It's funny that much of our exposure to Middle Eastern countries is through brief news clips of random protesters doing something. I wonder if it's the same over there with respect to their U.S. news coverage.
I have no problem with beginning the normalization of relations with Cuba, and I agree that the Guantanamo prison should be shut down ASAP. However, unless and until Cuba seeks legal recourse, I don't see why we should establish a policy of voluntarily surrendering territory that is used for military bases. I humbly suggest that such a policy may have unforeseen consequences.
As for the imperialism argument, I have to think it is weakened to some degree by the fact that there is virtually no one left alive who lived at the time that Cuba exercised sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay. What was once imperialism has now become the status quo (as has occurred throughout America's history).
Anyway, if Cuba feels strongly about this, it should press its case in a court of law.
If they had simply insisted on an investigation, rather than refusing to seat Burris outright, much of this circus could have been avoided. But, Reid and co., aided by their Illinois counterparts, decided to act tough for a few days instead and will ultimately look like a bunch of fools when this is over with.
I think it's irresponsible to provide ammunition against a potential nominee when any such concerns can be addressed and answered by the nominee himself at the confirmation hearing - ultimately, I think it's almost assured that she would vote for the nominee anyway; the question is whether Republicans can create enough trouble to torpedo the nomination, and Democrats should not aid and abet them in doing so. I can't recall Specter's actions, so I'm not going to get into an argument with you over strawmen.
I guess she's batting .500 in my eyes - I agree that Burris should be seated (even though I'm not sure that I actually like him) but I think that she should not have gone public with criticizing Panetta, at least at this time.
What I see happening here is an attempt by some to intentionally confuse the issue and equate petty insults about the incoming administration and various politicians with "bravery" and "independent thinking," when in fact it's the easiest thing in the world to post a one-sentence insult. Thinking takes work, and many of the people who have left, in my opinion, are just not willing to engage in a back and forth on the issues - it's telling that many of the people who have rec'd the other diary on this subject rarely post anything of substance and the diary itself is a vapid cry for "freedom," or some such. In my opinion, many of those people actually do not have very firm political beliefs (or at least those beliefs are highly malleable and could change if one of their favored politicians took the opposite view) and simply need to get their outrage fix by exploiting policy divides within the larger body of Democrats.
I would love to hear the legal theory as to how one can actually have a court censor the words of a president. There are just some battles that are not worth fighting - this is stupid and will backfire.
Provide a diary with substance and it will be treated with respect, as it always has. You've been beating this "truth, justice, and the American way" theme for a while now, but you haven't given any substantive criticisms or proposals that I can think of. It's easy to be the person throwing stones at everyone else, but that isn't particularly valuable.
Interesting. A quick question: the language that subd. 2 "has no application to a contest in the United States Senate or House of Representatives" - could that not be read as stating that, if Minnesota chooses to delegate resolution of an election contest to Congress, it cannot thereafter interfere in those proceedings? Now that election contests are handled by state court (I assume), we're no longer in the situation envisioned by that opinion, are we? Minnesota has taken back some authority that it previously delegated to Congress.