« RETIREMENT RUMORS FLYING THROUGH THE CAPITOL | Home | MUST READ FROM THE STAR TRIBUNE: “POLL: GOOD NEWS FOR COLEMAN, BAD FOR FRANKEN” »
MUST READ FROM RED STATE: “BEARERS OF FALSE WITNESS AND THE FALSE WITNESSES THEY BEAR”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | May 18, 2008
This post from Red State about Al Franken’s business troubles is a must read. It’s a brilliant post.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 18 Comments »
18 Responses to “MUST READ FROM RED STATE: “BEARERS OF FALSE WITNESS AND THE FALSE WITNESSES THEY BEAR””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:09 AM
Like GWB’s: “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.”
May 19th, 2008 at 8:04 AM
Or, GWB’s “Mission Accomplished” ?
May 19th, 2008 at 8:17 AM
It must be difficult for you two to keep the faith after finding out that angry Als book was actually titled after the way he lives his life.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:17 AM
Or Bill’s I did not have sex with that woman.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:31 AM
Or GWB’s oath to uphold the constitution…
May 19th, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Leroy – pull you head out of your butt – Dubya has respected the Constitution…a document I am sure you have never read.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:18 AM
That post really is a pretty darned nice little re-cap of the facts and circumstances surrounding Franken’s Workers Comp. malfeasance. You could wrap it up and put a bow on it.
But, it’s also a tough reality for Franken supporters to accept… Sooner or later they’ll realize that their candidate is a lying, cheating, douche bag.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:09 AM
In an effort to combat totalitarian regimes, Bush-co have tried to create their own. Quite ironic.
To say that Bush has respected the constitution is almost impossible to substantiate in a reality based world.
Even Neo-cons will admit that their goal is to consolidate power in a unitary commander and chief, my guess is because one perrson is easier to control and manipulate, but there is no respect for the seperation of powers.
Regardless of what side of the aisles you are on, you should be very afraid of this consolidation of power and intrusion onto your civil liberties.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:16 AM
That’s a intelligent sounding recitation of liberal fantasies Alec. Hogwash, nonetheless.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Actually, Chestnut, it’s spot on. If you knew anything about Cheney’s political philosophy, you’d know that.
While the Constitution devotes twice as much space to the 1st Branch than the 2nd Branch, neo-cons are adamant that the 2nd Branch is more important.
But, this is all academic, as not only will no future executive will give up the unitary power Bush The Lesser has absconded with, guy’s like you will be incommunicado in Gitmo, er, ‘scuse me, “enjoying a vacation of indeterminate length on a beach.”
Perhaps they’ll give you some Solzhenitsyn to pass the time with….
May 19th, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Imagine, Chesnut, a liberal Democrat in the highest office, no matter how horrifying that is. Just hypothetically saying that somehow a Democrat is President.
Would you support that president saying that they and their staff are beyond supoena, that everything they do is privileged, that, in fact, as Bushes attorney’s have stated, “If the president does it, it’s legal”.
My belief, is that if you support the constitution, this unitary and unaccountable power is terrifying to Democracy and the Republic. Democrat, Republican, or whatever. But if you are only interested in power, and not the constitution, then I guess it is okay with you.
Accordiong to this administration, there is nothing, barring impeachment, that can hold the executive branch accountable. Aren’t you the party of accountability?
May 19th, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Tommy,
You don’t know shit about anything, much less Cheney’s political philosophy. The Constitution calls for three branches of government with equal, balancing powers. It’s o.k. for the Executive branch to use its powers, and it’s unconstitutional for the Legislative branch to usurp those powers.
You’re one dumb sonofabitch.
Alec,
Simple answer. Yes. Because “executive privilege” is important, no matter what party holds the White House. And Bush has used it appropriately and consistently… no matter how unconstitutionally Democrats have acted.
You’re one dumb sonofabitch too.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:27 PM
You are funny Chesnut. I know you hate America. It’s okay. Maybe someday you can start up your own Fascist Utopia on some deserted island. You’re funny.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Alec,
The Fascist utopia is what Democrats are driving for… again, if you don’t know what the words mean, then don’t use them.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:16 AM
Ya know, Alec – it’s amazing the power these neocons want to give the Executive Branch.
We’ll see how they feel about that come January 21st, 2009.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Tommy,
Executive power is executive power. When Obama is president (yes, I’m sure he will be), I will support his obligation to use and protect the same powers of his office.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:23 AM
Alec & Chestnut,
There are some uninhabited islands and atolls in the South Pacific. Some are “insular areas” under the jurisdiction of the US.
[One easy thing to do is to go to "insular areas" in Wikipedia.]
Chestnut, you may be thinking of misfeasance and/or non-feasance, not necessarily only malfeasance.
————————————–
With all of the writing about Exeutive Power…
el presidente = ep = (EP) = Executive Power
October 24th, 2009 at 1:29 PM
[...] piece, “Bearers of False Witness and the False Witnesses They Bear”, which I link via Brodkorb (and is in turn driven by Michael’s work on Franken’s tax [...]