Are the super-rich sure this is what they want?

If the Bush Administration policy ethic were boiled down to just two essential common denominators, they would have to be the following:

1. The pursuit of unchecked executive power; and

2. An obsessive compulsion to funnel money to the ultra-rich

We've seen the income inequality graphs.  We've seen the outrageous tax giveaways to the ultra-rich.  We've seen Darth Cheney's unprecedented power grabs for the executive branch in everything from Bush's signing statements to his disgusting and probably permanent perversion of the Justice Department.

At first glance, the objective of this dual-pronged attack on decency and moral values may seem self-evident.  After all, in the minds of the neoconservatives and their allies in the top .001% of American income holdiers, the calculus is simple enough:

-- Money = political victory

-- More money for the rich = more political victory for the rich

-- More executive power = more ability to enforce, secretly and openly, policies favoring the rich

-- More executive power = greater ability to exploit the wealth/cheap labor of foreign nations, using the poor as cannon fodder.

And certainly, that formula has worked well for the economic elites at least since Reagan, if not long before that.

But if there is one single identifiable third pillar of the Bush Administration policy ethic, it would have to be shortsightedness.  Neoconservatives and Bushites have a tendency not to recognize the enormity of disasters and blowback situations until it is far too late for them to free themselves from the ensuing debacle.  They're like a sabertooth cat leaping after a rodent in a tar pit: so enthralled with engorging themselves on their latest small-time victim that they fail to realize the mess they're getting themselves into.  We've seen this with Iraq; with Afghanistan; with Katrina; with the DoJ scandal; with Rovian politics of destruction; with global warming; and with the disaffection of the very allies we need to extricate our Middle East position.

They simply don't realize the monsters and nightmares of their own making until it is too late to save their reputations and often their own hides.

And I wonder strongly if they aren't making the same mistake by attempting to gain unbridled executive power in order to further engorge their already fat pockets.  After all, modern dictatorships--especially those in countries with widening income disparities and populist leanings--rarely turn out well for the rich.  This is not only true throughout the world, but also here in America.

America has a strong populist tradition dating from the gilded age of the late 1800's, if not before.  Whenever income disparity has grown to the degrees that it has in 2007, America has responded with aggressive populist presidents who often wield an uncomfortable degree of executive power to reign in the wealthy and redistribute income.

It happened with Bull Moose Teddy Roosevelt in the era of the robber barons.  It happened with his nephew Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who stacked the courts and became essentially President For Life in the wake of Hoover's Great Depression.  There's an argument to be made that it even happened with Abraham Lincoln, who used an uncomfortable degree of executive power to end slavery.  Unchecked executive power, while a hallmark of Nixonite conservative wetdreams, has rarely worked well for the aristocratic elite in America.

Nor has it worked terribly well throughout the world in the latter years.  Populist dictatorships are rarely friendly to maintaining wealth among elites.  One has only to look at Chavez in Venezuela; Kirchner in Argentina; Morales in Bolivia; even back to Vargas in Brazil or the wealth confiscations of wealth in the wake of Islamic Iranian revolution against the shah.

If anything, unchecked executive power in the modern era usually leads to confiscations of the wealth of elites.  It has also done so throughout the bulk of American history.

So, if I were in the upper .001% of income in the United States, I would be deeply concerned about the Bush Administration's policies set up to help my cause so generously.  In fact, if I were a wealthy elite, the very LAST thing I would want is to see institutionally mandated monarchical executive power in tandem with another million or five in my pocket.  Because I would know that severe blowback was not likely to be far behind.

But then again, I never did credit Bush or his allies with a great degree of foresight.

Impeachment on a Silver Platter--No Strings Attached!

What an extraordinary gift Bush has given the Democratic Party and the American People. For months if not years, Democrats and Progressives have wrung our hands and beaten our heads against the wall: should we move to impeach? Whom, exactly, should we impeach? How can we do it? On what grounds? Will the American people stand with us, or against us? Above all, how can we do it without making Republicans look like the victims of a partisan witch hunt?

These have been vexing questions: practical considerations of politics and process have hampered the morally imperative drive to hold this Administration accountable. Simply submitting articles of impeachment for crimes and scandals would, unfortunately, stink of partisan witchhunts. As I argued in my Dragged Against my Will... post, it would take a Constitutional Crisis of epic proportions (such as I originally envision signing statements being) to make impeachment proceedings a feasible reality. It would have to be not just a question of accountability or morality, but of the very future of the Legislative Branch as a government entity co-equal in standing with that of the Executive.

Thankfully for Democrats, the American People and the United States Constitution, George Bush's recalcitrance, petulance, and extraordinary loyalty to his corrupt cronies have already answered all those vexing questions for us. Rather than our bringing the confrontation to him, George Bush is bringing the confrontation of Constitutional crisis to us.

As anyone who has been paying attention knows from Bush's petulant press conference today, the Administration is doing no less than inviting upon themselves a governmental power struggle unseen since the days of Abraham Lincoln and his unilateral suspension of habeas corpus. The key quote is here:

The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse. I hope they don't choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.

What Bush wants, of course, is the right to have his aides lie through their teeth in private, un-recorded sessions with no transcripts (i.e., no accountability). Elsewise, what could possibly be the difference between testifying under oath and testifying privately? As the conservatives so often say, "if you've got nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?"

He can't afford to have his aides tell the truth under oath, because then his whole staff--from Rove to Miers to Gonzales to many others--would fall. And that's just on the Justice Department firings business alone. But as Kagro X so effectively points out, this business goes far beyond the attorney scandal:

Realize that the resolution of this stand-off will determine the extent to which the Congress is able to investigate everything that's still on their plate. If they lose this showdown, they lose their leverage in investigating NSA spying, the DeLay/Abramoff-financed Texas redistricting, Cheney's Energy Task Force, the political manipulation of science, the Plame outing... everything.

And that's why Bush is playing it this way. Remember, too, that his "administration" is populated by Watergate and Iran-Contra recidivists, chief among them Dick Cheney, who has wanted to relitigate the boundaries of executive power since forever. Cheney and others on the inside believe that this time, with a friendlier judiciary, these issues can be decided the "right" way, overturning the victories won against Richard Nixon's insane theories of executive power.

Their thinking is that they'll either win it in courts, or run out the clock trying.

And the day they get five Justices to say they're right, everything you thought you knew about checks and balances becomes wrong.

There is, of course, another option: the highest court in the land--even above the Supreme Court. That court is the U.S. Congress--the final recourse for the American People to wrangle and hold accountable an out-of-control president. If the President refuses to obey subpoenas; if the attorneys in their back pockets refuse to prosecute; and the courts they have stacked refuse to convict--then impeachment is the final and ONLY recourse for justice.

It must be remembered here that BushCo always had two options in dealing with all these issues--even after perpetrating their crimes on the American people: they could
1) take the money and power, run, claim executive privilege and plausible deniability, let their subordinates take the fall, and slink out of office in 2009 as the most scandal-ridden and inept administration in history; or
2) choose to officially turn the American constitutional republic into a quasi-dictatorship by refusing to give ground and fundamentally altering the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches.

The first option would have harmed the Republican party for a while--but also allowed them to paint themselves as victims of partisan witchhunts, while letting a new fresh face emerge from the field in 2008 or 2012 to revitalize the Conservative movement.

The second option would lead inevitably to an epic showdown leading to impeachment proceedings and, should impeachment fail, the disenfrachisement of the legislative branch regardless of party control, with the end result in Authoritariansim either way.

Had the Republicans chosen option #1, they could have avoided impeachment proceedings.

Since, however, they have chosen option #2, they cannot POSSIBLY avoid impeachment proceedings unless Democrats in congress show a complete lack of spine.

What is more, Republicans in the House and Senate will not necessarily oppose us on impeachment when it comes to this issue: they can see the handwriting on the wall; they can see that Bush is leaving them out to dry; and they will not easily fall in line to play pawns for a lame-duck administration willing to go balls-out to strip those very congressional republicans of their own checks and balances to help them stop President Hillary, Obama or what-have-you. Furthermore, they will be less and less likely to want to defend Bush and his cronies as the ugliness of other impending scandals and investigations begins to unfold over the coming months.

In sum, Bush has given us every possible political cover and excuse for impeaching him, on an issue for which he has little to no congressional support among Republicans. It's wrapped up in a neat little package with a bowtie. It is, frankly, a generous gift to our Party, our Nation, and our Constitution.

All we need is the courage to open it.

CORRECTED Kyle Sampson didn't resign--he was REASSIGNED by Gonzales

N.B. In the original diary, I claimed that Rove had to do with Sampson's reassignment. I have NO idea where I got that idea. He may well have been, but the article didn't actually say that. I read the article, and for some reason gleaned Karl Rove's involvement from it. That is apparently a figment of my imagination...it's all Gonzales. My apologies--the point, however, remains the same...

These people just don't get it: even as reports arrive that Gonzales is about to be fired, and that it may take place in spite of Bush's stubborn loyalty to his lackey, and Tony Snow is now backtracking on the idea that Harriet Miers originally suggested the idea of firing the attorneys, claiming that ""At this juncture, people have hazy memories" (!), these Administration criminals still don't understand the severity of the scandal they have gotten themselves into.

Karl Rove et al. just believe that this scandal will just blow over, and that not even the heads of the little guys have to roll.

Don't believe me? Well, check out this report from Think Progress: Gonzales Gave Kyle Sampson New Justice Dept. Office After His Supposed ‘Resignation’.

That is, after a very public "resignation", Karl Rove Gonzales simply reassigned his criminal little lackey into a different position in a different office of the Justice Department--and figured he would get away with it. As Think Progress reports:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales planned to install his former aide Kyle Sampson as a lawyer in the Justice Department’s environment division even after Sampson’s “resignation,” NPR reported today.

Media outlets have reported this week that Sampson, Gonzales’ ex-chief of staff, resigned over the U.S. Attorney scandal on Monday. But as ThinkProgress noted, Gonzales on Tuesday made vague remarks during his press conference indicating that Sampson was still on the department payroll. “His transition — as a technical matter, he is at the Department as he transitions out and looks for another employment."

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, Karl Rove Alberto Gonzales must have enormous balls. Maybe it was his ability to escape the Valerie Plame business unscathed. Maybe it was the fact that he remained in his position in the WH after his dismal failure in orchestrating the 2006 elections. Maybe it was his ability to get away with all the rest of his dirty tricks during his career. Perhaps he believes that there really is no such thing as accountability. Regardless of the reason, however, Karl Rove apparently feels that not only will Gonzales' head not roll for this horrific abuse of government power, and not only will his or Harriet Miers' heads not roll for it--not even the people whose heads have already rolled for it need necessarily be off the Justice Department payroll. Gonzales just figured he would roll Sampson's head a short distance down the hall wihtout even knocking over any bowling pins...

Apparently, however, Alberto Gonzales has recently been feeling a little too much heat to be entirely comfortable wih that--but even he tried to hedge his bets.

In fact, Gonzales “started to set up a new office for Sampson” in the Justice Department, and Sampson only resigned on Tuesday when “the scandal surrounding eight fired U.S. Attorneys continued to grow.” A Justice official told NPR that “there were discussions about whether or not he would be detailed elsewhere as he was transitioning out and ultimately it was decided not to go that direction.”

So here's what we're looking at: as this business started to spiral out of Administration control, Karl Rove Gonzales was initially still so insouciant that he figured he could just reassign Sampson and get away with.

At his press conference, Gonzales indicated that Sampson was still on the payroll--even though he understood how totally unacceptable that was--hoping apparently to hedge his bets in case he didn't actually have to fire Sampson.

Finally, only today did an unnamed Justice Department official state that they just now figured that keeping Sampson on might not be such a good idea after all, given the depth of inquiry this matter has been receiving. That's not just cojones grandes: that's cojones the size of the world's biggest ball of twine.

These people will literally try to get away with ANYTHING, and they have absolutely NO concept of accountability. Like a small child whose parents never say "no" and stick to it, they believe that nothing can touch them or ever will.

And what's most infuriating is that the American Public actually pays Rove's and Sampson's salaries.

Well, it's time we said "no" and meant it. It's time these people finally learn the meaning of accountability. And time we took some air out of their overinflated testicles. And it's time some heads rolled--permanently and off the taxpayer payroll--into prison if possible, and into the even more morally deficient dens of K-Street iniquity in case convictions cannot be obtained.

Enough is enough--because they don't even pretend to act like they get it.

The Ashcroft/Gonzales Lesson: Cronies are Always Worse than Ideologues

It seems like just yesterday that John Ashcroft was every progressive's worst nightmare: a Christian conservative fundamentalist, authoritarian, crackpot Attorney General with a megalomania complex, no respect for taxpayer dollars, and a moonlighting interest in jingoistic singing and songwriting so bad that it would make William Hung blush.

How naive we were. As bad as John Ashcroft was, there can be no doubt that Ashcroft's justice department was a veritable bastion of honesty and upright government compared to the travesty that is the department under the tenure of Mr. "soon-to-be-spending-the-rest-of-his-short-assed-term-under-agonizing-impeachment-threats-or-resignation-demands" Gonzales here.

Indeed, the enormity of Gonzales' transgressions against basic human decency and the principle of impartiality that is the foundation of our entire legal system is so overwhelming that mere words cannot do it justice. Such was the chutzpah of this weasel of a man in so obviously subverting the entire purpose of having a "justice department" that the entire politicization scheme is is becoming unraveled at a record pace. Hell, it's so blatantly transparent that they can't even keep telling the same lie from one day to the next.

What's frightening about all this, however, is that we can surmise fairly confidently that this would never have happened under Ashcroft's tenure. As evil and sick as Ashcroft's ideology may have been and continues to be, one gets the sense that he actually cares about America. That he would not have tolerated or condoned even half of this ugly business. Even Ashcroft's biggest detractors would, I am sure, admit that the man undoubtedly cares about the concept of "justice"; that he believes in the ideal of a just America; and that, in his own fucked up way, he actually has the best interests of America rather than just the Republican Party at heart. One gets the impression that, while Ashcroft may have been doing the wrong things and pursuing the wrong policies, that he at least tried to be competent, and was at least vaguely interested in the notion of what we might broadly call "justice"--even if he figured it didn't apply to terrorism suspects at Guantanamo.

But Gonzales? The creep was Bush's personal lawyer. And so far as anyone can tell, he really hasn't been interested in anything more than doing his client's/boss' bidding--just like Bush's other personal lawyer, the appalling Harriet Miers, who has also been implicated in the scandal. And do we really need to mention Karl "Turdblossom" Rove? These people aren't civil servants; they're just cronies of no value to anyone but the petty masters they serve.

You see, ideology is really beside the point here. Reasonable people can disagree about matters of public policy. Reasonable people can disagree about the balance between freedom and national security. Reasonable people can even disagree about whether Guantanamo detainees are actual prisoners or war, or deserve their own classification. Those disagreements can be strong; they can be virulent; they can be passionate--but they all rely on the common assumption that the arguing parties care even in theory about the health of the United States of America.

But these people--people like Rove, like Gonzales and like Miers--these people do not give a damn about justice or even about what's good for America. They really don't. And they never have. So when orders come straight from the top to turn the entire justice department into one big baseball bat with which to whack the Democratic Party, they just go right along with it with an obedience that would make even the most hardheaded right-wing nutcase cringe with shame. Because they're cronies who don't give a shit about their country, electing to serve their momentary patrons above all else. And what's most insidious about them is how much less dangerous they seem at first glance than the ideologues we tend to fear. They are, if anything, more dangerous to America and all it represents.

And this isn't just about Gonzales: it's about every crony that Bush and Cheney have nominated to positions of influence and power.

It goes for Roberts--an administration lawyer who seems so much more reasonable than does Alito or Luttig--but votes just as unreasonably and is, I imagine, even less likely to "grow" in office than is Alito.

It goes for Miers, a Sith of a woman whom Dubya attempted to install on the court with a wink and a nod to his base. Fortunately for the rest of us, his base was too stupid to realize what it would mean for Bush to appoint a crony to the Supreme Court--but Alito will be far more independent and likelier to vote our way than ever Miers would have been. Hell, I'd take the likes of Michael Luttig of Harriet Miers any day.

It goes for Brownie--a seemingly innocuous man who, when word came from Karl Rove to screw over a female Democratic governor by letting an entire American city drown, obeyed his masters like a sheepdog and said nothing--until that is, they sold him down the river as the fall guy. As evil as an ideologue like Grover Norquist is, I can almost guarantee you that he wouldn't have failed so spectacularly in allowing New Orleans to drown--no matter how badly he may wish to drown the federal government.

It goes for "Scooter" Libby--a seemingly serene and gentle man who is so indebted to his PNAC patrons that he is apparently willing to go to prison to protect them by outing a nuclear proliferations covert agent and then lying about it. I'd frankly rather deal with Ollie North--at least I know where he's coming from, and he can't stab me in the back.

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

The upshot is this: when evil bastards give you a choice between accepting the nomination of a scary-looking ideologue, or a moderate-looking crony, the choice is clear: pick the ideologue every time. Because quite frankly, there's nothing scarier than cronies like Gonzales and Brownie making you pine for the days of ideologues like Ashcroft.

Impeach the cronies. Then (if politically feasible) impeach their bosses. Keep a close watch on the ideologues. And then remove them ALL from power ASAP. But for the love of our country, start with the cronies--because at least the ideologues care bad enough about something besides their masters to try to do the jobs they were appointed for.

Cross-posted at MLW and at There Is No Blog