Cross Posted at Legal Schnauzer

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman has repeatedly criticized Republicans in the Bush Administration for politicizing the United States Justice Department.

But yesterday at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Siegelman criticized Democrats who allowed it to happen.

Yeah.

Let's go there.

Let's attack John McCain specifically on his POW status.

Let's take a page from Karl Rove's playbook.  The page specifically with the tactic of taking your opponent's strength and turning it into a weakness.

Follow the fold to find some specifics.

I am not anybody special, just a average citizen, but one who pays some attention to what's going on in this country.  I was watching Hillary give her speech tonight and listening to Keith and Chris talk and replay parts afterward and I noticed something several times.  Michelle Obama seemed more serious tonight than usual. I started wondering what was bothering her as I didn't think it was Hill's speech.  I then thought of the weird dudes that were arrested yesterday in Denver.  After just a little searching I found these articles and websites online, listed below.

A bit troubling to say the least.

Rove and Mukasey are heavily involved with the US attorney Troy Eid in Denver who was/is in charge of the Obama case originally and who has said that the attempt on Obama's life was just a threat and not an actual assasination plot.

If you believe like I do, you believe that the universe (or, perhaps God) is on the side of Justice.  However, stories like former Alabama governor Don Siegelman's make you wonder.

I heard Siegelman's case again today on Rhandy Rhodes' radio program.  His illegal prosecution and irrational sentencing have been traced to our favorite Republican wank - Karl Rove.  

More below...

Cross Posted at Legal Schnauzer

Anyone who has closely followed the Paul Minor story in Mississippi might think it impossible for the case to become even more riven with politics than it already was.

But anyone making that assumption would have been wrong.

On August 15, Judge Priscilla Owen of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court ruling that denied Minor release from federal prison pending appeal. And to whom does Owen pretty much owe her career? Why, none other than Karl Rove, the former Bush strategist who is alleged to have been behind the Minor prosecution from the outset.

Thanks to Larisa Alexandrovna and Lindsay Beyerstein at Raw Story, we learn how legally and ethically questionable it was for Owen to be involved in a decision on the Minor appeal.

Raw Story

Word from sources that Federal District Judge John Bates has denied the White House the stay it sought in the House Judiciary Committee's suit to enforce its contempt of Congress citations against Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten.

Bates' opinion, while ostensibly dealing with the Miers and Bolten cases, was clearly written with the Karl Rove contempt freshly in mind as well.

Without the stay in place, Miers and Bolten are under court order to appear before the House Judiciary Committee for questioning in connection with the dismissals of the U.S. Attorneys. No such order is currently in place for Rove, but Bates was clear in his reasoning that Rove would have even less grounds for any refusal to appear than Miers and Bolten ever did, since the White House has never actually asserted any executive privilege claims with respect to Rove's testimony. Miers and Bolten, though, would technically still be in compliance with the order if they agreed to appear, but asserted the same claims of executive privilege in person that they did in letters from their attorneys before. Rove, if he continues to refuse to appear, would undoubtedly find himself subject to a court order to appear. But he's not under one now.

Living in Republican Crazytown as we do, we still have to ask the question, "What if?"

What if Rove refuses to take the hint? Or for that matter, what if he refuses to appear, has a court order entered against him, and refuses anyway? Or if Miers and/or Bolten do the same?

Then we face the question that has always been at the bottom of this issue: can Article III force Article II to appear before Article I? Or more specifically, can Article III order Article II to arrest itself and bring it before Article I?

What will Bates do if his order is defied? And how much patience will he have with continued gamesmanship -- e.g., an appearance before the committee that nonetheless produces questionable claims of executive privilege, or the entirely ridiculous "absolute immunity" claims Rove has made? Given that Bates was clearly factoring in the time limitations of Congressional subpoenas in his earlier opinion, he'll have to come down on Miers/Bolten/Rove like a ton of bricks if he wants to stay true to his ruling.

We'll see.

Everyone's saying the Dems have to attack McCain to win. It's unfortunate, but I believe it's true. Here are a few ideas for how to do a Rove-esque attack on McCain and use his so-called advantage, experience, against him. Obama's positivism is encouraging though, so this also contains ideas for how to nuance the attacks a little to make them sound more positive and on the Obama message, even though they're quite incisive.

Of course, I believe that the first thing Obama should do is stand up and tell the country that he wanted to have a positive campaign, and McCain agreed to, but lied, so now Obama has no choice but to fight back, tooth and nail, against the slanderous attacks on his image. He could also mention that McCain has stooped to attacking because he doesn't have anything to say...but that's another story. Read more for my idea on how to specifically target McCain's greatest strength.

All the hand-wringers and concern trolls must not understand what real change is.  This isn't merely another election; this isn't just about the next 4 years (hopefully 8 years); this isn't about "winning".  We are trying to do something different this time around, something remarkable, something unique in the history of politics: we are trying to win without being divisive.  In order to truly change the nature of politics, we cannot imitate the Republicans (the Party), using rovian (I refuse to capitalize) tactics to achieve victory; such a victory would be hallow and worthless. We must not become the "enemy" in order to beat the "enemy"; the end does not (and rarely does) justify the means.

[Please note: "enemy" does not refer to Republicans in general, but to the likes of Karl Rove, people who will do anything to gain power; there are plenty of his ilk in the Democratic Party as well

In watching the adorable family moment tonight with all of the Obamas--and it wouldn't be a picture-perfect moment if the youngest child didn't completely steal the show out from everybody--I was struck by a random thought: can McCain even offer something similar?

I believe it's a relevant question: we all know about his second wife's reluctance to even mention her own half-sisters, and her own insistence that she was an only child at her father's funeral. But can McCain even bring his entire family on stage for this convention?

In particular, the person I'm thinking of is Bridget, their adopted daughter from Bangladesh. I suspect a substantial portion of the GOP "base" would not be so thrilled to see a "brown" person on stage with the McCains. Of course, I also don't see how they could leave her out of a family moment like that without earning some coverage in the press. (Of course, this would then probably turn into an even bigger story, because it's the kind of "gotcha" moment what passes for the press loves these days.)  

Via Greg Sargent at Talking Point Memo, I see the McCain campaign (a.k.a. the kinder, gentler lynch mob) is ramping up the volume on its guilt-by-association campaign linking Obama to retired Weatherman Bill Ayers -- and dispensing with its false flag operation in the process.

From McCain spokesperson Brian Rogers:

"The fact that Barack Obama chose to launch his political career at the home of an unrepentant terrorist raises more questions about Senator Obama's judgment than any TV ad ever could . . ." etc. etc.

More of that "civil," "respectful" campaign McCain promised -- respecful as in, "we will respectfully tear that uppity you-know-what's face clean off his head."

But, unlike most of McRove's spitball volleys (like his vapid Obama-is-a-celebrity ads) this one actually interests me, because I'm curious to see if a slur so hopelessly retro still has some juice left in it.

Last week Kagro X posted an item regarding Karl Rove's weak attempt  at spinning John McCain's mathematical adventures in house counting. Rove claimed on Fox News that by mocking this gaffe, Obama was actually in effect "attacking" John McCain's wife, since the houses in question also belong to Cindy McCain, and were bought with her money. Rove went on to essentially claim that this meant Obama had no business complaining about the treatment his wife was getting in the campaign. (Kargo X linked the video if you're having trouble believing it)

You'd think that this was really stretching it, even for Rove and the concern trolls on the right, but then that would mean overlooking the fact that they have Sean Hannity on their side. Today on his radio show, (ironically after taking another shot at Michelle Obama), Hannity showed that he got the memo from Rove. In summing up what viewers would see at the convention this week, Hannity noted that we will see lots of references to John AND Cindy McCain's houses. Not "John McCain's houses", or even "the McCain's houses", but rather John "AND CINDY's" houses.

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

What is black and white and read all over?  Associated Press reports written by the "respectable" albeit some would say disreputable Ron Fournier.  Few Journalists foment interest in this Presidential election in the way this whimsical writer does.  His prose is not dry.  Detachment does not define the Washington Bureau Chief.  Conventional standards, set by the information industry, might label this laudable lackey as less than logical.  For logic is rarely found in flaming rhetoric.  Fournier describes his approach as “accountability journalism” and “liberating . . . the truth,” as well it should be.

It probably is impossible to fully understand the nuttiness of the George W. Bush administration without regularly checking out what's going on in the deep red states of Alabama and Mississippi.

We long have called Alabama "Ground Zero" for the Bush Justice Department scandal, primarily because of the Don Siegelman prosecution and Karl Rove's major role in converting state courts to Republican control in the 1990s.

Thanks to two unfolding events in Mississippi, the Magnolia State might be pulling into a first-place tie with Alabama for the Ground Zero title

In a democratic republic, the vote of the citizenry is tantamount to the voice of the people. Combined with a free press and an informed public, a democracy "of, by and for the People" is very achievable. Thus, gaming the system becomes a goal and objective of those who know that an informed public would choose to reject leaders and plans that don't serve the nation. Accusations of voter fraud, manipulation and "caging" -- as well as compromised voting tallies -- ebb and flow throughout the election process, ranging from substantive and verifiable to borderline (and "over the line") conspiracy theories.

The danger in complacency is that, when some elements normally relegated to overblown conspiracy theory conjecture begin to take on new form and accumulate mounting evidence, there is a tendency toward lethargy and it becomes more difficult to enact, to ensure and to protect the integrity of the process.  Accountability becomes dead or dormant.

Are we there now, already, or is there still life enough in the nation to fight the apathy and take steps to ensure the security of the voice of the People?

The Great Republican Wizard, Karl Rove, fails to summon anything even remotely resonant:

Rove: Remember the indignation that Senator Obama had when he said, 'They're attacking my wife. I'm never going to attack Cindy McCain.' Well, the issue is what does Mrs. McCain own? These homes are not Senator McCain's. They're Senator McCain's and Mrs. McCain's, bought with Mrs. McCain's money. So he's now done what he said was abso... I mean, he was horrified. There's going to be an article out, an interview with him out here this month, that's next month, where he just says, 'Don't ever attack my wife.' Well, he's now attacking John McCain's wife.

(h/t: jedreport.com)

Hahaha! What a "genius" that Karl Rove is! The old "hide in the hoop skirts" strategy! What a winner for the War Hero!^TM

You know, this is a man who hid behind only one skirt for five years. In prison!

Rove can't even deliver the line coherently without betraying what a stretch it is: "These homes are not Senator McCain's. They're Senator McCain's and Mrs. McCain's."

Gulp!

I mean, but... they were bought with her money!

Yeah, whatever!

But if you think that's ridiculous, try this b.s. excuse from Powerline on for size:

I can relate, though. For example, if a reporter asked me how many ties I own, there's no way I could answer. Just like McCain, I'd tell him he has to ask my wife. Likewise if someone wants to know how many Wii games my kids have.

Bahahaha! Yeah, sure! Millions of normal Americans are just like you! Ties, Wii games, houses. Whatever!

And if anybody ever asked me how many ties I owned, I'd say, "I'll go count them." Not, "I'll have my people call your people."

What asshattery.

Blog o' th' Year!

The wheels are coming off the Wingnut Mobile. Should have inflated 'em when we told you!

Moral of the story: Republicans are Not Like You. No Republican nominee in recent history has been any different, and it's foolish to think this one will be.

This is not hard to grasp. I mean, when have Republicans ever been for, by and of anything other than money? It should come as no surprise that John McCain is no different. Nor that their defenses have to be this ridiculous. It's because even they know they lose if they just tell it like it is: "We're rich and you're not, and we aim to keep it that way."

Politics 101. Everyone knows it. And now YouTube has it on video.

Lost in all the excitement over McCain's houses (note, BTW, that the $13MM or so in real estate is likely only about 10% of the McCains' wealth) is this: A pattern is emerging in the Obama campaign's tactics.  It's a pattern that looks extremely promising to me.  The tactic is simplicity itself, and as anti-Rovian as possible, since it exploits, not McCain's strengths, but a fundamental weakness.

Here's the deal: John McCain cannot stay on message.

When I first heard this story it sent me reminiscing about the bad old days of the Bush/Kerry race.

CBS/ AP) A threatening letter containing an unidentified white powder was received at John McCain's campaign offices in Denver, Colorado, CBS News has learned.

A second letter sent to a McCain campaign office in New Hampshire initially was reported to contain a white substance. Authorities said that was a false alarm and there was no powder in that envelope.

This seems to have the characteristics of a Karl Rovian tactic; but then, Democrats are now on the Karl Rove Dirty Tricks Watch alert (KRDTW).

"To say that American politics, 50 years ago, 60 years ago, 100 years, or 200 years ago was this high-brow debate is just simply wrong," Goldstein says. "The Declaration of Independence is a negative ad, outlining a bunch of gripes we had with the British. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were negative politics. The major reason Abraham Lincoln did not use negative ads was that TV didn't exist. If it did exist, he would have."
Negative campaign ads contribute to a healthy democracy, political scientist argues; http://www.news.wisc.edu/... Jan. 14, 2008 by Dennis Chaptman and Kenneth Goldstein UW-Madison.

When you begin to think that the current campaigns are negative note the following history: