The Truth will prevail, But only if we Demand it from Congress!

This is Earth Shattering. Alberto Gonzalez may have perjured himself before congress over this. According to the author, Karl Rove is obsessed with the 2006 catastrophy. Rove is convinced, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the reason why republicans lost the house and senate was because of corruption. Specifically, it was because of US Attorneys who investigated and indicted republicans, such as Duke Cunningham. Karl Rove wants two things to happen in time for the 2008 election. First, he wants to stop the US Attorney investigations of republicans. The fact that several of the fired US Attorneys had been activity investigating republicans (such as Carol Lam, who was close to an indictment of republican Representative Jerry Lewis) seems to confirm this. Secondly, he wants to manufacture scandals against democrats, and hide the overt corruption behind the legitimacy of a US Attorney. He wants to make it so that republicans are no longer the party of corruption, and that democrats take their place. And if that means ignoring actual republican corruption, and inventing charges against democrats, then they will need the right US Attorneys to do this. They have already purged many of the US Attorneys who were investigating republicans, and replaced them with US Attorneys who would investigate democrats. Expect a wave of false indictments to come against democrat after democrat as we get closer to the election.

The other statement by this guy that just blew me away was with regards to a concept so simple that I cannot believe I hadn't thought of it. Bud Cummins, the US Attorney in Arkansas, didn't investigate many republicans. This makes sense, since the governor, both senators, 3 of the state's 4 US Congressmen, and all other statewide officeholders in Arkansas are democrats. Even the Arkansas state legislature is the second most democratic state legislature in the country, after the Massachusetts state legislature. So what Arkansas politician might Karl Rove be thinking of? There aren't many republicans in Arkansas for Bud Cummins to embarrass republicans over. This state involved the US Attorney replacement with the most substantive partisan resume of them all. And why was it that emails have showed that Karl Rove in particular wanted his chief deputy (who was the deputy at the time that this plan was being hatched), who also happened to be a former RNC opposition researcher, as the US Attorney in Arkansas? He was trying to install a partisan hack to bring down a Hillary Clinton general election campaign.

This has to be unprecedented. I heard a theory the other day which makes a lot of sense. Presidential power was very weak throughout the 19th century (other than during the presidency of Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln). The president was also weak for the first third of the 20th century, with the exception of the Woodrow Wilson administration. Presidential power was strengthened during the entire New Deal. During the presidency of Richard Nixon, it reached its highest point. Nixon ended up breaking into the Watergate and covering up the break in (leading to his resignation), which occurred because he assumed that presidential power was absolute (remember, "if the president does it, that means it not illegal") and that congress had no right to keep him from doing anything. After Watergate, the democratic congress passed a series of laws (such as the FISA law and the series of laws that established the federal campaign finance infrastructure) that severely weakened the power of the president. Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld were in Washington at the time to witness the dismantling of presidential power. With divided government being the norm, presidential power remained relatively weak until the end of the Clinton administration. The combination of 9/11, Iraq, and the 6 years of (mostly) one-party government, presidential power was re-awoken. One of Cheney's key goals during the last 6 years was to restore the power that the presidency had lost immediately following Watergate. It seems that they simply have taken this too far. Bush is pushing the power of the presidency beyond even what Richard Nixon attempted. Bush has become an American Tyrant. Does anyone think that if the Supreme Court ordered Bush to turn over those tapes (as they had done with Nixon), that Bush would have done what he was told? Or would he just have stood on the Rose Garden, smirking, and with the tapes burning behind him.