John Kerry continues to put the finishing touches on his 2004 campaign strategy:
Kerry said he is concerned that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is again resorting to "the politics of fear and smear." [...]
"We're not going to give them an ounce of daylight," said Kerry, who is considering another run at the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
The senator said his response to the commercials in 2004 was not strong enough.
"We thought the fact that the truth was out there was enough," he said. "Clearly it wasn't."
OK, so Kerry finally gets that his non-response to these attacks was pathetic. But does he think that if he runs again he'll get Swift Boated in the same way he did in 2004? And what exactly is his big plan for fighting back, besides actually paying attention next time? No doubt there will be a brilliant strategy unveiled by 2010.
This just in: Kerry thinks of snappy comeback to 5th-grade school-yard taunt.
Turns out Mark Foley wasn't the only public servant using his taxpayer-funded Internet access for a bit of extracurricular activity. "Excessive Indulgences," a new report [PDF] from the Interior Department (with a cover that screams "stock photography of illicit activity"Bare midrift! Slot machines! Grocery shopping! Chess!), reveals that in a single week, DOI employees accesed thousands of sex sites, sometimes up to an hour at a stretch. A couple even got busted for surfing child porn at work. DOI staff is also really into online auctions and gambling: The report calculates that they spend 104,000 hours a year bidding and betting. C'mon, House Republicans! You gonna let a bunch of pencil pushing bureaucrats show you up like that?
Under a broad new set of laws criminalizing speech that ridicules the government or its officials, some resurrected verbatim from Saddam Hussein's penal code, roughly a dozen Iraqi journalists have been charged with offending public officials in the past year.
Currently, three journalists for a small newspaper in southeastern Iraq are being tried here for articles last year that accused a provincial governor, local judges and police officials of corruption. The journalists are accused of violating Paragraph 226 of the penal code, which makes anyone who "publicly insults" the government or public officials subject to up to seven years in prison. [snip]
The office of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has lately refused to speak with news organizations that report on sectarian violence in ways that the government considers inflammatory; some outlets have been shut down.
Meanwhile, back inside our own executive media bubble... President Bush, earlier this year: "I like the fact in Iraq that there's a burgeoning free press, there's a lot of press, which is a positive sign. It's a healthy indication."
Here's an, um, unique response to the allegation that the young Sen. George Allen stuck a severed deer's head in the mailbox of a black family. "George Allen hates the U.S. Mail," according to Letter Carriers for Truth, which is proposing that the postal service go after Allen for vandalizing federal property, i.e., a mailbox. Or as LCT puts it, "This mailbox belonged to you and me ... the federal taxpayer ... and frankly I don't like it when people go around sticking severed heads in my slot."
There's an interesting new report [PDF] from the Congressional Research Service (leaked to the Federation of American Scientists' Secrecy News) on presidential signing statements, a practice introduced by James Monroe and now used by George W. Bush to keep his fingers crossed while signing bills into law. CRS confirms the Boston Globe scoop that counted more than 700 examples of presidential pushback on specific legal provisions. But as the CRS points out, Bush's objections seem to be less about constitutional principle than the (questionable) assertion of presidential preeminence:
... the large bulk of the signing statements the Bush II
Administration has issued to date do not apply particularized constitutional rationales
to specific scenarios, nor do they contain explicit, measurable refusals to enforce a
law. Instead, the statements make broad and largely hortatory assertions of executive
authority that make it effectively impossible to ascertain what factors, if any, might
lead to substantive constitutional or interpretive conflict in the implementation of an
act. The often vague nature of these constitutional challenges, coupled with the
pervasive manner in which they have been raised in numerous signing statements
could thus be interpreted as an attempt by the Administration to systematically object
to any perceived congressional encroachment, however slight, with the aim of inuring
the other branches of government and the public to the validity of such objections
and the attendant conception of presidential authority that will presumably follow
from sustained exposure and acquiescence to such claims of power.
Translation: Dubya issues signing statements because he can. It's part of the big ol' executive power play cooked up by Cheney, Addington, Yoo et al. And as today's headlines make clear, in the absence of opposition, the power's there for the taking.
The CRS report also contains a couple of tidbits that hint at how the Supreme Court might line up if this issue winds up there: Back when he worked for Reagan, Samuel Alito argued for signing statements' "rightful place in the interpretation of legislation." And in a 1991 decision, Antonin Scalia heartily affirmed the president's "power to veto encroaching laws ...or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional."
All of which raises a question that no one has answered to my satisfaction yet: If a president thinks a law is unconstitutionalor wants to puff out his chest at Congresswhy not simply veto it? Or has Bush rendered the vetolike other bothersome checks and balancesobsolete?