So speaks Attorney General Michael Mukasey. The full quote from the article Justice Staffers Won't Be Prosecuted For Illegal Hiring Practices is "not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws."
I agree that not every violation of the law needs to be prosecuted. But to say that a violation of the law is not a crime, is ridiculous. Next I expect to hear Attorney General argue that anyone in the executive branch who violates a law has not committed a crime.
Everyone should be furious about the Attorney General's statements. Yet few have even heard about the statement. Where is the media on this important issue.
Then let's get to what the issue is about, hiring illegally to promote a political agenda as expressly forbidden in the law. So now we know that the Attorney General is upholding the right to uphold only laws illegally hired attorneys decide to uphold. When those attorneys choose not to uphold a law, then breaking the law was not a crime.
In this morning's New York Times David Brooks writes:
If you look at Barack Obama’s education proposals — especially his emphasis on early childhood — you see that they flow naturally and persuasively from this research. (It probably helps that Obama and Heckman are nearly neighbors in Chicago). McCain’s policies seem largely oblivious to these findings.
I recently read article Jujitsu in Action — The Smart Way to Fight Smears Against Obama While I agree with everybody who say keep it polite, this article proposes that we first understand why the person spreading the smear is saying what she/he is saying. See below the fold.
I will finally say it; Hillary lost. The search for delegates is over. Obama won.
So What does Hillary want? She wants to be president. Sadly enough she wants it so bad that she cannot even concede an election when that is what is best for her, the democratic party, women, and America.
The question that needs addressing is what will happen to democratic delegations from state democratic parties that break the Democratic National Committee rules.
When Geraldine Ferraro said "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she was correct. By the same troken if Hillary was a white man she would not be in this position either.
As I listen to both democrats argue about trade with China and NAFTA, I often wonder do they really understand what the "problem" is all about. Today the New Times Editorial Is Trade the Problem? presents cogent arguments that trade is not what is causing low wages and unemployment.
See below the fold.
When looking at Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's policies, there is very little difference between them. Both have highly similar economic policies, health plan policies, and military policies including moving troops out of Iraq.
This leaves one substantive issue to debate - how are the policies going to implemented. Hillary Clinton has said she will "fight" for the policies; and Barack Obama has said he will "change" politics in Washington. Neither have discussed what the differences are between "fight" and "change." I don't know and I wish someone would tell me.
This leaves the candidates arguing about attacks on each other; be the attack on a pastor or honesty. That is why Gibson and Stephanopoulos chose to ask questions about these attack issues as opposed to other more important issues.
I recently listened to Thom Hartmann talking to Chris Hedges
While the show implied that atheism and science were the same, they are not. Also God and religion are not the same. In particular science may lead to a belief in God and a religion does not necessarily have to have a belief in God.
Not long ago there was an important diary called What It Means to Be a Pro-Life Democrat. The author, The Bagof Health and Politics, makes the excellent point that:
it is a shame that existing support programs to help mothers care for their children are largely insufficient. Programs like TANF and AFDC have withered under the false pro-life regime of the Republican Party. Republicans tend to be pro-life when a baby is in the womb, but after it emerges, conservatism says children must fend for themselves.
Below I look at "pro-life" republicans a little closer. In fact when taking a closer look I feel anyone will learn that this "pro-lifers" are really pro-death; with some exceptions such as Mike Huckabee.
Everyone is talking about how Hillary won in both Ohio and Texas. What did she win. Well she won the popular vote and a few delegates. Hillary is claiming that because of these wins she is better suited to be the democratic nominee. I argue that because she lost huge leads in both races she is less suited to be the nominee. Let us look at what actually happened in both states.
The Bush administration told lie after lie to convince the nation to go to war with Iraq. The New York Times repeated those lies one after the other. Very few news organizations did their homework.
So what does the New York Times want in return? The New York Times wants protection from being forced to tell who told the lies. The protection comes in the form of a federal shield law and their desire is stated directly in The Public’s Right to Know
President Bush, Republican Legislators, and a Republican Supreme Court stole them. The above crew were aided and abetted by many Democrats and sadly by many citizens. We let fear and greed guide us as a nation allowing our rationality provide a soft palliative of denial rather than cure. We Americans would never torture. Americans would never allow other Americans to suffer and die if we had the means to prevent it. Real Americans would never threaten Americans by hanging a noose from a tree or the back of a pick up truck. Americans would never steal resources from countries weaker than us. After all Americans have religious values.
I am not a member of the anti-Hillary mafia she alluded to in her Sopranos video. Yet, I have grave reservations about Hillary that were captured by Frank Rich in the column Is Hillary Clinton the New Old Al Gore? The sentence "Is she so eager to be all things to all people, so reluctant to offend anyone, that we never will learn what she really thinks or how she will really act as president?"
When thinking about presidential candidates I consider many factors, including their policy positions. I am not even certain policy positions are the most important issue. Among democrats I argue their policy positions are close enough other factors are more important.
Of the candidates running, I like Kucinich's policy positions best; yet I do not think he would make the best president of all the candidates. I believe Barack Obama would make the best president, because he is young, charismatic, and delivers speeches in such a way that people come together behind the concepts that form the basis of the speeches.
