The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) [Archive] - Page 9

Alex

12-14-2006, 08:27 PM

I'm not following this story in particular ... but what if he can't serve? Does the governor appoint someone, and is the governor of his state a Republican? Is there another election? What's the procedure.

The governor appoints a replacement for the remainder of the term (two years). It is a Republican governor so presumably he'd appoint a Republican.

This is pretty much standard practice. The last time this happened was in 2000 and the Democrat governor of Georgia appointed a Dem to replace a dead Republican.

However, so long as this guy is alive there is no mechanism in place to force his resignation. If he dies it is in the governor's hands but if he is alive and refuses (or his handlers refuse) to resign then he would technically be in office for the next two years but never participate. This too has been done before several times when senators have been medically incapacitated. I think the record is three years for time technically in office while performing no duties of office.

Nephythys

12-22-2006, 04:41 PM

Iowa poll-
McCain 27
Giuliani 26
Romney 9
Gingrich 7
Rice 4

On the Dem side:

Edwards 22
Obama 22
Vilsack 12
Clinton 10
Gore 7

So- how are dems feeling about the choices out there. I know on the other side there is not a lot of excitment about some of the GOP choices.

How can anyone think Obama should run for anything (VP or POTUS) yet?

sleepyjeff

12-22-2006, 04:58 PM

I could get excited by Gingrich(the only true fiscal conservative on either list) save for my nagging doubt that he is really serious about running....probably just trying to sell more books.

Prudence

12-22-2006, 05:06 PM

How can anyone think Obama should run for anything (VP or POTUS) yet?

I don't think of political positions as a conveyor belt through which potential candidates must move in the approved order. I don't think you have to serve a sufficient time in position X before you're eligible for position Y. I think it generally works out that it takes time to build up sufficient name recognition to make running for the office of President or VP a reasonable option (and if I were feeling grumpier I might vent about that seeming to be the only qualification needed/wanted these days), but I don't think "time in service" should be a limiting factor. Heck, I thought many people wanted fewer career politicians. Perhaps less exposure to D.C. or state politics could be an advantage?

That being said, I know little to nothing about any of the candidates on either side. It's just too depressing to think about right now. Plus, I tend to get charmed by one particular candidate, only to see them get snowed in the primary. I'm trying to resist heartbreak by not getting involved until the primaries are over, but given the vast political spectrum covered by my immediate family that's not likely to happen.

Nephythys

12-22-2006, 05:06 PM

Don't you think they should govern something before considering running?

Prudence

12-22-2006, 05:16 PM

Don't you think they should govern something before considering running?

Nope. I think they should have appropriate experience for the job, which can be obtained through other political service, but can also be obtained through other avenues. I don't think there's a magic formula. Should candidates have to be a senator first? How many terms? Should they have to have been a governor? What about a 20-year member of the House of Representatives? At the state level, we've seen candidates from the Land of Business who are lauded for their success in the business world AND their lack of "contamination" from conventional political roles.

Heck, I think that philosophy applies to any job. There's rarely only one way to acquire the necessary skills and connection. If 1/2-term senator A can name that tune in 3 notes and 2-term governor B needs 5 notes, then senator A wins my game of Name that Tune.

CoasterMatt

12-22-2006, 05:25 PM

Chicken Hawk-In-Chief George W. seems to be doing the opposite - the longer he stays in office, the less he seems capable of doing.

Strangler Lewis

12-22-2006, 05:29 PM

Don't you think they should govern something before considering running?

Like, for instance, the Screen Actors' Guild.

If you're looking at executive experience, Gore is obviously the most qualified. You can say most Veeps don't have real power, but Gore was more involved in things than Bush Sr. (or George Bosh, as Reagan called him at the 1988 convention). Further, if kind of being around while the president makes decisions qualifies as experience, Hillary is the second most qualified. This is probably why voters feel comfortable voting for the wives of dead politicians (The Widows Bono, Carnahan, etc.) And let's not forget Edith Wilson, who really ran the show for a while.

Nephythys

12-22-2006, 05:44 PM

Not sure how I would have felt about Reagan- was not old enough to vote for him.

Alex

12-22-2006, 06:06 PM

Like, for instance, the Screen Actors' Guild.

He did have a slightly more substantial political office before running for president.

I don't think that extensive political office experience is vital but I think lacking it is a hurdle to be overcome, at least a small one. He's going to have to rely more on political machine makers, party officials, and career bureaucrats to get himself there. More so than someone who has been intricately involved in it for decades.

sleepyjeff

12-22-2006, 06:53 PM

Iowa poll-
McCain 27
Giuliani 26
Romney 9
Gingrich 7
Rice 4

On the Dem side:

Edwards 22
Obama 22
Vilsack 12
Clinton 10
Gore 7

McCain, Edwards, Gore, Clinton, and Obama have history against them: Senators just don't win the oval office...not since 1960 anyway.

Governors, however, do have pretty good luck. Not too many governors up there but I suppose being Mayor of the largest city in the World could count;)

Motorboat Cruiser

12-22-2006, 08:38 PM

Not too many governors up there but I suppose being Mayor of the largest city in the World could count;)

Of course, there are those pesky little facts that Giuliani is pro-choice, pro same sex unions, and pro gun control. How far do you think that will get him in the south? :)

Strangler Lewis

12-22-2006, 09:57 PM

Not too many governors up there but I suppose being Mayor of the largest city in the World could count;)

I doubt the mayor of Bombay is constitutionally eligible.

Strangler Lewis

12-22-2006, 09:59 PM

Of course, there are those pesky little facts that Giuliani is pro-choice, pro same sex unions, and pro gun control. How far do you think that will get him in the south? :)

Don't forget the unapologetic adultery.

sleepyjeff

12-22-2006, 10:27 PM

Yeah, Giuliani does have a lot of baggage.....it would be very difficult for him to win the nomination. Although I would love to see him go up against Hillary just to see if Hillary could one up Gore by losing in two home States;)

sleepyjeff

12-22-2006, 10:36 PM

I doubt the mayor of Bombay is constitutionally eligible.

:blush: ....ok I stand corrected.

But......

To save face I have to correct you too.

Mubai is now the name of the largest City in the World.:D :D :D

Strangler Lewis

12-22-2006, 10:46 PM

:blush: ....ok I stand corrected.

But......

To save face I have to correct you too.

Mubai is now the name of the largest City in the World.:D :D :D

I guess you mean Mumbai. I had thought that Mumbai and Bombai was a "You say tomato . . ." kind of difference, but I guess one is the new name.

Still wouldn't want to live there.

sleepyjeff

12-22-2006, 10:53 PM

I hate it when I correct someone and then end up misspelling the correction.

I think I am going to quit while I still have some dignity left.

I do have some left don't I?

;)

Alex

12-23-2006, 12:07 AM

And I believe that technically Karachi has passed Mumbai, being the first to reach 13 million (though they do it with a huge footprint where Mumbai is really compact).

wendybeth

12-23-2006, 12:42 AM

I hate it when I correct someone and then end up misspelling the correction.

I think I am going to quit while I still have some dignity left.

I do have some left don't I?

;)
Simply too good to pass up- thanks, Jeff!;):D

sleepyjeff

12-29-2006, 04:06 PM

One good turn.....:)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9258.htm

Prudence

12-29-2006, 04:21 PM

Ah, Scoop Jackson and Warren Magnuson - those were the days for this state. Rumor is we're approaching that level of influence again.

As a current Snohomish County resident, maybe I should reconsider my aversion to starting out in the prosecutor's office....

sleepyjeff

12-29-2006, 05:23 PM

As a current Snohomish County resident, maybe I should reconsider my aversion to starting out in the prosecutor's office....

Yep, Senator and almost President....not too shabby.

Alex

12-29-2006, 06:28 PM

Prudence, if you're at all interested Manuscripts in the basement of Suzzallo holds Magnuson's papers.

I spent a lot of time in them for thesis on Boeing's labor relations and found it really interesting.

BarTopDancer

12-29-2006, 07:02 PM

Ghoulish Delight

12-29-2006, 07:04 PM

Am I the only one who doesn't care if/when Saddam is executed?
And I the only one who is a wee bit concerned about the [probable] aftermath of said executation and a possible attack on US soil? No, I am not going to hide - but I am a bit concerned.So which is it, do you care or not? Personally, I doubt there will be much backlash against Americans beyond troops getting caught in the crossfire. Most of the hate in that particular struggle is directed inward at each other.

BarTopDancer

12-29-2006, 07:35 PM

So which is it, do you care or not? Personally, I doubt there will be much backlash against Americans beyond troops getting caught in the crossfire. Most of the hate in that particular struggle is directed inward at each other.

I didn't express my thought well.

I don't care if/when he is (for all I care he could rot in jail; but I could see potential hostage situations of release Saddam or we kill everyone), but I am concerned about the aftermath and our troops being caught in it. The entire world doesn't see this as a legitimate trial by the Iraqi's. There is still a belief that America was pulling the puppet strings.

SacTown Chronic

12-29-2006, 08:56 PM

Donald Rumsfeld, you're on the clock.

Stan4dSteph

12-29-2006, 09:00 PM

Saddam Hussein has been executed.

Nephythys

12-29-2006, 09:02 PM

The ENTIRE world huh? Every single person everywhere?

Wow- that's an impressive and completely impossible to back up exaggerated claim.

Nephythys

12-29-2006, 09:09 PM

I personally think it is incredibly arrogant and disrespectful to dis on Iraq when they have worked so hard and come so far- every vote, election, decision made by them to get their country back deserves to be treated with decency and respect- to try to undermine and ignore their accomplishments by saying their trial of Hussein was nothing more than a puppet show by the US is- well-outrageous.

It's just more US bashing-:rolleyes:

Strangler Lewis

12-29-2006, 09:10 PM

I didn't express my thought well.

The entire world doesn't see this as a legitimate trial by the Iraqi's. There is still a belief that America was pulling the puppet strings.

A "legitimate trial" by the Iraqis would have been no trial at all.

Nephythys

12-29-2006, 09:12 PM

Ah- here is part of the entire world-

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,240058,00.html)

Of course I expect some people to simply dismiss it out of hand due to the source.....

scaeagles

12-29-2006, 09:14 PM

Nephythys

12-29-2006, 09:18 PM

I don't see it as US bashing - I see it as Iraqi bashing.

That aside, it is ridiculous to think that Shiites didn't want him dead. The US didn't need to apply pressure for him to be executed, or to be found guilty.

I guess I can see how you see it that way- I can see it as both. It insults the efforts of the Iraqis and insults their justice system. It insults us as well- as if we are just controlling it all-and it insults them as if they have no ability to govern themselves.

It is also blatantly convenient that many show respect and support for the national soverignty of other nations as long as they are doing something they agree with- but as soon as they do not- well then, they are just US puppets.

Nephythys

12-29-2006, 09:29 PM

ah- here is some puppet work- a US attorney attempting to file on Saddams behalf in a US court- now there's respect for Iraqi soverignty.

At the same time, a U.S. district judge refused a request to stay the execution.

Attorney Nicholas Gilman said in an application for a restraining order, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Washington, that a stay would allow Hussein "to be informed of his rights and take whatever action he can and may wish to pursue."

Haddad had called Gilman's filing "rubbish," and said, "It will not delay carrying out the sentence," which he called "final."

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/29/hussein/index.html)

Gemini Cricket

12-29-2006, 09:39 PM

I'm anti-death penalty.
I would have liked to see him rot in a jail cell for the rest of his life not talking to a single soul ever again...

innerSpaceman

12-29-2006, 09:43 PM

Ah, one less evil tyranical bloodthirsty dictator in the world. Feh.

now, what about the rest of them?

Let's go get 'em.

And when we catch 'em, let's burn them!

But first we'll stone them, then we'll burn them.

Then we'll hang them.

And then drown them.

BarTopDancer

12-29-2006, 10:05 PM

The ENTIRE world huh? Every single person everywhere?

Wow- that's an impressive and completely impossible to back up exaggerated claim.

Not arguing with you (I know better) -

The entire world doesn't. No, not every country (the entire world) sees this as a legitimate trial. Some countries do, some don't. Therefore, the entire world doesn't.

Please relax and take a breath before you jump down my throat in the future. Thank you.

I thought I was on ignore. Damn.

Morrigoon

12-29-2006, 10:13 PM

I'm anti-death penalty.
I would have liked to see him rot in a jail cell for the rest of his life not talking to a single soul ever again...
Ah, but that would amount to mental torture. So damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Alex

12-29-2006, 11:30 PM

I'm not really a proponent of the death penalty, but if anybody deserves it then people like Saddam Hussein do. And regardless of the quality of the trial I don't really harbor any doubt as to his crimes.

It was faster than Pinochet and slower than Ceauşescu.

I would have preferred a more dignified proceeding but that would have required removing him and trying him internationally which wouldn't be great either.

I do think they should have stayed the execution and allowed him to be tried on more charges though. Not necessarily every possible one, but more of them.

CoasterMatt

12-29-2006, 11:45 PM

I'm still miffed they didn't put it on pay per view :evil:

lizziebith

12-30-2006, 12:44 AM

I don't feel anything different now that he's dead. Wasn't I supposed to feel different?

SacTown Chronic

12-30-2006, 12:56 AM

^No orgasms?

SacTown Chronic

12-30-2006, 12:58 AM

I mean, uh, don't you feel safer?

Motorboat Cruiser

12-30-2006, 03:12 AM

Ah, but that would amount to mental torture. So damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I don't agree that being removed from society because you have taken the lives of others is mental torture.

And while I'm not exactly shedding tears here, I can't say I feel good either. I don't see that anything was accomplished other than vengeance, and while that might feel good, I suspect the repercussions are going to sour that good feeling pretty quickly. Then we can catch those people and kill them and then others will kill more of ours and the cycle continues ad nausium. Meanwhile, the innocent people in the middle of this mess, keep dying every day. Woo-hoo.

We're going to get to the point eventually to where we've killed more innocent Iraqi's than Saddam. And yet, it is justified because we are trying to help them. Yeah, tell that to the victims families.

Gemini Cricket

12-30-2006, 11:24 AM

Well said, MBC.
:)

Nephythys

12-30-2006, 11:43 AM

Nephythys

12-30-2006, 11:45 AM

Re-thought.

Motorboat Cruiser

12-30-2006, 11:57 AM

WE? Who is WE MBC?

While I admit that obviously we have had some crimes committed by our military- WE are not over there randomly and flagrantly killing innocent people.

Actually- I would say based on any sources more people are killed by terrorists and insurgents and this in-fighting among the factions there than any WE have killed.

Or maybe you missed that? Is it just easier to blame us?

You introduced the words "randomly and flagrantly", not I. But don't fool yourself into thinking that tactics such as "Shock and Awe" only killed the bad people. No, it indiscriminately killed anyone who happened to be in the area. How many? We'll probably never know but I'll bet that number is larger than you imagine. Do you think that their families are ok with that because it was for a good cause? Perhaps that is why we have failed to be welcomed with open arms and flowers at our feet. And, we removed the country's infrastructure in the process. Something that we have yet to rebuild.

And by the way, how many terrorists and insurgents were blowing up Iraqis before we got there? Perhaps, if we really cared about the Iraqis, we would have taken measures from the get-go to ensure that an insurgency of this magnitude didn't materialize in the aftermath. Instead, our leaders were so convinced that this was going to be over in a few weeks that they never considered it might not go that way. And here were are.

So yes, there is plenty of blame to go around.

innerSpaceman

12-30-2006, 11:58 AM

It's not proper message board ettiquette to post about who is on your ignore list. Let's have that be the last of it, please (both of you).

€uroMeinke

12-30-2006, 12:03 PM

WE? Who is WE MBC?

Not to put words in MBC's mouth, I think one could make the case that We (AKA the US Government) is at least partially responsible for the the kind of anarchy and chaos that has allowed the increased killing of innocents.

Saddam may have been an evil dictator who killed innocent people, but I imagine at least there one had some sort rules one could live by to prevent yourself from being a victim (i.e. shut up and join the Bath party). Yeah that flys in the face of our democratic dream, but I think you yourself are willing to trade some of your civil liberties for security. I suspect some Iraqies might feel the same way and see democracy as a system by which innocents are more randomly killed than by the other system.

I'm clueless as to the actual numbers, and not really interested in finding them out, but that's how I understand MBC's argument.

Nephythys

12-30-2006, 12:03 PM

You introduced the words "randomly and flagrantly", not I. But don't fool yourself into thinking that tactics such as "Shock and Awe" only killed the bad people. No, it indiscriminately killed anyone who happened to be in the area. How many? We'll probably never know but I'll bet that number is larger than you imagine. Do you think that their families are ok with that because it was for a good cause? Perhaps that is why we have failed to be welcomed with open arms and flowers at our feet. And, we removed the country's infrastructure in the process. Something that we have yet to rebuild.

I'm not fooled into thinking attacks only killed "bad people"- are you fooled into thinking WE (as in the US) are the ones entirely responsible for the deaths of innocents there now?

Do you ever bother to look past what is fed you by the media that thrives on BLOOD and DEATH and seen any of the good things? The positive things?

The people in the military who keep going back- voluntarily- because they believe in what thay are doing?
The schools, hospitals and other things being rebuilt?
The progress?

No- all ignored.

Ghoulish Delight

12-30-2006, 12:09 PM

I'm not fooled into thinking attacks only killed "bad people"- are you fooled into thinking WE (as in the US) are the ones entirely responsible for the deaths of innocents there now?I think it's been pretty well documented that our government had little to no concept of the shape of the conflict they would be sparking off. They were completely unprepared for the level of sectarian violence (despite decades, if not centuries, of precedent that some bare minimum amount of research would have pointed to). They just started dropping bombs and expected things to just kinda settle out for the best. Are "we" "responsible" for the violence there now? No, the people committing it are. Were "we" "irresponsible" for not anticipating the chaos that was inevitable and failing to conduct the operation in a way to minimize it in the aftermath? I'd be hard pressed to say no.

Nephythys

12-30-2006, 12:11 PM

It's not proper message board ettiquette to post about who is on your ignore list. Let's have that be the last of it, please (both of you).

Duly noted.

Nephythys

12-30-2006, 12:12 PM

Motorboat Cruiser

12-30-2006, 12:16 PM

I'm not fooled into thinking attacks only killed "bad people"- are you fooled into thinking WE (as in the US) are the ones entirely responsible for the deaths of innocents there now?

Again, you introduced the word "entirely", which was not part of my argument.

Do you ever bother to look past what is fed you by the media that thrives on BLOOD and DEATH and seen any of the good things? The positive things?

Where, may I ask, are you getting your information from about all of the positive that is occurring?

The people in the military who keep going back- voluntarily- because they believe in what thay are doing?

You mean, like the ones that are having their tours extended indefinitely?

The schools, hospitals an other things being rebuilt?
The progress?

Violence is escalating there every day. You might call that progress, I cannot. Halliburton is sure making a killing however.

Motorboat Cruiser

12-30-2006, 12:18 PM

Not to put words in MBC's mouth, I think one could make the case that We (AKA the US Government) is at least partially responsible for the the kind of anarchy and chaos that has allowed the increased killing of innocents.

Saddam may have been an evil dictator who killed innocent people, but I imagine at least there one had some sort rules one could live by to prevent yourself from being a victim (i.e. shut up and join the Bath party). Yeah that flys in the face of our democratic dream, but I think you yourself are willing to trade some of your civil liberties for security. I suspect some Iraqies might feel the same way and see democracy as a system by which innocents are more randomly killed than by the other system.

I'm clueless as to the actual numbers, and not really interested in finding them out, but that's how I understand MBC's argument.

Yep, that is pretty much my argument in a nutshell.

BarTopDancer

12-30-2006, 12:19 PM

We bring democracy to a dictatorship while our country is slowly turning into one.

What a joke.

BarTopDancer

12-30-2006, 12:25 PM

The people in the military who keep going back- voluntarily- because they believe in what thay are doing?

You mean, like the ones that are having their tours extended indefinitely?

And having their discharge and retirement put on hold?

The schools, hospitals and other things being rebuilt?
The progress?

What about the schools in disrepair here in the US? What about the hospitals that are being closed due to lack of funding here in the US? What about our hungry and homeless?

Do you think that our citizens should be left to die in falling apart hospitals, struggle to put food in their mouths and our children have to sit in overcrowded classrooms using books that are 10 years to old? Should we not focus on rebuilding America? The money spent in Iraq could do a hell of a lot of good here.

Ghoulish Delight

12-30-2006, 12:30 PM

It is shocking to me that people cast some kind of backward blame on the US- and have no harsh words at all for the insurgent bastards who plant the IED's or the car bombs.Surely you aren't referring to me. I could swear I JUST posted this:

Are "we" "responsible" for the violence there now? No, the people committing it are.

Motorboat Cruiser

12-30-2006, 12:38 PM

It is shocking to me that people cast some kind of backward blame on the US- and have no harsh words at all for the insurgent bastards who plant the IED's or the car bombs.

Why would you assume that we have no harsh words for those setting off car bombs? I haven't exactly read any quotes praising their actions. Of course, they are bastards. But, they weren't there before we decided to interfere.

How about blame for the people who do the killing.

What a novel idea.

How about blame for everyone that created this mess.

Now THERE is a novel idea.

Ghoulish Delight

12-30-2006, 12:38 PM

What's shocking to me is people who seem to believe there's some sort of "either/or" situation here. Either it's the insurgent bastards fault or it's our fault. Sorry, the world ain't that clear cut. Actions have consequences. And to understand those consequences, an honest assessment of the situation is necessary. And the honest assessment was NOT done prior to invading, and here we are. There are some evil people doing evil things in an environment that was blindly created by our military decisions.

I don't suggest looking backward for the purpose of laying blame. I suggest looking backward for the purpose of getting the people who have made blind decisions in the past to open their eyes and make informed decisions going forward. That's why I find it so important to try to get Bush and company to admit that they made a mistake, because until they do that, I have zero confidence that they won't make the same mistake again. I have zero confidence that they are looking at the situation in Iraq objectively and honestly. And without that, I have zero confidence that they will make decisions that result in anything but continued violence between Iraqis and death of American troops.

Do I know that pulling our troops out is the best decision? No. I don't have the knowledge to be sure. What bothers me is that it seems like even if someone WITH the knowledge to make that call were to come to that conclusion, Bush would ignore them because it doesn't fit his short term agenda.

Motorboat Cruiser

12-30-2006, 12:44 PM

I completely agree, GD.

Scrooge McSam

12-30-2006, 12:44 PM

Surely you aren't referring to me.

I didn't think so. I took that to mean that some think it necessary to state that "scumbags who kill innocents are evil" in every friggin post one makes, rather than understanding it's more or less a given.

lindyhop

12-30-2006, 01:02 PM

I completely agree, GD.

I do, too. It's interesting that in preparation to decide on a new direction for Iraq, George is talking to all the same people who've been advising him (telling him what he wants to hear) for years.

Motorboat Cruiser

12-30-2006, 01:07 PM

Not to mention that, all along, we have heard from Bush that he will do what his commanders on the ground think is best...as long as they agree with him, of course.

€uroMeinke

12-30-2006, 01:19 PM

It is shocking to me that people cast some kind of backward blame on the US- and have no harsh words at all for the insurgent bastards who plant the IED's or the car bombs.

How about blame for the people who do the killing.

What a novel idea.

You know, it'd be easier to respond to if you spelled out who "people" are in the context of your post. It seems to imply posters on this board, so I would expect that this is not the case of the general "people" of this board but if you are talking about specific people here, call them out and let them respond for themselves instead of miscellaneous other people like myself who wonder, "is she talking about me? Should I respond to this?"

In any event, I'll just ask you, are you talking about me? Are you looking for a response from me on this?

Ghoulish Delight

12-30-2006, 01:24 PM

In any event, I'll just ask you, are you talking about me? Are you looking for a response from me on this?

General You?

BarTopDancer

12-30-2006, 03:40 PM

General You?

or General Ewe?

Not Afraid

12-30-2006, 04:03 PM

While we (the US) are not totally responsible for the killings, we (the US) bear at least SOME responsibility for what is going on and how it continues (including deaths) - at least as long as we are involved and probably for some time after that. Getting involved in the first place made it our (the US's) responsibility.

Gemini Cricket

01-07-2007, 12:38 AM

So I'm thinking...
What if Bush replaces Cheney with Rice? He could do it.
Could we see Hills versus Condi in '08?
That would be something to see.
:)

sleepyjeff

01-07-2007, 12:44 AM

It would be interesting....

http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/13180/HillaryCondi_HoDown.swf

wendybeth

01-07-2007, 01:26 AM

It would be interesting....

http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/13180/HillaryCondi_HoDown.swf

Lol! I shouldn't, because God knows you men have ****ed things up long enough, but ......:D

Truly, I think an Obama/Rice run would be verrrry interesting.

Nephythys

01-08-2007, 09:48 AM

Heh- coulda guessed this-

DEM VOW ALREADY BROKEN: HOUSE SETS 4-DAY WORK WEEK
Sun Jan 07 2007 15:03:38 ET

Democrats ran to expand the work week in the House to 5 days.

But guess how long that lasted?

Not even one week!

"Culture Shock on Capitol Hill: House to Work 5 Days a Week" front-paged the WASHINGTON POST in December.

Majority leader Steny Hoyer said members of the House will be expected in the Capitol for votes each week by 6:30 p.m. Monday and will finish their business about 2 p.m. Friday.

Explained the POST: "Forget the minimum wage. Or outsourcing jobs overseas. The labor issue most on the minds of members of Congress yesterday was their own: They will have to work five days a week starting in January."

But on the morning after the night before, on the first full week of the new congress, Hoyer has pulled back from his vow!

A Hoyer press release obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT boldly declares: "Monday, January 8, 2007: The House is not in session."

Hill sources claim The House is taking Monday 'off' this week, because of the championship football game between Ohio State and the University of Florida.

And, of course, the following Monday is the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.

100 hours...starting...soon

Developing...

Link (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm)

Alex

01-08-2007, 03:49 PM

JWBear

01-08-2007, 04:09 PM

Why do I get the feeling that for the next two years we're going to see endless posts reporting on trivial non-issues as someone desperately tries to find something to discredit the new congressional leadership with. Pathetic.

Alex

01-08-2007, 04:13 PM

Because much of the last six years have gone similarly and both sides want to see what the view was like from the other perspective.

Alex

01-08-2007, 05:45 PM

Can this congress prove itself truly useful and pass a bill officially recognizing that all interest in college football expires on January 2.

Also, since tonight's game took so long to arrive, rather than being the conclusion of the 2006 season it will actually count toward 2007 results. Therefore both teams have forgeited their final 2006 game and USC is the national champion.

If they can do this, I'll acknoledge that congress is capable of rational behavior.

Strangler Lewis

01-08-2007, 05:58 PM

I could be wrong (didn't follow any links), but I believe it is just for this week.

What is stupid, according to the Orlando local news last night, is the reason for taking today off: so that the congressmen from Florida and Ohio can watch the BCS title game tonight.

Can anybody say swing states?

Given the states involved and their ALLEGED roles in the last two elections, I expect that last night's WWE event had more competitive integrity than tonight's game will.

Strangler Lewis

01-08-2007, 06:32 PM

all interest in college football expires on January 2.

And how fair is it that a team that's had only 35 days rest has to play a team that's had 50 days rest?

Strangler Lewis

01-08-2007, 06:39 PM

Given the states involved and their ALLEGED roles in the last two elections, I expect that last night's WWE event had more competitive integrity than tonight's game will.

The refs and commentators just ignored a pretty obvious hold on OSU's opening kickoff return for a touchdown. The steel chairs will be coming out shortly.

Alex

01-08-2007, 07:45 PM

That's ok. Florida got a touchdown 2 feet early.

I should just go to bed. Other than being able to trashtalk a friend if OSU loses, I have zero interest in the outcome of this game.

Alex

01-08-2007, 08:14 PM

As seems so often to be the case, the omnipotent conspirators seem to be sloppy.

JWBear

01-09-2007, 11:02 AM

Because much of the last six years have gone similarly and both sides want to see what the view was like from the other perspective.

Hmmmm.... Let's see....

Last Congress: Indictment and resignation, after indictment and resignation due to massive ethical violations – all on top of an unwillingness to perform their basic constitutional duty of oversight of the Executive.

This Congress: Forced to work 5 days a week (the horror), but gets a Monday off for football.

Gee… sounds about the same to me! :rolleyes:

Alex

01-09-2007, 02:11 PM

I'm not saying there haven't been significant and serious topics of debate and concern over the last six years. I'm sure that'll continue to be the case in the next two years (and for the rest of all time most likely).

But for the last six years that has been a lot of "the president says 'nukular' and is therefore the most retarted president of all time" and "the Secretary of State was buying shoes the day after Katrina and therefore the president is the most retarded president of all time" and "the president said Paki showing that he is the most retarded president of all time" and on and on and on.

This will be true of the current congress as well. It is easier to pretend outrage over a soundbite than to actually suffer through substantive debate.

Gemini Cricket

01-09-2007, 03:09 PM

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/bushabramoff.jpg

Granted, it could be PhotoShopped... It could.

SacTown Chronic

01-11-2007, 11:02 AM

Hey, Neph, you going (news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/ap_on_el_ge/democrats2008)?

Gemini Cricket

01-11-2007, 11:14 AM

$357,000,000,000 = cost of Iraq war so far. According to CNN.com...

SacTown Chronic

01-11-2007, 11:18 AM

Yeah, but it was worth every penny to be greeted as liberators.

mousepod

01-11-2007, 11:21 AM

...or 714 billion McDonald's apple pies.

SacTown Chronic

01-11-2007, 11:23 AM

When you put it that way, mousepod,.....I'm outraged!

Gemini Cricket

01-11-2007, 11:26 AM

McDonald's apple pies burn my face.

SacTown Chronic

01-11-2007, 11:32 AM

McDonald's coffee once burned my dad's balls. True story.

I was in the car with him when it happened. Hilarious! If I ever see a car come skidding to a stop for no apparent reason and the driver jumps out and starts hopping up and down like his pants are on fire, I'll think of my pops.

Bornieo: Fully Loaded

01-11-2007, 11:44 AM

Nephythys

01-11-2007, 11:51 AM

Well- the DNC chose Denver for the '08 Convention.

Oh squeee - good for the local economy.

Alex

01-11-2007, 11:58 AM

McDonald's apple pies burn my face.

Then you're eating them wrong.

Strangler Lewis

01-11-2007, 12:07 PM

Saw Mike Huckabee on The Daily Show last night. At least as far as setting a civil tone goes, I liked the cut of his jib.

Whatever that means.

DreadPirateRoberts

01-11-2007, 12:43 PM

Saw Mike Huckabee on The Daily Show last night. At least as far as setting a civil tone goes, I liked the cut of his jib.

Whatever that means.

CUT OF HIS JIB - "The cut of a jib, or foresail of a ship indicates her character to a sailor and 'jib' means 'face' in sailor's slang. Thus 'don't like the cut of his jib,' which probably dates to a century ago, translates as 'I'm suspicious of him; I don't like this expression on his face.'" From "Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins" by Robert Hendrickson (Facts on File, New York, 1997).

Not Afraid

01-11-2007, 12:58 PM

ARRRRRR we be talking Pirate politics, we be.

Moonliner

01-11-2007, 01:21 PM

$357,000,000,000 = cost of Iraq war so far. According to CNN.com...

Damn with that much you could buy everyone in the country an iPhone (the 8Gig version of course), plus an Apple-TV and still have money leftover to by moives.

It's also $13,000 per person in Iraq. At that rate I hope we never attack China. That could run to some real bucks.

Moonliner

01-11-2007, 01:25 PM

I had to much McDonalds on a trip up north that I threw up in all over the inside of the car. My family was trying to win the Monopoly Game, so every McD's from here to Santa Clara was patroned by us. Only so much McD's a 10 year old can take...

When I was 12 my dad caught me with a box of cigarettes. He locked me in a closet until I'd smoked them all.

The next day I went out and bought a box of condoms.

SacTown Chronic

01-11-2007, 01:29 PM

Did you smoke those too?

Bornieo: Fully Loaded

01-11-2007, 01:41 PM

Did you smoke those too?

Depends on who he's with....:evil:

Ghoulish Delight

01-11-2007, 01:57 PM

When I was 12 my dad caught me with a box of cigarettes. He locked me in a closet until I'd smoked them all.

The next day I went out and bought a box of condoms.
What sort of revenge, exactly, did you have planned?

Moonliner

01-11-2007, 02:12 PM

What sort of revenge, exactly, did you have planned?

*sigh*

Perhaps CP can explain it to you.

Nephythys

01-11-2007, 02:36 PM

ROTFLMAO :snap:

Bornieo: Fully Loaded

01-12-2007, 03:40 PM

Everyone mark your calendars...

Scientists prepare to move Doomsday Clock forward
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070112/sc_nm/doomsday_clock_dc

Moonliner

01-12-2007, 04:16 PM

Everyone mark your calendars...

I think I need to get some rest. I clicked onto the article. Read it and then thought to myself. Interesting. I should post a link to that over on LoT.

:rolleyes:

Nephythys

01-12-2007, 04:27 PM

LMAO- goodness, I can just come here for comic relief.

sleepyjeff

01-12-2007, 04:41 PM

I think I need to get some rest. I clicked onto the article. Read it and then thought to myself. Interesting. I should post a link to that over on LoT.

:rolleyes:

At least you only thought it.........and that's all I am saying:blush:

scaeagles

01-14-2007, 10:39 AM

Imagine, if you will, Janet Reno sitting before a Senate hearing after Elian Gonzales was forcefully removed from his home in Miami to be returned to Cuba.

Senator Rick Santorum says "How can you be involved in this decision? You don't have children."

The firestorm of criticism would be immense.

Perhaps I'm missing the huge uproar, but I haven't seen one regarding Barbara Boxer asking Condoleeza Rice how she can be involved with Iraq policy decisions when she has no children.

scaeagles

01-14-2007, 10:47 AM

Imagine, if you will, a new sweeping corporate tax policy reform that exempts a company in the state of the Republican author of the bill because it would be harmful to that particular business. The firestorm of criticism would be immense.

Now flash to reality....the minimum wage increase (federal law applies to territories of the United States) exempts American Samoa. Why, you ask? Well, the tuna industry is immense in American Samoa. It would damage the industry irreparably because of having to drastically increase the wages of the workers on the tuna ships. Now, I find it interesting that Starkist Tuna is headquartered in the district of....Nancy Pelosi. Now of course, the Pelosi spokemen deny that any lobbying has taken place. Sure. Would that be believed if this were the oil industry in Texas? I surely doubt it.

I would love it (and it won't happen) if Bush held a press conference and said that he couldn't in good conscience sign the bill until it applies to all, including the poor hard working folks in American Samoa, and was shocked that Pelosi would cave to special corporate interests.

Motorboat Cruiser

01-14-2007, 11:16 AM

Imagine, if you will, posting links to the stories you are going on about. ;)

ETA: Here is what Boxer actually said:

BOXER: Madame Secretary, please, I know you feel terrible about it, that's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions. Now the issue is: Who pays the price? Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price; my kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.

It sounds to me like the point she was making was that these decisions are affecting military families quite a bit more than they are affecting either Rice or Boxer personally, especially since Boxer included herself in the statement. I'm not seeing the need for outrage.

However, as good ol' lovable Rush put it; "Boxer tried to lynch Rice". Nope, nothing offensive about that at all.

scaeagles

01-14-2007, 11:25 AM

Now, I intentionally did not post links to see if something like that would be posted. They are out there, but are not major news stories.

Motorboat Cruiser

01-14-2007, 11:39 AM

Now, I intentionally did not post links to see if something like that would be posted. They are out there, but are not major news stories.

Well, I'm only commenting on the first story, which I believe I learned of from either the Washington Post or CNN, although I wasn't able to find a link to them today. Since I usually don't read blogs however, I must have heard it from one of those two sources, meaning that it did get coverage.

Perhaps the lack of outrage is over the fact that she didn't say anything outrageous. She gave her opinion, one that I think many would agree with. Where you see outrage, I see grasping at straws.

I don't know enough about the second story to comment on it.

Alex

01-14-2007, 11:47 AM

I don't find anything objectionable in what Boxer said to Pelosi. I do find slightly more objectionable what you posit being said to Janet Reno, but that is not what was not what Boxer said.

As for the minimum wage thing, America Samoa and the Marshall Islands have always been excempt from the flat standard rate and putting America Samoa into the same classification would be a major change in the way that wages laws are handled there.

America Samoa has minimum wage regulations, just not the same ones as the most of the rest of the country. The Department of Labor has a special board that sets minimum wages within that territory by industry (see the very complex Minimum Wage workplace poster here (http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/americanSamoa/ASminwagePoster.pdf)).

Now, it is certainly open to debate whether America Samoa should get such individual treatment, but simply passing a blanket law that everybody in AS get $7.15 an hour would conflict with several other existing laws pertaining to America Samoa (and keep in mind that the citizens of AS do not have any direct representation in Congress).

So it makes sense to me that AS would be exempted from a blanket bill (as it always has been).

BarTopDancer

01-14-2007, 11:53 AM

Visible Mojo for Alex.

Alex

01-14-2007, 12:00 PM

That said, I've of mixed mind about minimum wage in the Pacific Islands.

First, if ever there is a compelling argument for fedreal intervention on wages it is in insular environments dominated by a single industry with few individual employers where there is minimal opportunity for competition to drive up wages.

That said, as Hawaii has learned with sugar and pineapples, it is very easy for such industries to bleed away to other Pacific Island nations without wage protections. A good argument could be made that the only reason SunKist and the other tuna processors are still in America Samoa with its relatively high wage protections (compared to other Pacific Island nations) is because America Samoa has special access to American markets (which is why sugar became a staple crop in Hawaii, once that wasn't a sufficient economic benefit it left Hawaii almost as fast as it entered).

I don't know what they right answer is, since I haven't looked into the specifics enough but I do suspect that $7.15 isn't the right answer.

scaeagles

01-14-2007, 04:55 PM

In rephrasing my point, let's say that Santorum said to Reno "who pays the price for this decision - you have no family." That's what Boxer said. The implication is that she makes decisions in a callous fashion, unable to understand the price paid by families who lose loved ones. Perhaps others don't read it that way.

As far as the minimum wage, I hate the minimum wage in any fashion. But if a "living wage" should be paid, shouldn't a "living wage" be paid to all, including those in AS? It's a rhetorical position, certainly.

Not Afraid

01-14-2007, 05:05 PM

I don't read Boxer's statement the way you've interepreted it, Leo, but, eh, what do I know?

Alex

01-14-2007, 05:14 PM

If it's rhetorical, then what is the avenue of discussion?

Whether AS should receive a minimum wage of $7.15 is not the issue you raised (though it is an issue I addressed in my last post), you raised the issue of whether it is unseemly that AS is exempted from the blanket minimum wage law. My response is no, it is not unseemly because the geographical, political, and economic circumstances of America Samoa place it well outside the mainstream of American conditions.

Wage protection laws do not currently exempt America Samoa from the idea that there is a minimum acceptable wage. What it does is say that the circumstances that determine what that minimum acceptable wage are sufficiently unique that a different approach is needed.

Now, I'm an opponent of a federal minimum wage (except maybe for federal employees) and think it should be addressed at the state level. But to me, there is no "outrage" in the fact that America Samoa is exempt from the increase the House passed, which is the is the issue you raised.

So, first, before considering being outraged that Pelosi got some special treatment for Sunkist Tuna, it would be nice if someone offered some evidence that such a thing happened when all that is currently visible is that the same examption that has existed since the end of WWII when America Samoa come under our protectorate has continued.

As for Boxer, it is a valid question: are those who have no personal familiar risk from war more callous in making war? It isn't offensive, though it is perfectly reasonable to response "no, I don't think so." Which is what Rice did. Disagreement is not offensive.

You say that if the parties had been reversed that there would be big cries of outrage. Maybe that's true and those people not outraged now are hypocrites. But I also suspect that if those cries went up those now calling for outrage would be arguing that these cases aren't really that big of a deal. Hypocrites as well? That is the kabuki of a change in party power: on the vast majority of issues the participants switch sides seamlessly and without apparent cognitive disconnect and call the other side a bunch of hypocrites for doing so.

ETA: Just realized I had a brain fart on some history. We got America Samoa as part of the Spanish-American War, not the post-WWII protectorate divvying. So America Samoa has likely been exempted from minimum wage laws since nearly the beginning of them under FDR.

wendybeth

01-14-2007, 05:18 PM

What about what her actual message was- that so many people making policy are not going to feel the impact or bear the brunt of their decisions? It was very honest of her to say that it would not impact her family, and that Condi was not likely to have to worry about the toll on hers as well. Her point was valid- the people paying the price have little say, and since she is an elected representitive she has the right and responsibility to speak for them.

Now, what about that 'surge' of troops George is calling for? It'll be interesting to see how they get that many new troops to sign up voluntarily. The reserves have had the limit on tours taken away, and George's old ticket out of 'Nam, the Guard, has basically become a one-way trip to the Mideast for many thousands of personnel. Ironic, in a very sad way.

Alex

01-14-2007, 05:27 PM

And now I see that for purposes of avoiding the appearance of impropriety Pelosi is calling for AS to be included over the objections of the territories non-voting representative in Congress.

So what is funny is that in the drive to create stupid controversy, Republicans may very well caused the enforcement of wage protection laws that they disagree with into territories where it is very likely they'll actually have the devastating impacts Republicans always (incorrectly, it turns out) claim will happen in the regular United States.

I'm pretty sure that Republicans would impose communisim if they could do it in such a way that it would be embarrassing to Democrats (and, vice versa, Democrats fascism). All the Republican House members know why AS is different but they'll pretend, because kabuki is fun, that they're outraged while failing to note that Del Monte gives all of its campaign contributions to Republicans.

scaeagles

01-14-2007, 06:48 PM

I completely agree that this is played everywhere by everyone.

As far as the Boxer comment, there are people who make decisions for me every day in government that do not feel the effect of those decisions. We have a single female governor here in AZ. Would it be appropriate to tell her she really shouldn't participate in making educational decisions because she has no family and no children that will feel the effects of those decisions?

I will open my insight into what she must have been thinking (that is spoken quite sarcastically, for clarification - of course I cannot know), but I stand by what I think her motivation was.

Alex

01-14-2007, 06:51 PM

Neither am I offended by those questions of qualification.

I disagree that appropriate empathy requires direct experience but a lot of people disagree with me on that ("how can George Bush effectively set policy when he doesn't know how much a gallong of milk costs" was, if I recall, a real world example) and to raise the issue is neither outrageous nor, in my view, particularly controversial.

sleepyjeff

01-27-2007, 04:30 PM

Maybe Fox News really is fairest of them all...........

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts.

scaeagles

01-27-2007, 09:53 PM

SACRILEGE! SACRILEGE, SLEEPY! How dare you! There must be something sinister about the person who conducted that!

I've posted that before. That's basically what was said, so I thought I'd post it first.

sleepyjeff

01-28-2007, 12:17 AM

^^^How Republican of you conduting that pre-emptive strike;)

innerSpaceman

01-28-2007, 09:01 AM

Where is anyone getting that there should be a politically "centered" bias in journalism? I thought the idea was to bring as much objectivity as humanly possible to investigations that go where facts lead?

I don't think we ought be shocked when there's an intelligence bias in the press. Journalists should be among the smart people if they are going to ferret out news and information. With all due respect to intelligent people on all sides of the political spectrum, it's hard for me not to equate "smart" with "progressive."

But that's just reporters. I think, by and large, they have a liberal bent. Their masters who control their output to the public, however, are staunchly conservative corporate interests. I would think it would balance out ... if not be outright tilted towards corporate interests.

But I'll admit to have zero personal knowledge of Fox News.

Motorboat Cruiser

01-28-2007, 11:38 AM

SACRILEGE! SACRILEGE, SLEEPY! How dare you! There must be something sinister about the person who conducted that!

Depends on what you mean by sinister.

None of the outlets that reported on the study mentioned that the authors have previously received funding from the three premier conservative think tanks in the United States: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace.

More about this flawed study here (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003).

wendybeth

01-28-2007, 12:14 PM

Now, there you go ruining all the cons fun again, MBC.

:D

scaeagles

01-28-2007, 12:21 PM

Like I said, Sleepy....those libs are extraordinarily easy to predict. Don't like the results? Try to discredit those who did the study.

I agree with a lot of what ISM said (the primary exception being the equating of smart and progressive :) ). It is simply not possible for a "journalist" to keep their opinion out of what they are reporting on. Voice inflection, body language, choice of adjectives....it all comes into play no matter what their political slant is. I can live with that.

What I can't live with is the high and mighty condescension of the holier than thou journalists who claim to have no bias and are always objective in their reporting. Just admit you have a bias and get on with it, whatever that bias may be.

Motorboat Cruiser

01-28-2007, 01:01 PM

Like I said, Sleepy....those libs are extraordinarily easy to predict. Don't like the results? Try to discredit those who did the study.

I think a study with so many glaring flaws deserves to be discredited.

* National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a 45.9, making it "conservative" -- but just barely.

* RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization (motto: "OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.") with strong ties to the Defense Department, scored a 60.4, making it a "liberal" group.

* Council on Foreign Relations, whose tagline is "A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis" (its current president is a former Bush administration official; its board includes prominent Democrats and Republicans from the foreign policy establishment) scored a 60.2, making it a "liberal" group.

* American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), bête noire of the right, scored a 49.8, putting it just on the "conservative" side of the ledger.

* Center for Responsive Politics, a group whose primary purpose is the maintenance of databases on political contributions, scored a 66.9, making it highly "liberal."

* Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense policy think tank whose board of directors is currently chaired by former Representative Dave McCurdy (D-OK), scored a 33.9, making it more "conservative" than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union.

Motorboat Cruiser

01-28-2007, 01:06 PM

This sums thing up quite nicely:

In other words, the study rests on a presumption that can only be described as bizarre: If a member of Congress cites a think tank approvingly, and if that think tank is also cited by a news organization, then the news organization has a "bias" making it an ideological mirror of the member of Congress who cited the think tank. This, as Groseclose and Milyo define it, is what constitutes "media bias."

wendybeth

01-28-2007, 07:19 PM

Scaeagles, does FauxNews claim to be "fair and balanced" bother you? Even the study you cite indicates they lean to the right, which is hardly balanced, unless you're drunk or something.;)

scaeagles

01-28-2007, 08:07 PM

Lean to the right, yes, but closer to the center than the other stuff. Perhaps their slogan should be "more fair and more balanced than the other guys".

wendybeth

01-28-2007, 08:13 PM

Any lean is hardly balance. Perhaps they should just come up with a better, more accurate slogan? Or maybe even live up to their current one?

Motorboat Cruiser

01-28-2007, 08:38 PM

Perhaps their slogan should be "more fair and more balanced than the other guys".

When they ran Mark Foley's name with a (D) next to it for numerous days, was that an example of being "more fair" or "more balanced"? Seems CNN was able to get it right.

scaeagles

01-28-2007, 08:42 PM

Well, when CNN "accidently" flashes red "X"s in front of Bush (more than once), this is an example of high standards and fairness?

We can all point to anecdotal evidence forever and never change the opinion of each other.

Alex

01-28-2007, 08:51 PM

When they ran Mark Foley's name with a (D) next to it for numerous days, was that an example of being "more fair" or "more balanced"? Seems CNN was able to get it right.

Unless I am completely forgetting the details it was twice in one episode of The O'Reilly Factor.

Motorboat Cruiser

01-29-2007, 01:46 AM

Unless I am completely forgetting the details it was twice in one episode of The O'Reilly Factor.

Nope, your memory is accurate. My mistake. For some reason, I recalled it was a few days before it was removed.

Motorboat Cruiser

01-29-2007, 01:52 AM

Well, when CNN "accidently" flashes red "X"s in front of Bush (more than once), this is an example of high standards and fairness?

Actually, I couldn't find a cite of that ever happening. I did find something about Cheney and a black "X" though...It happened once. CNN swears it was a computer glitch but I suppose it could be more sinister.

Fox, by the way, refused to offer a public explanation for the (d) next to Foley's name.

Geez, your memory is as good as mine. ;)

scaeagles

01-29-2007, 06:59 AM

Nope, your memory is accurate. My mistake. For some reason, I recalled it was a few days before it was removed.

Now, MBC, my memory is often lacking. I am wondering why you thought this, though? My guess is that you want to believe it and read sources that claimed this was the case.

Motorboat Cruiser

01-29-2007, 10:44 AM

I am wondering why you thought this, though? My guess is that you want to believe it and read sources that claimed this was the case.

Well, I think I would reverse the order. I read the information and obviously trusted the source, which turned out to be misinformed. Considering that there was proof that Fox had made the error the first time around, I assumed that whoever implied that it had happened more than once over a period of days was basing that on similar evidence. My assumption was wrong, but it was based upon Fox's prior history, not simply because "I wanted to believe it".

I would rather be well informed and try my best to do so. Just as, I'm sure, you would rather not go around saying that CNN put a red X over Bush's face when it never happened.

Alex

01-29-2007, 10:54 AM

So, now that we've settled the specifics.

What do you to feel is the significance of:

1. Flashing X over the face of the vice president.
2. Text party misattribution (verbally he was correctly identified as a Republican by O'Reilly) for Mark Foley during one episode of The O'Reilly Report.

Do these instances specifically demonstrate slant by the networks involved? If one but not hte other, what distinguished them?

Motorboat Cruiser

01-29-2007, 11:07 AM

Well, as #2 occurred shortly before an election, I think the potential exists that someone might believe what they saw on the screen and vote republican, thinking that it was a democrat that was in trouble. I would like to believe that people are more informed than that but I have my doubts.

#1, on the other hand, didn't carry the same potential. I don't think that Cheney with an X across his face is going to sway anyone's opinion of the man.

scaeagles

01-30-2007, 06:57 AM

I read the information and obviously trusted the source, which turned out to be misinformed.

Words are a great thing. Sources of incorrect information we like are "misinformed". Sources of incorrect information we don't like didn't do their homework.

But Alex is right. It matters not in either instance, really. Having that D next to Foley's name only meant it would be shouted from the mountain tops that he wasn't (which is fine), and the X over the VP (my source was misinformed) matters not in the grand scheme of things (though I have a hard time imaging it was a computer glitch).

Motorboat Cruiser

01-30-2007, 08:27 AM

It matters not in either instance, really.

Agreed, and this was probably the weakest example of conservative media bias I could have chosen from the ocean of examples. Here's a better look at the "more fair and balanced" Fox News (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067).

wendybeth

01-30-2007, 10:53 AM

Great link, MBC.

mousepod

01-30-2007, 12:02 PM

I know I'm probably one of two Howard Stern listeners here at the LoT, so I figured I'd share an interesting recording from last week's show. It's a 20 minute conversation between Howard and Scott, who is the director of HowardTV, his pay-per-view channel. Scott is a devoted listener of Rush Limbaugh, and a fan of Fox News.

Be aware that this if NOT SAFE FOR WORK.

Howard Clip (http://pocketsymphony.com/lot/012507.mp3)

scaeagles

02-07-2007, 07:10 AM

Various things....

Scientists who believe that global warming is not caused by man, but natural things such as cycles of sunspots, based on historical warming and cooling periods of the earth over the last several millenia, are being silenced and accused of misconduct. Sounds a lot like the treatment of those who thought the earth was round or not the center of the universe. In Oregon, or so I've read, a state climatologist could be fired simply for his view on it.

New York wants to pass a law banning talking on cell phones or listening to Ipods (or similar) while walking. Because a couple people weren't paying attention and got killed crossing the street. Over reaction is amazing.

The Snickers commercial was pulled because it promotes anti gay sentiment? What? I realize there is another thread on this, but it's ridiculous.

Hillary and Obama may not participate in the first democrat debates. Front runners have no guts. This goes for both parties, not just them.

I have more thoughts, but not the time. Perhaps later.

innerSpaceman

02-07-2007, 08:35 AM

Scientists who believe that global warming is not caused by man ... are being silenced and accused of misconduct.
Wow ... that's very, um, selective of you ... during the week of Congressional hearings highlighting the 7 years of censorship by the current administation of scientists who attribute global warming to human activity.

Oh, I don't doubt your veracity .... but what's your point, exactly? Will you concede that scientific censorship is bad, no matter which views are censored?

The Snickers commercial was pulled because it promotes anti gay sentiment? What? ... it's ridiculous.
Well, perhaps it's simply that the ad was NOT going to sell any snickers bars. And while I didn't think it "promoted" anti-gay sentiment (or snickers), I found it mildly insulting. Not that I'd boycott snickers or anything ... but :rolleyes:

Hillary and Obama may not participate in the first democrat debates. Front runners have no guts.
Oh, I didn't realize Obama was a "front runner." Since when? imo, if this is true, he's gutless without the absurd rationale.

Motorboat Cruiser

02-07-2007, 10:18 AM

In Oregon, or so I've read, a state climatologist could be fired simply for his view on it.

He is not a state climatologist.

Although Taylor is often referred to as the state climatologist for Oregon, that job was dissolved by the 1989 Legislature.

Taylor runs the Oregon State-based Oregon Climate Service, which performs many of the same duties that the state climatologist once did. But Gov. Ted Kulongoski is careful to point out that Taylor is not a state official.

Taylor is listed as a scientific adviser for a group that receives money from ExxonMobil and says on its Web site that escalating greenhouse gases are good for the Earth, promoting plant life and bringing "growth and prosperity to man and nature alike."

Gemini Cricket

02-07-2007, 10:35 AM

The Republicans want to filibuster Iraq debate. Weren't they the ones saying that we should get rid of filibustering altogether?

wendybeth

02-07-2007, 10:56 AM

Quite a few of them also wanted term limits- until their own terms were up.:rolleyes:

JWBear

02-07-2007, 11:02 AM

Taylor is listed as a scientific adviser for a group that receives money from ExxonMobil and says on its Web site that escalating greenhouse gases are good for the Earth, promoting plant life and bringing "growth and prosperity to man and nature alike.
Which makes him completely impartial and unbiased…. :rolleyes:

The Republicans want to filibuster Iraq debate. Weren't they the ones saying that we should get rid of filibustering altogether.
They only want to get rid of it when they are in power.

Alex

02-07-2007, 11:13 AM

GC: No they weren't.

SCA:

Sounds a lot like the treatment of those who thought the earth was round or not the center of the universe. It also sounds a lot like the treatment of those who, despite massive evidence to the contrary continue to believe that the world is flat and the earth is the center of the universe.

I would hope that a state paleontologist who believes that dinosaur bones are a joke played by god to trick us would be fired (and would find it difficult to get a job). I would hope that a doctor who literally (and always) believes that laughter is the best medicine would find tenure difficult to acquire. A USDA agricultural biologist proposing Lamarckian genetics shouldn't be allowed within a mile of a corn field (see Lysenko, Trofim).

Like it or not, a view that the earth is not warming is way outside the mainstream. And while less so, disputing its anthrogenic nature is still pretty far outside the mainstream and in a very small minority.

Academic freedom is important in a university setting when it comes to direct state employees, the state should have people squarely in the mainstream.

I say that with absolutely no knowledge of the specific case in question.

ETA: It is also worth noting just for future examples that really no educated person has been persecuted for believing the world is round. Considering this was known to be true since ancient times it has never really been questioned except by the uneducated peons in little position to persecute anybody. The only significant debate was in how big a sphere we're on.

Gemini Cricket

02-07-2007, 11:33 AM

Frist 12/13/2004

Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the "nuclear option," to thwart such filibusters.
"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," he said in a speech to the Federalist Society last month, labeling the use of filibusters against judicial nominees a "formula for tyranny by the minority."Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59877-2004Dec12.html)

It sounds pretty clear to me that they wanted filibustering of all Bush's nominees to end.

Alex

02-07-2007, 12:07 PM

Which is the same as getting "rid of the filibuster altogether" how?

Even if implemented, the rules change that some Republicans were after in relation to presidential nominations would not have prevented the filibuster of a non-binding position statement.

As for the square dance that happens whenever power changes sides, I heartily recommend the final story of last weekend's This American Life (available as a podcast). It was a very amusing look at how both sides do it, both sides then bitch about the other side doing it, and both sides pretend that it is somehow worse this time around.

Gemini Cricket

02-07-2007, 12:18 PM

I think you totally know what I mean when I posted what I posted. I know you're not obtuse. I'm not about to be your audience while you lecture this board yet again about semantics and then ask for an explanation of each and every one of my words.

Alex

02-07-2007, 12:30 PM

I asked for no explanation, I simply disagreed with what you said. You then lectured me on how I was wrong and in so doing highlighted the error of your original statement.

I don't have a secret decoder ring to let me know that when GC says "altogether" he means "not altogether but rather in a certain limited situation." If you could provide me with a table of such things it would help avoid these periodic flare-ups where you get annoyed that I assume you mean what you say.

And I honestly have no idea what you meant to say since the alternative (since Republicans opposed X they are hypocritical to support Y) doesn't even make sense. So color me obtuse.

Gemini Cricket

02-07-2007, 12:57 PM

Re-read post #2173.

sleepyjeff

02-07-2007, 12:59 PM

He is not a state climatologist.

So here we have a guy, who is doing the job of the "State Clilatologist", has been reffered to as the "State Climatologist" by journalists and State Officials and even gets his salary from a "State" supported Institution.

...and because of the title thing our governor, who loves to complain that we don't have enough money so he can't cut taxes or even let us keep our kickers, want to pay another person to do this job.

Two full time teachers probably could be hired for the money he is going to waste on this attempt to silence a dissenting voice.

Gemini Cricket

02-07-2007, 01:03 PM

Gavin Newsom cheated on his wife with another woman?
Awww, there goes my hopes for being First Lady of San Francisco.
:D

Strangler Lewis

02-07-2007, 01:11 PM

Gavin Newsom cheated on his wife with another woman?
Awww, there goes my hopes for being First Lady of San Francisco.
:D

Gavin Newsom divorced his wife a couple of years ago. He shtooped the wife of his campaign manager. Newsom remains single, so anything's possible.

JWBear

02-07-2007, 01:14 PM

It also sounds a lot like the treatment of those who, despite massive evidence to the contrary continue to believe that the world is flat and the earth is the center of the universe.

I would hope that a state paleontologist who believes that dinosaur bones are a joke played by god to trick us would be fired (and would find it difficult to get a job). I would hope that a doctor who literally (and always) believes that laughter is the best medicine would find tenure difficult to acquire. A USDA agricultural biologist proposing Lamarckian genetics shouldn't be allowed within a mile of a corn field (see Lysenko, Trofim).

Like it or not, a view that the earth is not warming is way outside the mainstream. And while less so, disputing its anthrogenic nature is still pretty far outside the mainstream and in a very small minority.

Academic freedom is important in a university setting when it comes to direct state employees, the state should have people squarely in the mainstream.

I say that with absolutely no knowledge of the specific case in question.

Absolutly!

Alex

02-07-2007, 01:21 PM

Re-read post #2173.

Ok, I have. I stand by post #2174.

Or, when you said #2174 did you mean something else and I'm just supposed to know what you meant to say?

I think you know why you and I have trouble conversing, but I really don't know how to fix it. The way it seems to me is that you write things and you think the fundamentally important thing about it is the feeling that went into it and not so much what it actually says.

Whereas I have no idea what feelings went into it so I rely on what it actually says. I still have (and this gods honest truth, not some attempt to get you to say something I can further pounce on) no idea what you meant to say other than what you actually said.

Alex

02-07-2007, 01:27 PM

Gavin Newsom divorced his wife a couple of years ago. He shtooped the wife of his campaign manager. Newsom remains single, so anything's possible.

I really wish he hadn't followed up a pretty straight admission of guilty (with almost no use of passive voice) with the now obligatory "I need help with substance abuse."

Frankly, I don't really care about affairs. Those are, for the most part, a different kind of misconduct than official misconduct. Yes, it calls into question his general judgment but overall I don't think it that big of a deal.

However, while "I behaved stupidly because I'm overly fond of the booty call" doesn't call into question his judgment on affordable housing issues, "I behaved stupidly because I'm a drunk" does.

And, since in San Francisco, Newsom is generally attacked as not being progressive enough, it'll be interesting to see all of the people who didn't care about Clinton and Monica suddenly consider this a major issue and the people who cared about nothing more than Clinton and Monica call it a private matter.

Gemini Cricket

02-07-2007, 02:03 PM

Gavin Newsom divorced his wife a couple of years ago. He shtooped the wife of his campaign manager. Newsom remains single, so anything's possible.
Oh yeah, that's right. He did leave her, didn't he. But it still remains that he's a straight. Oh well.
:D

Strangler Lewis

02-07-2007, 03:03 PM

Oh yeah, that's right. He did leave her, didn't he. But it still remains that he's a straight. Oh well.
:D

My recollection was that they left each other due to the conflicting pull of their increasing celebrity. Still, to read the tea leaves, she was somewhat mannish and gaudy. And he will be running for reelection with his support for gay marriage a major plank in his platform. After recent events, his base might need extra shoring up.

wendybeth

02-07-2007, 05:01 PM

Frist 12/13/2004
Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59877-2004Dec12.html)

It sounds pretty clear to me that they wanted filibustering of all Bush's nominees to end.

I remember very clearly the HateRadio calls for the end to filibustering. Robert Bork was on one of them and the host made that very suggestion to him, probably expecting Bork to agree. Instead, Bork made a very reasoned and vehement statement against such a move, and spelled out the many ways it would harm the Republicans in the long run. I'll have to try and find the transcript if I can.

wendybeth

02-07-2007, 05:40 PM

Ghoulish Delight

02-07-2007, 05:50 PM

I need to amend the previous post- it seems Borks position was in response to criticism regarding some asanine comments he made on Hannity's tv show, so I guess backpedaling can't be taken too seriously. Still, the fact remains that the Republicans were quite serious about ending the ability to filibuster judicial noms and it is very well documented.Which Alex didn't argue. All Alex said was that they were not out to remove the filibuster entirely as a tool in other debates, such as the non-binding Iraq resolution.

scaeagles

02-08-2007, 07:01 AM

I just wish filibusters were true filibusters, where the minority would actually have to maintain control of the floor, not leaving to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, whatever. Both parties have made the process too easy. If you're going to filibuster, it should be because you believe it in strongly enough to experience some discomfort.

Change the rules back.

innerSpaceman

02-08-2007, 08:26 AM

Yes, by all means change the rules back. Dial them back to Non-Arcane, please.

Gemini Cricket

02-08-2007, 10:15 AM

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/ldb070208.gif

Alex

02-15-2007, 11:48 PM

McCain is giving a speech under the umbrella of the Discovery Institute.

Unless his plan is to rip them a new one, that pretty much crosses him off my list.

Alex

02-20-2007, 12:08 PM

Not particularly political but it has me baning my head on my desk anyway to learn within minutes of each other that

Rhode Island University granted a PhD in geosciences to someone who believes the earth to only be several thousand years old (and therefore, he presented research he did not believe to be true).

A New Jersey public school history teacher tells his class that there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark and that those who don't accept Christ as their savior are going to hell gets transferred to teach the same class to a different group of students.

There is a new bit of claptrap in the vein of What the &#%*& Do We Know? (called The Secret) sweeping the nation which means another couple thousand people who will think that quantum mechanics tells us things it doesn't.

At least the Kansas School Board of Governors pulled their heads out of their asses for one election cycle.

Alex

02-20-2007, 01:44 PM

Three in a row from me. In something more overtly political I'm the only person (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/02/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or_atheist _/)less likely to be elected president than a homosexual.

I wonder how well a twice divorded female black gay atheist (but ethnically Jewish) born in 1935 would poll. I think I'd vote for that person sight unseen.

Not Afraid

02-20-2007, 02:45 PM

Hot topics on Yahoo News:

Full Coverage

India
- 23 minutes ago
Iraq
- 23 minutes ago
Afghanistan
- 23 minutes ago
Middle East Conflict
- 23 minutes ago
Britney Spears
- 23 minutes ago

huh?

Gemini Cricket

03-06-2007, 10:21 AM

Libby guilty of 4 of 5 counts (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/06/cia.leak/index.html).

Ghoulish Delight

03-06-2007, 10:30 AM

Libby guilty of 4 of 5 counts (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/06/cia.leak/index.html).
Oh wow. Reports from yesterday about the jury asking for clarification of the definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" kinda made it sound like they were leaning towards not guilty. I guess not.

Gemini Cricket

03-06-2007, 10:36 AM

I was surprised as well. I wasn't sure how this whole issue was going to turn out. So confusing.

mousepod

03-06-2007, 10:41 AM

Damn liberal media. Libby was found not guilty of one count. That's 20%!

JWBear

03-06-2007, 10:47 AM

Damn liberal media. Libby was found not guilty of one count. That's 20%!

LOL!!! :snap:

Alex

03-06-2007, 10:51 AM

And in the end just as unimportant and irrelevant as most of the minor convictions achieved during the Clinton years.

He lied about something that it turns out wasn't illegal. It's like a jaywalking ticket. Yes, technically a law was broken but it sure feels like a waste of time.

Gemini Cricket

03-06-2007, 10:51 AM

Could you imagine going to prison with a nickname like "Scooter"? Oy vey!
"Come here, Scooter. Give Big Papa Pops a kiss."
:D

innerSpaceman

03-06-2007, 12:29 PM

Um, he's not going to prison. The appeal will run until Bush's term ends, at which time "Scooter" likely tops the list of last-minute presidential pardons.

And I don't know where in the world Alex is getting that Libby lied about something not illegal. He lied about the outting of a CIA operative, clearly an illegal act.

Alex

03-06-2007, 12:34 PM

No, there is no agreement that outing Plame was illegal.

However, there is general agreement that Libby's actions were not illegal. He lied about conversations that were not illegal (this is why he is only charged with lying about them).

innerSpaceman

03-06-2007, 04:15 PM

Whose agreement do you need, Alex? Libby's conversations with reporters wherein he identified Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative are illegal, and no one's agreement is necessary.

I have no idea why he wasn't charged with that ... except that when there's contradictory evidence, it's probably easier for a jury to find deception than to find which side is telling the truth.

In one sense, it's lousy that the cover-up is what's charged and convicted on, rather than the underlying crime. In another sense, however, government cover-ups are criminal acts in and of themselves that society has an interest in curbing via criminal prosecution. And though there seems to be no particular deterrent factor in the take-down always being for the cover-up rather than the crime, less cover-ups would be a good thing.

If only to leave nothing but the underlying crime for feckless prosecutors to go after.

Alex

03-06-2007, 05:04 PM

Then why hasn't he been charged with a crime for holding those conversations? Fitzgerald went out of his way to explicitly say that he had made no determination as to whether revealing Plame's name was in itself illegal.

So first I'd like his agreement. ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News, PBS and 28 other news organizations filed amicus briefs saying that in their legal opinion leaking Plame's name was not itself a crime. While not legally important, considering how much time they spent covering, it is interesting that they do not think there was an underlying crime. And remember that when Bob Novak called the CIA to verify that Plame worked there that they did in fact confirm it (meaning that if it was a crime then the CIA just committed it too).

No branch of the criminal justice system has determined that an underlying crime was committed. That is what Fitzgerald was drafted to do and he hasn't done that. The CIA said they thought it was a crime, they referred it to DoJ which punted for conflict reasons to a special presecutor.

Since Fitzgerald knows who first leaked the information (Dick Armitrage) to a reporter, it seems like there is an obvious candidate for an indictment if Fitzgerald could support the argument that simply saying her name was a crime.

There may very well have been an underlying criminal act and there certainly was an underlying despicable act (which is not the same thing) but as to the former there is not general agreement. Except among those who have already decided that there was. If a crime was committed then I hope those guilty get charged.

By I stand by my original point. If this is all that is going to come out of the whole affair (and it looks like that will be the case) then it was a whole lot of hassle for not much benefit other than nailing someone on technicalities.

innerSpaceman

03-06-2007, 06:44 PM

You mean like getting Al Capone for income tax evasion? Was that just a pussy move they shouldn't have taken if they couldn't jail him for murder? Or was it an acceptable "technicality" to prevent further murders committed by Capone?

I'm not equating the Plame namedropping with murder ... just positing the effacacy of going for a "technicality" conviction when none other is plausible.

But I agree it's all for nothing ... Libby will undoubtedly be pardoned.

Alex

03-06-2007, 06:57 PM

I'll agree with that as soon as someone with authority to do so says that a crime (other than Libby lying about an otherwise legal conversation; this is why Armitrage hasn't been charged for doing the same thing as Libby, he didn't lie about doing it) I'll agree with that.

mousepod

03-06-2007, 07:09 PM

This made me laugh:
http://boingboing.net/images/2001883825464813443_rs.jpg

Alex

03-06-2007, 07:14 PM

20%

wendybeth

03-06-2007, 08:53 PM

I'm sure that's about all that will make it into the Conservipedia.

SacTown Chronic

03-09-2007, 07:55 AM

It's true, Scooter was found not guilty of being innocent on 80% of the charges.

(and I love that the screenshot says suspended Boston Globe columnist Ron Borges has found a mate)

Alex

03-09-2007, 08:42 AM

Thinking about that more, is there a video of that bit? I can easily imagine that the crawl said "Scooter Libby found guilty of perjury and obstruction...Scooter Libby found not guilty of lying to FBI investigators"

And then just showing a screenshot of the latter part looks damning and silly.

SacTown Chronic

03-09-2007, 09:59 AM

In case you were wondering why Newt Gingrich can cheat on his wife and still consider himself a viable candidate for president after telling Clinton he's not fit to be president for cheating on Hillary, the answer is the bible Clinton put his right hand on.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070309/pl_nm/usa_politics_gingrich_dc_1)

I drew a line in my mind that said even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept felonies and you cannot accept perjury in your highest officials," Gingrich said.Not rendering judgement on another human being?!?

Where was the line in your mind that wondered why a fellow adulterer should have to testify under oath for doing what you did, ya fvckhead?

Strangler Lewis

03-09-2007, 11:14 AM

Gingrich's marital history is simply consistent with conservative support for term limits and a fresh approach.

JWBear

03-09-2007, 04:44 PM

In case you were wondering why Newt Gingrich can cheat on his wife and still consider himself a viable candidate for president after telling Clinton he's not fit to be president for cheating on Hillary, the answer is the bible Clinton put his right hand on.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070309/pl_nm/usa_politics_gingrich_dc_1)

Not rendering judgement on another human being?!?

Where was the line in your mind that wondered why a fellow adulterer should have to testify under oath for doing what you did, ya fvckhead?

Remember Sac, things like adultery, perjury, and fraud aren't wrong when Republicans do them - because they are the party of morality! That makes it ok.

Not Afraid

03-09-2007, 06:19 PM

Bush is wowing over South America, isn't he?

innerSpaceman

03-09-2007, 08:05 PM

Oh ... he's loved all over the world, that wascally Bush.

wendybeth

03-09-2007, 10:00 PM

Gingrich's marital history is simply consistent with conservative support for term limits and a fresh approach.

He's also exhibiting Family Values. Likes them so much he's had several!

SacTown Chronic

03-21-2007, 08:15 PM

To hell with your subpoenas, Congress, the White House interns serve at the pleasure of the President.

That's what a real man would have said.

Ghoulish Delight

04-18-2007, 10:01 AM

I suppose we shouldn't expect anything less from an administration so connected to Enron, but here's a story that's kinda flown under the radar. In violation of federal law, as well as being blatantly stupid in the wake of countless corporate scandals that have focused around email retention and the lack-thereof, the Whitehouse seems to have lost several million emails. These were sent on laptops and email accounts provided to staff by the RNC. They say that they may be able to recover many of the emails since 2004...but (and I'm looking for confirmation on this detail) I heard that the recovered data is unlikely to include Karl Rove's emails.

link (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/four-years-of-karl-rove-emails-missing/2007/04/15/1176575660172.html)

Alex

04-18-2007, 10:16 AM

Scrooge McSam

04-18-2007, 10:19 AM

But I think it is stupid they're supposed to keep them.

Why do you think that's stupid?

Ghoulish Delight

04-18-2007, 10:22 AM

If they're supposed to keep them then I suppose it is stupid they didn't. But I think it is stupid they're supposed to keep them.

Having just lost six months of email I have no doubt that it is easy to do unless you're immediately copying everything from the central server to an optical storage medium.For an individual, it is certainly easy to loose everything. Even for a company it is. But when federal law specifically says that all Whitehouse communication must be kept, when people have been going to jail (or dying on the way there) for losing emails, and when the loss is discovered because an investigation that relies on just such communication retention is underway, you're in deep crap. Further complicated by the seeming unrecoverability of Rove's emails specifically. It could be complete coincidence, but that'll be a hard one to explain away.

Alex

04-18-2007, 10:28 AM

Aren't these emails that were through the RNC, not the White House?

Like I said, if it is the law then it is stupid they didn't. But I also think the law is stupid.

Ghoulish Delight

04-18-2007, 10:31 AM

Aren't these emails that were through the RNC, not the White House?They were using RNC laptops and email addressed, but it included official White House content, definitely covered under the retention laws. At first they were saying, "Oh, it's just a handful of non-essential stuff done by staffers on these non-government-issue accounts." Further prodding produced the fact that it was far more serious than that.

wendybeth

04-18-2007, 11:09 AM

People thought it was stupid of Nixon not to get rid of recorded and written messages, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone thinking it was stupid to require document retention.

Coincidence is this administration's only excuse in a long list of problems. God knows they are never at fault.

Alex

04-18-2007, 11:18 AM

I think we've gone overboard on the work product we expect government to retain and maintain.

I think the official decisioning documents need to be available but not everything that goes into that decision.

For example, here in San Francisco some group successfully sued to get the original Word document rather than the distributed PDF version so that they could see the entire change history for the document. So not only do we have the right to the final document but the very first draft, every typo, every reconsideration of phrasing. To me this is stupid.

This overload prodcues so much detail that, in my opinion, the context gets lost.

To require that every electronic utterance be retained is, in my opinion, stupid. We might as well also require every government worker to wear personal tape recorders while on the job so that we can also listen in on every conversation. And stupid rules lead to stupid violations, whether intentional or not. And stupid violations lead to criminalization of the process (everybody eventually breaks a law).

If they were intentionally circumventing the law, no matter how stupid, they should be punished for it. But that doesn't make the underlying law any less stupid.

wendybeth

04-18-2007, 11:23 AM

If we've gone overboard, I think that's due to the government's adeptness at hiding **** from us. They work for us, Alex- much as they'd like to forget that. I think the decision making process plays a considerable part in the outcome (government contracts, anyone?) and needs to be documented. Moot point, though, if they 'lose' said documentation.

Ghoulish Delight

04-18-2007, 11:27 AM

I
For example, here in San Francisco some group successfully sued to get the original Word document rather than the distributed PDF version so that they could see the entire change history for the document. So not only do we have the right to the final document but the very first draft, every typo, every reconsideration of phrasing. To me this is stupid.

This overload prodcues so much detail that, in my opinion, the context gets lost.
You make valid points, but look at this US attorney mess. So far, the only defense the highest officials (Gonzalez and his direct staff) have been giving has been, "We didn't know what was going on." And if you just look at the final product of the action, you'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise. But a few emails here and there and it's starting to look like that defense is an outright lie, that Gonzales, his staff, Rove knew very well what was going on. So where do you draw the line to ensure accountability?

Alex

04-18-2007, 11:30 AM

I don't disagree with that. I just don't think that subjecting every bit of minutae to second guessing, re-evaluation, and misinterpretation is productive either.

Ultimately I don't see these laws having any impact on the fundamental corruptness of our government, just on oppositions ability to create issues over which to pretend outrage. Which is all the attorney general thing is, trumped up pretend outrage. Covering up that which was not wrong in the first place is not a crime, it is just petty.

Alex

04-18-2007, 11:34 AM

GD, that is like, in my view, the common "what about the woman who protects herself from rape" defense of easily available handguns. You can find individual good results for any policy.

But overall, I don't see a net positive in it.

Not Afraid

04-18-2007, 05:01 PM

Soon, we'll have our Certified Records Manager on line and, I'm sure he'd be happy to comment. ;)

€uroMeinke

04-18-2007, 08:30 PM

I agree with Alex. Expecting all email be retained is stupid. The Hatch Act in the electronic era is also stupid and contributed to this mess.

The amount of email is becoming humanly impossible to read. We should require our officials to read their delivered mail (i.e. SPAM removed by software not humans) and make a judgement as to it's importance and whether or not in need be retained.

The RNC was stupid to lose the emails in such an arbitrary fashion (or so it has been characterized to me) the should have a regular process of purging and retaining and stick to it. To the extent they didn't they'll take a well deserved hit for that that ill make them look suspicious regardless if any smoking gun were to be found.

innerSpaceman

04-18-2007, 08:36 PM

Oh, hard to do? Tough.

Rove and his cohorts purposely do all their business over laptop email systems so their dirty work won't be uncovered. Government attracts crooks, and I believe drastic measures must be taken to thwart them.

Let them meet in dark alleys if they want to cheat the American people who pay their salaries, and subvert the Constitution they or their bosses are sworn to uphold. Tap their email, their cellphones, and equip them all with internal monitoring devices that record every frelling word they say as long as they are in office or work for an elected official.

Fvck their liberties. Their kind have abused power for generations, for centuries. As we attain the technology to reign them in and/or make their deceptions as difficult as possible, I say we use it to the full extent.

€uroMeinke

04-18-2007, 08:44 PM

I don't want to take away their liberties, because I ant to retain mine. The various internet and email policies at my work place made me implement my own RNC solution. I don't want to have to be fired because someone sent me an off-color joke, or mention something that someone else could construe as immoral or offensive.

Alex

04-18-2007, 10:17 PM

I can understand a "**** the government" point of view. I don't really understand it in conjunction with the progressive role for government you've previously expressed a preference for.

Government may attract crooks but so does treating everybody like a crook because the sane people aren't going to go anywhere near it.

wendybeth

04-18-2007, 11:11 PM

Well, as the Government has no problem snooping into my business (we're in a war, dammit!) and goes to great lengths to circumvent and ignore existing privacy laws, I really have no problem whatsoever with inconveniencing them with regards to documents. I do have to say I was wrong about this administration: previously, I'd thought they hadn't learned a thing from history, but the events of Watergate seem to have taught them a thing or two.

Alex

04-18-2007, 11:17 PM

innerSpaceman

04-18-2007, 11:19 PM

I don't really understand it in conjunction with the progressive role for government you've previously expressed a preference for.
But oftentimes, when it comes to the government, I just like posting mad.

Sorry if it wasn't obvious I was angry. Perhaps we need a Rant smiley?

Alex

04-18-2007, 11:24 PM

Ok, so when you're posting mad you're not expressing your true opinions?

It was clear you're angry, I just don't see how that impacts the apparent disconnect.

wendybeth

04-18-2007, 11:27 PM

I believe there is a certain protocol that was not followed, not to mention that the firings were so ****ing blatantly political that even the Repubs are embarrassed. Come on, devil's advocacy aside- do you really believe they went about this the proper way? This administration has pulled off more boners like this than any in recorded history, mostly because they wrongly believed to have a public mandate, or religious one if you really want to get right down to it, and now they are scrambling to extract themselves and do damage control. If they didn't do anything wrong, what's the big deal?

Alex

04-18-2007, 11:37 PM

Went about what in the proper way? Firing the lawyers?

Yes, I have no problem with how it was done. I have no probably with how each administration has house cleaned these positions for political reasons. As is so commonly said in administrations of either party: they serve at the discretion of the president. They are political positions. Removal does not have to be "fair."

It wasn't a big deal. It isn't like these firing just happened. They happened a while ago. It didn't become a big deal until somebody could be accused of lying about it. Lying is the charge being pursued, not inappropriate firing. As I said above it is a stupid coverup since there was nothing particularly wrong about the underlying action.

If they didn't do anything wrong, what's the big deal?In a political environment that has thrived for the last 14 years on finding excuses for manufacturing outrage "where there's smoke there's fire" being taken as coda is not a good idea.

See, for example, the so-called Paul Wolfowitz scandal. Which is 100% manufactured outrage to win political points.

blueerica

04-18-2007, 11:46 PM

(Stepping in for perhaps, the first time)

Politics, both sides, has been manufactured pretty much since the beginning; pandering, scandals, heroes, you name it. While there will always be the questions and wanting to know the truth, I hold no illusion of ever knowing, nor do I really think there's a truth out there. After all, it is subjective. One man's truth is another man's lie.

Which is pretty much why I stopped bothering years ago, and will live out my political days in silence and contemplation.

(Stepping out, because my shoes are covered in muck.)

How do you guys do it? ;)

Alex

04-19-2007, 10:34 AM

So, a lot of people are upset by the Supreme Court's partial birth abortion ruling yesterday.

Since I think the point where we sanctify life is pretty much an arbitrary decision I don't really have a strong opionion either way and we're in splitting hairs territory. Two inches farther and it is a human being with full rights, two inches farther back and you're within your right so get a dwarf to stick a hand up there just to punch on it for a while.

But there are a special subgroup of people complaining about the ruling, that feel the law should have been struck down as unconstitutional. And those would be certain Congressman who voted for the law in the first place (such as Harry Reid).

Since no new information has come forward on the constitutional merits of this law I can only assume that Mr. Reid voted for a bill he believed unconstitutional for political expediency and with the unstated assumption that a court would strike it down.

In a just world, would not voting for a law you believe unconstitutional be something bordering on treason?

(On a different issue I expect to find a lot of Congressman in the same boat on the suspension of habeus corpus.)

innerSpaceman

04-19-2007, 10:43 AM

Yes, treason. Absolutely.

I have no idea what the Supremes voted on yesterday, so I'm not talking about this specific case ... but in the abstract, though it could never be proven, legislators should be strung up if they vote for a law they know to be unconstitutional. They could buck their responsibility all the way to the gallows for all I care. And this will not be a problem once their internal thought-monitoring devices are installed in the cerebral cortex, beginning with the 2037 session of Congress.

Voice-box monitors will be found sufficient for all congressional and white house staffers until the 2059 session.

Motorboat Cruiser

04-19-2007, 02:24 PM

Here's the really stupid thing: there was absolutely nothing wrong with the firings.

They should have just said (more diplomatically) "these people work for me. They're political appointments. I can fire them anytime I want for pretty much any reason I want. So bugger off.

And had they done that, there wouldn't be hearings this week. But when the DOJ says things like they fired Carol Lam over her performance, specifically her performance regarding immigration, and then we learn that she received a letter of commendation in 2007 for this specific work, something doesn't add up.

From the transcript:

FEINSTEIN: … September 15, 2007, signed by the director of field operations of the United States Customs and Border Protection Agency. It’s sent to Carol Lam. And it is a letter of commendation, and I will just read a few sections.

To address the alien enforcement issue, your office supported the implementation of the Alien Smuggling Fast Track Program, and has demonstrated a commitment to aggressively address the alien smuggling recidivism rate.

In support of Border Patrol referrals for prosecution, your office maintains a 100 percent acceptance rate of criminal cases while staunchly refusing to reduce felony charges to misdemeanors and maintaining a minimal dismissal rate and supporting special prosecution efforts.

In validation of enforcement initiatives, your staff aggressively prosecuted enrollees in the Sentry program who engaged in smuggling to support a zero-tolerance posture. They have focused on cases of fraud, special-interest aliens, prosecution of criminal aliens and supported our sustained disrupt operations.

The prosecution’s unit presented 416 alien smuggling cases, which represents a 33 percent increase over the 314 cases presented in ‘05. The prosecutions unit identified and pursued the prosecution of several recidivist alien smugglers and presented 30 non-threshold alien smuggling cases for prosecution, resulting in a 100 percent conviction rate. This represents a 329 percent increase over the seven non-threshold cases presented in 2005.

Additionally, a cumulation study done by USA Today places Carol Lam as one of the top three attorneys in the United States for the prosecution of these cases. It is a real surprise to me that you would say here that the reason for her dismissal was immigration cases. Now, if I might go on, who, Mr. Sampson, was Dusty Foggo or is Dusty Foggo?

SAMPSON: I understand from news reports, Senator, and from general knowledge, that he was an employee at the CIA.

FEINSTEIN: And who is Mr. Wilkes?

SAMPSON: I don’t know. I understand, again from news reports, that he’s affiliated somehow with Mr. Foggo.

FEINSTEIN: And are you aware that on May 10th Carol Lam sent a notice to the Department of Justice saying she would be seeking a search warrant of the CIA investigation into Dusty Foggo and Brent Wilkes?

SAMPSON: I don’t remember ever seeing such a notice.

FEINSTEIN: But the next day you wrote the e-mail which says, The real problem we have right now — right now — with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day after her four-year term expires, that that relates to her immigration record.

SAMPSON: The real problem that I was referring to in that e-mail was her office’s failure to being sufficient immigration cases.

FEINSTEIN: OK.

If she was fired for actual poor performance, or even just because she serves at the pleasure of the President, that is one thing. If she was fired because she was seeking a search warrant on someone they didn't want her to investigate, I find that far more troubling.

Strangler Lewis

04-19-2007, 03:10 PM

Since no new information has come forward on the constitutional merits of this law I can only assume that Mr. Reid voted for a bill he believed unconstitutional for political expediency and with the unstated assumption that a court would strike it down.

In a just world, would not voting for a law you believe unconstitutional be something bordering on treason?

The first part of this is not strictly true. In passing the law without a health exception, Congress made a "finding" that no health exception was necessary because the procedure could never be justified to prevent damage to the pregnant woman's health. When the law was challenged at the district court, there was testimony on both sides of the issue. Because the testimony conflicted, the Supreme Court said that the law survived a facial challenge. The Court also said that the Congressional finding was hooey, but that other "findings" provided a rational basis for the law. None of this is to suggest that Reid and others actually put their faith in the legislative "findings."

Somewhat less dramatically, the strongest grounds for suggesting the law is unconstitutional is that Congress arguably lacked the power to enact it under the Commerce Clause. Justice Thomas mentions this in his concurrence. Whether he did this out of a genuine limited federal government impulse or out of the desire to push the issue towards whether a fetus is a person under the Due Process clause--which would provide an alternative ground for Congressional action--will have to wait further developments.

For those who like a little light--and disingenuous--reading, here's the opinion.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf