contracts, grants or licenses (bye-bye to all those lucrative media jobs). They could be banned from lobbying Congress or the Executive regarding any actions that deal with benefits from the Federal government.

They would truly become the “private individuals” that they claimed that they were…how ironic.

http://www.salon.com/news/feat…..ommission/

But few think prosecutions are realistic, given the formidable legal hurdles and the huge policy problems competing for Obama’s attention. … Some observers outside the Obama camp are also questioning how much Democrats really want exposed with regard to interrogation, since top Democrats in Congress were briefed in secret on some of the harshest tactics used by the CIA and appear to have done little, or perhaps nothing, to stop them.

Further complicating the Obama team’s planning is uncertainty about what President Bush might do. On the one hand, a blanket pardon for anyone involved in the interrogations could be viewed by the public as a tacit admission of colossal wrongdoing — after years of public denial — which would do nothing to help Bush’s tarnished legacy. Yet, if the administration fears an investigation will follow Bush out the door in January, they may not want to leave officials exposed to potentially revealing criminal proceedings. Bush might seek to frame a blanket pardon as a preemptive strike against wrongheaded, partisan retribution.
Constitutional scholars say a pardon of this kind would be an unprecedented move — the prospective pardon of not just individuals but entire categories of people, perhaps numbering in the thousands, for carrying out the president’s orders , which the White House has argued all along were legal.

…
A blanket pardon from Bush could cover, for example, anyone who participated in, had knowledge of, or received information about Bush’s interrogation program during the so-called war on terror. Not only are there potentially too many people to name without risking missing somebody, but some of the names are presumably classified.

It’s a good article, but the whole thing doesn’t really lend itself to a mag size article.

Protect our country…protect the world..Take them out of play.

Refocusing the Impeachment Movement on Administration Officials Below the President and Vice-President:
Why Not Have A Realistic Debate, with Charges that Could Actually Result in Convictions?
By JOHN W. DEAN
Friday, Dec. 15, 2006
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061215.html

When Libby is pardoned can he practice law again?
When Libby is pardoned does that make him more vulnerable to being held accountable by Plame/Wilson?

That’s Lady Macbeth, though. Not sure who is playing Lady Macbeth in this production.

The difference being substantial, had the Founders had intended the term in the pardons clause to be engaged by as little as a vote in the HJC, they would not have left such a strong impression of intending otherwise.

That writ down, it’s not as if the issue has ever come before the courts, or indeed more than a few of the many interesting and important issues this controversial power suggests. Moreover there are two critical dispositions to be considered, each of which suggests ‘twould not be skirted now:

- that of the current SCOTUS, and
- that of current POTUS-elect.

To borrow from Shakespeare’s words for Macbeth, respectively:

If it were done, when ’tis done, then ‘twer well, It were done correctly

and

If it were done, when ’tis done, then ‘twer well, It were done without avoidable drama.

ANCHORAGE – Something stinks. Not just an ordinary low tide smell. Not like something you’d blame on the dog. It smells like an infection. For me to plug my nose, I’d have to overlook some curious facts.

In Alaska, more people voted for George W. Bush in 2004 than for Sarah Palin on Tuesday despite an identical 61-36 margin of victory. Yes. Only four years ago 54,304 Alaskans got off their sofas and voted for Bush, but decided to sit home and not vote for Palin in 2008.

In turn, I have to ignore the 30,520 Alaskans who felt progressive enough in 2004 to vote for John Kerry, but weren’t inspired enough to get out and vote for Barack Obama.

I would have to glance past the 1,700% increase in the Democratic caucus in February, the 20,991 newly registered voters, and the three largest political rallies in Alaska’s history.

I would also have to forget the people I stood in a long line with to early vote. It would be helpful not to know every other presidential election since Alaska began keeping records has had a larger turn out than the one we just had with our own Governor on the ticket. Try not to remember 12.4% more Alaskans showed up for the August primary as compared to four years ago, before the Palin nomination. Don’t think about the Lower 49’s record voter turn out this year either. Try to delete the memory file, though difficult, that 80% of us approved of Sarah Palin just two months ago.
…
Four years ago, 313,592 out of 474,740 registered voters in Alaska participated in the election — a 66% turnout. Taking into account 49,000 outstanding ballots, on Tuesday 272,633 out of 495,731 registered Alaskans showed up at the polls; a turnout of 54.9%. That’s a decrease of more than 11% in voter turnout even though passions ran high for and against Obama, as well as for and against Sarah Palin! This year, early voters set a new record. As of last Thursday, with 4 days left for early voting, 15,000 Alaskans showed up-shattering the old record set in 2004 by 28%!

Consider the most popular governor in history-and now the most polarizing-was on the Republican ticket. Consider the historic nature of this race; the first African American presidential candidate EVER! The second woman to ever make a presidential ticket; and she’s one of our own. Despite that, we’re supposed to believe that overall participation DECREASED by 11%. Not only that, but this historic election both nationally and for Alaska HAD THE LOWEST ALASKA TURNOUT FOR A PRESIDENTIAL RACE EVER!!! That makes sense. REALLY??? Something stinks.

But wait, there’s more…

Pre-election polls had both Mark Begich-D and Ethan Berkowitz-D solidly beating incumbents Senator Ted Stevens and Congressman Don Young by at least 6-10 points.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6644