The Knucklehead of the Day award

Today's winner is Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. I give him the award for the brief interview conducted of him by 60 minutes last Sunday. This in a segment detailing immigrants who after their American spouses have died, face deportation. These victims of 'The Widow Penalty' include mothers who have children born of their marriages to Americans.


Watch CBS Videos Online

If you don't want to watch the video, here is the exchange between Simon and Chertoff from a transcript at CBS' website.

60 Minutes tried to find out why the government is being so tough on widows, but immigration and its parent agency, Homeland Security declined our requests for interviews. So 60 Minutes went to the top, to a press conference held by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.

Asked why his department is refusing U.S. residency to legitimately married widows, Chertoff says, "All I can tell you is, without getting into you know, specific cases and arguing the facts and circumstances that I think the lawyers have an obligation to pursue the matter through the system until we get a final resolution from the courts."

"Four courts, sir, have ruled in favor of the widows. And your department appeals the cases every time," Simon points out.

"I think what you're seeing is a normal part of responsible lawyering, if I may so," Chertoff replies.

Note- lawyers defending these widows have won decisions in four separate court decisions. Lawyers for CIS continue to appeal despite being 0-4.

Is that the best Secretary Chertoff can do, it is what lawyers do? What a defense of a travesty of a immigration policy. Legal Immigrant parents of US citizens are facing deportation, and this is the policy of a Republican administration that ran for office saying it supports family values. Does family values include the breaking up of families? No wonder voters decided they had enough with Repulican idiocies like this and others and voted for a Democratic President for the next four years. For non defense of the widow penalty, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff is today's Knucklehead of the Day.

Sorry Hillary

Doesn't Barack Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School, know the constitution? From the Washington Post-

Even if the vetting problems involving former president Bill Clinton's finances can be resolved, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton may face another roadblock on her way to the secretary of state's chair.

It's called the Constitution of the United States, specifically, Article One, Section Six, also known as the emoluments clause. ("Emoluments" means things like salaries.) It says that no member of Congress, during the term for which he was elected, shall be named to any office "the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during his term." This applies, we're advised, whether the member actually voted on the raises or not.

In Clinton's case, during her current term in the Senate, which began in January 2007, cabinet salaries were increased from $186,600 to $191,300. This situation has arisen before, most famously in the case called "The Saxbe Fix," but it involves a controversial, somewhat tortured reading of the Sacred Document.

It is just plain incredible no one has thought of this before. That goes for both the media and law professor bloggers. Here is the particular part of the constitution in question-

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

President Nixon worked his way around it when he nominated Ohio Senator William Saxbe to be Attorney General in 1973. Will Obama risk a constitutional battle by nominating Hillary?

Doug at Below the Beltway writes-

Could it possibly be.......

"You know, Hillary, I really wanted you to be my Secretary of State, but the Constitution says I can't have you. Sorry."

Talk about out clauses.

Just stand by as the entire internet crashes

Hillary Clinton's name has come up as a possible Secretary of State in the Obama administration. Slate's Emily Yoffe muses-

I wonder if the Obama administration would waive the 63-item questionnaire all potential administration officials are required to fill out before naming Hillary secretary of state. There are so many questions that might be troublesome, from No. 6, concerning "whether you or your spouse" ever received money from any foreign entities (See Bill's amazing Kazakhstan adventure), to No. 8, asking for a description of the "most controversial matters you have ever been involved in," to No. 12, "Please identify all speeches you have given" to my favorite, No. 13, in which the candidate is asked to describe any electronic communication they have ever sent that might be "a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect." There isn't enough bandwith in the world for Hillary to attach all the documents that answer these questions.

LOL. Maybe Al Gore can clean up the resulting mess. After all, he invented the internet.

In all honesty, I'll be surprised if Obama makes Hillary his Secretary of State. For the same reasons I didn't believe he'd choose Hillary for VP. You have to factor in Bill Clinton, the former President likes the limelight and would want to steal the show. Who really needs all of this?

Hat tip- James Joyner at OTB

Blame the bloggers Chapter 1,384

Florida Secretary of Agriculture Charles Bronson said some of the blame for runs on gasoline in the wake of Hurricane were due to rumors spread on the internet.

Bronson said the gas shortages were due to "public panic" that he blamed in large part on unnamed bloggers fueling the frenzy last Friday.

"A lot of it ... was people who actually believed a blog, when they see what's coming out over the blogs and it just got worse and worse as the day went on," said Bronson. "Even though all three of us were indicating ... there's no shortage of fuel," he continued, "it didn't make a difference."

So bloggers were able to incite the public into a petrol panic while three of Florida's four statewide elected officials could do nothing to stop them? Yipes.

I have a three word simple reply for Charles Bronson, before I get on to a longer reply.

What a crock.

I say that for several reasons. Remember I'm a Florida blogger myself, but this is the first time I have discussed anything to do with Hurricane Ike.

The television media reaches millions of more people than bloggers in Florida and else where. There was wall to wall coverage of Ike, before and after the storm. I watched a little of it, and one frequent topic of conversation was what the storm's effect would be on oil supplies and gas. The picture the networks painted was a doomsday scenario almost, just like it was with other aspects of Hurricane Ike. One report had someone saying those who stayed behind faced certain death.

Did bloggers mimic the mainstream media's doomsday reports and overall Hurricane Ike coverage? I'm certain some did, but how many of them reach the numbers of even low rated MSNBC? Does Wizbang even have those kind of numbers?

Come on Charles, name the bloggers who caused the panic. You certainly came out fast enough with the names of oil suppliers accused of gouging. The bloggers responsible should be outed too and I'll be waiting for your announcement.

One last thing, the title of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune blog post is 'Are bloggers more powerful than Crist and the Cabinet?' Some bloggers, a small handful, have the ability to persuade others. Most throw red meat instead to people holding similar opinions. None have the power to affect millions like Governor Charlie Crist or other statewide officials have when making policy.

So only an uninformed idiot would think the answer to the blog title's question is yes.

Update- Corrected post to say Secretary of Agriculture, than Secretary of State Charles Bronson.