When so many good Democrats do not think the Shrubbery's war crimes and constitutional outrages already revealed are worthy of impeachment, why should the news media show much concern about newly confirmed crimes? Subversion of the justice department doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

Here's a matter of corruption that BO doesn't seem to care about:

Nader Calls on Penn AG to Expand Political Corruption Investigation, Calls for Similar Probes in Oregon, Ohio, Illinois

"A state grand jury sitting in Harrisburg, Pa. today indicted 12 Democratic political operatives for the illegal use of millions of dollars in taxpayers' funds, resources and state employees for political campaign purposes...The grand jury found that employees and resources of the House Democratic Caucus were historically and routinely used to conduct petition challenges against candidates who were opponents of Democratic House candidates or the Democratic Party.

The grand jury found that as many as 50 Democratic House Caucus staff members participated in the Nader petition challenge and contributed 'a staggering number of man-hours.'

A House Democratic employee testified before the grand jury that 'everybody was working on this.'

'A veritable Army' of Democratic staffers were enlisted in the effort to deny Nader ballot status."

Furthermore, Cass Sunstein, Obama's rumored first choice for the supremes, has advised Obama to block any prosecution of either Bush or his aides for "non-egregious" crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance. (Obama Adviser Cass Sunstein Rejects Prosecution of “Non-Egregious” Bush Crimes)

Sunstein, in case you haven't heard, supported John Roberts for Chief Justice. He also supports the Bush theory of inherent authority to spy on Americans without warrants (Sunstein An Advisor To Barack Obama?).

The actions of Goodling and other political appointees at DOJ were outrageous. And you're right to point out that much of what we're seeing out of the Bush Administration stems from the conservative hatred of government. Since they already believe government is evil, many conservatives seem to have no problem participating in its further corruption.

More disturbing is the corruption of agencies of the government--this is far more damaging to the republic and not so easily remedied. Once the institutions of government have become corrupt, it's difficult to uncorrupt them.

I wouldn't go this far, because I think it confuses institutions with the actors who comprise them. Government agencies can never be corrupt on their own; only the people who run them can be corrupt.

It seems to surprise many people -- even the media -- how much power someone like Goodling can have. But those who have worked in Washington know that the city is run by smart 20- and 30-somethings who are delegated tremendous power by their bosses, who are either elected or appointed government officials. Every cabinet secretary has a small cadre of young political staff who are in charge of the day to day operation of the agency. In the Bush Administration, many of those staffers came to the job with no sense whatsoever of the line between politics and policy. And the message that was sent from the top -- by Karl Rove, for instance -- is that it's PROPER to infuse politics into everyday decision-making.

However, none of this makes the insitution corrupt. There are tens of thousands of employees at DOJ who are career employees, and they will continue to do outstanding work no matter who they work for. Upon electing a new president, the entire upper management of DOJ is swept out the door, and a whole new group comes in.

Of course it's possible that Obama will also allow politics to seep into everything, and perhaps the point you are making is that once the precedent is set, it makes future corruption easier. But personally, I don't expect we'll see another administration that is this bad for a long time.

We need a "cleaner" for AG, (you know, like "Victor the cleaner" in Pulp Fiction) - say John Edwards for instance.

We have become a nation of people who assume the worst about our government, and when the worst is revealed, we shrug.

Or, as Michael Moore put it in "Sicko," the French government fears the people. In America the people fear the government. Maybe the French government feels that way because the French are not a nation of sheep.

Jamais Vu summed it up perfectly: "Someone, quick, remind me again why impeachment is 'off the table?'"

Congress' abdication of their constitutional responsibility saddens me; so too, does the trad-media's failure to report truthfully - failures, both.

Tom says: “When so many good Democrats do not think the Shrubbery's war crimes and constitutional outrages already revealed are worthy of impeachment, why should the news media show much concern about newly confirmed crimes? Subversion of the justice department doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world”

Yes, indeed, we are foolish to widen our eyes, gasp disingenuously and tut-tut-tut the thoroughness with which this Administration did as they pleased in full view. We engaged in superiority and bloviating outrage, but have we really gotten serious about the intent carried out beneath the bumbling? I feel as if we are down at the KitKat Club with Sally Bowles, frankly. So long as it is not touching my recycle bin, my organic carrot patch and my kid’s stint in a chic internship, I am for it, all for it. I make Art! I slip in sly doggeral and well-researched commentaries. It’s been a long time since I was out on the front lines where heads could be broken open if you made the right kind of noise.

So my question here: beyond sustained cozy cerebrations over the years, is BlueOregon actually a well-mannered cover for an exciting mosh pit of activism that is going to change some lives? I’m just wondering.

post script: why are we still discussing our "expectations" that "this sort of Democracy" exists only in "rougher" parts of the world? Who is this "we"? This is the Democracy I've always known we had. The underbelly knows what it's getting. Recently America has kindly had it handed to us on a dish: election irregularities ARE how election is done. EVERYWHERE. So: grow up and get busy addressing it here at home and forget about your "this is like the third worrrrrllllldddd" noise. This is like "the world". I'm just not surprised by any of what is happening. I am excited to watch it all surface to the dimmest eye despite the lack of a rigorous media that loves detail and well-crafted thought.

Kari:

Thanks for the list. Here's a small number of comments that I culled from it regarding crimes against the Nader campaign in 2004:

Posted by: Greg Kafoury | Nov 5, 2007 8:57:11 AM

Bradbury's people locked the door, which was unlawful. A convention has 12 hours to get to 1,000. Some of the Nader people were locked out, and our ability to get more there was ended. My office was RN headquarters, and it was flooded with calls provoked by an email from Dem County Hdq. The phones were unusable. The Nader campaign was falsely accused of being in cahoots with the GOP, which I know for a fact to be false. Just before the 1st convention, Howard Dean was all over the air smearing us. He was interviewed by 4 or 5 of our most distinguished reporters, and said that Nader was using $ from the same corporations he used to fight to block the Ds. Not one reporter so much as asked him for evidence. There was, of course, none, since it was false. The Ds campaign against RN included the claim of fraud in signatures. Here is what happened: A tiny handful of petitioners made some dummy signatures, the campaign caufgt them and fired them all. Then, the anti-RN forces took those few petitions and paraded them before the press, claiming they were a representative sample. In fact, our disqualification rate was average. A Dem-linked law firm sent letters to our petitioners claiming that they faced prison if a signer turned out not to be registered. Some letters were handelivered ,at night. We lost some 33 petitioners over a weekend. The Dems were little better than gangsters, and if any of htem wish to debate the issue in public, simply let me know. Greg Kafoury

Posted by: Greg Kafoury | Nov 5, 2007 9:28:20 AM

Couple more things: Historically, about 1 in 4 Nader voters is a Republican. They are not all troglodytes, some are true conservatives, distrustful of concentrated power whether corporate or governmental. Also, despite everything, we got far more signatures than needed to get on the ballot, but Bradbury created new rules out of thin air to throw out countless signatures. It was the moral equivalent of burning ballots. The Salem judge who reviewed his conduct trashed him. The Ore Supreme Court simply said the Sec can do anything he wants if he claims it has something to do with ballot integrity. Finally, the Ds nationwide used such tactics as corrupting petition sheets, so as to cause whole sheets to be invalidated. Lawsuits were filed that had no basis in fact, and were intended simply to overwhelm Ralph's volunteer resources. We won nearly all the lawsuits, but ultimately only half the voters saw Ralph on their ballots. If the major parties can crush minor , independent candidacies and parties, what will be the source of political regeneration? By the way, now that the Ds have Congress, how are they doing on blocking the emerging police state, how are the doing on ending the War? Greg Kafoury

"When the Marion county signatures were not released (some never were released) until literally minutes before they had to be turned over to the Secretary of State, the result was that the pages could not be numbered...That's the story. Bradbury and the flunkies he's hired need incarceration, but that's my dream. Throwing them all out of work will have to do."

"HB 2614 clearly demonstrated that state Democrats (and Republicans) don't want anyone else at the table except for them."

"The Nader campaign collected well over 22,000 signatures to put Ralph on the ballot. But 3,000+ were thrown out because of unwritten rules on the numbering of the petitions. Not that the signatures of Oregonians were invalid, but that the clerical numbering of them did not meet some unwritten rule. In the first ruling in favor of the Nader campaign, Judge Lipscombe did not rule on the numbering issue because his ruling on other unwritten rules put enough signatures back in the mix to qualify the candidate. Later appeals then removed those signatures. All the legal actions to prevent access were undertaken by union lawyers with interceders from the DPO."

"...allegations of intimidation of volunteers, sabotage of subsequent petition gathering by Dems, Dem leadership's openness about their legal challenges not really being about concern for the ballot laws at all, but only about obstructing Nader's right to run and people's right to vote for him."

"Both Dems and Repos have separately conspired to remove/inhibit people from the ballot - for decades. The fact that Mr. Nader is suing on behalf of all candidates who might not want to tow the party line of either the Dems or Repos is a just cause. You may not like that Nader appears to get in the way, however, he's actually defending the Constitution, which both the federal D&Rs are rather flippant about lately."

Doretta,

When I wrote, "When so many good Democrats do not think the Shrubbery's war crimes and constitutional outrages already revealed are worthy of impeachment", I meant by "worthy", "worth doing". Excuse my verbal imprecision, please, but realize that you are one of the good Democrats to whom I referred.

If some other "way to highlight those crimes, bring about justice and restore the balance in our government under the current circumstances" is what Democratic leaders intend, I will applaud when the doing is done. Until then, I will bark like a watchdog who sees the approach of the wolves of totalitarianism.

Sam Geggy wrote:

So my question here: beyond sustained cozy cerebrations over the years, is BlueOregon actually a well-mannered cover for an exciting mosh pit of activism that is going to change some lives? I’m just wondering.

The majority inclination at Blue Oregon, in my opinion, is that anything political that does not relate directly to electing Democrats is not worth doing, and that anything political that cannot be accomplished by electing Democrats is probably undoable.

Hi Jeffrey: Let's start with you,as I am a tabula rasa newcomer -- tell! As for the others: does past hx count? Or only the current work of the individual? Time for a roll call? Interesting. Good question, and I am honestly interested to know the character of the posting public here. Could make a difference in magnitude of my own peevish bloviations from time to time.

Jeff,

I was thinking about the balance of comments, most of which do not come from those who contribute posts. My conclusion is based on reading through a lot of threads over many years - and ignoring the trolls. It is not aimed at you or any one else in particular.

Apologizing if that above comment has anything instructive for me, Mr. Civiletti. I can jump in with both feet sometimes. But I waited a long time and stayed quiet, just listening. Still not sure this is a "fit" in terms of my particular history of advocacy, policy and intervention work. Why in the hell do I post anyway? A lot of self-referential smack! If this is geared towards an oblique >ahem<, I'll take the cue. Scusa.