On oversight on my part: I should have mentioned that “Funky Winkerbean” began the trial last week of the comic book store owner up on obscenity charges. John Byrne makes an appearance as an expert witness, and the strip echoes the Jesus Castillo case (right down to the notorious, “C’mon…everyone knows comics are for kids” comment from the DA which wound up swaying the Castillo jury.) The strip can be found here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/funky.asp?date=20051120
PAD
• 
I can’t tell exactly from the opinion, but it sounds like he served 12 months probation (in lieu of 180 days in jail) and was fined $4,000? So long as this case is applied very narrowly, I don’t see it as a huge erosion of free speech rights.
Well I don’t know what your life situation is, but I ran a small business for about a year where I didn’t have $4,000 to spare. $1,000 in unplanned expenses would have made me close the doors. So I guess how big the erosion is depends on your wallet.
Keep in mind also that Castillo wasn’t the owner of Ken’s Comics. He worked as a clerk there. $4,000 probably represented more than a month’s pay for him.
Also, in addition to having been arrested, tried, fined, and being required to spend 12 months asking permission from a probation officer to visit out of state relatives, Jesus Castillo also now has to check “yes” next to the question “have you ever been convicted of a crime?” on every job application he fills out for the rest of his life. Can you imagine explaining in a job interview that you were convicted of selling obscene materials?
The DVD thing also shows another area where film is cut more slack in what is or isn’t adult vs “adult” and what is or isn’t in comics and how it can be displayed or sold.
Let me throw a story/film concept at you. You’re going to have a group of actors running around mostly nude in the entire film. Some of them will be full on nude. You’re going to have acts of violence throughout the entire film. You’re also going to have some animalistic sex acts (at least one by violence/boarderline rape) and they will be, including the boarderline rape, shown on film.
The film is Quest for Fire. You can pick it up in any store that sells DVDs with no problems. Hëll, I doubt that you would even have your ID checked for anything other then check/credit card regs. Now, try and sell a comic book with an almost all nude cast, violent sex acts and general violence as openly as that film is sold and you’ll find yourself on the front page of the Metro Section under “Man Busted for Selling of Obscene Materials” in a heartbeat.
Nitwits 12,543 – Comics 0
On the subject of adult comics:
At my local Waldens there is at least 5 copies of Robert Crumbs new hardcover book with adult material. It’s right next to the Superman,Batman and Marvel graphic novels.
How come there are no complaints about his book being placed next to the superhero graphic novels?
I think it’s really unfair of the clerk to be prosecuted.
If he were working at Waldens and did not know who Robert Crumb is… (you can’t tell it’s an adult book unless you look at the back cover)..he could have just as easily sold this to a teen, thinking it was a comic novel.
On the subject of adult comics:
At my local Waldens there is at least 5 copies of Robert Crumbs new hardcover book with adult material. It’s right next to the Superman,Batman and Marvel graphic novels.
How come there are no complaints about his book being placed next to the superhero graphic novels?
I think it’s really unfair of the clerk to be prosecuted.
If he were working at Waldens and did not know who Robert Crumb is… (you can’t tell it’s an adult book unless you look at the back cover)..he could have just as easily sold this to a teen, thinking it was a comic novel.
Welcome to Bush’s world.
Who was president in 1999?
At any rate…John Byrne comes in for a lot of criticism in these parts, mostly deservedly so from what I can see, so it’s nice to be able to offer him kudos this time.
// Some Borders type stores do shelf Playboys and other “gentlemen’s” mags on the same shelf. But in most cases that I’ve seen, they’re on the top rack, out of reach of all but the tallest of 14 year olds, //
Have you looked at 14 year olds these days? My niece is 12 and about half her friends could reach those top shelves with no problem, and that’s the girls, the boys in the class are, in all liklyhood taller.
Putting Playboy on the top shelf is nothing new, it was done when I was in high school and it never stopped me or my friends from sneaking a peak or even outright buying an issue. (And we were never stopped when we were buying an issue because in all liklyhood the kid at the cashier was only a year or two older then us)
Considering what kids can easily find on the internet these days, wouldn’t it be sort of sweet to see them sneaking a look at Playboy again?
Good point Bill. I laughed briefly after reading it and then saw it as a very sombering point with much truth to it……. though I remember a time during my childhood when I would sneak a peek at some choice passages in Are You There God, It’s Me Margaret…… it wasn’t until a bit later that I found out that this was tame Judy Blume writing. 😉
Fred
Blume was a pervert! She wrote about stuff no other kid’s book writer would (or needed to).
// Considering what kids can easily find on the internet these days, wouldn’t it be sort of sweet to see them sneaking a look at Playboy again? //
Reminds me a few years ago when film director John Waters was a guest on David Letterman, at the time drive by gang shootings and teen age crack mothers were big in the news. Walters made a comment along the line of “don’t we all miss the old days when all bad teenagers did was steal hubcaps and wear leather jackets?”
Of course I’m a big believer in “the past isn’t as good as you remember and the present isn’t as bad as it seems”.
Who was president in 1999?
Considering Castillo wasn’t charged with a federal crime, the question should be. “Who was governor of Texas in 1999?”.
Hmmm?
Steve, are ya kiddin’? The “stuff” that you speak of was written for young girls and was developmental and educational in nature. She won scores of awards. The smutty stuff that she wrote was for adults only. I never even knew about her more mature stuff until I heard about it when I was in high school.
Fred
Considering Castillo wasn’t charged with a federal crime, the question should be. “Who was governor of Texas in 1999?”.
Yeah, but who was mayor?
But seriously, it’s kooky, in my opinion, to drag national politics into this. The Governor was almost certainly unaware of this case, as serious as it is to those of us who follow it. I remember some hardcore Clinton haters dragging up some atrocities that occurred in Arkansas backwater towns during Clinton’s stewardship. It was a weak argument then and it hasn’t gotten better with age.
Bill,
Fine. It was a cheap shot at Bush. I admit it. But, quite frankly, after the creeping fascism that the FCC engaged in under his appointee Michael Powell, I see him as a product of the same ignorant attitude that produced the Castillo case. I know you don’t agree, but that’s how I see it. I consider freedom of speech to be vital to our democracy and any attempt to erode it is another step down a very dangerous slippery slope. It’s bad enough that we already have to fear that the list of books we check out of the library may be turned over to the FBI, how much further down this road should we go?
Den, we probably agree on more than we disagree…if you keep on calling out those on the right for their attacks on free speech and I keep calling out those on the left for the same, we’ll get the job done. We can disagree on which side is the most dangerous, but it doesn’t really matter who it is that lines you up against the firing squad.
The problem always will be that too often we are willing to allow speech to be eroded if it goes after the “right people”. That’s a bit of self indulgence that one must always be wary of.
I have little problem with the government being able to access library records. Public libraries are a government institution, are they not? On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of them being able to access your history of renting videos from a private company like Blockbuster, unless there is some very specific reason for it (like trying to show that you are copying murder scenes from a movie…outside of a CSI episode I don’t think this would come up much).
At any rate, from what I’ve read the FBI hasn’t used this power very much and it isn’t all that radically different from what they had before (not that this is reason not to oppose it, just reason not to be much more fearful than you should have been under previous presidents). At any rate, I’ll bet that I’m the one person here who should be the MOST afraid of his reading habits coming to light–I’ve perused Anarchist Cookbooks for chemistry demo ideas (and FYI, if anyone is thinking of using this stuff, don’t. Unless you want other people cutting your food for you. I’m pretty sure the Anarchist left out a few ingredients in a few of those recipes); I did a unit in Bio II on germ warfare before 9/11 so I’m sure that I am on record as having done a lot of inquiries on sarin and anthrax; I’ve researched hate groups on both sides which means reading what they have to say (managed to make it through The Turner Diaries, no easy task that); and for the zombie movie I’ve been on injury websites that make Rotten.com look like the Nick at Night homepage.
Dump that profile into a Tivo and it will probably call the cops all on it’s own.
I’m not nervous because I haven’t done anything wrong. If my hometown is ever attacked by some crazed anthrax killer I do expect to be spoken to.
Public libraries are a government institution, are they not?
Here in New York City they’re not. They’re private non-profit organizations that receive a large chunk of funding from the government.
However, the problem I have isn’t so much the government looking at the records, but with the parts that the person being investigated cannot know they’re being investigated.
Here in New York City they’re not. They’re private non-profit organizations that receive a large chunk of funding from the government.
Then perhaps they should have the option to opt out of the provisions–if they agree to refuse any government funding, of course.
However, the problem I have isn’t so much the government looking at the records, but with the parts that the person being investigated cannot know they’re being investigated.
Well, isn’t that always the case? I mean, they don’t tell Don Corleone when they are tapping his phone, do they?
Well, isn’t that always the case? I mean, they don’t tell Don Corleone when they are tapping his phone, do they?
True, but Corleone also knew he was being investigated.
What I left out in the earlier post is the part about the gov’t not needing warrants to get into a person’s records, be they going for library or financial records or placing a keystroke logger on your home computer. The gov’t shouldn’t have that kind of unchecked power.
What I left out in the earlier post is the part about the gov’t not needing warrants to get into a person’s records, be they going for library or financial records or placing a keystroke logger on your home computer. The gov’t shouldn’t have that kind of unchecked power.
Agreed. I’m a little surprised by them not needing warrants. Surely they must get SOME kind of permission? Does a judge have to sign off on it or something?
I’ll call out anyone who is against freedom of speech. It just so happens that with the right in control of everything, they’re the ones doing all of the abusing right now.
Whether your local library is a government institution or not, I still believe in the quaint notion that we should have a right to privacy in this country and that includes what we read and what think. If someone can tell me how you can tell the difference between a terrorist and a student doing graduate research on the history radical Islam based on their reading lists, please tell me.
As I’ve mentioned before, I happen to work for a government agency, specifically, the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Anyone who has had anything to do with the health care industry in the past five years knows about the HIPAA privacy rules surrounding and the serious repercusions that can occur if you divulge confidential information about a person’s medical history. Those rules apply to people who work for the government as well as private hospitals.
So, why should it be any different for someone checking out books from a public library?
Beyond that, the (If you don’t vote Republica you’re not a ) Patriot Act allows the government to demand lists of books you bought from a bookstore. So, unless there was a change in the law that I’m not aware of, Borders, Barnes and Noble, and Amazon aren’t government agencies, but they can be forced to give the government lists of books they’ve sold to people.
So, if I buy “The Republican War on Science” on Amazon, should I be concerned that my name is now attached to some subversive list now?
Wake me up when we live in America again.
Surely they must get SOME kind of permission? Does a judge have to sign off on it or something?
From what I’ve read, no, they don’t.
The FBI can check on anybody they want, whenever they want, and libraries and bookstores not only cannot refuse, they cannot tell you that it’s happening.
This is why alot of places no longer even keep records that the FBI can use, such as purchase history (maybe I should bug Amazon.com about that…).
Surely they must get SOME kind of permission? Does a judge have to sign off on it or something?
At one time this was true. Under the PATRIOT Act, not any more. All the government has to do is say terrorism, enemy combatant, or national security, and they’ve got a blank check to look at your records, enter your home or ‘detain’ you.
/Democracy is on the march
Posted by Den at November 22, 2005 04:36 PM
Keep in mind also that Castillo wasn’t the owner of Ken’s Comics. He worked as a clerk there. $4,000 probably represented more than a month’s pay for him.
Hey — what comic shop do you patronise? I want a job in a comics shop that pays $25/hour…
More likely he makes about $1100 — 1300 monthly
I said: Surely they must get SOME kind of permission? Does a judge have to sign off on it or something?
Craig replied: From what I’ve read, no, they don’t.
The FBI can check on anybody they want, whenever they want, and libraries and bookstores not only cannot refuse, they cannot tell you that it’s happening.
Michael said t one time this was true. Under the PATRIOT Act, not any more. All the government has to do is say terrorism, enemy combatant, or national security, and they’ve got a blank check to look at your records, enter your home or ‘detain’ you.
From what I’ve read, you’re both wrong (unless you want to split hairs: I’m sure that Craig is correct that he has read what he said but I think what he read is not accurate.)
From Wikipedia: Perhaps the most controversial section of the USA PATRIOT Act stems from Section 215. Section 215 allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant from a secret federal court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying. On its face, the section does not even refer to “libraries,” but rather to business records and other tangible items in general.[6] Civil libertarians and librarians in particular, argue that this provision violates patron’s rights. So it has come to be called the “library provision.” The Justice Department defends Section 215 by saying that because it requires an order to be issued by a FISA Court judge, it provides better protection for libraries.
Similar statement can be found at library websites designed to give guidance to librarians. So the notion that no judge’s order is needed would seem to be a false, though popular one. If I’m wrong about this I’ll gladly admit it but I’d like an informed source.
Beyond that, the (If you don’t vote Republican you’re not a ) Patriot Act
Oh, you mean the one that was supported by all but 1 of the senate democrats? THAT republican bill?
Oops, my bad. Should have said 2 Senate Democrats. Mary Landrieu courageously declined to vote one way or another.
From Wikipedia: Perhaps the most controversial section of the USA PATRIOT Act stems from Section 215. Section 215 allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant from a secret federal court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying.
So, in other words, a star chamber, accountable to no one (due to its secret nature), sits in judgment over the question of whether or not agents of the same department need access to my records. You’ll forgive me if I have a certain degree of doubt as to the purity of this “protection”…
So the notion that no judge’s order is needed would seem to be a false, though popular one. If I’m wrong about this I’ll gladly admit it but I’d like an informed source.
I’m sure that’s correct, so I’ll admit I was in error on the “not needing any permission” part.
But it’s pretty disturbing that, in our society, things like this must be done in secret and without knowledge of who the warrant is being served against.
Thankfully, after that initial vote earlier this year to permanently renew/approve most of the Patriot Act, it seems like a few are having a change of heart and willing to question whether alot of the provisions are necessary.
Kind of like how many have had a change of heart about this stupid war we’re fighting in Iraq…
o, in other words, a star chamber, accountable to no one (due to its secret nature)
It’s “secret” in the sense that it isn’t public. The name of the court is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (established during the Carter Administration). Records are kept. I’d be interested in any information that would show that it is “accountable to no one”.
I tend to prefer the government to not have more power than it needs, so I am not instantly a fan of legislation like the Patriot Act. However, I have not been too impressed with the accuracy of some of its critics. Not that they all deserve blame; the media has reported the dire predictions of those who oppose the bill without bothering much to do the kind of investigations and research that would either back it up or not.
At any rate, I’ll bet that I’m the one person here who should be the MOST afraid of his reading habits coming to light
I’m reminded of mystery writer Robert Crais here (who’s been mentioned in a Hulk comic, so this is even on-topic!). One of his relatively recent books, Demolition Angel, is about the LAPD bomb squad. According to the talk he gave on that particular book tour, he did lots and lots of online searches about bomb-making and similar topics, and also went to talk to lots of people he knew at the LAPD and (I believe) the FBI.
Someone showed him literally hundreds of pages of printouts written by some deeply, deeply deranged people. As he put it, “I left saying, ‘boy I’m glad someone’s keeping an eye on some of these guys… wait a sec … given all the searches and stuff I did lately, I probably LOOK like one of these guys!”
TWL
Oh, you mean the one that was supported by all but 1 of the senate democrats? THAT republican bill?
You say that like its somehow relevent or that I should somehow respect it because a bunch of democrats (and republicans for that matter) voted for a bill most of them later admitted they didn’t read. That the democrats in the Senate became a bunch of craven cowards willing to give the Bush administration anything it wanted in year following 9/11 is a documented fact. It’s only been in the past year or so that they’ve found their spines once again.
Honestly, Bill, when are the republicans going to get over this talking point that no one should criticize anything Bush does because he bullyed that cowards in the Senate?
It means exactly nothing to me.
Honestly, Bill, when are the republicans going to get over this talking point that no one should criticize anything Bush does because he bullyed that cowards in the Senate?
You’ll have to ask them. Since I said nothing of the kind I can’t help you out much. You seem to be suggesting that my pointing out the fact that what you suggested was a Republican Bill was actually one that was, by any definition of the word, bipartisan, is the same thing as saying that it should not be criticized.
Criticize it all you want. Write letters to the editor, march with a sign if you feel strngly enough. Hëll, run for office on the “Let’s Repeal the Patriot Act” Platform. But if you try to characterize it as a bill supported by only one of the parties don’t get upset if someone points out the facts.
One thing further–I’m amazed that some Democrats are amazed that the general public doesn’t support their party when these very same people consider the Democrats in congress to be cowards. In dangerous times why should anyone want cowards in office? Even if you think the other party is controlled by venal corrupt figures, that might well be preferable to cowardace. It’s one thing if the near constant critiques of congressional Democrats as weaklings was meant to wake them up but I think that a lot of Democrats really do see them as weak. Why they are surprised when the voters agree with them is beyond me.
Does anyone else find it at least vaguely ironic that the REPUBLICAN party ( traditionally for smaller government) is the one putting through the PATRIOT act, creating new Departments and increasing Federal power, and the DEMOCRATIC party (traditionally the bigger government party) is fighting them?
Incidentally, Happy Holidays everyone and I am really happy to be back on Mr. David’s website.
James,
It’d be more ironic if the Democratic party was actually fighting it. The dámņ thing passed 98 to 2 in the senate. You probably couldn’t get that kind of support for a resolution supporting Mom and Apple Pie.
Obviously we don’t really have a party that is actually for smaller government. We just have 2 parties that want the government to have less power only when they are not in charge.
Listen Bill, if we all followed your lead we’d be alienating all of our constituents that prefer other types of pie or family members, and even the orphans and people who don’t enjoy pie at all! What you’re asking for is simply political suicide, and I for one plan on voting against it.
Well, dammit, I know I’m going off on a limb here. I know that the anti-apple pie forces are well funded and the Organization of People Who Never Much Liked Their Moms Anyway (PWNMLTMA) has targeted me for defeat but by God I’m willing to go down swinging! I wasn’t afraid when I was the lone voice advocating the Anti-Panda Vivisection legislation and I’m still proud that I sponsored the No Plutonium In Our Nation’s Grade Schools Act, even though it failed by a 97 vote margin (would have been 99 to 1 but Kennedy was drunk and Byrd got confused). I didn’t get elected just to tackle the easy issues.
speaking as a lobbyist for PWNMLTMA are you aware that nearly 75% of mothers insist on a bedtime up till approx. age 12? and that after that, they enforce a strict cerfew? and that they show NO respect whatsoever for what is cool when buying clothes? Good GOD man! think about the children suffering under this cruel regime!!
In all seriousness though Bill, it seems to me that we sometimes fail to put our money where our mouth is where our legislators are concerned. For instance, in my local paper this morning there was an article by a man who was mad at John Kerry and other Senate democrats who had begun to repudiate their pro-war votes. His problem isn’t so much with that they are against the war, but that they are only against it NOW, when 57% or so of the people are against the war.
My question is: isn’t that EXACTLY what we want our public servants to do? don’t we want them to serve the will of the people? We tend to chew them out when they go against what we want, and now we are mad when they go with what we want.
If I recall correctly, an overwhelming majority of the people were for the PATRIOT act. Should the Senate/house bend to the will of the people?
Thats an honest question by the way. I am still not sure myself.
That’s a great question. For me, the answer is no. I want my representatives to do what they think is right, not what happens to be popular.
I support gay marriage which, by any honest measure, is pretty deeply unpopular. I think it’s the right thing to do and it will be right no matter what the polls say this week. Conversely, if you think it’s wrong and bad for society I would hope that this assessment would not depend on the number of people who agree with you.
Support for the war will vary with the headlines–if we take a poll every week we’d be leaving, going back, leaving…it would be an impossible situation.
Personally I have more respect for those anti-war politicians who were against the war when it was unpopular to do so. Those who waited until their pollsters told them it was safe to develop a spine…eh, not so much.
I can understand a few who say “Ok, I thought this would be a whole lot easier than it turned out to be so let’s cut our losses and run.” Don’t necessarily agree but I can respect their opinion. The weasly types who now claim they were bullied into it or would have voted differently if they only had known that there was a possibility that the WMDs weren’t there…those clownshoes are a whole other matter.
Of course, there does come a point where, even if you respect the fact that your rep is a man or woman of his or her word, they are just too far off from your own philosophy to support. So…I guess the answer is you want them to do what is right regardless of popular opinion and hope to God that what they think is right happens to be the same thing that you do.
Unrealistic? Sure, but hope springs eternal.
And by the way, if the PWNMLTMA wants me to change my vote they are going to have to come up with some solid reasons for me to do so. They can write down those reasons on the back of a few pictures of Benjamin Franklin, if you get my drift.
I see your point and I think I agree with you. Actually, the best treatment of this issue I saw was in “1776,” where Dr. Hall, the Rep. from GA, was asking himself the same question. At the end he quotes Edmund Burke (a member of parliment) in saying
“that a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.”
Of course, he was probably a member of the House of Lords, and didn’t have to worry about such mundanities as reelection. Should a represenative take a stand on an issue, even if it will cause him to lose re-election, and thus deprive the people of his talents? Certainly there are some issues worth taking such a stand on, but where do you draw the line? Or should you strive to be the “vox populi?”
*sigh*
this thing called politics is way to complex for its own good.
I agree, Bill. The ironic thing is, with all the talk about democracy and how great it is, true democracy is nothing more than the will of the moment. It’s subject to all kinds of bad decisions made on short-sighted current opinion. CA, with it’s voter referrendum, shows how chaotic that can be. On the other hand, our representative democracy, by placing Federal power in the hands of the elected few, is capable of rising above current opinion and doing what’s needed, as opposed to what’s wanted. You hope that that ends up actually being what is needed, and that it also equates with what is right. But as we’ve seen too many examples of, that representative body is just as susceptable to doing what’s popular as the common voting public would be.
We just have 2 parties that want the government to have less power only when they are not in charge.
Something I’ve been saying for years now.
My point about the Patriot Act is that it was passed in a climate of fear and panic following 9/11 in which there was tremendous public pressure to do *something* about terrorists, when the majority of the public just wanted to see some action. Hëll, they were even willing to support the full-scale invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11!
The democrats in the Senate are not the entire Democratic party and the climate today is very different then it was in 2002, when anyone who dared to speak against the imperial will had to fear getting the Max Cleland treatment.
Does that make the democrats in the Senate cowards? Well, yes. They are first and foremost politicians who believe in CYA above all else.
There is also no doubt that the republicans used 9/11 to re-enforce one of their favorite campaign tactics: attack the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. It worked in 2002. They are still trying to use that tactic now, just ask John Murtha (And for the record, I think his idea of an immediate pull out is a bad one). The only difference now is that the public isn’t buying it, so the senate democrats, who know they were too craven in 2002 to question to the bogus intel or scrutinize things like the Patriot Act, now feel more secure to go on the offensive.
But calling the Patriot Act a bipartisan measure is like calling a mugging a voluntary donation because you gave the mugger your wallet in exchange for not getting shot.
And for the record, I think his idea of an immediate pull out is a bad one
And iirc, he has NOT called for an immediately withdrawal from Iraq.
He has
a) called for a timetable, something the Bush Administration adamantly refuses to do,
b) called for keeping some troops just off “the horizon” in case they are needed again in Iraq.
What Murtha called for (and, surprise, surprise, many republicans are misrepresenting it) is a redeployment over a period of six months to begin immediately or ASAP when we can certify the Iraqis as able to stabilize the country on their own. You know, like we did in Vietnam.
Personally, I think six months is hugely optimistic, although I have no doubt that come September or August, we will see some form of pullout beginning.
What the Democrats are calling for is essentially what the Pentagon has already decided to do. They even announced it.(see http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2005/11/winding-down-iraq.html) “ASAP when we can certify the Iraqis as able to stabilize the country on their own.” sounds a lot like “Our military strategy is clear: We will train Iraqi security forces so they can defend their freedom and protect their people, and then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.” which is what Bush said in June.
But I’ll give full props to the Democrats on this one; they will now be able to claim (falsely but so what?) that they are the ones that prodded the administration into doing what it was apparently planning on doing anyway.
the climate today is very different then it was in 2002, when anyone who dared to speak against the imperial will had to fear getting the Max Cleland treatment.
Again, fearfulness is not a great trait in a leader or anyone who wants to be one.
But calling the Patriot Act a bipartisan measure is like calling a mugging a voluntary donation because you gave the mugger your wallet in exchange for not getting shot.
Is there anyway we can distinguish between Democrats who voted for it because they actually felt it was the right thing to do and those who did so because they are timorous cowards? I’d hate to paint them all with a broad brush but how do we know which is which?
But I’ll give full props to the Democrats on this one; they will now be able to claim (falsely but so what?) that they are the ones that prodded the administration into doing what it was apparently planning on doing anyway.
What the flying fûçk are the Democrats going to claim falsely here?
That Bush said he had a plan to get us out of Iraq when he doesn’t?
Geez, you’re grasping here, Bill.
Um…noooooo….What I said (helpfully still just right above your post) was that the plan to reduce troops as the Iraqi forces become more proficient is pretty much what has always been the plan. It doesn’t have a timetable, so if that is an essential part of any withdrawal plan for you then it won’t pass muster but most of the Democratic plans I have seen don’t set a specific time either . Maybe that’s more acceptable to you when it comes from them. At any rate, what I said was that A– the Pentagon seemed to be making statements that indicated they were planning for troop reductions. A short time later Democrats B– called for a plan for troop reductions. It would be false to claim that B, which followed A, actually caused A.
You could certainly argue that I’m wrong about this interpretation but that might take a bit more effort than just dismissing it with a “Geez, you’re grasping here”. Am I wrong about the Pentagon? Did I get the timing mixed up? Were Biden et al unaware of the Pentagon statements?
I also said, who cares? It was a smart move and steals political capital that Bush could have gained by announcing plans for troop reduction. Sorry if you see that as “grasping”. I see it as quite obvious and a rare example of clever politics from the Dems. I think you’re letting anger get in the way of reason–does every post have to include a reference to Bush being a dummy for it not to be considered a slavish defense???
ahhhh…..plus ca change, plus c’est la même chose.
What you and Bill have been saying Craig, while fascinating and insightful (as always), isn’t the issue. We all know (and by we, I include about 57% of Americans) that Bush is a semi-functional idiot, who might be competent to run a local jail (actually, given his stand on torture, that may be a bad idea.) the real question is: what have WE got to offer the people? We stand in a position we have’t had since Nixon: we have a BIG majority on our side. So what do we offer the people in the upcoming Senate race? Are we gonna run on the “Hey, we aren’t the Republicans” ticket? Cause thats all I see. We could actually DO something, and the best thing that we can come up with is “Bush is a poophead??”
get back to me when the Deomcrats have gotten over stating the obvious and can give me something to vote FOR. I mean, didn’t we learn anything from the Kerry debacle?
It’s not as easy as that. You’re absolutely right, of course, but consider the quandary of a potential Democratic leader; right now all the signs point toward a potentially big gain for the Democrats in 2006, not the least of which because the Republican base is justifiably disappointed in the lackluster performance of the Republicans currently in charge.
So there is a big temptation to just let it happen, to not do anything that might snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. To not get blamed by an increasingly bitter base that is ready to tar and feather anyone they see as responsible for another defeat (I was stunned to see the vitriol aimed at James Carvelle and Donna Brazille on some recent kos boards).
The problem, as you know, is that the elections are a year off, and a lot can happen in a year. They’re afraid to stake out a position now and have it turn around and bite them in the ášš. I still say go for it–hard to beat something with nothing–but you can understand why they are reluctant to do so. So far, Hillary has done the best job of playing the game, which is why I still say she has the nomination practically locked up.
I mean, didn’t we learn anything from the Kerry debacle?
Obviously Kerry hasn’t–he just voted for a bill and then a few minutes later switched his vote to against it. Breathtaking. You’re John Kerry. There’s already a good chance that the words “I voted for the bill before I voted against it” will appear on your tombstone. What is the one thing that you should never ever do again? Congratulations, you are now officially a smarter politician than John Kerry.
Again, fearfulness is not a great trait in a leader or anyone who wants to be one.
Never said it was.
Is there anyway we can distinguish between Democrats who voted for it because they actually felt it was the right thing to do and those who did so because they are timorous cowards? I’d hate to paint them all with a broad brush but how do we know which is which?
Simple those that voted for it were timorous cowards. Those that thought it was the right thing to do – do not exist.
Simple enough for you?
Like most republicans I encounter, Bill, you seem to labor under the misperception that because I am anti-Bush, I must harbor a deep love for the Senate Democrats. I assure you I do not. I voted for Kerry for one reason and one reason only: He was the only other realistic option to counter Bush’s philosophy of government by incompetent and corrupt cronyism.
I would have preferred another option, someone from outside the Senate, but sometimes you have to take the lesser of two idiots.