• comment on a post The Power of Truth over 6 years ago

    This is the best thing I've read all year.  OK, it may be a little early for that to mean a lot, but it does give me hope for the days and year ahead.

    I have long felt that Edwards was the only candidate with the right message, the one that progressives would (I'd have thought) rally behind.  I simply do not understand why so many bloggers have been sitting on the sidelines, waiting for the primaries to be over.  This is the time to speak up, folks, and no, not all Dems are created equal.

    Anyway, I think Edwards is the right person and now that he seems to be scaring the hell out of the DC elites, not to mention a couple of other Dems, I think he's poised to pull a few surprises.  An early success or two will mean a lot, and if ever a populist was due to catch fire, now is the time.

  • comment on a post Lobbyists: "We're Tired of Bribing Lawmakers" over 7 years ago

    This may well be a good thing in the long run.

    The timing seems interesting, however.  He wasn't so "tired of bribing lawmakers" to change his ways while Rs were in power.  But now the Ds run Congress, no more gravy train.

    Different ways you can read this, but it's interesting.

  • comment on a post Update on Clinton over 7 years ago

    The quote comes right at 31:00 on the clip, but you can go to about 28:30 for the question and context of her answer.

    I'm not a fan of Hillary's and fwiw I did't find this quote as troubling as her remarks about her Iraq vote.  That's where she has a real problem.

  • comment on a post Some Cable Broadcast News over 7 years ago

    Limbaugh bombed on TV before, and this clip is a good reminder why.  That was pretty darn awful.  You see better skits in a 6th grade class production.  

    The Obama piece, on the other hand, was the most vile racist piece of garbage I can remember.

    These shows being on Fox (unlike syndicated TV, e.g.), they don't need to worry about pulling good ratings to stay on for a while.  But since this is Fox "News," I would think it will piss off more than a few fewers who watch Fox and think of themselves as fairly moderate.  They'll be the ones turning the channel.

  • Hastert's sins as leader may have been greater than just overlooking Foley's transgressions.  If Hastert did in fact know, he was responsible for this:

    "Foley chaired the House caucus on missing and exploited children and was credited with writing the sexual-predator provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which Bush signed in July."

    Well, you could say that Foley had some expertise with the issue, but I think voters would prefer more distance, in this case.

    Source:  WaPo.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901574_ pf.html

  • One of the key reasons for the 1994 House results was the banking scandal.  In all, 350 members of Congress were implicated and 77 chose not to even run for reelection.  So the door was wide open for a huge swing, and that's what happened, with guys like Dan Rostenkowski and Speaker Tom Foley losing, and a total of 34 incumbent Dems going down.  That year the Republicans picked up 54 seats. Though the scandal of the '90s seems quaint by today's standards, the Republicans then did a better job of tainting the Dems than today's Dems are doing to the Republicans.  But those were different times back then.   I don't see the Dems picking up anything like 54 seats, but they don't have to.  The mood certainly seems like it's a time for change.  The corruption scandals are just one of many weapons in the Dems' bag this year.  I think Iraq is the biggest issue, and a winner, if the Dems play it right.  

    All that said, the campaigns have just begun.  Anyone who thinks the Dems have a lock on taking back the House is crazy.  The Republicans will do virtually anything to retain power.  It's gonna be a helluva fight.  

  • comment on a post Terrible 9/11 Movie over 7 years ago

    Yeah, a pretty lousy movie, which is not a surprise.  Very weak story-telling, dreadful pacing, and lots of confusing, moody patches that left me thinking the filmmakers really had to stretch to fill the allotted time.

    What's worse, of course, are the many fabrications.  Some have been documented, and many more will probably be noted in the next few days.

    The Nightline special tonight was very odd.  Cynthia MacFadden and Brian Ross had a segment that seemed highly rehearsed.  Well, what do you know, they came up with the brilliant idea that U.S. during the Clinton years did have several opportunities to take out Bin Laden, and didn't.  (So why complain about this movie, you silly liberals?)

    There was of course no mention of the Aug 6 PDB that Bush received in Texas.  And there was no questioning of Bush's resolve to get Bin Laden; about Tora Bora, all Ross said was "Bin Laden slipped away."

    Which proves that ABC News doesn't need to make things up to be shilling for the right wing.  It just has to be selective about what facts it wants to tell, or not.

    The completely unspoken assumption through all this propaganda, saying that Clinton should have taken out Bin Laden and he's to blame for 9/11, is that the country was willing to go to war to get Bin Laden.  That's probably what it would have taken if you really wanted to get him.  The attempts to get him on the cheap were either very iffy, or were tried and failed.  But before the attack on the WTC, the country would not have supported the idea of going to war.  It just wasn't a possibility.

    So war is what we got after 9/11.  And five years later, what have we got?  Nothing.  The trail is cold.  Bush has even said he doesn't think much about Bin Laden any more.  That would have been an impeachable offense, if Clinton had said it.

    Somehow they'll blame Clinton for the last five years too.  I don't see how, but it'll probably be in tomorrow night's show.

  • comment on a post Loser McCain's Torture Amendment Gutted over 8 years ago
    Somewhere in all the Alito news I recall reading that Alito had recommended that presidents make statements about their intent when signing bills into law.  Up till now, the judiciary has only been able to refer to legislative intent when interpreting law.  Presidential signings are usually photo ops, political events where the president says little more than congratulations, and unless the legislation is vetoed, the president is a mere functionary, at least in legal terms.  Judges interpreting the law have traditionally deferred to Congress's intent, unless there are constitutional issues.  That has been our tradition, and presidents have left it that way, usually saying little about what their own intent is.

    This Bush statement strikes me as an important news.  It seems to be a White House effort to usurp the role of Congress in establishing the intent of the legislation that has been passed and signed into law.  

    It remains a question as to how the judiciary will interpret intent in the future -- will it defer to Congress as it has traditionally, or if presidents begin issuing their own statements, will judges defer to presidential intent instead?  Will there be a battle among judges in deciding which branch of government is primarily responsible for how a law is interpreted.

    It seems clear to me that the Bush administration, and judges like Alito, would like to see the executive have more power in influencing judicial interpretation.  The Bush statement about the torture amendment is perhaps the first shot fired in what could be a long war over who gets to say what our laws mean.


Advertise Blogads