Yeah, Joe Biden Is A Garulous Hack, But Obama Made A Pragmatic Choice For A Vice Presidential Running Mate

Yeah, I know -- it's been leaked that Obama's VP pick is Joe Biden. To be more formal, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Delaware -- one of those guys who seems to be on an A-Plus-Steroids List for appearances on the Sunday-morning talking-heads shows. He of interminable speeches. The ultimate establishment Democrat.

But I would dare argue that Biden is pretty much what Obama needs. Obama is going to be attacked ruthlessly on a number of fronts: Two of them will be general experience, and foreign policy experience. Whatever drawbacks there are to Biden, he unquestionably brings both qualifications to the table.

Barack Obama can't get elected president being Don Quixote, and he doesn't need Sancho Panza as a running mate. Biden has some baggage, but Sancho Panza, he's not.

Here's the AP report.

If there was ever a time when Americans who really care about their future are going to rally behind a ticket -- it's now. Joe for Veep -- I'll even put up with the endless speeches.

Crossposted at Manifesto Joe.

There's more: "Yeah, Joe Biden Is A Garulous Hack, But Obama Made A Pragmatic Choice For A Vice Presidential Running Mate" >>

New Day, New Letter

Today is a new day. That means a new letter. Today's letter is from Henry Waxman, John Conyers and William Clay and it is addressed to Alberto Gonzales.

You might have thought that all this Dick Cheney is the 4th branch nonsense is brand new. Wrong, as WTWC's grape_crush pointed out a few days ago the Vice President has been making his 4th branch claim for years. It seems that On January 9,2007, J. William Leonard, Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, wrote to Alberto Gonzales requesting an interpretation as to whether the Office of the Vice President is bound by the executive order. According to the letter, Mr. Leonard's request was made pursuant to a provision in the executive order that requires the Attomey General to resolve legal questions in response to such inquiries. To date the Attorney General hasn't responded to Mr. Leonard's request. The very polite congressmen ask the Attorney General some questions

(1) What is the status of your department's response to the January 2007 request from the Archives?

a. When did the review commence?

b. Which individuals at the department have been assigned to review this matter?

c. Please produce all documents relating to your department's review of this matter, including without limitation all communications, analyses, memoranda. or other documents.

(2) Have officials from the Department of Justice ever communicated with officials from the White House, including the Office of the Vice President, concerning the request from the Archives or the issue of whether the executive order does or should apply to the Office of the Vice President?

a. If so, please identifu and explain the substance of any such
communication.

b. Please produce all documents relating to any such communication

(3) Has the Department of Justice ever taken a position on or analyzed the issue of the status or existence of the Vice President or the Office of the Vice President within the executive branch, the legislative branch, both, or neither?

a. If so, please identiff all instances in which the department has addressed this issue and explain the position, if any taken by the department.

b. Please produce all documents relating to this issue, including memoranda, legal briefs, communications, and any other documents.

(4) Have officials from the White House, including the Office of the Vice President, ever cofirmunicated with ofñcials from the Department of Justice conceming the status or existence of the Vice President or the Office of the Vice President within the executive branch, the legislative branch, both, or neither?

a. If so, please identiff and explain the substance of any such
communication.

b. Please produce all documents relating to any such communication.

(5) When you were serving as White House Counsel, were you or anyone in your office involved in any way with drafting, assessing, or otherwise reviewing proposed revisions to the Executive Order in 2003?

a. If so, please explain whether you have considered recusing yourself from consideration of this issue.

b. Ifyou have elected not to recuse yourself please explain the basis for your decision.

You might be wondering about the last question. Spencer Ackerman of TPMmuckraker has an idea

If he was involved in the 2003 revision to EO 12958 (which became EO 13292), then he'd be able to speak to the question of whether the order always intended for the veep to be exempt -- which would further raise the question of whether Gonzales accepted David Addington's theory that the vice presidency is outside the executive branch. After all, the White House's fallback line in the controversy has been that president never "intended" for EO 13292 to apply to Cheney, thereby begging the question of what legal ground that contention is based upon. As White House counsel when President Bush revised the EO, Gonzales or a deputy must have looked at it; if no one from the counsel's office did, that itself is scandalous.

Any thought whether and how the AG responds?

There's more: "New Day, New Letter" >>

President and Vice President, "Security Oversight, We Don't Need No Stinking Security Oversight"

Imagine you are a gun carrying member of the CIA, the United States Military, the FBI, the DEA or Homeland Security, and you know that you could end up dead if the wrong people find out the wrong information about your activities. I am sure you would take comfort knowing that the United States Government has well thought out security policies and comprehensive oversight. The Government has your back. All you have to worry about is the enemy in the front.

Imagine your concern when you heard that the Israelis and Saudis have close contacts with the utterly naive and hopelessly self-important neocons running the Vice President's office and with other neocons high up in the White House. Imagine the deepening concern when you read that well known Iranian spy Ahmad Chalabi, long the darling of the neo-conservative movement, had the ear of the Vice President and neocons in the White House. Now imagine the horror you must have felt when the White House and Vice President's office (and the highest levels of the State Department) leaked Valerie Plame's name. You must have been shocked to learn that for years the White House has been using the very insecure RNC as its email service provider.

How do you feel today when it is reported in the LA Times that the "White House says the president's own order on classified data does not apply to his office or the vice president's?"

If I were a spook, a policeman, a soldier or anybody else who could end up dead if the wrong people got the wrong information, I would be thinking about early retirement. What about you?

UPDATE: Blue Girl has posted her thoughts on this topic at BGRS.

There's more: "President and Vice President, "Security Oversight, We Don't Need No Stinking Security Oversight"" >>

Addendum Re: Waxman Letter to Cheney

Repeated elsewhere, as well.

The assertion of the uniqueness of the Office of the Vice President (OVP) is old news, mentioned in 2004 in the 'United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions' (Plum Book):

APPENDIX NO. 5

OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT

The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).

The annual legislative branch appropriations act (see, for example, Public Law 108–83) and the annual transportation-treasury appropriations act (see, for example, Public Law 108–199) provide funds for the Vice President to hire employees to assist him in carrying out his legislative and executive functions. Executive branch employees also may be assigned or detailed to the Vice President (see 3 U.S.C. 112) and the Vice President may employ consultants (see 3 U.S.C. 106(a)). The Office of the Vice President (OVP) consists of the aggregation of Vice Presidential employees whose salary is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate from the Vice President’s legislative appropriation, Vice Presidential employees employed with the Vice President’s executive appropriation, employees assigned or detailed to the Vice President, and consultants engaged by the Vice President.

The numbers, titles and salaries of OVP personnel change with some frequency. The salaries of Vice Presidential employees whose salary is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate from the Vice President’s legislative appropriation cannot exceed a maximum specified by law (see 2 U.S.C.60a–1). The salaries of Vice Presidential mployees whose salary comes from the Vice President’s executive appropriation also cannot exceed a maximum specified by law (see 3 U.S.C. 106).

The authority to appoint, administratively determine the pay of, and discharge Vice Presidential employees rests with the Vice President.

The Office of the Vice President is listed under the Executive Branch heading in the online Plum Books for years 1996 and 2000, but not 2004, the year in which the above excerpted statement appears.

More here, from ABC's Justin Rood.

There's more: "Addendum Re: Waxman Letter to Cheney" >>

Cheney Impeachment Resolution On Line.

Dennis Kucinich haa just posted the Dick Cheney Impeachment Resolution. You might want to give it a look. The Congressman's posting includes a 3 page synopsis, the 18 page resolution, a copy of a letter to Vice President Cheney, a summary of impeachment procedure and dozens of supporting documents.

There's more: "Cheney Impeachment Resolution On Line." >>