• comment on a post UPDATED: Helen Thomas on transparency (shocking!) over 4 years ago

    But I kinda preferred Alegre's front-paged version of this same story - at least she acknowleges that Helen's underestimating Bush/Rove's manipulation of these things.  But hey, a first post by one who has so regrettably developed deep and thoughtful concern, well THAT shows how very far Barack has fallen.

    I too have been judging Barack on the Thomas meter, after all she's been such a big fan in that great alternative universe where she hasn't been consistently ripping him since the early days of the primary.

  • comment on a post The Confessional Mark Sanford over 4 years ago

    This idea that, in spite of having found his soulmate, he can still fall back into love with his wife sounds eerily like a hetero version of the ex-gay malarkey.  

    I guess we could give Sanford points for being able to live that particular brand of fundamentalist hypocrisy.  

  • comment on a post The Evil Specter of Government Medicine over 4 years ago

    But methinks the subtlety is perhaps a mite to fine?

  • And I read this diary with my eyes closed, fingers in ears, shouting nya nya nya nya nya the whole time.  In spite of that example of great open-mindedness on my behalf, you have failed to convince me at all.  I am completely confident in my reading of the real truth.  And if you even dream of challenging my truth I'll be hurling some heavy-duty links at you - there are bloggers and commenters out there that bolster, and inform all my beliefs and biasis.  

    Preserving preconceptions is paramount!

  • on a comment on Defending DOMA? over 4 years ago

    I have no legal training but I can read what Lawrence Tribe said about this.  
    Today.  
    To the Advocate
    :

    Below are excerpts from an interview conducted with Harvard professor Laurence H. Tribe, who firmly believes DOMA is unconstitutional and would like to see it overturned, and yet is grateful that the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss the legal challenge posed by the ninth circuit court case, Smelt v. United States.

    Why Smelt posed a weak legal challenge to DOMA:

    As someone who wants to see DOMA dismantled and invalidated, I would love it if this ninth circuit case would evaporate into the ether.

    Even though I personally believe that DOMA is unconstitutional, I think that this particular lawsuit is very vulnerable; it's not anywhere near as strong as the one that was brought in the federal district court in Massachusetts [a suit filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders].

    In an environment where the Supreme Court is still quite conservative, what makes a suit a strong one is that it finds a point of entry in which it's possible to invalidate a law in a number of its applications by using more of a scalpel that might appeal to five justices rather than a bludgeon that will almost certainly ask more of the court than it is willing to do.

    What's strong about the Massachusetts case is that these are concrete situations of people who are legally married under the laws of states like Massachusetts or Vermont, and who are being discriminated against by the federal government with respect to federal benefits simply because they are same-sex couples. There's no other difference between them and other couples in that state, and the court could agree with that without accepting any of the broader theories advanced in the [Smelt] lawsuit in the central district of California, which is basically a bet-the-farm lawsuit that almost dares a conservative Supreme Court to slap it down.

    A strategic Justice Department interested in a litigation strategy that has some realistic chance of success certainly would not have taken [the Smelt] case as the one in which the constitutional vulnerabilities of DOMA should be explored.

    Defending congressional statutes:

    Under the traditions of the solicitor general's office, the government does have an obligation to provide a defense in any lawsuit where there is a plausible argument to be made, even if the president does not agree with the law.

    There certainly are cases where the government declines to defend the law, but those are few and far between. If congress were to pass a law that flew directly in the face of a binding Supreme Court precedent -- a law outlawing early-term abortion or a law providing for "separate but equal" schools -- the obligation of the Justice Department to the Constitution would trump its obligation to defend the laws of congress.

    But DOMA is in a gray area where there are experts like me, who think it's unconstitutional, and you can find experts who hold the opposite view, and it's certainly not a slam-dunk.

    There are ways for the president to get rid of DOMA. He can advocate for its repeal, he can eventually urge the solicitor general to join in a more surgical attack, but he certainly isn't obliged to go along with every plaintiff who brings a lawsuit.

    The important point here is that the solicitor general traditionally seeks to dismiss lawsuits against federal laws whenever there is a plausible basis to do it. A lot of the outcry about the administration's position doesn't take that institutional reality into account.

    It doesn't surprise me very much because I understand the frustration of some of the groups. They have lived under the burden of DOMA, of "don't ask, don't tell," for a long time, and they understandably hoped that this would be an administration that would side with them on these issues.

    And I think the frustration of having to wait so long for a progressive and intelligent president who, nonetheless, occasionally does some things that people find disappointing on matters that cut deeply into where they live -- it's understandable that would lead to some strong reactions in this case.


    http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ekti d90000.asp

    Some emphasis added but you can select the choice bits for yourself & determine that Obama sucks anyways.  Others will chalk up the point to DTO, WSB, nrafter, Dracomicron and a few others I've surely missed.

  • comment on a post Supreme Court Announcement At 10:15ET over 4 years ago

    She's got fans:

    Obama's Harriet Miers
      - Ramesh Ponnuru

    Conservatives rejoice. Of all the picks Obama could have picked, he picked the most intellectually shallow.

    Even the New Republic has been rather scathing about her. It's like Obama decided he wanted a Souter to replace Souter

     - Erickson, Redstate

  • He's got game up his sleeve, now it's just a matter of waiting for the telepromter to be programmed.

    Bet that makes you feel all warm & cuddly.  

  • They said he was going to screw me over with his damned timid arrogance!  They say they know what they're talking about and nobody has yet proven that they don't!  QTG can type out all the cutesy quips he wants but that won't erase the serious warnings they're giving us.  They've seen what's really going on and it's pretty damn ugly - a total capitulation on the very points that matter most to me!  Sure I've been happy with Barack up tp now, but now is when they're giving me the dope about just how much he's selling me out.  No matter what he says when he announces his sorry excuse for a Justice, I'll be listening to hear how it parses through what they're telling me, and it won't be pretty.

  • C'mon Archie, you've gotta read the comment before so righteously blasting forth.  I dismissed the idea that Brer Rabbit was mentioned with any intentional racist overtones - AND, nobody argued against that point.  Ya see angry chum, we palled up on your side on this one.  (Albeit after a wee bit of healthy skepticism due only to some revisionist contemporary contextualising.)

    And certainly you meant nothing at all by that line I quoted.

    Nothing at all...  

    walk on by...

    da doo ron ron...

  • Kind soul that I am, I give them Brer Rabbit since surprisingly few people seem to be aware of the racist overtones and, if memory serves correctly, it wasn't actually intended to be racist in the first place.  

    Or maybe I'm wrong.  Either way I'm sure we can find enough juicy slurs without hitting ye olde kid-lit.

  • One gets the impression that perhaps Mr. Obama's race was a factor in his selection, as it apparently enables his apologists to ignore his not addressing crucial issues like healthcare affordability for the middle class. Either that, or he has some gift for obfuscation that will lead us in a convoluted path o affordability, a la brer rabbit.

    Tough lesson learned.  I guess the proper thing to do is always vote for whitey.

    Thanks for the ever-vigilant critical analysis & deep thought Archie!

  • on a comment on Obama on Healthcare: My Concern over 4 years ago

    Those are next-generation energy-efficient "green" euthanizing teutonic cyborgs.  Obama does have his priorities, my friend.

  • comment on a post Poll, Did Obama Promise Affordable Healthcare? over 4 years ago

    He promised me a lifetime supply of kool-ade.  Delicious, delicious kool-ade!  That;s probably an answer that jibes with your thesis.

    Sorry Archi, as much as I enjoy your rants, I can never push myself to read all that typing in your polls.

  • comment on a post Sarah Palin's Numbers Tank in Alaska over 4 years ago

    This is just another in the long-running series of blatantly sexist attacks against a FEMALE politician.

    Just look at the code words used in this sorry diary:  "her" x2!, ""herself", not to mention the use of the stereotypical female name Sarah, instead of choking out just the slightest bit of respect so as to properly identify the politician as Governor Palin!

    Women will remain suppressed in America while sexism like this is allowed to flourish, even in the supposedly 'progressive' sphere.

    Sorry Jonathan, I just couldn't help myself.  For the one person so over the rational edge that this seems genuine, let me assure you it's snark, nothing but snark - of you share this absurd faux outrage then be outraged at me, not with me.

  • I think you miss my smartalecy sarcasm.  I'm saying that anyone would have been an improvement over Penn, and tossing in a bit of hoisting on his own petard, I'm snarkily suggesting that Penn's dream scenario could be most effective if it includes dumping Penn.

    I'm not a big Trippi fan, but could he have been worse than Penn?

Diaries

Advertise Blogads