PeterDavid.net

I like that: Fight fire with popcorn. Although, you have to give them credit for also tossing in a few stern words here and there.

I'd type more, but I've got butter and salt all over my fingers.

Nowhere in this is the question of whether or not Alito is competant to serve on the court even mentioned. Doesn't this matter? Or is it no a given that any pick by a president will result in the opposition party doing whatever they can to tear that person down, by whatever means necessary?

At any rate...the Democrats may be using a bit more forward thinking than you are. If Justice Stevens were to retire in the next 2 years Bush's pick could tip the balance of power on Roe V Wade (ie. the only issue most of the partisans seem to care about). At that point it will be easier and more popular with the public to threaten a filibuster against anyone not seen as a centrist consensus choice.

Besides, what do the Republicans have to lose? They have pretty much let Democratic presidents have their picks for the court go through with little opposition--witness the near unanamous support for Ginsburg--so losing the option of filibuster will be hardly missed.

In order for the Democratic party to regain any type of real influence over the American public, they need only keep two simple factors in mind when responding or challenging their adversaries:

1) Be specific with criticisms.

2) Be specific with propsals.

I am one who believes that they react, rather than respond to situations, attacks, crappy nominees. Forget the popcorn, they need only take just enough time to read the "ABC" label on the extinguisher before fighting the fire. A skill that the party seems to have forgotten in their reactionary mindset.

Fred

If Justice Stevens were to retire in the next 2 years Bush's pick could tip the balance of power on Roe V Wade (ie. the only issue most of the partisans seem to care about).

Well, when you see the abortion groups (those for and against) being the first ones to comment on a judicial nominee, you know the system has gone to shit.

These people act like that's the only type of case the Supreme Court will hear these days.

I'd find it rather amusing if, for some reason, one of these anti-abortion groups found themselves in front of the Supreme Court for something other than abortion and lost with Alito as the deciding vote.

Ahh, I can hear the cries of "judicial activism" already.

If you see yourself as the good guy, it's hard to summon up bloodlust because that's not what the good guys do. They try to persuade and reason with people, to sway them with logic and reality. I don't think it's bloodlust that they need, I think it's a clear and cohesive vision, a charismatic leader or three, and a final acknowledgement that there's no longer a "center" to move to so they should once again consider speaking for the majority of US citizens who generally have much more liberal views than they (the Congresscritters) do.

If you see yourself as the good guy, it's hard to summon up bloodlust because that's not what the good guys do. They try to persuade and reason with people, to sway them with logic and reality.
*********************************

That's not what politicians do. What was the line from the American President about Shepard being the "most loved economics teacher" at a university or something like that? That's what happens to brilliant people who aren't stategists. Politics is war, as Garafalo said in a recent West Wing. It's often not about nice guys. Yes, there's a difference between low blows but there's also a difference between George Washington and Ghandi. The latter is a great man but he wouldn't have won the Revolutionary War.

Bill Mulligan posted:
Besides, what do the Republicans have to lose? They have pretty much let Democratic presidents have their picks for the court go through with little opposition--witness the near unanamous support for Ginsburg--so losing the option of filibuster will be hardly missed.

Bill, exactly how many members of the Supreme Court have been nominated by a Democratic president in the past 33 years? I'll tell you exactly how many--TWO! That's it. TWO. Ginsburg (whose nomination was supported by that oh-so-liberal member of Congress, Orrin Hatch, before Clinton formally put forth the nomination) and Breyer. That's it. No one else. All SEVEN of the other members sitting on the Court this past January 20th had been appointed by Republican Presidents, largely with the support of the Democratic Senate (O'Connor and Scalia were the only justices whose nominations were approved by a GOP-controlled Senate). Until Ginsburg's appointment and confirmation, the last Democratic-appointed justice was Thurgood Marshall (by LBJ).
Now, let's also not forget that the GOP was a very strong factor in leading the filibuster against LBJ's nominee (Abe Fortas) for Chief Justice when Earl Warren informed LBJ of his decision to retire, and one of the strongest opponents of Fortas' elevation to Chief Justice was none other than Strom Thurmond who used Fortas' "liberal" record as the sole reason for the filibuster. That, mon ami, was way back in 1968! A Democratic President's nominee was thwarted by a GOP-led filibuster. (This, in fact, was at a time when the motion for cloture required a solid 2/3 majority, rather than the current 3/5 vote. The reduction didn't come until 1975.)
I am so bloody sick of these lies being spewed by the far-right extremists who simply choose to ignore those facts which don't support their ridiculous assertions. What's even more astonishing is the way that those lies are being swallowed so willingly by a media and public which simply doesn't want to take a few minutes to verify the historical record.
The Senate NEEDS the filibuster because it is such a small body. There is plenty of time for debate on important issues in the Senate as opposed to the House, but the current GOP leadership doesn't seem to want an open debate. When you dare assert that a mere 50 members of the Senate (remember that a tie enables the Vice-President to cast a tie-breaking vote) should be able to hold the power to put a person in a post from which they can sit for life, you fall for the trap that the party you support will remain in power indefinitely. But, just remember that any drastic changes made by one party can remain in place when the other party makes a return to power. (In other words, you may not like the Democrats being able to filibuster, but will you feel so generous when the GOP loses *its* ability to filibuster?)

When Governor Granholm was the state attorney general, the Republican-controlled state legislature tried to greatly reduce the attorney general's power . Granholm successfully fought back against that effort.

Today, the state attorney general _is_ a Republican, one who enjoys the same powers Granholm had when she held the office. But if the Republicans' short-sighted effort to reduce the attorney general to a paper tiger had succeeded, then their guy would now be essentially under the thumb of the Democratic governor.

I find it truly bizarre that the Republicans even contemplated such a move (and the same would apply if it had been the Democrats trying to do it). Did they think they would have a permanent lock on the governor's office? Did they believe that if their efforts had proven successful, that "success" wouldn't have one day come back to haunt them?

Sometimes I wonder what planet politicians are from.

Rick

For the record, here's a fairly informative article concerning the filibuster against Fortas from a man who's not exactly reknowned as a liberal, John Dean.
http://hnn.us/articles/11753.html

"What was the line from the American President about Shepard being the "most loved economics teacher" at a university or something like that?"

The line is from the scene when a pissed Shepard is shooting pool with Chief of Staff A.J. (Martin Sheen, ironically). A.J. makes it clear that he's not happy with the way Shepard is handling things, and Shepard challenges A.J.'s right to criticize him considering that--as he points out angrily--he's never seen A.J.'s name on a ballot for anything. And he says, "Why is that? Why are you always one step behind me?" To which A.J. shoots back, "Because if I wasn't, you'd be the most popular history professor at the University of Wisconsin." And the president shouts back a rather explicity profanity and slams down his pool cue.

PAD

Actually, Joseph, yes, I do think that the next Democratic president should have the right to nominate a qualified person to the Supreme Court and expect to have that nominee voted on by the Senate, without fear of the Republicans denying them the chance by fillibuster threat. It would have been wrong to do it to Ginsberg. It would be wrong to do it to Alito, unless some damaging information comes out. Just my opinion, but at least it's consistant.

One other thing--it isn't that the Democrats don't go for the jugular--they often just aren't good at it. Too arrogant. Using the corpse of Rosa Parks to attack Alito before she has even been buried is hardball blood in the water politics. It also comes across s crass and ugly to a lot of non-partisan folks.

Obviously I don't want to condemn all Democrats for the actions of Schumer and jackson, but it would be nice if some of the saner ones told them to cool it

It would be wrong to do it to Alito, unless some damaging information comes out.

Eye of the beholder.

To many, being anti-abortion is "damaging information" enough.

The problem is that too few on either side care any more.

The filibuster will get the "nuclear option" treatment (I saw some Republican calling it the "constitutional option" the other day... what a crock), Alito will be confirmed by simple majority, and then the Republicans will shit a brick when they lose the majority while blaming the Democrats for forcing the "nuclear option" to begin with.

"Because the GOP fights fire with fire, while the Democrats fight fire with popcorn"
The analogy I've been using for years is that the Democrats are out for a sporting day of fencing, unaware that the Republicans are waging a brass-knuckle brawl.

"Nowhere in this is the question of whether or not Alito is competant to serve on the court even mentioned. Doesn't this matter? Or is it no a given that any pick by a president will result in the opposition party doing whatever they can to tear that person down, by whatever means necessary?"
Well, if Bush had actually consulted with Democratic Senators before nominating an extremist like Alito, then this entire issue could be avoided. Just take Ginsberg as an example: Clinton actually had the audacity to get her approved by Senate Republicans before he officially nominated her, which is why her nomination went through so seamlessly...

...Not that you'll hear that inconvenient fact from the right-wing insta-pundits.

--R.J.

I think it's always been known that Orrin hatch was instrumental in getting Justice Ginsberg in--and why not, since i contrasts nicely with what Senate Democrats are doing today. He knew that the President would want to nominate someone who shared his political philosophy and helped to find someone who was competant.

meanwhile, Senator Reid was one of the one's who suggested Ms. Meirs. Bush may be forgiven for not wanting to go back to that particular well of advice.

For what it's worth, today's Washington Post -- no bastion of conservative activism -- has a big feature profile on Alito that quotes a long roster of his liberal friends who suggest he's a good judge, a good man, and an honest strict constructionist, not an ideologue like Scalia.

"No sense of blood lust."

Jeez. You really are an arch liberal, or is it arch socialist? Which do you prefer?

Anyway, I find it kind of sad that people feel the need to talk about politics in such terminology.

This, unlike other things, isn't a life and death war. It's politics. When you talk about blood lust in reference to what should be civilized debate it kind of dilutes the time when blood lust is actually warranted.

As far as the SCOTUS is concerned, I never understood the hubub.

If the people disagree with SCOTUS there's ways to get around it.

Ever heard of an Ammendment? SCOTUS can't do jack if enough people want something changed.

Not that you can get 2/3rds of Americans do agree on anything these days. But that's more to do with the kind of politics that's been practiced in this country for the past fifty or so years.

Heck, early in this century enough Americans agreed that alcohol was a bad thing that it was banned.

And enough of them were smart enough to realize their mistake and change it.

If only people would realize the way to get things done is not through political parties, it's through demanding the parties speak for you, not blindly following their lead and voting for them just because that's how you have always voted.

You want things to get better, more civilized?

Boot all of these politicking crooks out. Democrat, and Republican.

Then we'll be able to get some shit done.

Peter -- it seems that the CBLDF, for one, might have reason to hope that Alito could be an ally in free-speech matters:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=16003

"Washington Post -- no bastion of conservative activism..."

Oh, yeah, the Post would never carry water for the Bush White House: Wash Post Distorts Level Of Congressional Interest in Downing Street Memo

--R.J.

Oh, yeah, the Post would never carry water for the Bush White House:

This is why it's hard to take some liberals seriously when they talk about the "conservative media"; if a magazine or newspaper or Tv show ever A- says something nice about a Republican or B- says something bad about a Democrat they are suddenly part of the of the Vast Right Wing Machine.

The Post is a left of center paper. And a generally good one. What do you you think qualifies as a genuinely liberal paper...Pravda? The Village Voice? (No, they were once owned by Rupert Murdoch. Also, they print stuff by that right to lifer Nat Hentoff, so you KNOW they are part of the Bush Regime).

This is why it's hard to take some liberals seriously when they talk about the "conservative media"

Oh, c'mon now, Bill. That phrase is rarely used outside of FauxNews.

Especially compared to the usage of "liberal media", which is used to describe just about anything left of Bill O'Reilly.

C'mon Craig, I've seen it or variations of it used right here in this blog!

And using the "logic" that people use to call a liberal newspaper or TV show "conservative", since I've seen Fox News having segments about how badly Bush did with Katrina and the Miers nomination, they must, in fact, be liberal! Hey, and their polls have shown him doing poorly! Would a "conservative" media outlet let that happen?

Not sure I like Alito for the court...but at least I know he's a competent jurist with a well thought out judicial philosophy, that's consistent with a major part of mainstream America. That's more than I can say about Bush, who seems far more results oriented--the thinking that underlies the results is far less important to him (which actually explains his previous pick).

Alioto's confirmation wouldn't necessarily sit well with me (he's a tad too derential to Executive power), but it's something I could live with, based on what I've read about him.

Would a "conservative" media outlet let that happen?

Not even FauxNews can deny the truth every time the shit hits the fan with the Bush Administration. Every now and then they have to give the impression that they are, indeed, supposedly "fair and balanced".

Ann Coulter even went off on Bush over the Miers nomination, but that doesn't mean that she suddenly isn't a psychotic ultra right-wing bitch. :)

Bill: Nowhere in this is the question of whether or not Alito is competant to serve on the court even mentioned. Doesn't this matter?

The social conservatives put the final nail in that coffin when they decided to sink Miers for not being enough of a blatant ideologue.

Craig:Well, when you see the abortion groups (those for and against) being the first ones to comment on a judicial nominee, you know the system has gone to shit.

I've been saying that for weeks. People are not looking enough at the big picture because both the pro-life and the pro-choice factions have poisoned the process. Reid's endorsement of Miers is a prime example of this. As a pro-life democrat (yes, they do exist), I suspect he believed that Miers was a good choice to avoid another Bork shitstorm.

Looking at his resume, I think Alito is well-qualified. Certainly, he should have been tapped ahead of Miers. I think there were also some strategic reasons for picking Alito as well. He's from the 3rd circuit in Philly. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter is also from Philly and already knows Alito. Perhaps, after Specter made noises about questioning Miers about treatment of prisoners at GITMO, Bush felt that someone the Specter is already familiar with might have an easier time with the committee.

That said, there are two rulings in his career that do give me concern. One is his dissenting opinion to uphold Pennsylvania's spousal notification law. The other is one in which he allegedly ruled that a warrant to search a man "naturally" extended to strip searching his wife and daughter. Those rulings go beyond the issue of whether abortiont should be legal and indicate a way of thinking that women and children have little rights of their outside their relationship to their husbands and fathers.

That way of thinking gives me pause.

if a magazine or newspaper or Tv show ever A- says something nice about a Republican or B- says something bad about a Democrat they are suddenly part of the of the Vast Right Wing Machine.

Why not? The right has been using the exact same argument everytime anything appears in the media that is even remotely critical of a republican or nice about a democrat for the past 20+ years.

I'm not sufficiently caught up on the news to have a competent opinion on Alito, but it doesn't surprise me that he's more competent than Miers: I could coherently argue that my youngest cat is more competent to be on the court than Miers. (Among other things, he exhibits a hell of a lot more independent thought.)

There are two separate issues here: Alito's appointment and the Democrats' behavior in general.

Alito's appointment: the main question in my mind is whether he's someone who will rule based on the facts, or will fit the facts and the argument to fit his own already-entrenched opinions. Bush is very clearly a case of the latter, which automatically gives me some pause when it comes to Alito -- but like Roberts, I'm willing to be convinced. Roberts, I think, DOES exhibit at least a certain degree of rationality and thoughtfulness, which I think means there's a reasonable chance that he can grow and (gasp!) evolve on the court. I don't know whether Alito fits that or not. If he does, then I'm much happier with him than with Miers. If he doesn't, but is simply going to put his own opinions in place regardless of circumstances, then I think he's a poor choice. Committed ideologues always are, simply because of the nature of the court -- I'd (theoretically) be fine with a Clarence Thomas type as a senator, but not as a jurist who is supposed to dispassionately examine the law.

(I'll admit that Alito's nickname, "Scalito", certainly doesn't fill me with optimism.)

As an aside: I'd love it if another Roe v. Wade case came up and the anti-abortion bloc once again failed ... due to a surprise swing vote from Roberts. That would be lovely.

PAD's greater point, however, is one I think is worthy of note -- the Democratic party at this point isn't much of an opposition party. If it is an opposition party, it needs to oppose. That doesn't mean they need to have knee-jerk opposition to absolutely everything, but as someone above said (Fred, I think), it means that when they disagree they need to state very specifically why they're in opposition and what they would do differently.

I think either Gore or Kerry could have done a great deal of good by setting up, in effect, a "shadow government" detailing what policies they had in mind and presenting an alternative to Bush's. Get the debate out there.

I don't know that I'd call it "lack of bloodlust", though I certainly understand how Peter means it. I think it's simply lack of any sort of political courage right now. After 9/11, basically no one was willing to stand up in opposition to the Patriot Act. Lots of people are speaking out against Iraq now, but where were all those senators back when Congress was rubber-stamping everything Bush did and attaching its collective lips firmly to his sphincter?

The media doesn't help much -- not necessarily because it leans liberal or conservative (though I think it's far more conservative than people like Bill are ever going to believe), but because it so frequently implicitly lets the Republicans frame the terms of the debate. How often do genuinely liberal ideas really get examined in the media? It's always taken as a given that yes, Saddam has WMD's; that yes, Social Security is in an obvious crisis; that yes, Abu Ghraib was only the result of a few misfits and not policy; that yes, the only way to personal morality is through religious faith; and that yes, most of Europe is opposed to Bush because they hate freedom.

(That last may seem like an exaggeration, but back on Bush's European tour in the spring, Good Morning America covered it with the following: 'President Bush today continues his European tour as he attempts to mend fences with allied leaders and outlines his plan to spread democracy to the Middle East. Interestingly, a new poll shows two-thirds of Europeans disagree with Bush's plan,' thus strongly conflating the issues to suggest that Europeans hate democracy.)

So yeah, I'm with PAD on this for the most part. The Democratic party has tried for far too many years to get away with being the party of "Republican ideas, but not quite so much." That nonsense needs to stop now. The media needs to let the debate be a real debate, and Democrats need to get coherent people out there who can effectively challenge the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration.

TWL

Way back in the early 1980s, I was a student at Anne Arundel Community College in Arnold, MD. I worked on the school paper, then called the Campus Crier, for the full five semesters it took to get my two-year AA degree (I had a couple of courses I had trouble scheduling).
Like many college papers, we received copies of other papers from around the country and around the world. One of those papers was a delightful little piece of work called The Pyongyang Times. The Pyongyang Times was an English-language paper published in Pyongyang, North Korea. Just about every article was about then-President Kim Il Sung in some respect. Every single article referred to him as "The Great Leader President KIM IL SUNG," with his name in all caps like I just wrote. Anyone else involved in the government was referred to as "Dear Leader (title)(name)."
I mention this because I think of it every time I see another opinion column, letter to the editor or Internet post that talks about the "liberal bias" supposedly dominating the media. I imagine picking up a newspaper largely filled with articles about the administration, all of them describing the actions of "the Great Leader President GEORGE W. BUSH" and "Dear Leader Vice-President DICK CHENEY," and wonder if that would make the Bush fans happy.

Just a thought.

Paul

Whoops, left out a phrase. The last sentence should read:
"...CHENEY,' only in the most glowing terms, and wonder..."

Paul

One is his dissenting opinion to uphold Pennsylvania's spousal notification law.

Yes, this one really bothers me as well.

This is an adult woman we're talking about. If such a decision isn't made in consultation with her spouse (in a good marriage) and it leads to fall out, well, that's a situation for adults to resolve, isn't it?

The other is one in which he allegedly ruled that a warrant to search a man "naturally" extended to strip searching his wife and daughter.

This one was explained to me on another site that the man in question was a drug dealer, and in the past dealers have been known to try and hide the drugs on children. Also, the child was searched by a female officer in private.

I'm not sure of the mother was/should have been suspected of dealing in drugs as well.

So, on the face if it, I'm still not very accepting of the practice, but the logic isn't horrible - drug dealers have been known to go to pretty extreme lengths to hide/smuggle the stuff.

The entire Democratic federal legislative congress, and I mean every single Democrat Senator and Representative, needs to hold a press conference on the steps of the capital. The Minority leaders of both chambers need to step to the mike and first acknowledge that in the aftermath of the tragic events four years ago, they united with what they thought were their like-minded Republican counterparts to move the country forward with a singular agenda and purpose. However, times have changed, and we need new approaches to major issues. And then they need to lay out some specific, detailed ideas that are markedly different than what we're doing now. Will these absolutely, positively solve the problems our country faces? Nothing's guaranteed, but the status quo isn't cutting it. And then they need to invite the Republicans to react to each point they just made with similar specificity and detail. And then they need to make their last apology for a while, an apology for having their collective heads up their asses while this Republican president, who they've been billing as the dumbest guy to ever hold the office, has beaten them at every single opportunity available, with several bonus points for becoming the "issue" president on topics for which the Democrats should be providing leadership. The Democrats need to put up or shut up if they ever hope to again be a party of ideas, instead of a party of apologies for voting the wrong way in the heat of a moment.

And keep in mind, all of you who think the 2006 election is an in-the-bag victory for Democrats; I and many others vote for the congressional representatives that bring the most home for my state first. Sure, some of my neighbors are going to be one-issue fanatics, but if there were enough of them to tip the balance in my district, they've already made their voice heard in every election since the federal districts were last redrawn early this decade. The swayable voters in a congressional race are a much smaller pool than a presidential one.

El Coyote said:

"This, unlike other things, isn't a life and death war. It's politics. When you talk about blood lust in reference to what should be civilized debate it kind of dilutes the time when blood lust is actually warranted."

So a war where 2000 of your own people are killed should be a matter for a debating society? Something about which you should feel no passion? Kind of like that guy in "Saw 2" who kills people simply to show how clever he is, and how dumb other people are, and gee, their lives are no consideration?

(I could go on about filmmakers who make films like "Saw 2" and how they spread callousness about murder and sadism, but I'll restrain myself right now.)

There are matters about which one should be passionate about. Politics is not a debating game. It is the way that issues of power are resolved. The Republicans understand this, and they have effectively turned the Bill of Rights into toilet paper because they see politics as war. The Democratic response is to tsk-tsk the Republicans for wasting paper, and to suggest that it would be more ecological to use a bidet instead.

Well Peter, it appears that the lion woke up today and the popcorn was replaced with a flame thrower. Wow, more power to them, it's time for them to get their spines back and let these crooks eat crow. I'm emailing my senator and giving him a high-five!

"Why not? The right has been using the exact same argument everytime anything appears in the media that is even remotely critical of a republican or nice about a democrat for the past 20+ years."

My 4 year old child uses the "they did it first" arguement all the time. My 7 year old is now too mature to use that excuse (I taught him better than that). Evidently see some people never outgrow 1st graders.

I happen to agree mostly with Jason. The Democratic Party needs a Contract with America. The GOP one in 1996(?) worked.

Though I don't think they need to admit Bush is smart. Just that his staff have made some smart moves in addition to their dozens of dumb ones. (Of course, it wouldn't exactly be phrased that way.)

Since the Right-side of the media brands everything Liberal they don't agree with, the Left-side has to respond in kind. Not because "they did it first", but because this kind of labelling works, unfortunately, on many people.

You can try to argue that the Left should be above this, and appeal to the intelligence of the American people. But we've tried this strategy, and it hasn't worked. No one has ever gone wrong underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

We need the Moore's and Franken's out there to cancel out the OReilleys and Limbaughs.

Yes, the Democrats called for a closed session of Congress, so they could discuss classified issues related to the Iraq War, etc. So now the Democrats are not only happy with continuing the blame game, they're also going to do it IN SECRET?! I suppose if you wanted to keep the focus on how we got into the mess we're in, instead of how we're going to get out (which, regardless of whether they're doing it right or even doing it at all, that's the impression the Republicans keep pulling off), then kudos to them for making the continuing bipartisan game of political crassness a covert op, so at least I don't have to hear about it anymore...

Woo!! The Democrats in the Senate exercised a little-used rule to kick the media out and slam the door shut!! Did they also threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue?

So now the Democrats are not only happy with continuing the blame game

There's no blame left to assign - everybody knows the entire reasoning for going to war in Iraq is a complete crock - so I don't know why the Dems are wasting time with this.

I dressed up as Dubya last night. I wore a huge stuffed albatross labelled "Public Opinion."

"The Minority leaders of both chambers need to step to the mike and first acknowledge that in the aftermath of the tragic events four years ago, they united with what they thought were their like-minded Republican counterparts to move the country forward with a singular agenda and purpose. However, times have changed, and we need new approaches to major issues. And then they need to lay out some specific, detailed ideas that are markedly different than what we're doing now."
Unfortunately, the democrat leadership's message over the last years has been 'we would do the same things as the republicans but only different'. That's not much of a message to send. Until both parties stop throwng rocks and objecting everything the other party does, the general public will be content to keep things as they are. Why change if nothing is going to be different?

"Woo!! The Democrats in the Senate exercised a little-used rule to kick the media out and slam the door shut!! Did they also threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue?"

Actually, that's exactly what Bill Frist said he was going to do, until he realized that the Harry Reid just kicked his ass.

Jeff, that's the point I'm trying to make. The Democrats need to say "You know what? We agreed to start this fight, but that was four years ago. This is the last time we're apologizing for it. Now, several problems challenge this country, and here's our plan to shake things up and try some new things." A gradual shift away from the current status quo and back towards the Democratic Party's ideals isn't going to demonstrate the kind of strong, definitive leadership the dissatisfied swing voters of this country want. I registered as a Republican ten years ago and still believe in the core ideas today that I did then. But I'm terribly disappointed in my party for the utter lack of leadership and/or positive movement on any major problem this country now faces. The gut question many of you are asking yourselves now is "well then, why would you continue to vote Republican?" My response is why would I vote for a paler, even more ineffectual version of what I'm disappointed in already. If the Democrats want my vote, grow a spine and give me a plan I can get behind - Please, I'm begging you. Because if you get your crap together, most likely the Republicans might straighten up, too, and irregardless of who wins, we'll get some folks in office interested in leading.

Knuckles, it's just another weapon of mass distraction... what's it going to prove? How's it going to move this country forward? We've heard these arguments for two years now; hell, the Republicans are probably laughing their asses off, because not only will everything that's discussed be considered classified and therefore not helpful to the Democrats politically, but now they can call the Democrats out for holding up the flow of government (ineffective as it is) for another "petty attempt at character assassination" or some such crap. Craig's right; whether you agree with his assessment of the reasons we went to war, forcing a double-secret probation hearing of massively ineffectual consequences just shows that the Democratic leadership doesn't understand what game is actually being played and what it's going to take to win it.

Jason: I'm trying to think of how to explain how wrong you are, but I'll let others do the dirty work for me.

From Kos

"For more than two years we have been seeking this investigation. Finally thru the course of this closed session we were able to get the attention of the majority and lock in (with a timeline) the commitment of the senate intelligence committee to investigate how intelligence was manipulated and manufactured with. Its an investigation we desperately need."

This wasn't a double-secret probation hearing. This was the Democrats forcing the GOP to actually address the issue of intelligence manipulation that they've been putting off for years now. The Dems have few tools at their disposal to get results. This is one of them. I, for one, am continually impressed by Harry Reid. I think he has a far greater grasp of what game is actually being played than you are apparently giving him credit for.

Here's a much better analysis of what potentially occurred today by Mark Schmitt, someone I read regularly on TPMCafe.com.

Power Shifts

Draw your own conclusions, of course, but I think this moment might be quite a bit more important than some of you believe it to be. Time will tell.

Harry Reid is doing much more than simply confronting those who have lied us into war. He is giving hope to many of us who wondered if the Democrats would ever become the opposition party. Way to go Harry! It is time for government to work for the people, all of us, and stop simply working for the Republican Party.

This one was explained to me on another site that the man in question was a drug dealer, and in the past dealers have been known to try and hide the drugs on children.

Then the police should have included searching the person of the child in the warrant. Of course he was a drug dealer, that's why the police wanted to search him in the first place, but warrants are supposed to be narrowly focused and to say that a warrant to search one person "naturally" implies searching the bodies of anyone in his immediate family is a very bad precedent.

Even if you accept that searching an adult's body implies the right to search his children's, how does that then extend to searching his wife? Is his wife considered an extension of his body?

Yes, the deference given to the police in the Doe v. Goody case gives me pause; it seems to me that defenders of Alito are saying that going by the wording of the warrant is being too....legalistic. Hm. Isn't that the POINT of the law in events like these? To be precise so that there's no intrusiveness above the strictly necessary?

Again, from Kos, courtesy of Maryscott O'Connor:

"The media shills kept trying to ask why he didn't consult with Frist (the gist of Frist's complaint was, essentially, that he wasn't consulted).

Finally, when asked one more time, Reid sighed exasperatedly and said, forcefully, "CONSULT with him? CONSULT with him so he could SHUT IT DOWN before it got to the point? WHY would I do that??? You guys need to learn a little bit about Senate procedure. We wouldn't be standing here talking about it if I had CONSULTED him."

Whereupon he looked at his Democratic colleagues and asked if they had anything to add. Amused, Durbin said something like, "You said it all.""

Not even FauxNews can deny the truth every time the shit hits the fan with the Bush Administration. Every now and then they have to give the impression that they are, indeed, supposedly "fair and balanced".

Which is also my point to those who say "New York Times liberal?!? Why, they reported all kinds of bad things about Bill Clinton!"

The social conservatives put the final nail in that coffin when they decided to sink Miers for not being enough of a blatant ideologue.

Wow, that has to be a record for historical revisionism. Just go back to PAD's entry on October 9th We'll never forget good ol' What's-her-name and tell me that the ones who opposed her were "social conservatives".

It was eventually only a few social conservatives who ended up backing her and that wasn't enough. Even before the White House started frantically sending signals that she was indeed a strong conservative, most conservatives opposed her (go back and read the posts on the National Review webpage if you don't believe me). After the White House response she lost many of those few who were on the fence. The fact is, she was unqualified and set a poor precedent and conservatives and liberals were correct in pointing this out.

I rather doubt that Alito is anywhere near as conservative as Miers would have been--Bush knows her way better than he ever could Alito. I can see liberals being upset in going from an ineffective conservative to one who is both conservative and good at what he does but let's not imply that Mier's defeat was something that only (or even mostly) socal conservatives were behind.

Why not? The right has been using the exact same argument everytime anything appears in the media that is even remotely critical of a republican or nice about a democrat for the past 20+ years.

Hey, if you want to sound like Ann Coulture...:)

it doesn't surprise me that he's more competent than Miers: I could coherently argue that my youngest cat is more competent to be on the court than Miers. (Among other things, he exhibits a hell of a lot more independent thought.)

I always had you pegged as a secret social conservative...

I think either Gore or Kerry could have done a great deal of good by setting up, in effect, a "shadow government" detailing what policies they had in mind and presenting an alternative to Bush's. Get the debate out there.

I think that's actually a great idea, though fraught with peril. Why shouldn't a candidate tell us who their cabinet would be? Especially if they are getting some good talent. (the danger, I guess, is that if anyone you pick ends up having some skeleton in their closet you will take some hard lumps in the news cycle.).

Of course, Gore would have had a hard time doing that since he was part of the administration when he ran.

The key to doing this well would be to be seen as something other than reactive--if it ends up just being you reading the news of the day and then going on TV and droning on about what you WOULD have done differently...not so impressive.

After 9/11, basically no one was willing to stand up in opposition to the Patriot Act.

Why assume that the folks who voted for the Act actually wanted to vote against it? Bush is weak now, so where is the movement to undo the Act?

Now if I were a Senator with presidential ambitions, I'd stake out the potentially lucrative niche of "Catastrophe Preventer". Be the guy who is always trying to get more money for New Orleans levees, stockpiling of anti-flu vaccines, NASA anti-asteroid detection, that sort of thing. So if you get, um, lucky and one of those things happens you can pop up on TV and talk about how if only everyone had listened to you...

How often do genuinely liberal ideas really get examined in the media?

Well, it begs the question, what are "genuinely liberal ideas"? I don't think you have to be espousing Noam Chomsky to be a genuine liberal.

It's always taken as a given that yes, Saddam has WMD's;

He did. That's just a fact. He may have gotten rid of them but he did have them. That's not a conservative or liberal thing; many good liberals thought he had them and would use them against our soldiers, one of the reasons they opposed the war.

that yes, Social Security is in an obvious crisis;

Part of the reason for this was that some liberals have portrayed every dollar spent in non-social security expenditures as somehow being one more dollar that wasn't going to "save" social security.

The media has been crying wolf on SS for too long to now suddenly admit that the program isn't in such terrible shape.

that yes, Abu Ghraib was only the result of a few misfits and not policy;

I don't know if it's been proven that this wasn't the case, though I certainly think that the loose policies encouraged the misfits (and why were such people even in that position? These prisoners may well have had useful information and they were being guarded by refugees from Plato's Retreat?)

that yes, the only way to personal morality is through religious faith;

I don't see that at all.

and that yes, most of Europe is opposed to Bush because they hate freedom.

The Good Morning America bit was clumsy but I think it's a major major overstatement to say that the media portrayed Europe's hostility to Bush as a reaction against freedom.

All that said, it would be great to have, as you say, some coherent people to frame a real debate.

every time I see another opinion column, letter to the editor or Internet post that talks about the "liberal bias" supposedly dominating the media. I imagine picking up a newspaper largely filled with articles about the administration, all of them describing the actions of "the Great Leader President GEORGE W. BUSH" and "Dear Leader Vice-President DICK CHENEY," and wonder if that would make the Bush fans happy.

I again invite people to check out the National review blog, the Corner. Might surprise you.

You can try to argue that the Left should be above this, and appeal to the intelligence of the American people. But we've tried this strategy, and it hasn't worked. No one has ever gone wrong underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

I would suggest that A-you haven't really tried it and B-people can usually tell when you think that they are stupid. It doesn't make them want to vote for you.

My response is why would I vote for a paler, even more ineffectual version of what I'm disappointed in already. If the Democrats want my vote, grow a spine and give me a plan I can get behind - Please, I'm begging you. Because if you get your crap together, most likely the Republicans might straighten up, too, and irregardless of who wins, we'll get some folks in office interested in leading.

Jason, that's the post of the day. Right on.

Knuckles:

Finally, when asked one more time, Reid sighed exasperatedly and said, forcefully, "CONSULT with him? CONSULT with him so he could SHUT IT DOWN before it got to the point? WHY would I do that??? You guys need to learn a little bit about Senate procedure. We wouldn't be standing here talking about it if I had CONSULTED him."

Damn. Reid said THAT?

Hell, maybe there's hope for these guys after all.

(I did hear Frist's statement before that bemoaning the fact that he hadn't been consulted. Frickin' crybaby -- sure, you want to accuse someone of not playing fair when they *use* the rules, but you've got no problem unilaterally changing them. Twit.)

Me, then Bill:

I think either Gore or Kerry could have done a great deal of good by setting up, in effect, a "shadow government" detailing what policies they had in mind and presenting an alternative to Bush's. Get the debate out there.

I think that's actually a great idea, though fraught with peril. Why shouldn't a candidate tell us who their cabinet would be? Especially if they are getting some good talent.

Agreed ... not surprisingly, I guess, given that you were responding to my idea in the first place. Opposition parties in England have been doing similar things from time to time, and I think it makes tons of sense. (I also like the idea that Democrats need an equivalent of the Contract With America, though I'll snarkily add that maybe they could actually stick to the promises they made in the bargain.)

After 9/11, basically no one was willing to stand up in opposition to the Patriot Act.

Why assume that the folks who voted for the Act actually wanted to vote against it?

I don't assume that all of them did. I assume that some of them did -- some of them have said as much, so it seems a safe enough assumption. Given the climate of the time, though, voting against the bill would undoubtedly have been likened to getting up and delivering an impassioned defense of the Rosenbergs.

Bush is weak now, so where is the movement to undo the Act?

Bush is weak. The Republican spin machine is not, and given the name of the act it would be incredibly simple to tar people as unpatriotic. Kerry tried to talk about the fact that parts of the act were insane, and was tarred as everything from coward to traitor for it. Gee, no wonder nobody else is stepping up.

How often do genuinely liberal ideas really get examined in the media?

Well, it begs the question, what are "genuinely liberal ideas"? I don't think you have to be espousing Noam Chomsky to be a genuine liberal.

Nor do I.

You want genuinely liberal ideas?

Single-payer health care. I don't think anybody's ever breathed a word about it since Paul Wellstone passed on.

Ending corporate tax shelters, particularly those aimed at well-off CEO's. The Constitution was not designed to be of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Continuing to expand and entrench civil rights and civil liberties -- and yes, that'll absodamnlutely include gay marriage. (You may say gay marriage gets discussed, but I don't see newspapers or news shows ever treating the issue fairly, let alone favorably.)

Public financing of elections and the end to fund-raising as a political tool.

There's the beginning of a list.

It's always taken as a given that yes, Saddam has WMD's;

He did.

Sophistry. You changed the tense and thus the argument. The rationale for war was that Saddam Can Kill Us All Next Month If We Don't Stop Him Now, and it was 110% horseshit. No media outlet even considered questioning the claims until well after the fact, and conservative shills like Judith Miller beat the war drums by passing on lies from Ahmad Chalabi.

In your words, "that's just a fact."

that yes, Social Security is in an obvious crisis;

Part of the reason for this was that some liberals have portrayed every dollar spent in non-social security expenditures as somehow being one more dollar that wasn't going to "save" social security.

So what's your point? Sure, some liberals used poor phrasing (and I've no doubt that sometimes it was done deliberately). That hardly excuses the media for giving Bush's cries of Elderly Wolf blind credence.

that yes, Abu Ghraib was only the result of a few misfits and not policy;

I don't know if it's been proven that this wasn't the case,

There was a time when the media actually contained people called ... oh, what was it ... ah, yes -- investigative journalists. People who'd actually check these things out for themselves rather than relying on the latest White House press release or a sermon on "stuff happens" from Father Donald. Yet they're inexplicably unable, unwilling, or incompetent when it comes to investigating what frankly are flat-out war crimes. I'd like to know why.

The Good Morning America bit was clumsy but I think it's a major major overstatement to say that the media portrayed Europe's hostility to Bush as a reaction against freedom.

I'm not saying they did so deliberately, but the way they framed presentation made it very easy to think so. It's rather like the way Bush/Cheney/etc. always brought up Saddam and 9/11 in the same breath, but never actually said the one was behind the other. (Except, of course, that Bush/Cheney most assuredly did do so deliberately.)

people can usually tell when you think that they are stupid. It doesn't make them want to vote for you.

Doesn't seem to have hurt Bush any, and so far as I can tell he thinks every single one of us is as dopey and intellectually incurious as he is. I can't think of a single instance where he's made it clear that he thinks the American people are intelligent.

(To bring up one of my usual topics, I know many many people who've heard Dean speak in person, and they've all talked about (a) his own obvious intelligence, and (b) his delight in having intelligent debates and defending ideas.)

Jason, that's the post of the day. Right on.

Seconded. Beautifully, beautifully put.

TWL

Bush is weak now, so where is the movement to undo the Act?

There is none. The House not only renewed all parts, but added more death penalty to it as well

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/21/patriot.act/index.html

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/13020444.htm

(You may say gay marriage gets discussed, but I don't see newspapers or news shows ever treating the issue fairly, let alone favorably.)

Now that I find interesting because down here in old North Carolina the raliegh paper has been accused of constantly portraying gay couples in a positive light and beating the drum for gay marriage. Since I support gay rights this doesn't bother me much but I'm amazed that New Jersey would be less sympathetic.

As far as TV shows...all I've seen have been sympathetic gays and usually less sympathetic opponents (though that may be my bias showing). What could be more fair?

Sophistry. You changed the tense and thus the argument.

Granted, I totally misread what you said.

So what's your point? Sure, some liberals used poor phrasing (and I've no doubt that sometimes it was done deliberately). That hardly excuses the media for giving Bush's cries of Elderly Wolf blind credence.

Well if your argument is that the media is allowing conservatives to frame the debate and your example is that they claim that Social Security is in crisis, wouldn't pointing out that this claim has been used by BOTH liberals and conservatives be a counter argument?

There was a time when the media actually contained people called ... oh, what was it ... ah, yes -- investigative journalists.

Yeah, that really chaps my hide as well. What happened to these people? They got lazy, they became media stars instead of real reporters...we still don't know if the Bush national Guard papers were real and apparently nobody is going to bother to find out (the fact that CBS isn't aggressively trying to answer that question probably does answer the question).

I would happily advise someone to go into journalism now. The bar has been set so low one could really become a major force just by emulating the giants of the past.

(To bring up one of my usual topics, I know many many people who've heard Dean speak in person, and they've all talked about (a) his own obvious intelligence, and (b) his delight in having intelligent debates and defending ideas.)

that didn't come across well but it wouldn't be the first time a person's TV persona did not match their real one. People tell me that one on one Al Gore is a funny guy, while on TV, well, damn.

Now that I find interesting because down here in old North Carolina the raliegh paper has been accused of constantly portraying gay couples in a positive light and beating the drum for gay marriage.

Oh, portraying gay couples in a positive light isn't all that unusual -- but if there's really a paper in Raleigh that seems to be beating the drum for gay marriage, I'd love to see an example of how they're doing so. Accusations of such don't surprise me -- for some people, particularly those on the far religious right, portraying gays as anything other than demon-spawn is probably seen as trying to recruit children.

As far as TV shows...all I've seen have been sympathetic gays and usually less sympathetic opponents (though that may be my bias showing). What could be more fair?

Are you talking about news programs here, or entertainment?

So what's your point? Sure, some liberals used poor phrasing (and I've no doubt that sometimes it was done deliberately). That hardly excuses the media for giving Bush's cries of Elderly Wolf blind credence.

Well if your argument is that the media is allowing conservatives to frame the debate and your example is that they claim that Social Security is in crisis, wouldn't pointing out that this claim has been used by BOTH liberals and conservatives be a counter argument?

Fair enough, at least to a point. I'd argue that liberals never used the claim in nearly as major a way, but I suppose that gives conservatives credit for playing a damn good switcheroo.

There was a time when the media actually contained people called ... oh, what was it ... ah, yes -- investigative journalists.

Yeah, that really chaps my hide as well. What happened to these people? They got lazy, they became media stars instead of real reporters...we still don't know if the Bush national Guard papers were real and apparently nobody is going to bother to find out (the fact that CBS isn't aggressively trying to answer that question probably does answer the question).

More importantly as regards that issue ... forget the papers. I haven't seen any mainstream media outlet put together a real investigative report on what is and is not known about Bush's service or lack thereof. The papers are a part of that, but the flap over that one story did a marvelous job of distracting from the real questions regarding those years.

TWL

(I also like the idea that Democrats need an equivalent of the Contract With America, though I'll snarkily add that maybe they could actually stick to the promises they made in the bargain.)

I think it would be a brilliant idea, and so would the shadow government idea. Bush tried the latter, announcing several of his cabinet nominations before the 2000 election (largely to counteract his own lack of foreign policy experience).

I would take issue with the snarky addition, largely because the Republican House majority actually did pass nearly everything in the contract, and even overrode President Clinton's veto on one portion. It's one thing if you think they're right-wing nutjobs, but honestly you should give them credit for being sincere right-wing nutjobs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_With_America

Re: Jason's post
Seconded. Beautifully, beautifully put.

Agreed. I think that's why I'm so addicted to The West Wing this season-- the fake election is between two articulate, intelligent, and patriotic contenders, and wouldn't it be nice if the two parties really put some effort into giving us that choice in real life?

For what it's worth, today's Washington Post -- no bastion of conservative activism -- has a big feature profile on Alito that quotes a long roster of his liberal friends who suggest he's a good judge, a good man, and an honest strict constructionist, not an ideologue like Scalia.

Here's another interesting tidbit. This is Alito's dissent on the Planned Parenthood case that keeps getting so much attention:

Although the plaintiffs and supporting amici argue that Section 3209 will do little if any good and will produce appreciable adverse effects, the Pennsylvania legislature presumably decided that the law on balance would be beneficial. We have no authority to overrule that legislative judgment even if we deem it unwise or worse. We should not forget that legislatures are ultimate guardians of the liberty and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts.

I don't know how typical this is of him, but that seems very much like someone who wants the courts and the legislatures to do their own separate jobs. If the people want a law, they need to go to the legislature or the people, not the courts.

If this is the worst the Democrats can find on him, then I don't see how they will be able to filibuster him.

I haven't seen any mainstream media outlet put together a real investigative report on what is and is not known about Bush's service or lack thereof. The papers are a part of that, but the flap over that one story did a marvelous job of distracting from the real questions regarding those years.

My impression was that the CBS story WAS an attempt to do an actual investigative report but they didn't find anything that would have made any kind of impact--until the papers showed up. Sometimes your investigation may end up revealing that there isn't anything worth investigating.

Are you talking about news programs here, or entertainment?

Well, gays in entertainment are always always positive and anyone who tries to do otherwise will probably get more grief than it's worth. I'm talking about news programs where people debate issues for a segment--usually it's the pro-gay marriage people who come off better, in my opinion.

Here's an example of the News And Observer: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1999150p-8384940c.html

And you're correct, it hardly qualifies as "beating the drums" for gay marriage. It's quite fair to both sides.

I don't know if it's been proven that this wasn't the case, though I certainly think that the loose policies encouraged the misfits (and why were such people even in that position? These prisoners may well have had useful information and they were being guarded by refugees from Plato's Retreat?)

As far as I'm concerned, I've seen enough to convince me that Abu Gharib was not isolated. There's be at least 24 deaths connected to interrogation in several different locations. Capt. Ian Fishback has testified as to the general indifference as to treatment of prisoner (some of those who died were considered innocent of any wrong doing by their interrogators). and this was traced directly back to the Administration's directives about prisoner interrogation.

What disgusts me about this Administration is they are so INCOMPETENT at execution....and so it's totally fine for them to slip into brutality as long as it's for God and country.

In a lot of ways, the terrorists HAVE won. And they're too stupid to know it.

My impression was that the CBS story WAS an attempt to do an actual investigative report but they didn't find anything that would have made any kind of impact--until the papers showed up. Sometimes your investigation may end up revealing that there isn't anything worth investigating.

I don't think there's really much evidence one way or the other about what they'd have come up with had the papers not surfaced. The papers pretty much overrode anything else they might have had.

Could it be that they simply didn't find anything else? Sure -- but I don't think enough cards on the table for me to bet on that.

I'm talking about news programs where people debate issues for a segment--usually it's the pro-gay marriage people who come off better, in my opinion.

I'll admit I don't get a chance to see such programs very often, but I'm not sure I can even remember one where a featured debater was actually pro-gay marriage. Civil unions, sure. (I'm not saying I don't believe you -- in fact, I'd really like to -- but I haven't seen it yet.)

Here's an example of the News And Observer: [...] And you're correct, it hardly qualifies as "beating the drums" for gay marriage. It's quite fair to both sides.

I'd tend to agree -- it's certainly not pro-gay marriage, but it's more evenhanded than most articles I've seen. I could quibbble with a few wording choices here and there, but on the whole I think this was a very fair treatment. Thanks for it.

TWL

Regarding the Strip Search Ruling:

What I've got from other sources is that in the Affidavits that police submitted in applying for their warrant they specified, multiple times, that the wanted permission to search the occupants of the property to be searched. It was said that there was not enough room in the relavant section/box of the warrant to put that, so they attached the Affidavit to warrant (also signed by the magistrate) and gave a served a copy of warrant (with attached affidavit) when conducting the search. The wife a daughter were searched by a female officer in the bathroom.

It seems to me that the relavant points of dispute are:

1) whether attaching the affidavit is the same as having it in the warrant. Does not specifying occupants on the formal warrant invalidate the search or does attaching the affidavit which explicitly mentions the search of the occupants make it "good enough." My personal opinion and understanding of the constitutional issues involved is that warrants are to be narrowly interpreted and that they should have written "continued on back" or see attached sheet which would have also been signed or at least initialed by the judge. Judge Alito saw it differently.

2) There is also the question of, even is the police were allowed to conduct a search, whether the scope of the warrant allowed the police to conduct a strip-search. I have no idea about the state of law on this question, but I'd guess that it could or the question of whether the search was actually in the warrant wouldn't have come up.

Who is too stupid to know it: the terrorists, or the administration?

I haven't seen any mainstream media outlet put together a real investigative report on what is and is not known about Bush's service or lack thereof.

Boston Globe did in 2000, but it was completly ignored until 2004, when the mainstream media did a half-assed job covering it.

Holding our elected officials responsible for their actions, especially if they are proven to have lied to the American people - I definitely agree with that. I agreed with it when President Clinton was called to the carpet about the Lewinsky stuff (I don't care about whether or not something happened, just that he lied about it). Same thing with the Iraq War; if it turns out the intelligence was manipulated to purposely use it to lie to build a case for war, then we need to hold those involved responsible. But my issue is that Harry Reid and all are acting all excited, like this was a true act of leadership. You guys are making fun of Frist; well, he's likely out of the running for 2008 because of his recent scandals, so who better to be the figurehead victim of the Republican party? Congratulations: Reid got the ball rolling on a classified investigation that will take a year or two to complete, likely not be (officially) disclosed for a couple of years after that (and if it's unofficially disclosed? well, golly, I guess we'll be firing and trying any Democrats who'd dare leak classified materials, like old Scooter), the Republicans can add one more act of legislative obstruction to the list they're keeping on the Democrats for next year's election theme of making government more efficient in the wake of FEMA's example of bureaucracy inaction, and I'm still waiting to hear how voting Democrat at any point in the near future is going to markedly change course for this country.

BTW, I'm coming off like a somewhat angry cuss today, but I'm not pissed at anyone on here. My frustration is squarely placed on the apparent dearth of competence that's infecting our government at nearly all levels right now.

I mean, damn, just do ONE FREAKING THING RIGHT! I'd be so happy if one good thing happened in government by the end of the year. Maybe that should be the citzenry's campaign slogan for the 2006 election - Just One Freaking Thing Right.

My 4 year old child uses the "they did it first" arguement all the time. My 7 year old is now too mature to use that excuse (I taught him better than that). Evidently see some people never outgrow 1st graders.

It's not about who did it first, Jerry. It's the fact that the right has been making "attack the messenger" their standard reply to any criticism of their policies, to the point that it was a major theme of Bush I's unsuccessful reelection campaign. For them to now cry foul because the left has finally figured out that they can make the same argument is nothing but hypocrisy.

(From the folks at the Blame Bush Blog...because, after all, Bush is to blame for everything bad that happens)
The Perfect Supreme Court for Lyberals, I mean, Progressyves:

Gender: 4 Womyn, 4 Men and one transgendered.

Sexuality: 2 Heterosexuals, 2 Homosexuals, 2 bisexuals, one pedophile, one eunuch and one foot-fetishist.

Race: 1 (genuine) African American, 1 cracker, 1 Latino-American, 1 Inuit American, 1 Arab-American, 1 Native American, 1 Asian American, 2 French people.

Religion: 0 KKKristians, 2 Atheists, 2 Religion of Peace adherents, 1 Jedi, 3 Pagans, and 1 satanist.

Height: 1 Giant, two tall, two medium, two short, two midgets.

Weight: 3 Clinically obese, 2 Anoerexics and 4 yo-yo dieters.

Politics: 9 democrats.

Educational Achievements: 4 illiterates, 4 ivy league professors and 1 in between.

Chemical Dependencies: 2 'clean', 3 dope smokers, 1 crackhead, one LSD hallucinator, one wino and one glue sniffer.

And if the Chimperor fails to give us a court like this then it shows that he is just like Hitler, only less articulate.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

>>They try to persuade and reason with people, to sway them with logic and reality.
>That's not what politicians do.

That's precisely what won the Ontario provincial Tories (Canada's answer to the Republicans) a large majority almost ten years ago. They didn't attack the party in power, they simply offered what sounded like a reasonable alternative, the 'Common Sense Revolution' they called it. And people bought into it in droves, which was unfortunate, because they then realized they should have asked to see the fine print. Oh, once in power the Tories did exactly what they'd said they do ... the same way an exterminator can be said to have fulfilled his contract by torching your home and then claiming to have rid you of that pesky termite problem.

>If the Democrats want my vote, grow a spine and give me a plan I can get behind

A politician with a spine? Ain't gonna happen, because this would require them to ignore what the people want and give them instead what they really need. And that doesn't fly in election campaigns.

>Who is too stupid to know it: the terrorists, or the administration?

The people.

>I don't care about whether or not something happened, just that [Clinton] lied about it

I do care. He showed callous disrespect for the institution of marriage - one of the long-acknowledged cornerstones of our society - and, worse, disrespect for the office (literally as well as figuratively) of the Presidency. Not to mention apparently using his power (a well-known aphrodisiac) to take sexual advantage from at least one underling. Teachers and doctors wind up in jail for it. Why should he be exempt?

"Actually, that's exactly what Bill Frist said he was going to do, until he realized that the Harry Reid just kicked his ass."

Violence will never solve anything. When will Lyberals, I mean, Progressyves learn that? Actually, Bill Frist left the chambers immediately to go buy some didees for his wittwe Democwat cwybabies. I believe he also inquired: "Does oo wantum oo baby bottwes too?"

"and that yes, most of Europe is opposed to Bush because they hate freedom."

Sure, we hate freedom in our little banana republics here in Europe.

Or maybe some were opposed because the US changed into a unpredictable nation which really seems to believe that the end justifies the means and which claim the right to bomb each and everyone back into the stone-age they declare a threat. And proof be damned. Oh, and of course because it is God´s will.

No doubt Saddam was a dictator. But the world is full of equally nasty countries and nobody gave a damn either. This whole "we bring freedom"-thing is a hypocricy at best and a lie at worst.

Before 9/11 the crazy Taliban could happily turn their country into a slaugtherhouse and nobody gave a damn. They could stone a woman to death because she flashed her ankle or read a book, and aside a few whiners - maybe your pesky liberals - no american gave a shit.

This whole "war on terror" nonsense didn´t reduce the threat one bit, the Saddam fiasko only turned the country into a breeding ground for the next generation of terrorists and did destabilize the whole region. As the lunatics in Iran aptly demonstrated these days.

If your media really spouts nonsense like "Europe hates freedom" it is no wonder that relations are strained. And rightly so.

I mean, damn, just do ONE FREAKING THING RIGHT!

Well, maybe, just maybe, the Bush Administration's plan for a potential bird flu pandemic will be something on the path to doing the right thing.

The only glitch here is that it's a plan of necessity, not of voluntary willingness to do something useful.

And then we'll still have to make sure that, if it is a sound plan, it's actually carried out - although states are already throwing a fit over Bush's desire to see each state spend its own money to stockpile flu vaccinations.

I spent 11 years of my military career in the MidEast and got to work with a great many NATO & UN Troops from Europe. They were some of the toughest people on the planet. It was an honor and, in a couple of cases, a lifesaver, to be with them. And their political attitude made me look like a California Lyberal, I mean, Progressyve.

"Making the best of a weak hand, Democrats argued that the case was not about petty-ante perjury but, as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid put it, "about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president." The problem here is that the one undisputed liar in this whole sordid affair doesn't work for the administration. In his attempts to turn his wife into an antiwar martyr, Joseph C. Wilson IV has retailed more whoppers than Burger King."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot2nov02,0,6326316.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

And their political attitude made me look like a California Lyberal, I mean, Progressyve.

And your posts make you look like a moron, I mean... well, yeah, a moron.

Craig: Please welcome back X-Ray.

Jason: I agree with your point about the Democrats not giving you a reason to vote for them. To be quite frank, it's the Republicans that have given me reasons to NOT vote for them, and I'm quite shocked that most people don't view it the same way. That said, I think if the Dems could come up with a very cogent argument (and for fuck's sake, there are so goddam many of them floating around out there) and coherent theme, I think they could truly clean the floor. The problem is that Democrats don't tend to march in lockstep with each other. I'll give the GOP this: they are very good at agreeing to a message, and staying on that message. Party loyalty above all else. The Dems simply are not.

Both Jason and Knuckles are right: The GOP has been going out of their way to make me want to vote AGAINST them, while the dems have failed to give us a compelling reason to FOR them.

As for the GOP marching in lockstep, that appears to be unravelling. I've been predicting an eventual schism between the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives and its finally coming to pass. The iron is hot and if Reid's actions are any indication, the dems are ready to strike.

Oh, and welcome back, X-ray.

Like most Dems, I think I've been hoping that guys like Reid and Dean would give the party an infusion of spine. It appears to be working. I know a lot of people like Nancy Pelosi, but I haven't been impressed by her minority leadership in the House as of yet. Hell, I'm still pissed off about her weak-ass response to the SOU address two years ago. Me, I'd like Rahm Emmanuel in charge, but he's not senior enough to do that. The guy is an absolute pitbull. I'm very pleased with what I've been seeing out of Reid since he took over from Daschle (who I found to be completely spineless and utterly useless), and I'm moderately pleased with Dean. What I would prefer out of the good doctor if for his position as head of the DNC to not get in the way of his mouth.

At least SOME Democrats are willing to go for the jugular with a little bit of blood lust-- http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20051101-104932-4054r.htm

They've been pelting a black Republican with--hold your sides!-- Oreo Cookies! Along with obtaining his credit card records (which is illegal but you can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs). And this is being defended by legit Democratic leaders, not just the fringies.

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.
"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

Maybe if they burned a cross on his yard he's stop being different. (he's also the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland so one might wonder if being different doesn't have its up side).

I've said it in other threads, and I still think it holds true that one of the major uniting/dividing factors for each party is their particular special interests. Many, not all of them, but many of the Republican Party's special interests are very complimentary, to the point that you get a lot of crossover appeal. I think this is much less pronounced in the Democratic Party, most likely because the special interests involved often have much more narrowly defined missions. Now, these are my own perceptions, and even if I'm right, I don't think it's an overwhelming factor on either side, but I think the scales are definitely tipped in the Republican's favor regarding this. I think a good "Come to Jesus" summit of all the Democrats' special interests' leadership to get everyone on the same page and platform might go a long way towards fixing this and make things much more competitive.

As for Knuckles and Den, I agree that the reasons for not voting Republican are growing. But as you both point out, I've been given no corresponding reason to vote for Democrats, especially since they can't seem to make themselves look like anything other than the Republicans' little brother, who may have some different ideas than his big bro but still follows most of his big bro says, because when he doesn't, he gets a wedgie.

I know some of you are thinking that the Democrats gave a wedgie to the Republicans yesterday with the closed session, but it won't mean squat unless something results from it. And are they really going to prove that President Bush KNEW that the information he had was fabricated, smoothed over, or somehow manipulated to build the case for war? If Rumsfield simply presented only the worst case scenario to the President, is that manipulating the information or doing his job? If the information was proven to be flat-out wrong - after we were already at war - were people wrong for using the best information available at the time to examine the issue? We might, might, wind up getting Rumsfield to resign over negligence for not presenting the whole case both for and against war, but I doubt we'll ever be able to prove, regardless of whether they ever did or not, that the policymakers knowingly lied about the intelligence data. Did they spin it to get a desired result? You betcha. Is it a crime to present what you think is factual information in the best light possible to support your case? I don't think so.

Bill: You are familiar, of course, with Mr. Steele? This is the elected official who happens to be black who said he saw nothing inappropriate whatsoever with a fellow Republican holding a fund-raiser at a whites only country club. The people who are attacking him in the press and pelting him with Oreo cookies during his campaign aren't simply Democrats, they are African-Americans. Their status as Democrats is a side issue that detracts from the real point: white only country clubs are abhorrent.

I know some of you are thinking that the Democrats gave a wedgie to the Republicans yesterday with the closed session, but it won't mean squat unless something results from it. And are they really going to prove that President Bush KNEW that the information he had was fabricated, smoothed over, or somehow manipulated to build the case for war? If Rumsfield simply presented only the worst case scenario to the President, is that manipulating the information or doing his job?

This argument, of course, is a straw man.

You AREN'T doing your job if you present only the worst case; you ignore the possibility that your intelligence for the worst case sprang from a very untrustworthy source. This lack of vetting has been emblematic of the Bush administration, as it has continuously relied on wishful thinking instead of hard headed analysis of the facts.

"...Not that you'll hear that inconvenient fact from the right-wing insta-pundits"

please do not lump a vast majority of the republican party as being right-wing, that is an insult to the right-wing. Because as the republican party moves more and more to the moral conservative, it isolates "true" conservatives who are now being found without a party to support their views.

Forget Roe v. Wade
what about the supreme court ruling over eminent domain, that is more important to me than the touchy abortion topic. forget wether it is murder or not murder, how about making sure that private property remains private property (unless being taken for public use and fair market value is paid) and that this private property is not taken and sold to a corporation, otherwise you might not have a house to sit around and contemplate wether abortion is murder or not.

perhaps the problem with our congressman and our media, is that we are so focused on religious affiliation instead of wether someone is really conservative or not.

Do you want a true conservative viewpoint on abortion, here it is. pick a point inwhich we call it a life. If it is conseption, fine, if it is birth, fine, if it is at 3 months, fine. but pick a point. before that is abortion, after that is murder. End of discussion. Now lets get over the abortion issue and perhaps the republicans can become conservative once again (first of all by learning what the words "fiscal conservative" mean)

this is a conservative view of this because the right opinion should be that government regulation is fine, but government controll is not.

Who is too stupid to know it: the terrorists, or the administration?

Yes.

I know some of you are thinking that the Democrats gave a wedgie to the Republicans yesterday with the closed session, but it won't mean squat unless something results from it. And are they really going to prove that President Bush KNEW that the information he had was fabricated, smoothed over, or somehow manipulated to build the case for war? If Rumsfield simply presented only the worst case scenario to the President, is that manipulating the information or doing his job?

I have to agree with roger, this is not a good argument.

so lets discuss the cause for war in iraq and the "lies" used to build the case

Fact: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the 90's, the US military saw these during the first gulf war, and the UNMOVIC inpectors physically saw them.

Fact: While some biochemical agents have been found in Iraq, nothing in the quantities that we knew existed

Fact: From the report of the UN inpectors in 1993 to Hans Blix in 2002, Iraq went from having VX gas and other Biochemical and Biological agents to having none.

Fact: Hans Blix said that he was shown no evidence and no proof that the known agents were destroyed.

Those facts are, i beleive, justificaiton for war. the problem is that Bush did not have the guts to confront the american public with these facts and back his original desicion, this is because he is a man who cannot stick by his decisions and why (as a strong conservative) do not support Bush

Fact: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the 90's, the US military saw these during the first gulf war, and the UNMOVIC inpectors physically saw them.

Fact: They were originally given those WMD by the US.

Fact: No WMD have been found in Iraq since the invasion. No proof has been found that Saddam did not follow orders to get rid of the WMD after the Gulf War.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, Saddam never claimed to have WMD.

Unlike some other nations (like, oh, North Korea).

Justification? Far from it.

Bush just wanted a war, and he did and said everything he could to get it.

He's a lying son of a bitch that's cost the lives of more than 2000 American soldiers and unknown thousands of Iraqi civilians.

But I'm sure there are wonderful ways of spinning these facts.

Violence will never solve anything. When will Lyberals, I mean, Progressyves learn that? Actually, Bill Frist left the chambers immediately to go buy some didees for his wittwe Democwat cwybabies. I believe he also inquired: "Does oo wantum oo baby bottwes too?"

This is completely unrelated...but being the linguaphile I am, I'm curious.

I understand the intent of 'democwat cwybabies' and the phonetic spelling at the end of that paragraph. Using childish pronunciation emphasizes the point.

However, I am not understanding the intent of 'lyberals' and 'progressyves'. This doesn't change the pronunciation in any way, it's just spelled wrong. And I'm unaware of any political connotations related to the i/y usage, similar to the connotations one finds with the 'c/k' in 'Amerika'.

This is purely a scholarly pursuit of understanding the intent behind the wording chosen.

roger: Explain how asking two questions, presenting opposing options, is a straw man argument. I'm seriously just confused about why you're labeling it as such.

As for the content of my argument, if Rumsfield's job at the time was to respond to Bush's request for a threat analysis of Iraq, and if he presented the worst case scenario, the maximum amount of threat Iraq could be to us, based on what Rumsfield knew to be the best intelligence available, is that manipulating data or doing his job? Now, if Rumsfield has conflicting sets of intelligence - maybe not correct versus incorrect, but minimum versus maximum threat - and he decides to present maximum threat, what is that? Now, if Rumsfield flat out ignores solid intelligence that hurts his worst case scenario, what is that? There's an awful lot of 'what if's' for both sides to examine here, and I guess what I'm trying to point out is that to show any sort of wrongdoing in the buildup to the war, you're going to have to prove that at each successive level, the officials involved either knew the information given to them was bad or actively altered it to fit their particular needs. And each level was responding to a request from the next level up, so the request made is as important as the response given. And in the end, the filters that information had to get through to get to President Bush might have only left him with what he felt was the only way to look at it. In the end, everyone might have done their jobs correctly and still have gotten us to this point. Me personally, I think Rumsfield's the one who affected how intelligence was handled and what intelligence was presented further up the chain.

Pelting a candidate with oreos during a debate is wrong regardless of the color of the attackers. If Republicans did it to a Democrat because he was supportive of former KKK member Robert Byrd it would be equally wrong. Won't happen though, because they know the media would ream them, as opposed to the marked lack of attention that the Maryland Democrats will get.

It also indicates a lack of faith in the debating skills of one's own candidate but perhaps they know something I don't. Maryland Democratic Candidates are not exactly the envy of the nation.

Many, not all of them, but many of the Republican Party's special interests are very complimentary, to the point that you get a lot of crossover appeal. I think this is much less pronounced in the Democratic Party, most likely because the special interests involved often have much more narrowly defined missions.

Jason, you've been impressing me. That's a pretty good analysis. One probalem with the Democrats doing a Contract With America type deal would be in being able to say no to some of their constituants who would insist on having their own interests included. Gay marriage is a loser vote wise but the gay activists would want it included and might (legitimately) threaten to scuttle the deal if their interests were not dealt with. By the time it was over they would have a huge ungainly document, not anything that could be used for easy appeal.

What they need is one person who can instill some organiation--maybe Dean can pull it off. The others are trying to be president and won't be able to get their rivals to go along. Having tken himself out of the running Dean may have more power than if he was just another candidate out for his own self interest.

Fact: No WMD have been found in Iraq, however, biological agents are not classified as WMD unless they are found in quantities large enough to be seen as use for weapons.

Fact: When wanting to prove that one does not have WMD and has destroyed all relevent equipment. One keeps the information to prove that they have done so. Therefore, within the guidelines of the IAEA, the lack of proof that diarmament had occured was unanamously agreed upon by all members as proof that disarmament had not occured. (or did you only get your information for the entire situation only from american journalist. try opening your mind to other views, becasue making a judgment based upon one view point [and watching both cnn and fox news does not count because they are both american view points] is stupid, to make a judgement based upon 7 or 8 viewpoints to get a more accurate world view is [while not always accurate] more of a logical choice)

Fact: all this information can be found from the testomony of and following that of hans blix, from the transcripts of the UNMOVIC, IAEA, and from the International Security and Disarmament Council.

Fact: Most Americans only watch American media and attempt to make cognitive thesis based upon only this information (which is presented so that the uneducated in this country are able to understand and follow)

or did you only get your information for the entire situation only from american journalist.

Well, last I checked, the Downing Street Minutes were straight from Blair and his set of cronies.

And they too said the evidence was not there regarding Saddam's WMD.

It seems pretty straightforwad to me: there were no WMD to be found. Bush based this entire war on a pack of lies.

And we're going to pay for it for years to come.

Thank you, Dubya and his supporters.

"And they too said the evidence was not there regarding Saddam's WMD."

I have to agree with you, no evidence that when we went in that there were any WMD in Iraq. and no evidence that the WMD that everyone knew he had were ever destroyed. which is exactly what i said and what the IAEA and UNMOVIC said. that there was no evidence that the WMD in Iraq were destroyed. Hence they were either in Iraq or Sadam violated approxiamently 16 treaties by moving WMD across international lines.

again, i find justification. thank you for you help

Hence they were either in Iraq or Sadam violated approxiamently 16 treaties by moving WMD across international lines.

And here we are, back to the Ultimate Answer, no room for other possibilities.

But then, we have no proof that Saddam moved them either.

See, the problem here is you simply fail to acknowledge the possibility that Saddam did what he was told: that he destroyed his stockpile of WMD, and the has not had any for a decade.

It's always "he had them" or "he moved them". Yet you have no evidence to back such claims up. Just assumptions because you're stuck on the belief that you were right, and eveybody else was wrong.

"See, the problem here is you simply fail to acknowledge the possibility that Saddam did what he was told: that he destroyed his stockpile of WMD, and the has not had any for a decade."

perhaps i give saddam more credit than i should. I would have figured Saddam to have been smart enough to keep evidence that he did destroy them. I personally have to agree with the final ruling of the UNMOVIC which was that in a situation as important as this, no evidence of disarmament is a sign that no disarmament took place. Now that is the ruling of the UNMOVIC, not my personal opinion. so the entire international community thought that if Saddam had really destroyed them, then he would beable to have some evidence that this was done, either a piece of paper that told someone to destroy them, or perhaps something somewhere amongst the massive weapon list that was given to the UN that stated a specific biochemical agent and then next to it stated "destroyed". however, none of this was done. if he had truely destroyed his WMD do you honestly not think that there would be something somewhere that proved it. even if it was a Scud missle graveyard? something, are you that convinced that he didn't have them that you can't see past the logic that had he destroyed them, there would be something SOMEWHERE?

The international Community felt so, atleast those who are members of the IAEA and the UNMOVIC. but i mean, i'm sure that you have the supreme intellect that all of them do not have and you are able to see this situation so clearly.

roger: Explain how asking two questions, presenting opposing options, is a straw man argument. I'm seriously just confused about why you're labeling it as such.

And I'm confused why you're NOT seeing it as such.

Basically, you've over-simplified the situation (the essence of the straw man fallacy). You've stripped it down to an either/or situation; I've pointed out at least one factor (which points to the basic competence of this administration) which should NOT have been neglected.

"Pelting a candidate with oreos during a debate is wrong regardless of the color of the attackers. If Republicans did it to a Democrat because he was supportive of former KKK member Robert Byrd it would be equally wrong. Won't happen though, because they know the media would ream them, as opposed to the marked lack of attention that the Maryland Democrats will get.

It also indicates a lack of faith in the debating skills of one's own candidate but perhaps they know something I don't. Maryland Democratic Candidates are not exactly the envy of the nation."

My problem, Bill, is that you are attempting to get the entire Democratic party to take responsibility of a few people who threw Oreo cookies at a guy that they view as condoning whites only country clubs. You don't even know these people are Democrats. You're assuming they are because they don't like this guy. You're assuming they are because the one person in the article who was quoted happened to be a Democrat from Baltimore (how odd that the Washington Times would frame an article that way...). Me, I find it incredibly funny and very clever.

perhaps i give saddam more credit than i should. I would have figured Saddam to have been smart enough to keep evidence that he did destroy them.

Perhaps. But Saddam didn't stay in power as long as he did by being stupid. His army was trounced the first time around, and there really was no reason to think it wouldn't happen again (and, as history has shown, it did happen again... we just didn't account for insurgents).

I mean, really, on the face of it, Saddam has been pretty low-key since the Gulf War.

Yes, he was trying to pay families of Palestinians for blowing up Israeli's, but considering the rhetoric coming out of Iran, can you really use such an argument against Iraq and then ignore Iran? Not in my opinion.

are you that convinced that he didn't have them that you can't see past the logic that had he destroyed them, there would be something SOMEWHERE?

Yes, I'm pretty much convinced he didn't have them because we have not found them. Anywhere. At all.

Nothing in Iraq. No proof he moved them to Syria or anywhere else - and let's not forget, Saddam was on good terms with very few, if any, of his neighbors.

but i mean, i'm sure that you have the supreme intellect that all of them do not have and you are able to see this situation so clearly.

Supreme intellect? Apparently: they were all wrong.

But then, there were many doubts along the way. There were PLENTY of doubts within our own government, and from Britain as well.

Remember the claim by Bush in his SotU Address regarding Saddam trying to get uranium from Nigeria? Debunked... by Joe Wilson, who was sent to investigate (which is what lead to the whole "Plame Game" the Administration is caught up in).

But then, that info was debunked months before Bush's SotU, and he used it anyways, knowing it was wrong. If that's not a lie, well, then the sky is green.

Guys, you're arguing with a guy who is still convinced that Saddam had nukes. Why are you wasting your precious keystrokes?

I keep hoping we'll eventually reach the point where race will no longer be an issue in politics, but it's clear we still have a ways to go before we get there.

But, at least some people on both sides have the sense to disavow such tactics:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702115.html?nav=rss_technology

It's simple fact that black Americans still vote overwhelmingly democratic. As a big goofy white guy, I don't pretend to understand why the small number of black republicans generate so much ire from their own community. It's unfortunate, but until the republicans find a way to broader their appeal to black Americans, it isn't likely to change.

Why are you wasting your precious keystrokes?

Because keystrokes aren't that precious. :)

Jason, you've been impressing me. That's a pretty good analysis. One probalem with the Democrats doing a Contract With America type deal would be in being able to say no to some of their constituants who would insist on having their own interests included. Gay marriage is a loser vote wise but the gay activists would want it included and might (legitimately) threaten to scuttle the deal if their interests were not dealt with. By the time it was over they would have a huge ungainly document, not anything that could be used for easy appeal.

Good analysis. Right now, the democrats are not a unified party with a common set of goals or standards. They are coalitions of various interests united primarily by their opposition to Bush. The GOP have mastered playing the electoral map. They knew that the gay marriage and other hot button issues would play well in the south and sent their moderate faces (Scharzenegger, Giuliani) to Ohio. The dems keep thinking that all they need to do is run as the anti-Bush party. The problem with Reid's maneuver is that it's still them fighting against Bush. Until they show they're ready to fight for something, they aren't going to regain power.

Regarding Saddam and WMDs: It's clear now that they weren't there when we invaded in 2003 and there's no evidence to support that he moved them to Syria (if he had, Syria would be having a fire sale on nerve agent to every terrorist from Moracco to Indonesia). And the simple fact is, any nerve agent he had prior to 1992 would have long since degraded anyway. As for the nukes, that's a non-starter. It's clear now that he wasn't even close to building one.

I've been convinced that Saddam did destroy his stockpiles, but he played games with the inspectors for two reasons. One was to save face. If he didn't show at least some defiance to the inspectors, he'd look weak at home. The other is that I think he believe (mistakenly, as we now know), that the US would never invade Iraq if we believed there was a possibility that he could use chemical or biologial weapons on our troops. He thought he was safe as long as he could keep us guessing.

Anyway, that's just my hypothesis.

The essence of the straw man argument is to set up a dummy argument to tear down instead of the arguments your oponent is actually arguing.

Over simplification is over simplification.

The GOP is already making noises about eliminating the judicial filibuster. The Democrats should be right in their face, shouting, "Do it! C'mon, do it, you sum'bitches. Get rid of the filibuster, I double dog dare you. Because if you do, then sooner or later--probably sooner--the balance of power will be reversed, we'll be in charge, and we're going to make you eat whatever changes you make now to benefit yourselves, you hypocritical, smug, power-hungry jackasses."

Why couldn't the lame-duck congress just reverse the rules again before the session ends so they don't get stuck on the dirty end of that stick?

Den: Your hypothesis is the same as my hypothesis. One I've had since before the war started.

I keep hoping we'll eventually reach the point where race will no longer be an issue in politics, but it's clear we still have a ways to go before we get there.

Ahh, but Den, according to the article, the blogger who posted the 'minstrelized' photo of Steele was African-American himself. It's standard knowledge that one can use stereotypes to criticize a member of one's own minority.

Though I do dream of the day when an overwhelming majority of White voters also vote Democratic. Maybe then, race will no longer play a factor in politics.

As an aside about keystrokes, they ARE a great form of exercise. And finger strength can be key in a variety of situations...

roger: FYI, I am a cheater, because John and I share an office, and he's a writer, so I had to ask him about it. I will admit to being guilty of oversimplification in my first argument, but maybe that's the point. To echo Den, myself, and others, the ongoing investigation about all of this will be a wonderful display of parliamentary procedure, executive privilege, finger pointing, and most likely a token resignation at an intelligence agency or two, if they can find anyone still around from those days. In the end the only thing the Democrats have taken the lead on is avoiding issues that could get this country moving forward. All it's going to take is a politician to figure out why, exactly, we're in the state we're in and then issue a report about it a year from now; it's going to take a leader to make sure we're not still at the same place when the politician finishes the report.

And I don't see a politician of note, in any party, at any level of government, that's going to be that leader.

The other is that I think he believe (mistakenly, as we now know), that the US would never invade Iraq if we believed there was a possibility that he could use chemical or biologial weapons on our troops.

Yep. I'm unfortunately one of those poor souls who was duped by this Administration into believing Saddam had the WMD.

I believe that as soon as our troops got to Baghdad, Saddam would release his WMD on them.

But that never happened because Saddam didn't have any WMD. It's at that point I realize how much of a smegging cracker Bush is.

So, why should I believe anything Bush has to say about the war?

Why couldn't the lame-duck congress just reverse the rules again before the session ends so they don't get stuck on the dirty end of that stick?

If that actually happened, and the Dems then retook control of the Senate, I would then not hesitate to have the rule changed (again) just to show the GOP that they can't get away with dicking people around like that. :)

Dang... the point I neglected to spell out in regards to oversimplification was that the issue is a huge, complex legal morass that gives anyone involved too much wiggle room to be pinned for a crime of any magnitude.

And Den, I agree with your hypothesis as well. Iraq couldn't look weak to its own citizens and also couldn't look weak to its Arab neighbors. In several instances Saddam was fairly straightforward with UN inspectors about his disarmament efforts, only to immediately turn around once they left Iraq and tell the rest of the Middle East that he'd really pulled the wool over their eyes. In the end the UN (and by proxy the U.S., since we were depending on UN inspectors as our chief intelligence assets in Iraq) couldn't trust Saddam, even when he was telling the truth. Atlantic Monthly did a huge investigation about this in its January/February 2004 issue, which also examined Rumsfield's role in the planning of the war, particularly his willful ignoring of the Pentagon's assessment of how big a force was necessary not only to win the war, but keep the peace the day after. I had really hoped Rumsfield would be the first person out on his ass when the new term started.

Rumsfeld was never going to be fired. He is part of the core trio with Cheney and Rove that are basically pulling Bush's strings.

My problem, Bill, is that you are attempting to get the entire Democratic party to take responsibility of a few people who threw Oreo cookies at a guy that they view as condoning whites only country clubs. You don't even know these people are Democrats. You're assuming they are because they don't like this guy. You're assuming they are because the one person in the article who was quoted happened to be a Democrat from Baltimore (how odd that the Washington Times would frame an article that way...). Me, I find it incredibly funny and very clever.

Yeesh, I thought I had a dark sense of humor...maybe they could chuck watermelons at him next. Would any of this be remotely funny to you if it were Republicans doing it? "Cause me, I'd want to see them ridden out of town on a rail.

As for whether or not they were Democrats...are you serious? Look, if a bunch of thugs showed up at a Hillary Clinton rally and threw cigars at her I'd make the probably quite safe assumption that they were republicans. Especially if Republican leaders sanctioned and approved the action. Be real.

Furthermore, how can you say "the one person in the article who was quoted happened to be a Democrat from Baltimore". The article quoted the following:State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden; Delegate Salima Siler Marriott; Delegate Salima Siler Marriott; and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr (who at least had the class to apologize for his racial remarks).

And nowhere did I claim that all democrats or even their leaders should take the blame or even apologize for these actions (though I think that would be classy and even politically savvy)

In hindsight, I agree it was overly optimistic to think President Bush would politely accept Rumsfield's end-of-term resignation. The only glimmer of hope I have now is thanks to term limits and VP Cheney's assertion he's not running, so both parties are going to have to put up or shut up. I imagine it will be a unique campaign in 2008, with neither party wanting anything to do with the last several years.

"As for whether or not they were Democrats...are you serious? Look, if a bunch of thugs showed up at a Hillary Clinton rally and threw cigars at her I'd make the probably quite safe assumption that they were republicans. Especially if Republican leaders sanctioned and approved the action. Be real."

If that happened, I'd laugh my ass off. That's actually damn funny.

"Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr"

He apologized for calling Steele an Uncle Tom. And the oreos are still funny.

Funny though it may be, as a political tactic I find it deplorable.

In other news, the administration continues to blame their screw-ups on Clinton:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051102/ap_on_go_pr_wh/senate_iraq

If Democrats want to talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed and the intelligence, they might want to start with looking at the previous administration and their own statements that they've made," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

Yeah. Uh-huh. What they keep forgetting is that the previous administration didn't conclude that they had to invade Iraq now as the only option to deal with Hussein. And, they didn't underplan for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq and bog us down in quagmire with no realistic way for us to get out of it.

That's all on you, George.

I bet you don't like hecklers at ballgames either? For me, it's the creativity that wins it points. It's damn funny.

Does it forward the debate? Not in the slightest.

Does it make the point of the protestors clear? Actually, yes it does.

And truthfully, the cigars should be thrown at speeches by Bill, not Hillary.

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular; I just got this as part of an email today and thought I'd share a quote:

When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or
any other kind of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or
goals are in doubt. -Robert T. Pirsig, author and philosopher (1928- )

In other news, the administration continues to blame their screw-ups on Clinton

Yet, it was under Reagan that we gave Saddam those WMD.

It was under Bush I that we were involved in the Gulf War but did not push to have Saddam removed from power.

Twenty years from now, Republicans will still be blaming Clinton. Go figure.

"I hate quotations" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Freakin' co-workers...

Hopefully, 20 years from now, the GOP will be blaming the two Democratic presidents from 2008-2016, and 2016 - 2024.

(let me have my dreams)

Personally, I'm just in a pissy mood that this administration is so incompetent, it's so arrogant that it thinks the Law of Unintended Consequences doesn't apply to them, that it thinks it's OK to torture and run secret prisons and still claim the moral high ground....AND that there's a sizable portion of the country that's OK with that.

"And your posts make you look like a moron, I mean... well, yeah, a moron."

You girls, I mean, gyrls, say the sweetest things.

"Bill: You are familiar, of course, with Mr. Steele? This is the elected official who happens to be black who said he saw nothing inappropriate whatsoever with a fellow Republican holding a fund-raiser at a whites only country club. The people who are attacking him in the press and pelting him with Oreo cookies during his campaign aren't simply Democrats, they are African-Americans. Their status as Democrats is a side issue that detracts from the real point: white only country clubs are abhorrent."

Apparently, some of Maryland's Democrats don;t find the place to be abhorrent.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20050708/ai_n14724780

"The delightfully silly Groucho Marx once quipped that he wouldn't want to belong to a club that would have him as a member.

The bon mot came to mind this week following Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s appallingly silly response to criticism about his recent fundraiser at a private club that's never had a black member.

Hypocrisy, the governor retorted. Democrats have used the Elkridge Club in the past. That the club is all white wasn't an issue then. But it immediately became one when a Republican rented the facility.

Ehrlich continued that the press was complicit. It failed to explore the issue of race following visits by Democrats.

He's correct, of course. The media didn't devote a drop of ink or a second of air time to the club's racial composition when Democrats raised money there."

John wrote:

"However, I am not understanding the intent of 'lyberals' and 'progressyves'. This doesn't change the pronunciation in any way, it's just spelled wrong. And I'm unaware of any political connotations related to the i/y usage, similar to the connotations one finds with the 'c/k' in 'Amerika'.

This is purely a scholarly pursuit of understanding the intent behind the wording chosen."

Well, since you're curious, and I think I know what this is about ... I believe this is meant to be a play on/stab at the idea of spelling women "womyn" in order to make the word not just an expansion of the word "men", or whatever the reasoning behind "womyn" was. Hope that helps with your scholarly pursuing :)

1"Bill: You are familiar, of course, with Mr. Steele? This is the elected official who happens to be black who said he saw nothing inappropriate whatsoever with a fellow Republican holding a fund-raiser at a whites only country club. The people who are attacking him in the press and pelting him with Oreo cookies during his campaign aren't simply Democrats, they are African-Americans. Their status as Democrats is a side issue that detracts from the real point: white only country clubs are abhorrent."

Sure. They are. But aside from Bill's point that Democrats have used the same abhorrent club, how are the criticisms against Steele NOT racist? They are using all sorts of racial slander that had he been a black democrat, we would not be standing further. The fact that there are members of the democratic party *defending* the racism just shows some of these leaders are sliding into irrelevance.

I love the hypocrisy of politics. Can't side with the Republicans...can't side with the democrats...

Whoops....that was not Bill who brought up that point about democrats using the same club. Sorry for misattributing the comment.

Just when I'm ready to give up on the Republican Party and give the Democrats a thought they go and do something that reminds me how craven they are: the results of the Online Freedom of Speech Act:

Republican Yes-- 179 No--38
Democratic Yes--46 No--143 Not present--13
(http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll559.xml)

Even the far left Kos of Dailykos.com is angry with the result: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/3/52053/6206

He gives credit to the Democrats who "didn't fall prey to the fear mongering of the campaign finance groups" and "...are the Democrats who care about nurturing and protecting our nascent medium from those who'd rather destroy it."

He couldn't quite bring himself to give any credit to the majority of Republicans who did the same but I wouldn't really expect him to. Nevertheless, it reminds me once again which side I have the most fear of. In my own experience, I've had more attempts by the left than by the right to stop freedom of thought and expression. Obviously, other's mileage may vary.

On this issue however, both sides should be working together. I can see why the powerful would love to strangle the internet in it's crib but I can't imagine why we would let them.

"Sure. They are. But aside from Bill's point that Democrats have used the same abhorrent club, how are the criticisms against Steele NOT racist? They are using all sorts of racial slander that had he been a black democrat, we would not be standing further. The fact that there are members of the democratic party *defending* the racism just shows some of these leaders are sliding into irrelevance.

I love the hypocrisy of politics. Can't side with the Republicans...can't side with the democrats..."

Here's the long and the short of it. If blacks want to call him an Uncle Tom, that's their right. If whites want to call him an Uncle Tom, then that's racist. I know Jerry will give me a raft of shit for not willing to take a stand against it, but again, that's my opinion. You don't like it, too bad.

And yes, I find the Democrats' use of the same facility for fundraising to be equally abhorrent.

Bill: Re-read the piece on Kos (it's not written by Kos, it's written by another member of the board). Key quote: Instead, what's going on here is that there's a certain wing of both parties (mostly ours) that believes that regulation is the way to stem campaign finance abuses.

Also, the bill isn't dead (fortunately). Apparently this thing was brought up under some weird rules that limited debate on the measure. My rep voted against it, and I'm going to find out why.

Here is the link to the article in question: Daily Kos

Try that link again (bad HTML tag): Daily Kos

Screw it. It's too early for this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/3/112540/088

In my own experience, I've had more attempts by the left than by the right to stop freedom of thought and expression.

Bill, this is another of those "don't believe the vote at face value" situations.

The Republicans sought and found a way to exploit another loophole in campaign financing: through the Internet.

This bill allows bloggers to be more free with their speech, but it also had a bit tacked on that creates a campaign finance loophole.

That is what the Democrats voted against.

I'd say the bigger thing to worry about, Bill, is the continued use of bill amendments.

Many of them are little things that are quickly glossed over by the media (and then you get situations like this vote), or they have nothing to do with the bill in question, it's just there for furthering a political agenda.

It's easy to say "Damn those Democrats for voting against free speech", but people are just as damned for not bothering to pay attention to the fine print of WHY it was voted against.

Bill: Re-read the piece on Kos (it's not written by Kos, it's written by another member of the board).

Either I'm losing my mind or you're wrong (yeah, yeah, the two aren't mutually exclusive, ba dum bump) because http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/3/52053/6206, the one I wrote about, is most certainly written by Kos.

More information about the bill at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/1/101218/680

The arguments that because the internet may be abused so we have to suppress it may appeal to certain segments of the population but not to me. Only those who think that they will forver be a political minority should fear the net. Right now that seems to be mostly Democrats. I'm not with Kos most of the time but he's absolutely right on this one (why wouldn't he--it's his neck on the line).

The good news is, I expect this to galvanize people and those who voted against it will be hit with more emails than they will know what to do with. As with the Kelo case, we may lose the battle but it will end up being a setback that ultimately wins the war. (And that makes 2 for 2 for Nacy Pelosi, who apparently hasn't seen a government intrusion she didn't like, unless it involves fetuses).

The arguments that because the internet may be abused so we have to suppress it may appeal to certain segments of the population but not to me.

I fail to see how this is suppressing the internet. The campaign finance reform was, imo, an important step.

Wanting to introduce another loophole is a blatant disregard for what was previously agreed upon by Congress.

I also fail to see how my views on campaign financing have anything to do with supposedly being in a political minority - plain and simple, these morons spend far too much money on political campaigns, and it should be limited (up to and including spending on the internet).

"Either I'm losing my mind or you're wrong (yeah, yeah, the two aren't mutually exclusive, ba dum bump) because http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/3/52053/6206, the one I wrote about, is most certainly written by Kos."

I don't know. I was linking to the one written by Adam B. on the main board, which is a different piece than what you just posted a link for.

The idea that a bill introduced in the Senate by Democratic Leader Harry Reid is a secretattempt by the Republicans to do whatever it is you think they are doing...oh well.

In my own experience, I've had more attempts by the left than by the right to stop freedom of thought and expression.

In my experience, it's about 50-50. Can't trust any politicians, especially when they say they're doing it for our own good.

BTW, here's what countries whose governments aren't hostile to science are doing:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20051103/sc_space/japanshayabusaclosesinonasteroidlandingsite

Didn't you hear, Den? We're going to MARS!

The idea that a bill introduced in the Senate by Democratic Leader Harry Reid is a secretattempt by the Republicans to do whatever it is you think they are doing...oh well.

So, did you plan on debating the problems with this bill and the loophole for campaign finance, or are you just going to continue to disparage people without reason?

What we need is a 'journalist' exemption to campaign finance laws, and come up with a definition of journalist that includes online press.

Just exempting all online speech from campaign finance law is overly broad, and leaves a huge door wide open for abuse.

It's imaginable an ad campaign could easily be created where an ad-video was released on the internet -- and the money that went into that should definitely be counted towards limits, or else, the law is worthless.

Just exempting all online speech from campaign finance law is overly broad, and leaves a huge door wide open for abuse.

This is my point as well.

Such an exemption would leave the campaign finance reforms from a couple of years ago as toothless.

Yet, I know that bloggers need protection for free speech.

It's all in how the law is crafted. And the law was fine until they got into the campaign finance exemption.

"I know Jerry will give me a raft of shit for not willing to take a stand against it, but again, that's my opinion."

Nah.... We had our thing over this and we know where we each stand on it. No need to do the whole thing over again on this thread. So don't go and throw stuff out there that looks like you're trying to call me out on the issue because then I would be forced to track you down, find your house and, when you weren't looking, put hot sauce in all your ketchup bottles. Then where would you be?

:)

Well, my wife would love you (she hates ketchup).

And I didn't mean it in an literal raft of shit kind of way, but more of an "in your head 'there he goes again'" kind of way.

I don't mind hot sauce at all, but man...not in the ketchup.

See, I went and made the classic comic book bad guy slip up. I told you my evil plans. But you went and made the classic comic book cocky good guy mistake. You've told me that my plans won't work and why rather then just letting me fail.

So.....

Plan B: Putting salt in the sugar jars it is.

I'm just trying to help you out. Sugar won't work either, as we use turbinado, so the salt would kind of stick out. Now, if you put sugar in the salt shaker, that would definitely confuse us. I'm thinking that maybe switching the labels on the evaporated/condensed milk might be effective as well...

Oh, sure!!!!!!!!!!!!

Make life difficult for the evil geniuses of the world!!!!!

You force me to go straight to the last, and ultimate, evil plan on the list!!!!

Plan Z: I'm swapping out your toilet paper with that tortuously scratchy stuff that high schools use in their bathrooms!!!! Your pain will be exquisite and the forces of evil shall rejoice!!!!!!!!!!

;p

"In my experience, it's about 50-50. Can't trust any politicians, especially when they say they're doing it for our own good. "

Here here! This should be everyone's motto! It's a shame, but voting for me has always come down to lesser of evils...

So, did you plan on debating the problems with this bill and the loophole for campaign finance, or are you just going to continue to disparage people without reason?

Didn't think that I was disparaging you, just that it's a bit disingenuous to claim that "The Republicans sought and found a way to exploit another loophole in campaign financing: through the Internet." when this bill seems to be a favorite of the Senate's Democratic leader.

As I am against any limits of free political speech, I'm not a big fan of any aspect of campaign finance reform that impinges on it. I believe that anyone should be able to spend any amount of money they wish to espouse any view they wish. Since the Internet in particular has proven to be a way in which regular people can have a big influence in the national debate I would be particularly angered to see any attempt to control it.

I'll completely agree in re: attempts to control the net, but at this point I think money's effect on politics has gotten completely out of control, and that may even be understating the case.

Here in NJ, we've got two multimillionaires running for governor. They're both sleazes. I know which one I'm likely to vote for, since at least in some respects he'll vote for positions I prefer, but I've got no real respect for either man or the process by which they got a fighting chance at the governorship.

Public financing, I'm telling you. Tell every major candidate, "you've got X amount of money. Spend that and no more. You want more TV time than that, convince us to air real debates or do something newsworthy."

So far as presidential races are concerned, kill the conventions -- they're nothing more than theater at this point, and not especially entertaining or informative theater either. (And I say this as someone who's watched the majority of both parties' conventions since about 1984, with the exception of the Republican 2004 convention when I had a newborn and thus couldn't see straight.)

But find a way to get political bankrollers and high-priced lobbyists out of the damn picture, for heaven's sake. I think I'd almost rather have hookers running -- at least they're obvious about what services they're trading and when.

TWL

Tim, I'm sympathetic to what you say but I'm more willing to have the George Soros' of the world spending their millions to influence our lives than to give the government any real control over something as fundamental as free political speech.

I can see a whole bunch of potential problems with the "X amount of money" approach. For one thing, what controls what the media covers? If Fox news gives a billion dollars worth of free publicity in the guise of "news stories" that are favorable to the candidate of their choice, the other candidate is being outspent, even if they have the same amount of money. Will there be some commission to examine news reports and make sure everyone gets equal treatment? At that point we are effectively in a dictatorship.

Obviously, since I think the media has a liberal bias, this possibility does not thrill me. Since you believe the media to be far more conservative than I do I should think that you would have the same fears.

And look at it this way: if we put ourselves in a position where the means to political influence are in the media, what is to stop those high priced lobbyists from buying up the media? We end up right back where we started only now our news media will have become nothing more than total whores for one of the political parties. Yeah, I know that some people think that they already are but it could be much much worse.

I'm open to ideas but I'll be very reluctant to risk everything unless I am absolutely sure I won't regret it.

Before I comment on your fears, Bill, I'd like to hear from some of the non-US posters. Some countries *do* have public financing of elections -- Great Britain among them, if I'm remembering correctly (and it's very possible that I don't), and so far as I can tell the sky hasn't fallen.

If nothing else, giving everyone a certain amount of free air time would eliminate the automatic need for money to start up a campaign. If people felt the urge to raise Even More Money in case they wanted more time than what was given, that's a possibility -- but frankly, if the public would have the balls to shut such people down every time they tried it, people would soon learn the wisdom of not doing so. (On the other hand, that necessitates having a voting public which is intelligent, engaged and well-informed. We're going to need a bigger boat...)

And sure, the media could start causing a problem. No solution is perfect. One possible fix to that is to let media openly declare who they're supporting and regulate things such that they can't claim to be, oh, "Fair and Balanced" without showing readily-acceptable evidence to that effect. (Yes, I'm sure that has a host of problems as well.)

Another possibility: step in and say, "okay, you need to make sure each candidate gets at least X hours of coverage. How you balance things above that level is up to you." In fact, I believe that rather than money, it's often an issue in other countries of some candidates getting a certain amount of free air time.

I truly believe that the system for political candidates (both fund-raising and elections) we have now is about two steps away from total collapse into a laughable parody of democracy, so I trust you'll understand if I'm not especially worried about a solution that might be worse than the status quo. American politics right now is broken on so many levels, from so many sides, with so many people on all sides eagerly aiding and abetting, that I think any sane fix is worth at least a serious debate.

(And I find it interesting that you think any "commission" trying to ensure fairness automatically means dictatorship. But that's a conversation for another time, I think.)

Again, though, I would like to hear from anybody who's in a country which DOES finance its elections differently than the US does.

TWL

Bill Mulligan -
Didn't think that I was disparaging you, just that it's a bit disingenuous to claim that "The Republicans sought and found a way to exploit another loophole in campaign financing: through the Internet."

Well, which group do you think does not want limits on campaign financing?

The original bill was to protect bloggers.

The addition was to exempt the internet from campaign finance reform.

And yet you assume the Democrats are voting against free speech? Yes, it sounds a little disparaging.

Also, it's expected that a case over campaign finance reform could go before the Supreme Court in January.

A 5-4 to uphold the law could and sounds like it likely will change to a 5-4 to overturn it with Alito replacing O'Connor.

I just hate the fact that, every time you turn around, some guy running for mayor has spent a record amount of money for that city, the same goes for the state level, and then the Federal level.

And alot of the money isn't even spent in good ways - politicians visiting "swing states" to make it look like they actually give a damn, too many negative ads, etc.

It's become obscene.

I'm open to ideas but I'll be very reluctant to risk everything unless I am absolutely sure I won't regret it.

Well, we need to start somewhere. :)

Tim Lynch -
Here in NJ, we've got two multimillionaires running for governor.

You know, I actually saw an AP article yesterday saying that, because the Republican candidate is pro-choice, he "has so alienated Republican conservatives that they are threatening to withhold their votes on Election Day".

Apparently we're going to have to keep repeating that bit about how it's pathetic that everything comes down to one's stance on abortion.

I find it mind boggling that these people would concede a race over this sole issue.

Man, maybe we'll find out a few of the Republican Senators up for re-election next year are pro-choice... that'll guarantee their defeat by Democrats for sure.

If nothing else, giving everyone a certain amount of free air time would eliminate the automatic need for money to start up a campaign. If people felt the urge to raise Even More Money in case they wanted more time than what was given, that's a possibility -- but frankly, if the public would have the balls to shut such people down every time they tried it, people would soon learn the wisdom of not doing so.

My first question is--what air time are we talking about? They could have an entirely separate channel on cable, 24 hours a day of candidates speaking. It would be the lowest rated channel on the tube. Who would watch that crap? It would be like public access TV without the charm.

So are we talking about real TV, like CBS, NBC etc? These chumps get to pre-empt LOST? Blood in the streets I tells ya, blood in the streets.

And if they are allowed to buy more TV time I frankly don't see the point. the public won't care, either because they didn't want any such controls in the first place (me) or because they don't give a rat's ass either way (almost everyone else).

You say that the public should shut down anyone who tries to do more than is needed--imagine if John Kerry sat around saying "Gee, I'd like to respond to the unfair attacks on me but I must abide by the spirit of the campaign finance rules." Angry Democrats would have kicked him off the ticket and replaced him with somebody willing to win by any means necessary. I think that the general public WANTS someone who is willing to fight for the job. So if raising Even More Money is a possibility, Even More Money will be raised.

And sure, the media could start causing a problem. No solution is perfect. One possible fix to that is to let media openly declare who they're supporting and regulate things such that they can't claim to be, oh, "Fair and Balanced" without showing readily-acceptable evidence to that effect. (Yes, I'm sure that has a host of problems as well.)

You're killing me here. Why would they EVER openly declare any such thing. All of them claim to be fair. And how do you prove them wrong? Both of us have entirely different definitions of what is "liberal" and "conservative" and frankly, these are not exactly cut and dry definitions. It's pretty much a thing of perception--for some people all it takes is one issue to bounce you into a certain camp. For this suggestion to work we need, once again, some commission to come up with the definitions.

As to why such ideas about commissions bother me (and they do, they freak me out)...I mean, who are these people? Who picks them? What are their qualifications? Are their edicts set in stone or subject to change? If one party manages to stack the deck (which would happen the first time one of them had control of a couple of the branches of government, they could arrange things that would go a long way toward making sure that the opposition never again got into a position of power.

The irony of all this Internet stuff is that the Internet is the one way that relatively poor candidates can compete with the well funded bigwigs. The cost of reaching enough people to mount a genuine grassroots campaign has been prohibitive but with the net people can organize and share information for nothing. Dean without the Internet would have been nothing. It wasn't enough but it came damn close. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of mainstream types would want to control it.

Let me emphasize, I know you have genuinely good intentions here, but I see too many potential disasters. Maybe I'm paranoid.

This bill allows bloggers to be more free with their speech, but it also had a bit tacked on that creates a campaign finance loophole.

I'll admit that I'm relying on DailyKos a lot more here than I usually do but according to what I'm reading there, this is A-the exact same bill that Harry reid proposed in the senate and B-has no bits tacked on. It's a one sentence bill. In fact, Nancy Pelosi's argument in voting it down was that there was no opportunity to amend it.

It's quite simple--I don't trust the government to be able to fairly decide which web sites are protected and which are not; which group websites are political committees and which are not; who is a member of the press and who is not; what is a blog and what is not; etc.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will toss all of this out and such bills will be unnecessary.

This is all depressing me. thank goodness the new King Kong trailer is at http://movies.apple.com/movies/universal/king_kong/king_kong-tlr_h480.mov

Of the trailer I can only say: Oh. My. God.

Just a quick response to Curtis Rose above, about the "Most Americans only watch American media" statement. Most Americans only have ACCESS to American media. Make that easy access. I live just outside of Philadelphia and until recently, when we got digital cable, all I had was American stuff. It's almost like saying most Americans only shop in American stores. Well, yeah. Kinda difficult for me to shop in a European store.

And as far as the whole did Hussein (Calling him Saddam is one of my HUGE pet peeves unless you personally know the twerp) Anyway, did he have WMD? All the peope out there saying the evidence doesn't support it, nothing's been found, on and on, just reminds me of one of the wisest of paranomal arguments. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

This morning's news report on NPR was a blatant example of what has been discussed repeatedly in this very thread. The Deficit Reduction Plan was discussed on the floor yesterday. Democrats blasted it as being just the oppositie, feeding snuggly into a nice response by Republicans, who replied simply that the Democrats as criticizing, but bringing but have repeatedly failed to bring any plan of their own to the table.

Fred

Tim Lynch indirectly points out one of the problems that I've had with both politiians and the media for a good long while now. They both seem more interested in self-promotion and a general 4-year-old-like "Hey, look at ME!" mentality to actually, y'know, do anything important. What happened to the time when leaders led for the good of the country and not the advancement of their party's ideals? What happened to the time when those in the news media reported what happened and, with respects to Bill O' Reilly, didn't spin it the way they wanted? Too much of the news reporting has become what could be called tabloid-esque. And unfortunately, too many of the politicians have become tabloid worthy in the last few years. I'm sure that part of the reason CBS ran with the National Guard document story was they THOUGHT they had a scoop and ran with it before really checking it out. What the news people need to do is report on the news, the NEWS, and keep the opinions to themselves. What the politicians need to do is lead, and stop worrying about keeping themselves in power.

Hussein (Calling him Saddam is one of my HUGE pet peeves unless you personally know the twerp)

Hussein passed away in 1999. His son, Abdullah is now the King of Jordan.

Don't rely on Kos or anyone else.
HR 1606

The bill isn't one sentence, because the structure of bills require multiple sections, such as summaries, short titles, etc. But the bill is pretty short.

All it does is exempt the internet from the definition of "Public Communication" in the Federal Election Campaign Act.

So anything and everything the Federal Election Campaign Act does to regulate public communication wouldn't apply to the internet.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

This is true. However, the problem with that line of thought is that we are now several years from the start of the war in Iraq.

The other problem with this defense I've already stated - it allows one to easily decide upon an issue without considering other alternatives.

In this case, one alternative is that Saddam Hussein did what the UN/US told him to do and that, leading up to and including the US invasion, he had no WMD.

Besides, how much time should be given to finding such evidence before deciding it does not actually exist?

We've got over 100k troops in Iraq, have plenty of satellites and plans have that checked things out from the air, and there is still no WMD.

Don't rely on Kos or anyone else.
HR 1606

Hmm. It seems like all of us have been a little off in our interpretation of this bill and its wording.

For one, it was introduced by a Republican (Hensarling of Texas). Two, it makes no mention specifically of blogs or campaign financing.

But "communications over the Internet" is certainly a broad definition, to say the least.

Rat, the problem with the modern American media is about 90% of what we call "news" is actually punditry. O'Riley, Hannity and his sock puppet, Limbaugh, Chris Mathews, etc, etc, these guys aren't reporting the news, they're offering "analysis" or "spin" if you want to use the term O'Riley claims to hate but engages in on a daily basis. Their job isn't to report the facts, but to offer pithy quotes that are entertaining.

As for CBS News and Dan Rather, I've been saying for years that the real problem with Rather isn't that he's biased, it's that he's nuts. The memo thing was such a clumsy forgery that I'd have to believe that an intelligent but biased person would have made sure their fake documents were good before running with it. But Rather is such a douchebag that he swallowed it whole without a second look.

As for the idea of media bias in general, I always cringe when I hear people talk about how "THE MEDIA" is biased against them because the media isn't one single monolithic block, not even within the same organization. For example, the NY Times may in general tilt towards the left, but they also ran those unbelievably credulous stories by Judith Miller about Hussein's nonexistante nuclear weapons program. On the other side, Fox News may be dominated by republican hacks, but about once a month, Alan Colmes is allowed to take the tape off of his mouth and say something.

There are newspapers that tilt to the left. There are also those (NY Post, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal) that tilt to the right. On the other hand, the overwhelmingly majority of TV and radio pundits are rightwingers, even if many of the anchors are more liberal.

My point is, you kind find support for the argument that the media is biased left or right if you look. And it's been my experience that the people scream the loudest about media bias don't really want reporting that is truly "fair and balanced." They want the media to slant everything their way 100% of the time.

The Wshington Post tilts to the right? The Washington Post? The one published in Washington?

My guess would be that he meant the Washington Times.

And John, that's exactly how I read the bill, but I'm not familiar enough with the overriding bill to make judgement.

Sorry, that should have been the Washington TIMES.

With regards to campaign financing, in light of the deficit issue, why should these politicians get ANY of my tax dollars to run? Even the wealthiest candidate falls far, far short in personal wealth to finance a complete national campaign. One would hope that by being forced to rely on donors from across the country, each candidate is required to garner at least a nucleus of support to demonstrate they are competitive for such a campaign. Is the current system perfect? No, but no matter how you reform it, there's always going to be someone waiting in the wings to figure out how to break the system. Lobbyists, party officials, and politicians all have vested interests in doing so. Personally, I'd like to see us go back to a time where most politicians demonstrated their leadership chops by working their way up through the system, and campaign financing, while a concern, wasn't that bad because they had that nucleus of individual supporters and donors that knew who they were and why they should be supported for a higher office.

Of course, since I doubt such a time ever truly existed, it'd probably be really hard to go back to it.

Further, in elections like the upcoming 2008 presidential elections, we might be looking at primary fields with 10 initial candidates for both parties, and possibly a handful of third party candidates - imagine how much that's going to cost us with the exisiting public campaign financing currently available, much less than if we went to a complete public financing solution. With a growing deficit and no solution from either party presenting itself, I can't imagine spending even more money on such a lackluster group of supposed leaders when they can't even give us one stinking good thing in government.

As an extreme example, imagine that we switch to complete public financing of campaigns. Do you really want to foot the bill of every nutcase, whackjob, or hatemonger that can manage to fill out the forms to get financing for his/her signature drive in every state (oh yeah, that'd have to be included, now, wouldn't it? Otherwise, you'd still only have candidates running for office that could afford to run statewide petition drives in every state)?

imagine how much that's going to cost us with the exisiting public campaign financing currently available

I thought the situation was that only the the final candidate for each party got any public funds?

And that a third party candidate can only get funds based on past performances in the presidential election (which means, they aren't getting squat).

Den, that's it exactly. In any of these news channels, you've got to dig through all the analysis to really find out what the hell happened. And THANK YOU for pointing out that the media is not a single monolithic entity. It's a concept that is so OBVIOUS and yet those in the media are constantly homogenized under this title. In the perfect solution, every reporter in the country should take lessons from Jon Stewart. Not about reporting, but about looking at the situation and saying, "Okay, listen to THIS one..." I'd also love it if they realized that they themselves are not the reason people watch the news. Too many of these reporters try to make themselves part of the story, misdirecting the attention from where it should be.

If we switch to a system where the only money candidates can spend is what we provide them there is no way we could just limit it to the two current parties. Jason seems right; we would have to provide money to just about anyone, unless there is some kind of petition requirement or something. In that vein, I'd like to announce my candidacy for president--it'd be a great way to spend the summer and I promise that my campaign bus (nicknamed ATRAGON) will always have ready supplies of sushi and DVDs as we travel the roads of this great country, confusing the locals as we blow into town, play miniature golf, and leave without making any promises whatsoever.

Tim, you can be my VP candidate, so we can get the liberal vote ("Divide and Conquer!" would be our motto, with a logo that has a nailed fist smashing into the Earth--the kids will love it!). Den, you're my offical sushi taster in case Tim gets any ideas (our administration would be run in much the same way as the Star Trek Mirror Universe. Some of you may need to grow beards.)

I love this plan! I'm excited to be a part of it! Let's do it!

Raw fish? Pass. You have any idea how many foodborne illnesses sushi can carry.

Already have the goatee, though. :)

Hmm... if I volunteer to help with your campaign, Bill, does that mean I'd have to shave, since I already have a goatee?

And Craig, you are probably right. I don't know for sure if all primary candidates get funds or just the final ones from each party. And the third-party requirements would definitely go a long way to explain why we haven't seen any truly competitive ones. Of course, I never claimed to be in a No-Spin zone, either ;-)

hey, you could say the same about your Aunt Marge's potato salad if it got left out in the sun. It's all in how it's prepared. You don't see anything bad happening to the Japanese, except in their movies and TV shows where they are constantly being mutated by some hideous parasites...so in other words, never mind, point taken.

Since I was critical of those Democrats who found race baiting a legitimate form of political discourse I should point out that some are now showing some real integrity and courage in pointing out the inappropriateness of such actions:...members of the Congressional Black Caucus said Baltimore lawmakers in the General Assembly should "cease and desist" from making racial comments about Mr. Steele -- the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland.

"My plan is to meet with them and ask them to stop this at once," said U.S. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Baltimore Democrat and former Black Caucus chairman.

Rep. Albert R. Wynn, a black Prince George's County Democrat, admonished Baltimore lawmakers and even described Mr. Steele as "a likable guy."

"I think the comments and the attacks were outrageous and reprehensible. It does a disservice to the African-American community, and it creates a herd mentality that whatever the Democrats say we should repeat," Mr. Wynn said.

I have a goatee, too...

...hmmmm...

Are you sure we're not already in the Mirror Universe? :>

Since Star Trek has come up here, it gives me an opportunity to not completely digress in expressing something about Spike TV's Trek broadcasting: is anybody else bugged about the order in which they show Trek stuff in the afternoon?

I got home early from work today - and I have to work early :(( - so I had time (in the Eastern time zone) to see about one and a half Deep Space Nines, which were followed by a three hour Next Generation block. Well - and this isn't the first time that I've noticed this - after watching DS9 - Nog losing his leg, and Kira meeting Dukat's Pa' Wraith (sp?) cult, in this case - TNG just seemed like a non-compelling, non-watchable let-down - even with a very young and _VERY_ comely Ashley Judd on .... (BTW - as Wesley was in the ep - the one where he comes for a visit and everyone, except he and the aforementioned Ms. Judd, has become addicted to this game Riker [who I know I saw sizing up Ashley - they call him "Number One" because he gets first crack at the babes, right? ;)] brought on board - if anybody missed VH-1's "I Love the 80's 3-D", even Wil Wheaton says "Oh, SHUT UP, already!" to Wesley! Good on him/poor him, playing the guy ....) They really should switch the broadcast order (and not just because I would be home from work to see DS9 more often)....

Are you sure we're not already in the Mirror Universe? :>

As yet another fellow with a goutee, I'd have to think we are. :)

if anybody missed VH-1's "I Love the 80's 3-D", even Wil Wheaton says "Oh, SHUT UP, already!" to Wesley!

Yeah, I caught that the other night - it was the one for 1987. It's pretty funny to see Wheaton reaming himself over how he looked & acted on TNG. :)

It's interesting what things people will question and what things people will readily accept as true. Comic book readers are often healthily skeptical about comic book matters. Tell us that a character has died, and we demand to see the body (and even then often aren't convinced). But in real life, it seems we sometimes except stories a little too hastily.

According to the story in the Washington Times (cited by Bill Mulligan), Michael Steele was pelted by Oreo cookies "during a campaign appearance". But if one reads the story, one notes it doesn't say when this alleged Oreo-pelting incident occurred or who attests to this as being factual.

A person at DailyKos (hmm, where have I heard that name before) investigated this story and found that there's a bit more -- or rather less -- to it than a casual reader might assume.

The incident in question apparently occurred in 2002 at a debate between Bob Ehrlich and Kathleen Townsend. (Ehrlich was the Republican candidate for governor; Steele was his running mate, for the post of lieutenant governor). The original claim -- made by a person from the Ehrlich campaign, Paul Schurick, in post-debate spin, but not witnessed or attested to by anyone else present -- was that Oreo cookies were "distributed" to the audience.

There is no record of any organized campaign to pass out Oreo cookies to the audience. There is no record of any cookies being thrown at Steele. Not even Steele witnessed any cookies being thrown.

In defending Schurick's claim, Steele said that an Oreo cookie "rolled to his feet during the debate". In other words, at some point he looked down and saw a cookie on the floor. He had no idea how it got there. Here's what he is quoted as saying in regard to the cookie: "Maybe it was just someone having their snack, but it was there," Steele said. "If it happened, shame on them if they are that immature and that threatened by me."

This is a good case of how a story, passed along from one person to another, often grows and changes. In 2002 when Steele saw a cookie at his feet, this was a non-story.

Note the lack of facts and details in the Washington Times story. That's what should have flagged it to alert comic book readers as being as dubious as Dr. Doom's death. A reliable newspaper story would have given details such as when the alleged incident occurred, who witnessed it, who took part, etc.

How many cookies were supposedly thrown? What was Steele doing when it occurred? How did he react? How did others around him (audience members, his security detail) react? Are there any pictures, or video, of it? Those are the kinds of details one would expect to read in a legitimate news story about such an incident. But the Washington Times item, despite being dressed up to look like a news story, isn't one. The only "reporting" done by the Times in this story is to report what various political figures said in reaction to the alleged incident. No effort is made to report the actual details of the incident itself, or to verify those details.

This is the sad state that journalism has come to at places such as The Washington Times. Nor, I fear, can this be attributed to mere sloppiness. The omission of the date of the alleged incident -- October of 2002 -- makes this appear to be a recent or current incident. Nothing in the quoted responses in the article gives any reason to suspect this is a story about a cookie being seen at Steele's feet 3 years ago. My feeling is it takes a certain amount of craft to put together a story which misleads the readers as skillfully as this one does.

What I've written above is based on what I read in the DailyKos diary (as reposted at PolicalCortex.com, http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2005/11/3/145015/641). I have not personally checked the newspaper stories cited (and quoted from) in that diary, since they date back 2 to 3 years and so are not readily available. It's therefore possible that I am the one being misled. But I doubt it. One reason the Washington Times piece strikes me as dubious is because it is all about reactions to an alleged incident from people with no knowledge of the facts. In contrast, the Kos piece is about going back to dig up and verify the facts of the incident. That's the right approach, and people who take that approach are more likely to come up with the facts than those who don't.

If I could, I would look up the stories cited for myself. I encourage anyone else who is interested, especially someone with access to a good library (or Lexis) to do so.

Bill,

Okay, you're paranoid that there's no way to take money out of the process that doesn't cause even more problems. I still want to hear details about how other countries have done it (and how successful they've been), so let's table that.

Let's turn it around. Let's have the money stay in politics, but insist on absolute and total transparency. Candidates (and those currently in office) need to disclose every scrap of largesse they've been given by supporters or lobbyists. No fake organizations with cute names that do nothing but fog the issue. If a politician is going to take money from a particular individual or organization, they must cite the name and the amount -- in a location that is easily accessible to all members of the public. Hell, send it out with the ballot materials to all registered voters.

You do that and do it properly, and I'm less concerned about the money -- because at least it's obvious where it's coming from and people can supposedly judge accordingly.

Thoughts on that?

(Aside: has anyone else here read David Brin's _The Transparent Society_? It's a nonfiction work analyzing a lot of societal trends -- came out around 5-10 years ago. I don't agree with all of it and some of it is likely outdated by now, but I think it's also got a lot of food for thought.)

And on a related note -- something else that would fix the political process. Kill off the electronic voting machines. All of 'em. Go back to paper ballots counted by hand. The only drawback is that it's going to take a little longer -- but there's no hacking, no mysterious lapses in system maintenance, and a lot fewer ways for anyone to even suspect shenanigans.

Thoughts on either of these?

TWL

Let's turn it around. Let's have the money stay in politics, but insist on absolute and total transparency. Candidates (and those currently in office) need to disclose every scrap of largesse they've been given by supporters or lobbyists. No fake organizations with cute names that do nothing but fog the issue. If a politician is going to take money from a particular individual or organization, they must cite the name and the amount -- in a location that is easily accessible to all members of the public. Hell, send it out with the ballot materials to all registered voters.

You do that and do it properly, and I'm less concerned about the money -- because at least it's obvious where it's coming from and people can supposedly judge accordingly.

Thoughts on that?

No problem at all. In fact, I'm amazed it's not already the case. Of course, one person's "fake organization with cute names" is another persons real organization with a perfectly legitimate name but we can work on that. I'd support this without reservation.

And on a related note -- something else that would fix the political process. Kill off the electronic voting machines. All of 'em. Go back to paper ballots counted by hand. The only drawback is that it's going to take a little longer -- but there's no hacking, no mysterious lapses in system maintenance, and a lot fewer ways for anyone to even suspect shenanigans.

Again, no problem at all. Coupled with some better way of ensuring that only legitimate voters vote it would go a long way toward making the process work better. (Remember, a vote illegally cast has exactly and precisely the same effect as one that is illegally destroyed).

Nova Land-- while I have to agree that the facts seem to be different from the impression that the article gave--being pelted with oreo is considerably different from having one tossed at you--if the folks at Kos gave you the impression that the Washington Time were deliberately trying to "makes this appear to be a recent or current incident" they were guilty of the very kind of misrepresentation they decried. From the article I cited:
During the 2002 campaign, Democratic supporters pelted Mr. Steele with Oreo cookies during a gubernatorial debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore.

I might add that while the image of a guy being knocked tot he ground by cookies is a vast overstatement, saying that having a cookie rolling to one's feet is the same as looking down and seeing one there is also playing around a bit.

It's possible that Steele made the whole thing up. But since it is undeniable that he has been characterized as a "Sambo" (complete with a blackface photo manip), and "Uncle Tom" (I always have a flashback to an episode of The Jeffersons when I hear that. If you've seen it you know which one I mean), and had his credit card records stolen by two people whose lawyer bills for this crime are being paid for by the Democratic party, this seems to consistent with the facts.

It would be ironic if Democrats were disgracing themselves trying to defend something they didn't even really do. Again, kudos to those who condemn this and any other racial attacks, real or imagined.

Hi, Bill! "While I have to agree that the facts seem to be different from the impression that the article gave -- being pelted with oreo is considerably different from having one tossed at you -- if the folks at Kos gave you the impression that the Washington Time were deliberately trying to "makes this appear to be a recent or current incident" they were guilty of the very kind of misrepresentation they decried.

No, that was my own error, for which I apologize. I'm short on sleep and a bit careless at the moment, both in my reading and my writing. The Kos article states clearly at the very beginning: "Reporter S.A. Miller has posted two stories in three days claiming that, in 2002, liberals assaulted Steele with Oreo cookies.

The focus of the Kos article is the difference between how the Washington Times reported the 2002 incident (as established fact, that Steele was pelted) and what is actually known about the incident (that a political operative claimed, without evidence or corroboration, that Oreo cookies were passed out to members of the audience, and that Steele said he saw a cookie rolling on the floor).

Here is the Kos diarist's own words, since I'm not doing a very good job today of fairly reproducing what people have said.

"There's one problem. Based on my quick scan of Maryland newspaper archives, I don't think this incident ever happened. Instead, it was contrived by a Republican operative and hyped by the Times.

"Now, let me clear as to what I'm investigating. The Times claims Steele was 'pelted' with Oreo cookies. That is not an ambiguous phrasing. 'Pelting' means to 'strike or assail repeatedly with or as if with blows or missiles.' It implies violence, and that the victim was actually struck with something. Calling Michael Steele an 'oreo' or joking about Oreo cookies IS racist - but it's very different than violently throwing food at him.

The impression that the Washington Times was attempting to pass a 2002 incident off as current is strictly my error. Although I read the entire news story, I obviously did not read it well. Here's how and why I went astray:

The first paragraphs of the story say:

"Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

"Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an 'Uncle Tom' and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log."

From that I formed the impression that the attacks were being alleged to have occurred during the current campaign. (Which is a reasonable reading of those two paragraphs as they stand.) However, in paragraph 10 (halfway through the story) Miller clarifies: During the 2002 campaign, Democratic supporters pelted Mr. Steele with Oreo cookies during a gubernatorial debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore."

That's not entirely clear as written. If one has already formed the impression that Steele was pelted during the current campaign, a careless reader might see that later paragraph as referring to a prior, additional incident. (Or a careless reader might not note that date in the middle paragraph at all.) Usually I'm a fairly careful reader, especially when I'm reading something in order to pass along information about it to others, but today I was definitely in the ranks of the careless.

I'm curious how many people who have heard or read this story (or who have had it told to them by others) came away with the impression that it is talking about an incident or incidents of pelting that happened during the current campaign. You, obviously, read the story more carefully and more correctly than I did.

But I have to ask: did you read it that carefully initially, or did you need to go back to re-read it (after reading my erroneous post) to spot that the sole alleged pelting incident was from 2002, and not something that was occurring in the current campaign? I ask because the wording of your prior posts seems to imply the latter. (For example, you wrote: "...as opposed to the marked lack of attention that the Maryland Democrats will get." That certainly sounds as if you were writing about an incident that happened recently and is currently being ignored in the media, rather than about something which happened 3 years ago and was already covered.)

Knuckles, similar question for you. Was it clear to you from Bill's summary of the Washington Times story that the sole alleged pelting incident occurred 3 years ago and is not something that is happening during the current campaign? The use of present tense in what you wrote -- "The people who are attacking him in the press and pelting him with Oreo cookies during his campaign..." -- sounds to me as if you were under the impression this was something that was happening now, not something alleged to have happened once several years ago.

"I might add that while the image of a guy being knocked to the ground by cookies is a vast overstatement, saying that having a cookie rolling to one's feet is the same as looking down and seeing one there is also playing around a bit." Summing up Steele's statement that way was my wording, not the Kos diarist's, so any blame for this rests with me. But I'm not sure I agree with you on this one.

Eyewitness testimony is a tricky thing, even when one is dealing with unbiased witnesses (which in this case we aren't). It's not clear when Steele first told the story about the cookie, what exactly he said, and how much of what he said reflects what he actually saw as opposed to his interpretation of what he saw.

We can reasonably conclude Steele wasn't actually hit by Oreos. If he had been, he (and others) probably would have noticed (and spoken up). We can also reasonably conclude there wasn't any organized Oreo-tossing going on -- if any significant number of cookies had been tossed, surely someone would have noticed the flying objects (and surely there would have been more than one cookie on the ground for Steele or others to have seen).

Can we conclude that any Oreos were tossed? I don't think we reasonably can. We can't rule it out -- because if Steele is telling the truth, there was at some point an object on the ground which looked to him like an Oreo -- but since neither Steele nor anyone else saw how the cookie got there then cookie-tossing is only one possibility.

We do know that (assuming he is telling the truth to the best of his recollection) at some point Steele looked down and saw what looked like an Oreo cookie. But did he actually see it roll? Or is that simply a conclusion he reached (or an impression he had) upon looking down and seeing a cookie where he had not previously noticed one? When you turn your head, objects that you see during the head-turning appear to be moving.

It's also an unfortunate but undeniable fact that stories often grow a little bit -- becoming more detailed and more definite -- with re-telling. The "rolled to my feet" detail is reported in a story dated November 22 -- more than 50 days after the September 30 debate. If this was the first time Steele provided that detail, I'd consider it highly suspect. If it was not the first time, then I'd like to see some record of his earlier statements to compare it to. (If, from the beginning, Steele said a cookie had rolled to his feet, that would lend some credibility to this detail. But, from the limited evidence available, that does not appear to be the case.)

I'm not willing to conclude Steele actually saw a moving cookie without further evidence to support that. So I went with what I thought (and still think) is as far as one can reasonably go with the evidence as presented: at some point Steele saw a cookie on the ground where he had not previously seen one.

As I say, I'm short on sleep and not at my sharpest. I'll ponder this again when my judgemtn is a bit clearer to see if I still think my wording was fair.

oops. Lack of ability to preview led to a small formatting error which may make a big difference in understanding who said what in the above post.

Early in the post I wrote that I was going to quote the Kos diarist's own words. And I did. I thought I was putting those words in bold, to make it clear where I was quoting from the diary. However, I quoted two paragraphs from the diary and only one came out in bold. That makes it unclear where quote stops and my words resume.

Here is what should have appeared in bold:

There's one problem. Based on my quick scan of Maryland newspaper archives, I don't think this incident ever happened. Instead, it was contrived by a Republican operative and hyped by the Times.

"Now, let me clear as to what I'm investigating. The Times claims Steele was 'pelted' with Oreo cookies. That is not an ambiguous phrasing. 'Pelting' means to 'strike or assail repeatedly with or as if with blows or missiles.' It implies violence, and that the victim was actually struck with something. Calling Michael Steele an 'oreo' or joking about Oreo cookies IS racist - but it's very different than violently throwing food at him."

The next paragraph, in which I admit that "The impression that the Washington Times was attempting to pass a 2002 incident off as current is strictly my error", is me speaking again.

Apologies for any confusion that caused! If I can't get the coding right, I guess I need to write shorter posts.

Nova Land, I can't say for sure whta I was thinking when I wrote that but Iprobably already knew about the incident from the 2002 campaign since I had followed the campaign fairly closely--I was in a state of disbelief that even a KENNEDY couldn't beat a REPUBLICAN in the state of MARYLAND. The original article came from the Baltimore Sun describing how the audience at the debate had behaved in a manner that, in my opinion, was more consistant with brownshirts than Americans. The oreo bit was a relatively minor part.

It's interesting how some things resonate and some don't. We have two women who may go to jail for illegally representing thmesleves to get a political candidates credit card records and all the public seems to care about is whether or not people are tossing their cookies.

But I do think that the cookie tossing has been clearly overused and seems to have little basis in fact (I'm not saying Steele lied but the image of a guy buried under a pile of black and white crumbs has taken hold). So it's certainly fair to point out to anyone who uses it that this story is less than it seems. It probably doesn't change the larger issue of race baiting in this camapaign but it's still fair. So thanks for the heads up.

here's a depressing addition to the topic of science supression. From a Novak column:

Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, at an Oct. 26 hearing drew from an animal rights activist an admission that he advocated murder of medical researchers who performed experiments on animals.

Dr. Jerry Vlasak of North American Animal Liberation was quoted as saying at an animal rights convention: "I don't think you'd have to kill, assassinate too many. I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, or 10 million non-human lives."

Questioned by Inhofe whether he was "advocating the murder of individuals," Vlasak replied: "I made that statement, and I stand by that statement."

10 researchers killed would have a far more devastating effect on science than the creationsist could ever dream of. I hope to God the FBI is infiltrating these groups. In my experience they aren't filled with the brightest bulbs, it shouldn't be too difficult to trick them.

Anyone who advocated murder for a political point is an idiot, pure and simple.

With that said, I'm not as worried about the animal rights nutjobs who simply talk about thins like this as I am the pro-life nutjobs who have actually carried out murder and bombings to advance their cause.

And by saying that, I am in no way implying that all animal rights activists or pro-lifers are nutjobs. But the ones that are should be locked up.

With that said, I'm not as worried about the animal rights nutjobs who simply talk about thins like this as I am the pro-life nutjobs who have actually carried out murder and bombings to advance their cause.

While I don't think anyone has been killed by them yet, the animal rights wackos have actually carried out many bombings, arsons, and other violent acts. It's just a matter of time before someone is klilled, whether on purpose or just from being in the wrong place when they strike.

That is true, Bill, but while many animal rights activists who do stupid things like that at least try to avoid killing people, there have already been numerous cases where so-called "pro-life" individuals have deliberately and with premeditation, committed acts of murder and arson, resulting in people's deaths.

Thoughts on either of these.

Hanging CHAD's, my friend. Hanging, pregnant, half-baked, bloated, constipated CHAD's.

Granted, that is a problem on the state level, not federal, but the fact that there are no balloting standards for a federal election is kind of disturbing.

But then, I'm also very disturbed by the fact that I get ballots for City/County of Denver & state of Colorado with everything written in both English and Spanish, and since that doubles the length of the ballot, it doubles the postage required to mail the damn thing back. (Another great reason for making English the only official language... anyways).

Electronic machines can work if you can keep morons like, oh, CEO's of Diebold from saying things like he will "deliver Ohio to Bush", and then you get voting irregularities with his machines in Ohio, a state that went to Bush.

Obviously, a paper trail is a must, but electronic machines can work. And they should also be able to prevent everybody's "CHAD's" from fucking up an election. :)

I guess the lesson for this then, Craig, is that no matter what system we use, the politicians will figure out a way to cheat.

Here's hoping Jeb Bush never runs for president.

Den,
Well, yes, but I don't know that the anti-abortion terrorists are having much effect on science, which is what I was commenting on. I'm more afraid of the sort of islamofacists currently wilding in France than I am of the whole lot of them but they aren't pertinant to the point either.

Just a quick hypothetical: What if all political donations had to go to a particular candidate, not a political organization? If the problem is that the soft money keeps getting funneled somehow through special interest groups, what if all individual and corporate donations had to go directly to a specified candidate's campaign? Maybe up the limit a candidate could take from an individual donor, let's say double or triple it, but in the end, no more smoke and mirrors about where the money comes from. I don't know, maybe there's no way to keep people from setting up some kind of version of 527's or PAC's or whatever, but what if?

Perhaps, Bill, but the idea of hordes of vegans killing researchers is just a hypethetical, while there have been several documented cases of anti-abortionists wackjobs shooting doctors. I'd say the latter is still ahead on the impact on science.

As for what's going in France, I'm sure somehow the European media has figured out how to blame that on America by now.

With that said, I'm not as worried about the animal rights nutjobs who simply talk about thins like this as I am the pro-life nutjobs who have actually carried out murder and bombings to advance their cause.

Are you serious? Are you really living in fear there is any sizable portion of "pro-life nutjobs" who are going murder and bomb to advance their (my) caue?

Obviously there are a few cases where this has happened. But to even bring it up as a fear honestly bewilders me. When you look at the large number who are pro-life, you realize that those who murder and bomb are an extremely minute portion of the whole. And when someone does it, pro-lifers don't just sit quietly, we overwhelmingly denounce the action. You don't have a large number of us demonstrating outside the trial saying the killer is being persecuted.

Am I missing something? I am I living in an alternate reality? I am serious. Why would you even express this as a fear when the evidence overwhelmingly says otherwise. You probably are in as much danger from a nut-job prolifer as you are from someone going "postal" in a post office.

Just wondering.

Iowa Jim

Sigh. Strawman off the port bow!

I knew that as soon as I typed that, even with the disclaimer, someone would accuse me of saying "all" or "most" pro-lifers are murderers and bombings.

Jim, I'm not sure if you read my entire post or just went into rant mode because you saw "pro-lifer" and "bombings" in the same sentence, but no, I don't think there are "a sizable number" of pro-lifers who are murderers or bombers.

It's a small number, yes, but how many Eric Rudolph's do you need before fear of being bombed at a public event like the Olympics becomes legitimate in your mind? To me, one is more than enough.

>With that said, I'm not as worried about the animal rights nutjobs who simply talk about thins like this as I am the pro-life nutjobs who have actually carried out murder and bombings to advance their cause.

>Are you serious? Are you really living in fear there is any sizable portion of "pro-life nutjobs" who are going murder and bomb to advance their (my) caue?

>Obviously there are a few cases where this has happened. But to even bring it up as a fear honestly bewilders me. When you look at the large number who are pro-life, you realize that those who murder and bomb are an extremely minute portion of the whole. And when someone does it, pro-lifers don't just sit quietly, we overwhelmingly denounce the action. You don't have a large number of us demonstrating outside the trial saying the killer is being persecuted.

>Am I missing something? I am I living in an alternate reality? I am serious. Why would you even express this as a fear when the evidence overwhelmingly says otherwise. You probably are in as much danger from a nut-job prolifer as you are from someone going "postal" in a post office.

>Just wondering.

>Iowa Jim

Yes, IJ, you *are* missing something.

You apparently didn't comprehend his posting.

He said (and I fully agree with it) that he is worried about those groups and individuals *who have actually carried out murders and bombings* than those who just are full of big talk.

Please, name us one bombing that has been committed in the name of "pro-choice". Here's some space to do it.

Or one arson.

Or, the big one - please give us the name of a person who has been *murdered* in the name of "pro-choice".

And don't try pulling the bit of "the unborn killed by abortion" - we're talking about someone killing someone like a doctor, or a nurse, or a police officer *in the name of "pro-choice" - equivalent to individuals like Paul Hill, or Eric Rudolph, who have killed in the cause of "stopping abortion".

I doubt you can come up with a single one - and I won't be holding my breath waiting for it.

No, it's those people (and related individuals, such as the person facing charges of threatening to kill the husband and judge in the Terri Schiavo case) who we should *all* be worried about.

Because they are cut from the same mold - they claim to care all about "life" - and then go out of their way to try and take them.

"Pro-life". Yeah, right. Pull the other one.

Are you really living in fear there is any sizable portion of "pro-life nutjobs" who are going murder and bomb to advance their (my) caue?

He never said "a sizable portion", Jim, and you know it.

Do I walk around every day watching my back lest those slippery pro-lifers knife me when I'm not watching? No, of course not.

Am I more worried about the extremes of the pro-life movement than the extremes of the pro-choice movement? Hell yes, for any number of eminently sane reasons.

T'ain't paranoia, Jim; 'tis looking at the numbers.

And on a different note, Craig:

Electronic machines can work if you can keep morons like, oh, CEO's of Diebold from saying things like he will "deliver Ohio to Bush", and then you get voting irregularities with his machines in Ohio, a state that went to Bush.

Obviously that's a glaring example of a problem with them ... but right now, I don't see much evidence that the machines can be trusted. If the machines have utterly transparent open-source code, and each voter gets a verified paper receipt that can be checked after the fact ... then sure, I'm all for 'em. But right now that's not the case, and there are a number of reasons why lots of individuals and organizations would like it never to be the case.

TWL

*sigh*

I'm just depressed these days, as it seems like torture has now become....a partisan issue.

How low have we sunk as a nation when passing a law banning torture is considered and act of defiance against the president?

Well, we have people saying, with a straight face, that torture is an effective way to get information...

Well, we have people saying, with a straight face, that torture is an effective way to get information...

Well, it IS an effective way to get information. Torture me sufficiently and I'll confess to whatever you want.

It's just a piss-poor unreliable way to get ACCURATE information, that's all...

TWL

One of the things that really bothers me, besides the fact that there's a debate in the first fracking place, is that on one of the other fora I participate in, there's a poster who is proud of his evangelical Christianity - and who is also a vociferous defender of the idea of torturing suspected terrorists to get information. He says he's still searching for the Biblical quote that will throw the "proper" light on the quotes I provided him from the Sermon on the Mount, that would somehow reconcile Christ's pronoucement of the need for mercy and love towards one's enemies with the idea of torture.

(Oh, and apparently I'm not a Christian, either...) :-/

(Oh, and apparently I'm not a Christian, either...) :-/

Of course not.

If you don't believe the exact same things they do, you're not a Christian in their book.

Well, it IS an effective way to get information. Torture me sufficiently and I'll confess to whatever you want.

It's just a piss-poor unreliable way to get ACCURATE information, that's all...

Not a problem for these folks....

Craig,
I think the option you and I are both looking for is available through the open voting consortium at http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/. They are working to make electronic voting transparent- what a concept!
If only I had any faith that such a program would actually be adopted someday....

It's a small number, yes, but how many Eric Rudolph's do you need before fear of being bombed at a public event like the Olympics becomes legitimate in your mind? To me, one is more than enough.

I did read the whole post and know you qualified it. But why even bring it up? Is this type of killing really increasing? Is it really happening any more than what happened at Columbine? Or what happened in Fort Worth when a guy went into a church and started killing people (to give just one example of where it has happened the other way).

The reality is this is not a growing threat. I did not deny that it has, on a few occasions, happened. The belief that abortion ends a human life does, in the persons mind, give more justification for killing the "abortionist murderer" if someone is tyring to excuse it. But only if they deny everything else the pro-life and/or conservative Christian movement stands for.

My point is simply this: If you perform abortions, or are located near someone who commits abortion, you have far more to fear from a common criminal than from virtually any pro-life advocate. In fact, most pro-life advocates would come to your defense. Pro-life advocates are not neutral about this issue. We don't sit by and quietly ignore the criminal and evil acts a few do to stop abortion by commiting murder or bombing.

Your answer is appreciated, even though I find it more based in fear than reality. But that is my opinion so I will leave you to yours.

Since when is the Bush administration interested in accurate information?

And Jim, if you read up there, I brought it up only in comparison to Bill's comment about animal rights activists who were only talking about killing people. It's not something that I fear every day and hopefully, never will face. I do, however, work the state Department of Health and the bureau that licenses all health clinics (inlcuding those that perform abortions) is located in the same builing as my office. So, do I sometimes think that some whackjob may decide to bomb my building to prevent a clinic from opening up in his neighborhood? Yes.

But for you to extrapolate from that thought that I think "a sizable number" of pro-lifers are that way is just plain stupid. Especially since I flat out said that wasn't the case.

I know it's a tiny minority. But it only takes one.

Pro-life advocates are not neutral about this issue. We don't sit by and quietly ignore the criminal and evil acts a few do to stop abortion by commiting murder or bombing.

Kindly explain, then, why Randall Terry is still a viable political entity. Terry has quite consciously and deliberately turned blind eyes to people like Eric Rudolph, and by your claim above he should thus be condemned. Yet he's not.

TWL

Terry has quite consciously and deliberately turned blind eyes to people like Eric Rudolph, and by your claim above he should thus be condemned. Yet he's not.

In all fairness, I have to say that I have heard pro-life people condemn Terry. He was running for something or other in my hometown, or at least had a booth set up, as did some mainstream right to life group and they hated each other. Terry feels that the mainstreamers are part of the problem and the mainstreamers hated him because, well, he's nuts.

(And while I don't usually find schadenfreude an admirable thing to indulge in, I just can't help pointing out that since then Our Mr. Terry has A- been censured by his church for, ahem, relationships with single and married women; B- divorced his wife; C- had one son come out as gay; D- had two daughters become pregnant out of wedlock, one of whom D- became a Muslim.

God has a plan and he's not in it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051107/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqintelligence

But hey, at least he didn't lie about a BJ.

Seriously, at what point will the remaining Bush apologists admit that his entire administration is full of crap?

In all fairness, I have to say that I have heard pro-life people condemn Terry.

Thanks, much appreciated. Of course, I'd rather it be a bit more widespread than it is, but this definitely gives me some hope.

TWL

Wouldn't it be great if Randal terry and Fred Phelps met at a protest and just beat each other senseless? (But how could we tell?).

I would pay to see that fight.

So would I ... assuming the money didn't go to either of their causes, of course. :-)

TWL

When you look at the large number who are pro-life, you realize that those who murder and bomb are an extremely minute portion of the whole

Subtract "pro-life", add "Muslim".

Sorry, I know it's a bit off topic for this thread, in that abortion has nothing to do with terrorism (or at least the government hasn't forced such a connection... yet), but I just wanted to include that because I've seen some disturbing thoughts on other forums. Forums where some idiots still think that any Muslim is a terrorist and so forth.

*sigh* I hate human beings.

Well, we had a victory against the anti-science crowd.

http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-32/1131500646107450.xml&storylist=paelection

Yeah, democracy!

Great! Hopefully the same will happen in Kansas.

>> Pro-life advocates are not neutral about this issue. We don't sit by and quietly ignore the criminal and evil acts a few do to stop abortion by commiting murder or bombing.

Just for the record, that is exactly how I would say most animal lovers feel about the extremists on their issue. PETA may be loud and obnoxious, but it's the very reasonable Humane Society that actually represents most animal lovers, and that actually accomplishes stuff. I think the tremendous outpouring of respect the Humane Society received during their outstanding work in the aftermath of Katrina shows that most Americans know that, too.

Aye, good news, Den.

But with the good, Kansas seems to be heading in the same anti-science direction.

The thing that disturbs me is the viewpoint expressed by one of the moms in favor of the old Dover school board...basically, "I don't believe in evolution, so I think the other side of the story should be told."

Which shows just a plain ignorance of what science is. There is no "other side of the story." The only accepted scientific explanation on the development or origin of species is evolution. There is no scientific "other side," only faith based concepts. The unfortunate thing is that with the advent of so-called intelligent design, which is and always has been more of a philosophical observation, and not a scientific one, faith-based beliefs have some claim to the scientific arena.

The sooner we get a court decision ruling that ID is not science, the better. At least then we can give the whole ID discussion a rest, while people go back to the "activist judges" debate.

They claimed that they just wanted the "other side heard", but their actions showed that they really wanted to repress science in favor of their narrow religious interpretation.

I really wish everyone would just agree that science is science and religion is religion. Both attempt to answer different questions (how vs. why). Unfortunately, there is a sizable faction in this country who not only reject science, but want to make sure that everyone conforms to their fundamentalist view of religion. To them, you're either a fundamentalist or an atheist. There's no middle ground.

BTW, the court should be ruling soon on whether ID is science. Of course it'll probably be appealed all the way the SCOTUS, so this debate isn't going away.

Kansas seems to go in cycles. About ten years ago, their state board of education voted on a similar measure, only to be voted out in the next election. Now it seems to have come full circle and the creationists are back in power.

Anyone know when their next election is?

I'm just relieved to see folks attempted to use a public position to advance religious beliefs get voted out. I hope that's a trend we see continue for at least the next cycle of elections. I hold very dearly my personal religious beliefs, but I in no way want to see any legislation or other government act to coerce others into thinking like I do. In addition to that view being contrary to my own beliefs, it goes against one of the fundamentals this country was founded on. Besides, I've always thought that if your faith needs the government's support in order to get people to adhere to it, maybe your faith isn't as persuasive as you'd like to think it is.

Anyone know when their next election is?

Not soon enough.

On another forum, I commented on some quotes from these nutjobs that I found particularly interesting/sickening:

"This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that," said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat.

It's ok, because the whole country is becoming a laughingstock.

Supporters of the new standards said they will promote academic freedom. "It gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today," said board member John Bacon, an Olathe Republican.

This change supports academic freedom? It gets rid of dogma? Gee, I thought you had to have religion to have "dogma".

It just goes to show that ol' Mr. Bacon doesn't have a clue as to what science really is. And, like many of those like him, he doesn't care to find out; he is right, the rest of us are wrong. Period.

Apparently, some of them are up for reelection next year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801211_2.html

"Sue Gamble said the board, by dropping a phrase that defined science as "a search for natural explanations of observable phenomena," was opening the door to supernatural explanations."

Okay, that's disturbing. And some of you say I'm crazy for saying that there's a war against science being waged in this country.

Okay, that's disturbing.

Yep, it is.

But, since they're going to allow it, we better not stop with "intelligent design": Teachers better be ready to discuss ID (and it's idential twin, creationism), the Flying Spaghetti Monster, any other creation story from other religions, the important of the Ghostbusters in today's society (we need somebody to fight the supernatural baddies, right?), and so forth.

They won't. The agenda of the wingnuts to get all kids indoctrinated into a literal acceptance of Genesis, regardless of how their parents feel. ID and other smokescreens are just Trojan horses to get the real goal achieved.

That's why even the Discovery Institute pulled out of the Dover case.

The problem with teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools...

Who is the "Intelligent Designer"?

You can't have ID without a designer responsible for it.
And where did that designer come from?

Was it God, Zues, Ares, Odin, Buddha, Vishnu, Allah, Yahweh, Bob, Ra, Galactus, Aliens?

And if you take the bible at face value, then we're all inbred, starting at Adam & Eve, then collapsed back down to Noah's gang, back up to today...

The real problem with ID is that it's boring to teach and learn. Anything that seems difficult to understand, instead of being taken apart and examined, is dismissed with a little hand waving.

Student: Why do we have an appendix?

Teacher: Intelligent design (God did it).

Student: Why do men have nipples?

Teacher: Intelligent design (God did it).

Student: Why do snakes and dolphins have vestigial hip bones?

Teacher: Intelligent design (God did it).

Student: Why do pandas have "thunbs"?

Teacher: Take your ritalin!

Den/Craig/Bill et. al.

Did you see the results for the Dover School Board elections? All sitting members got tossed out on their asses. Apparently the good citizens of Dover don't much like their foofooraw either.

Yeah, I posted the link up above.

Did you see the results for the Dover School Board elections?

Yep. I need to recheck some links, but the one story I read said that 8 were up for reelection and were tossed.

I just haven't seen anything saying whether there are only 8 school board members, or whethers were not up for reelection.

Ahh, crap, hit post by accident.

That link says there are 9 board members total, 8 tossed out.

I think the people of Dover are trying to tell somebody something, but I bet the ID supporters will be damned to figure out what exactly that "something" is.

"Sue Gamble said the board, by dropping a phrase that defined science as "a search for natural explanations of observable phenomena," was opening the door to supernatural explanations."

Okay, that's disturbing. And some of you say I'm crazy for saying that there's a war against science being waged in this country.

Chris Mooney doesn't think it's crazy. He wrote a book called The Republican War on Science that discusses the ways the current Republican party has been treating science itself as a partisan issue, from intelligent design to stem cell research to global warming. He points out that there's a difference between policy differences (is stem cell research moral/ethical to fund with public money?) and ignoring scientific input on technical matters to decide policy (the arbitrary number of stem cell lines that were preserved, and so forth).

Ok, ok, I couldn't pass this one up.

On Dubya's recent tour of South America, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva showed Bush a map of the country.

Bush's reaction?

"Wow, Brazil is big."

http://www.arkcity.net/stories/110305/com_0001.shtml

Some freinds of Peace Mother Sheehan, or PMS, FINALLY show their true idea of "Support For The Troops"

"While a small group waved signs and took joy in the death of a U. S. Soldier Wednesday in South Haven, an assortment of veterans and motorcycle groups made sure at least, that the family of the deceased would not be bothered.

The protestors, who numbered less than 10, held signs, tore American flags and made hateful remarks aimed at families of soldiers who have died in the line of duty.

There were over 125 motorcycles at the funeral Wednesday, representing veterans and cyclists from all over Kansas and Oklahoma. They surrounded the small group of protestors and whenever they would try to speak, dozens of motorcyclists revved their engines to drown them out."

That SCOTUS-Selected ChimpFace Smirky Dumbya Bu$Hitler is so dumb that, not only did he remark at how big Brazil is, the stupid cokehead, alcoholic frat-boy, who, by the way, is so dumb that he managed to trick lotsa Lyberal, I mean, Progressyve Congress People with false intelligence on Iraq, he is sooo dumb that he also met with the Dalai Lama even though China objected.
If Impeached President BJ Clinton had still been in office, he would have listened to China.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20051109/2005-11-09T210849Z_01_SPI976107_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-CHINA-TIBET-USA-DC.html

BraBra Streisand...the gift that keeps on giving to...people...people who need people...

Posted on October 26, 2005
If there was ever a time in history to impeach a President of the United States, it would be now. In my opinion, it is two years too late. We should have done this before the election to spare the country the misjudgment, the incompetence and the malfeasance of this administration. Let us remember that UN weapons inspectors asked for more time to search Iraq for WMDs. Two months into their search, the Director General of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that he found no evidence that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program since its elimination in the 1990s. And Saddam Hussein had begun to comply with the administration's demands. Why would you invade a country if there was still a chance for peace? Shouldn't war be an absolute last resort? We went to war because we were misled. And we should be angry because of the 2,000 American soldiers and the 200 armed coalition forces that have died. We should be livid because of the 15,000 American soldiers that have been horribly maimed and wounded. We should be disgusted because of the 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians that have been killed and the 20,000 that are wounded after administration officials claimed that the US was going to liberate the Iraqi people.

When does it stop? It stops with the indictment and impeachment of this corrupt, power-hungry, greedy group of incompetent leaders. How many more have to die before this happens?

http://barbrastreisand.com/statements.html#ifnotnowwhen

And if you take the bible at face value, then we're all inbred, starting at Adam & Eve, then collapsed back down to Noah's gang, back up to today...

It's worse than that. If you take Genesis at face value, God created Adam, then Eve - then he stopped making people (at least, there's no further mention of it). Eve bore Cain, then Abel. Cain killed Abel (reducing the entire population of humanity by 25%), then ran away to the land of Nod, where he married a local woman, and had children of his own.

Where did the people of Nod come from??

Courtesy of the Mouth of Sauron, er God, hisself Pat Robertson:

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”

Christ on the Cross, what an asshole . . .

With today being the 230rd Birthday of the finest group of military troops ever to tred the planet Earth, The United States Marine Corps, I'm sure that all the Lybrals, I mean, Progressyves, who really, truly and honestly do "support the troops" have sent off an e-mail to The Corps wishing them many, many, many more years.

Here you go: http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/ind.nsf/contactus

Semper Fi and God Bless The United States Marine Corps.

Yep Johnathon, that's where I was headed with that one :)

Bob Jones, I support the troops, but not how their being used. And no, I'm not sending them anything. Card, e-mail, or otherwise. They chose the job. I hope they stay safe, despite the Scumbag-in-Chief's determination to throw their lives away invading sovreign nations that are no threat to the US.

By the way, how are those recruiting numbers for the Armed Forces doing?

By the way, how are those recruiting numbers for the Armed Forces doing?

Could be better...but since you sort of brought it up, whatever happened to all that talk about a draft? It was supposed to be right around the corner but suddenly, as quickly as an election return, it just sort of vanished.

Was this all just a campaign ploy? has something changed that now makes it less likely? Or do those who claimed it was coming still believe that to be true?

Well, if recruiting numbers are as low as rumored, it still may ne coming...

Well, a discussion should be held on the makeup of the army, anyway....

Given that a) National Guard call ups tend to be killed at a much higher rate than regular army, b) they tend to be more poorly equipped, and c) their absence from home probably has a deleterious effect on localized economies, I wonder if it's a good idea to be so reliant on them for extended actions overseas.

(for some reason, this didn't post the first time I tried. I apologize if I end up double posting)

Funny that the day we bring this up there's a story from reuters:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-10T223206Z_01_SCH081084_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-USA-RECRUITING.xml&archived=False

Recruiting brightens for Army

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army, in its first recruiting month since missing its fiscal 2005 goal, topped its target for October, and the Army National Guard beat its goal for the first time in 13 months, officials said on Thursday.

The Army sent 4,925 recruits into boot camp in October, beating the goal of 4,700 by 5 percent, the Pentagon said. That means the Army has achieved five consecutive monthly recruiting goals dating back to June after a difficult spring.

Army Recruiting Command spokesman Douglas Smith said the recent positive trend may be attributable to steps taken by the Army to add recruiters and increase enlistment incentives.

The active-duty Army fell about 7,000 short of its annual goal of 80,000 recruits in the fiscal year that ended September 30, and Army officials attributed that shortfall in part to wariness of young people to volunteer during the Iraq war.

I'm guessing that a 7,000 shortfall would not in any way be worth starting a draft over.

The question on recruiting goals is: how's that number compare with this time last year? With what the goal was originally set at? It's easy to make your goals if you keep lowering your standards.

The question on recruiting goals is: how's that number compare with this time last year? With what the goal was originally set at? It's easy to make your goals if you keep lowering your standards.

From the article:

The active-duty Army fell about 7,000 short of its annual goal of 80,000 recruits in the fiscal year that ended September 30, and Army officials attributed that shortfall in part to wariness of young people to volunteer during the Iraq war.

The Army again is seeking to attract 80,000 recruits in fiscal 2006.

So apparently the recruiting goal is identical.

I'm still curious as to why all the draft talk, which seemed to be so certain a year ago, has vanished from the scene.

Pat Robertson should retire from his job of saying stupid things on TV and concentration on his investments in slavery.

Tell me again why anyone should take that douchebag seriously?

Oh, and Bill, the draft talk was an obvious campaign ploy. Nobody seriously believed it was going ever be adopted because it would be political suicide for anyone who voted in favor of it.

Hi Bill, I never claimed to hold a crystal ball, but have no problem saying that I still believe the draft to be a very real possibility. I honestly hope it never occurs.

Why do I believe that it is still a very real possibility, depiste what our president has told us? I have little to no trust in our current leadership. I actually found myself becoming very sad when I typed that.

Fred

Great, so I have Den telling me that all that talk about the draft was an obvious campaign ploy that nobody took seriously, followed by Fred saying he not only took it seriously but still does. Oh well.

I'd be a bit disappointed to learn that all the folks in this forum who argued that the draft was imminent were just putting on a show. To what end? I can understand Kerry saying whatever he needed to get elected but it's not like we here in PADland are exactly influencing world events. That being the case, we might as well be honest.

(And for the record, I DON'T think everyone who was making that argument was doing so with the knowledge that they were just being flacks for the Democratic Party.)

But if, as Den says, this was clearly nothing more than a campaign ploy, what does it say about the news media that it was reported as a very real story? That would be a pretty solid bit of evidence of media bias, wouldn't it?

Bill, If candidate X says, "there will be draft next year," and then the media reports, "today, candidate X said there will be a draft next year." That's not media bias. That's the media doing it's job.

As for the draft. I can't speak for anyone else here. All I can say is that I never really believed it would come about. I may have joked about it, but that's about it.

Gee, Bill, you sound shocked at the idea that policians might make statements that are misleading.

Bill:

>Great, so I have Den telling me that all that talk about the draft was an obvious campaign ploy that nobody took seriously, followed by Fred saying he not only took it seriously but still does. Oh well.

Bill, you asked for a response. It went unanswered and you asked again. I responded. Do I believe it will happen. I hope not. Do I believe it is a possibility should the government decide that it suddenly wants to end this and doesn't have the volunteers to do it? Yep.

Sorry that you were disappointed with the answer.

Fred

I've been thinking.

This summer, when Pat Robertson prayed for "more openings" on the SCOTUS, God responded, much to Pat's dismay, by smiting one of the conservatives on the bench.

I live 30 miles from Dover. Now that Pat is calling for the wrath of God against the entire town, should I be worried about God's accuracy?

I just want to know if I should be worried when the fire starts coming down from the sky.

It's easy to make your goals if you keep lowering your standards.

Except that one problem they're facing is the constant raising of standards. Consider: During the Vietnam era, it was considered acceptable to send someone into the Army as an alternative to jail time. By the mid-'80s, when I joined the Air Force, they no longer took people with criminal records, but you could still get in with a GED. Today, you can't even join the Marines without a high-school diploma!

For that matter, when I signed up, it was taken as a matter of course that the recruiter was lying. You should believe only what you get in writing, and not all of that. Now, the recruiters are prohibited from making untrue statements to recruits. They can still lie by omission, but they can't promise anything the recruit won't definitely recieve. (For instance, now an Army recruiter can't tell a recruit, or his/her parents, that the recruit will get a nice, safe Stateside assignment, because anybody in the Army could be sent to Iraq...)

Now, the recruiters are prohibited from making untrue statements to recruits.

Stories that have come out in recent months seem to run contrary to what you assume has been going on.

That, and the fact that the military is taking just about anybody that isn't in a wheelchair.

Fred, I was not disappointed with your answer--I appreciate it. I was just pointing out to Den that it contradicted his statement that nobody would think that way.

Den, when you make the statement "Nobody seriously believed it was going ever be adopted" you ARE speaking for other people. Personally, I believe that your analysis is correct that to vote for it would be political suicide and that most, if not all of the political posturing on the issue was just that, political posturing.

If the media reports such posturing as though it is a real possibility...that's not reporting, that's typing. Maybe the state of journalism has fallen to such sorry states that we should not even expect such tiny details as fact checking or honest analysis. If so, too bad for us. Next time a Joe McCarthy or Huey Long shows up there won't be any Edward R Murrows to take him on.

Gee, Bill, you sound shocked at the idea that politicians might make statements that are misleading.

Actually, not at all. And it probably tells you a lot about why Kerry lost if he had to resort to phony issues. Personally I think that Bush was weak enough on the real ones that it was foolish to start debates on phony issues (I'm sure a lot of people felt as you and I did, that the draft was NOT coming and that this was just a distraction from real issues). Why do that?

When they ran a few recent surveys pitting Bush against various Democrats he lost each and every matchup...except one. Kerry was evidently the one guy who couldn't win and the irony is that he was picked for the very reason that he was touted as the one guy would COULD. There's a lesson there somewhere (And it was succinctly said by a series of posters that popped up in Iowa before the primary election-- Kerry supporters put up posters that said DATED DEAN, MARRIED KERRY which were followed by new ones from the Deaniacs that said DATED DEAN, MARRIED KERRY, WOKE UP WITH BUSH)

That, and the fact that the military is taking just about anybody that isn't in a wheelchair.

Totally not true. They may want to but they can't. There's a reason that the military has a much much higher percentage of high school graduates than the public at large. I've had some students, not the best toys in the Happy Meal, try to drop out and sign up only to find out they could not meet the requirements--there's some kind of military aptitude test you have to score in the top 70% of. It looks like an IQ test to me, though it isn't labeled as such.

Totally not true.

So then why were there reports of recruiters falsifying information on recruits to get them throught the process?

Hasn't the military raised the maximum age limit on new signups a couple of times as well?

Oh, and as for Pat Robertson...it may be time for those who still care what this guy thinks and says to consider the possibility that age is beginning to affect a mind that, not to put too fine a point on it, didn't exactly have a lot of spare neurons to sacrifice. He seems to have lost any ability whatsoever to realize how idiotic he sounds. A stroke, perhaps?

At any rate, it's time for some family members to gently take him off to the racetrack where God can send him tips on the trifecta.

(Hopefully Dover is not prone to flooding or it will give the dope some encouragement. Now if fireballs DO come from the sky I'll be a big enough man to reconsider.)

Bill, only reconsider your stance if the houses of the individuals who voted to retain the school board members as spared. :)

Good point, Fred. :)

And it illustrates yet another reason why robertson's a dolt; the idea of God as an underachiever. He hates gays so he comes up with a plan to get rid of them--AIDS, a disease that kills gays and lots of other people. Yopu'd think that God being God he could have just waved a metaphorical hand and poof! (to coin a phrase)--all gay people are gone or wake up with their insides on the outside or whatever gruesome fate Pat imagines they deserve. The theatre, hairdressing, and female gym coach industries would be brought to their knees but at least there would have been no collateral damage.

But no, this is the Pat Robertson/Jack Chick God, the one who, when one person pisses Him off smites the entire Eastern Seaboard. If I'm ever caught in the crossfire during one of these tantrums I'll be writing my Creator a pretty stern letter, let me tell you.

One of the best parts about believeing in God is being able to rub one's hands with glee over the prospect of Pat, Fred Phelps, etc one day meeting their maker. Oh to be a fly on the wall then, though I'm kind of hoping flies don't actually get to heaven. In fact, that's part of what makes it heaven; no flies.

So then why were there reports of recruiters falsifying information on recruits to get them throught the process?

The probably fact that some recruiters have broken the law does not translate into "the fact that the military is taking just about anybody that isn't in a wheelchair"

Hasn't the military raised the maximum age limit on new signups a couple of times as well?

I hope so. I wish they'd raise it higher.I know that people my age are mostly in no way shape or form as capable of the kind of physical prowess expected from most recruits but we are better able to do certain functions as well or better. When you look at some of the abuses of prisoners you are struck by the sheer lack of common sense displayed by the abusers. Frat boys should not be put in such positions of responsibility.

I say, raise the age to anyone who can meet certain guidelines. Obviously, top benefits should go to those who can be put into any situation but even a creaking grimster like myself could do some good.

Craig, there were such reports because it used to be common practice. However, when the scandal broke last year (with a recruiter who threatened young men with Federal prosecution if they refused to meet with him), the practice was curtailed. Earlier this year, every recruiting office in the country was closed for a day while all personnel there were re-apprised of their responsibilities in this regard...

I think you're proceeding from outdated information. The standards have indeed been tightened up in recent years, as many a young failure has discovered to his chagrin. :)

Earlier this year, every recruiting office in the country was closed for a day while all personnel there were re-apprised of their responsibilities in this regard...

It wasn't that long ago at all, no, so my information isn't that outdated, if it is outdated at all.

This type of event is like Bush sending everybody off to ethics class - unless somebody is looking over their shoulder all the time, the practices they were using will not stop.

Bill, when I said nobody was taking it seriously, I meant none of the political class were taking it seriously. That was a separate thought from people on this board.

If the media reports such posturing as though it is a real possibility...that's not reporting, that's typing.

Now it sounds like you're trying to have it both ways. If they just report what a candidate says w/o commentary, that's not reporting to you. But, if they take the statement, dissect it and try to assess it's credibility, now they're being "biased." Which do you want, completely objective reporting of the facts, or "spin"?

As for Kerry, he lost because he was a douchebag. I generally don't buy into polls that were taken more than a year before the election because a lot can happen in a year's time to change the public's perception of the candidate (case in point, Bush winning a bare majority last November, but this November he wouldn't get elected dog catcher in Cattown). But, in Kerry's case he was such a Lurch that, like Gore, ended up losing a race he could've won just by displaying a little human warmth.

Re: Pat Robertson. He was always a few fries short of a Happy Meal, but it seems like he's completely lost it this year. Maybe collections are down at the 700 Club and this is his way of stirring the pot a bit.

Bill, I completely agree with your assessment of Pat's view of God. Pat once claimed credit for getting God to divert a hurricane away from his TV station. Of course, hundreds of people who were in its new path lost their homes. Presumably, they didn't donate enough to the 700 Club.

Remember how he blamed 9/11 on gays and Wiccans? Funny how three major hurricanes pummel the red states and no one seriously suggests that God is pissed at them for inflicting Bush on us.

Oh, and Dover isn't in a major flood plane, so fire from the sky is God's best bet.

Oh, and Dover isn't in a major flood plane, so fire from the sky is God's best bet.

Naaaahhhh... Too Old Testament.

Now, an avian flu outbreak...

-Rex Hondo-

Also, just to make sure, am I the only one who's a big enough geek that when reading about God's supposed poor aim, immediately thought, "God. You were going to kill me, God. You're going to have to come down here. You're going to HAVE to COME DOWN HERE."?

-Rex Hondo-

Funny how three major hurricanes pummel the red states and no one seriously suggests that God is pissed at them for inflicting Bush on us.

Actually, some have, showing that idiocy cuts across all politics. from James Wolcott:

Hurricane Frances also has a heraldic quality. Camille Paglia observed on Salon in February, 2003 that the explosion of the Columbia shuttle on the eve of the war on Iraq was a "stunning omen," one that would make a Roman general think twice. A catastrophe strewing death, fire, and human remains across Bush's home state of Texas was inauspicious to our undertaking; and so it has proven to be. Frances is the second hurricane to afflict Florida, home of brother Jeb, in rapid succession.

The gods are not pleased.

(this was from the same column where he said "I root for hurricanes." and "So there's something disappointing when a hurricane doesn't make landfall, or peters out into a puny Category One.")

But if, as Den says, this was clearly nothing more than a campaign ploy, what does it say about the news media that it was reported as a very real story? That would be a pretty solid bit of evidence of media bias, wouldn't it?

i'd say it's evidence of bias towards the sensational.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.oreos13nov13,0,6788452.story

Bill: A repudiation of the Steele 'Oreo Incident'. Which is too bad, really, because I still think it's funny.

"Also, just to make sure, am I the only one who's a big enough geek that when reading about God's supposed poor aim, immediately thought, "God. You were going to kill me, God. You're going to have to come down here. You're going to HAVE to COME DOWN HERE."?"

Just to show you you're not the only one who's a big enough geek...

"...but like poor marksman, you keep missing the target."

Shortly followed, of course, by "GOOOOOOODDDDDDD!" (echo)

I love that movie. Remind me to pop in the DVD next time I'm watching over one of the baby's naps.

Wow, that would be funny.

Well, lookie here...they're flushing haebus corpus down the toilet for folks they're holding in Gitmo and the secret prisons in Europe....

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/11/closing_stateme.html

Osama must be laughing himself silly.

Or do those who claimed it was coming still believe that to be true?

I still believe it's a serious possibility, and I'm frankly a bit offended that you'd assume it's all just political posturing. Considering how many flames I've brought on myself here for giving opinions which some consider TOO unvarnished, it would be pretty unbelievable of me to say things I don't mean.

I'd love to be wrong, for many reasons. Given how much saber-rattling has been happening lately with Our Glorious Leader facing off against Syria and/or Iran, though, I'm not breathing sighs of relief just yet.

As for other recent news: Dover -- good show, folks. Kansas -- please go away, and write if you get work. Pat Robertson -- please campaign for every Republican Senate and House candidate next year.

And now I'm picturing God telling Job, "I've done far worse than kill you. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on ... hurting you." Who'da thunk that God spoke with Montalban's accent?

TWL

Ooh, and speaking of fun election news...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051114/ap_on_re_us/governor_s_race_forrester

Not that I'm especially enchanted with Corzine (I voted for him, but with nose held), but (a) I think Forrester would've been a whole lot worse, and (b) I'm absolutely tickled pink that losing Republican candidates are now blaming Bush for it. Perhaps this could be the beginning of a sizable exodus, and both parties can become a bit healthier.

We can but hope.

TWL

I still believe it's a serious possibility, and I'm frankly a bit offended that you'd assume it's all just political posturing.

Ack! I didn't assume it was political posturing! I asked the following-- Was this all just a campaign ploy? has something changed that now makes it less likely? Or do those who claimed it was coming still believe that to be true?

Den--not me-- answered back Oh, and Bill, the draft talk was an obvious campaign ploy. Nobody seriously believed it was going ever be adopted because it would be political suicide for anyone who voted in favor of it.

Den has since clarified this to indicate that he meant "none of the political class", not people in general.

I also disagreed with Den while under the impression that he meant everyone, including people on this board, as not believing the draft was a real possibility but caliming otherwise: I'd be a bit disappointed to learn that all the folks in this forum who argued that the draft was imminent were just putting on a show. To what end? I can understand Kerry saying whatever he needed to get elected but it's not like we here in PADland are exactly influencing world events. That being the case, we might as well be honest.

(And for the record, I DON'T think everyone who was making that argument was doing so with the knowledge that they were just being flacks for the Democratic Party.)

So where exactly did I go wrong?

(And none of this changes the fact that I never though the draft was in any way shape or form about to come back and that the likelihood has gotten ever smaller. Someone offered to bet people on this board that the draft wouldn't happen--I don't think anyone took them up on the offer and that was a wise financial decision. It isn't going to happen. There is not the critical need, the desire or the votes and you would need all 3.)

Ack! I didn't assume it was political posturing! I asked the following-- "Was this all just a campaign ploy? has something changed that now makes it less likely? Or do those who claimed it was coming still believe that to be true?"

With all due respect, when the first question is "was this all just a campaign ploy?", it frames the question to suggest that the answer is "yes", or at least "no, but..."

I'm aware of who said what, believe me. I'm not especially thrilled by Den's choice of words any more than yours.

I also disagreed with Den while under the impression that he meant everyone, including people on this board, as not believing the draft was a real possibility but caliming otherwise: I'd be a bit disappointed to learn that all the folks in this forum who argued that the draft was imminent were just putting on a show.

And again, I knew that. "I'd be a bit disappointed" hardly suggests that you're not buying or believing it. If it's a disagreement, it's such an incredibly mild one that it doesn't really look like one.

And none of this changes the fact that I never though the draft was in any way shape or form about to come back and that the likelihood has gotten ever smaller. Someone offered to bet people on this board that the draft wouldn't happen--I don't think anyone took them up on the offer and that was a wise financial decision.

Um, Bill? That was me -- except that I offered to bet that it WOULD happen, Jerome took me up on it, and you and David Bjorlin both agreed to serve as judges of the facts. I can steer you to the relevant thread if you'd like.

But hey, a perfect recounting of the event other than that. :-)

TWL

Oh right...well I was sort of close, right? Right? Oh well....

So Jerome took up the bet? When does it end?

As I recall (which obviously ain't worth much), it was for a charity so we're all winners (unless, as I say, my memory is bad and it was for the "Send Jerome to a Weekend Retreat to Bimini" in which case the winner it Jerome. Assuming the politicians in DC don't lose their minds and institute the draft.)

Part of my reason for having no fear of this development is just looking at the possible trigger points for a draft. Any invasion of South Korea or Taiwan will end up being too brief, whatever the outcome, to make a draft useful. I don't see any invasion of Iran, when the desired effect would be better achieved with missile strikes (and if they make good on their threats to nuke Israel there will be no Iran to fight). The East Germans have been quiet lately. Only Chavez and Castro think we are going to invade South America. I just don't have any likely scenarios.

With all due respect, when the first question is "was this all just a campaign ploy?", it frames the question to suggest that the answer is "yes", or at least "no, but..."

I meant all 3 to be given equal weight. If the first choice is always the one that frames the question this is a convention that I am not aware of. I'm not a professional pundit though I play one on the net.

I'm not especially thrilled by Den's choice of words any more than yours.

Well I would hope not. I still have to wonder how my choice of question placement somehow counts for more than my explicit repudiation of the sentiment that people did not believe what they said.

. "I'd be a bit disappointed" hardly suggests that you're not buying or believing it. If it's a disagreement, it's such an incredibly mild one that it doesn't really look like one.

Does And for the record, I DON'T think everyone who was making that argument was doing so with the knowledge that they were just being flacks for the Democratic Party. look like one? Because that was the next paragraph. I was trying to gently point out to Den that I thought his answer (or, more accurately, how I interpreted his answer) was ridiculous and an insult to the people on this board who were on his side.

And while "disappointed" may not imply that I'm not believing it, that's how I meant it. Why do you think I would be disappointed if it turned out that secretly, people who were disagreeing with me were actually, in their heart of hearts, agreeing with me? Hell, that's my fondest wish! Who wouldn't like to think that, when nobody is looking, everyone who is on the opposite side of the political fence from oneself looks in the mirror and says, their voices dripping with the self loathing of a craven coward "Damn. He's right. I can never respect myself while he lives! I'd give everything I own to be the man that he is! All that remains for me is to try and tear him down, because I'm jealous of him!"

No, I'd be disappointed because I actually like having people who are willing to engage in honest political debate. My wife is totally apolitical and I grew up in a very political household so the web is a serious outlet. Without it I would be badgering my wife about the ramifications of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act and she'd divorce me within the week.

And I'd also be disappointed because it would reflect badly on the intelligence of people I've come to respect for reasons i mentioned; what possible good would come out of it? What gain?

Sorry if any of this wasn't clear.

Anyway...Eddie Guerrero's dead. I'm too unhappy to really get into politics today.

Not that I'm especially enchanted with Corzine (I voted for him, but with nose held)

I thought of you when I saw this story:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NEW_JERSEY_SLOGAN?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

Apparently they are looking for a new slagan for New jersey and made the huge mistake of asking Joe Q Public for suggestions. So of course they are getting stuff like "New Jersey: You Got a Problem With That?"; "Most of Our Elected Officials Have Not Been Indicted."; "New Jersey: It Always Smells Like This,"; "New Jersey: Come Glow With Us,"; etc.

I don't see why they can't just use the state song, Springsteen's Born To Run. "New Jersy:
It’s a death trap! It’s a suicide rap!"

I sent in my suggestion, "New Jersey: Gateway to New York" but I haven't heard back yet...

Pennsylvania did a similar thing last year for their new slogan. Someone submitted "Gateway to New Jersey." Another one was, "Pennsylvania: We're old, we're cranky. Get used to it."

Oh, and if anyone was insulted because they misunderstood what I was saying, I apologize. When Bill posed his question, I thought he was talking about the political class and not people on this board, so I'm not the only person who needs to clarify what they were saying.

I'd be upset about Eddie Guerrero's death if wrestling wasn't the stupidest thing on the planet. As it is, I'm still upset over the Eagles choking in the fourth quarter last night.

The Eagles could lose every game for the rest of the season and I'd still love them for ditching T.O.

I can't defend my love of Pro Wrestling. It's either something you like or don't. NASCAR looks to me like guys in cars driving in circles but devotees love it with a pasion that I have to appreciate. Fandom is a funny thing.

But Eddie's death hurts. The guy had overcome so much and I'm a sucker for happy endings. Too bad this story didn't have one. (I'll bet that painkillers had a lot to do with it. It's the nature of the business that 3/4 of the performers probably qualify as disabled and are able to function only with serious medication.)

The Eagles' loss last night is frustrating for two reasons. The first is that if they were to turn this season around, return to the Superbowl and win it all w/o T.O., it would have been a perfecting ending to the circus he created. Now it looks like this will be what they call in the biz, a "building season". Especially with Donavan hurt again.

The other reason is that they really needed to show they could win w/o T.O. After holding the lead for most of the game, to blow it in the final few minutes is even harder to take.

Especially against the Cowgirls. God, if only they had lost to any other team.

Uhhhh...whoopsie...gotta love video archives...

http://www.gop.com/Default.aspx?s=video

I don't know why the Eagles are doing so badly - I mean, they've got Glenn Frey, Don Henley, and Joe Walsh playing with them now...

...whaddaya mean, wrong Eagles??

Well with an attitude like "We may lose and we may win but we will never be here again" what do you expect?

Anyway...gotta love the Eagles just for Already Gone, one of the best break-up songs ever. When your girl up and drops you take heed of the wisdom of this song and you too will soon be singing "woo, hoo,hoo,woo,hoo,hoo" which will really cheese her off.

So Jerome took up the bet? When does it end?

That I'd have to go back and look up ... but I believe that it was 6/30/2006. (And you recall correctly so far as the prize is concerned.)

Part of my reason for having no fear of this development is just looking at the possible trigger points for a draft.

You left Syria off the list, which I'd consider the most likely trigger point at this juncture.

With all due respect, when the first question is "was this all just a campaign ploy?", it frames the question to suggest that the answer is "yes", or at least "no, but..."

I meant all 3 to be given equal weight. If the first choice is always the one that frames the question this is a convention that I am not aware of. I'm not a professional pundit though I play one on the net.

I don't think this has to do with convention or punditry; it's basic psychology more than anything else. If you wanted all three questions to be given equal weight, there were plenty of ways to phrase it that way.

I still have to wonder how my choice of question placement somehow counts for more than my explicit repudiation of the sentiment that people did not believe what they said.

Mostly because the repudiation isn't nearly as explicit to this reader as it apparently was in your intent. For example, your

And for the record, I DON'T think everyone who was making that argument was doing so with the knowledge that they were just being flacks for the Democratic Party.

undercuts its argument with the word "knowledge". It implies that anyone making the argument WAS being a flack for the party, and the only question is how aware they were of that fact. That's not the same thing as saying "I think most people making that argument sincerely believed it."

That said, I'll readily admit that it's been a lousy few weeks and I'm probably being oversensitive. The quote above that I just picked apart was definitely well-intentioned, so I'll happily back off.

My wife is totally apolitical and I grew up in a very political household so the web is a serious outlet. Without it I would be badgering my wife about the ramifications of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act and she'd divorce me within the week.

Well, that I can certainly understand. Fortunately, my wife is both more rabidly political AND better informed than I am, so all I have to do is put up with the subsequent inferiority complex. :-)

And in other news...

Apparently they are looking for a new slagan for New jersey and made the huge mistake of asking Joe Q Public for suggestions. So of course they are getting stuff like "New Jersey: You Got a Problem With That?"; "Most of Our Elected Officials Have Not Been Indicted."; "New Jersey: It Always Smells Like This,"; "New Jersey: Come Glow With Us,"; etc.

The Star-Ledger recently ran an article on this with other suggestions. The one that was recently suggested quite seriously was "New Jersey: We'll Win You Over." Our acting governor said "um ... that's way too defensive, thanks" and killed it.

The Ledger piece had a few hilarious suggestions (none of which were on the equally funny list you just submitted, oddly). The only one I can remember is "New Jersey: Three-quarters of our state is pretty nice."

I don't see why they can't just use the state song, Springsteen's Born To Run. "New Jersy: It’s a death trap! It’s a suicide rap!"

I see somebody else is a Robert Wuhl fan. :-)

(Major geek moment: the original preview for the B5 episode "Gropos" has Sheridan saying "It's a deathtrap." Lisa and I always look at one another and say "it's a suicide rap" immediately afterwards. We're getting professional help.)

TWL

Thank You! I knew there was a comedian who did a riff on that! (But Wuhl? Was he a standup once? I only remember him as an actor though I obviously must have heard the routine).

And for the record, I like Jersey. It's close to New York City without actually BEING New York City, which is a very good thing to be. Also, its politicians give the people of New Orleans something to feel better about.

Also, I have a number of former inlaws out there that I am still quite fond of so I get out there now and again. Don't be surprised if I call up some time and invite you out for a bite to eat.

Yep, Wuhl was in stand-up before he went into acting. (Rather like Robin Williams, I suppose, or Kevin Pollak if you want people who are better at comedy and/or acting.)

TWL

3/4 of New Jersey is nice? I didn't know Cape May took up 3/4 of the state.

As for the Democrats' inconsistancy on Iraq, yeah, they bought into Bush's cherry-picked intel. All I can say is, to quote somebody famous, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, we won't be fooled again."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/16/international/middleeast/16iraq.html?ex=1132808400&en=c8e16f39701931eb&ei=5070

Here's a nice story. At least we managed to teach the new Iraqi government how to do one thing.

Dick must be proud.