The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 219

Alex · 02-07-2007, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

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.

Strangler Lewis · 02-07-2007, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Frist 12/13/2004
Article

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

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.

Ghoulish Delight · 02-07-2007, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

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

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.

02-07-2007, 05:40 PM	#2185
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	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. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

02-08-2007, 07:01 AM	#2187
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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.
	Submit to Quotes

02-08-2007, 08:26 AM	#2188
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Yes, by all means change the rules back. Dial them back to Non-Arcane, please.
	Submit to Quotes

02-08-2007, 10:15 AM	#2189
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244
	Submit to Quotes

02-15-2007, 11:48 PM	#2190
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes