A new start for the Politics thread for the new millennium. I'll move the posts starting 1/1/01 from the old Politics thread into this thread. The retired Politics thread can be found in the Mote Archives.
2. robertjayb - 1/1/2001 12:19:03 AM
.
R.I.P., Alan Cranston
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Former Sen. Alan Cranston of California, a nuclear arms control activist who ended a 24-year Senate career in 1993 under the cloud of the savings and loan industry scandal, died Sunday at 86.
3. Greystoke - 1/1/2001 9:58:58 AM
Rehnquist says courts should stay out of election disputes.
Only weeks after legal experts questioned whether the Supreme Court's Florida recount ruling might be political, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said he hoped the U.S. court system ``will seldom, if ever'' become embroiled in another presidential election.
Rehnquist's annual report to Congress on the U.S. judiciary did not mention the criticism leveled against the high court. Nor did the chief justice, who was in the majority, attempt to defend the 5-4 ruling that rejected a recount of Florida presidential election votes and handed the election to George W. Bush.
Rather, he expressed hope that the courts would never again have to decide a presidential election.
Rehnquist got to the point immediately, addressing the election in the opening paragraph of his 15th year-end report to Congress since becoming chief justice.
...
This was not the first time that Rehnquist defended the court against allegations that the recount ruling was political. He did so after Justice Clarence Thomas denied -- the day after the decision -- that political views counted in this or any other decision.
Thomas told high school students the court was a nonpartisan, deliberative body that focuses only on the law.
``Don't try to apply the rules of the political world to this institution,'' Thomas said. ``I have yet to hear any discussion in nine years of partisan politics among members of the court.''
4. Greystoke - 1/1/2001 10:01:26 AM
Autodaffy
"Are you a whore to your ideology? "
?????
"Which Watt are you quoting?"
I believe the article is quoting James Watt. Follow the link and see for yourself.
5. jexster - 1/1/2001 12:46:32 PM
The Supreme Court banned statistical sampling to determine apportionment of representatives among states. The ruling did not prohibit using sampling-adjusted census numbers for other purposes including revenue sharing and apportionment within states.
Thus Concerned, concerned that a fair and accurate apportionment based on statistical sampling will hurt the Republicans, exalts his political sophistry over statistical science.
The following two experts comment on such dissembling.
6. wonkers2 - 1/1/2001 12:48:05 PM
In this week's New Republic there is an article about the serious deficiencies of Bush's pick for Secretary of State. He is super cautious about using U.S. military force in anything but the most compelling cases involving vital American interests. He opposed U.S. intervention in Kuwait and was an advocate of premature termination of the operation. He also opposed U.S. military involvement in the Balkans. If left up to Powell there will be no involvement outside the U.S. on humanitarian grounds. Moreover, he was one of the main saboteurs of Clinton's attempt to introduce humane treatment of gays in the military. Moreover, several examples of Powell's dishonesty were cited in the article. As I recall, one of them was letting Les Aspin take the spears for the fiasco in Somalia when Powell was equally if not more to blame. He is apparently quite a smart and coldly calculating politician and not one who has much loyalty to those who appoint him.
7. CalGal - 1/1/2001 12:54:51 PM
Wonkers,
I'm really looking forward to Powell being forced to deliver, for once. I agree that he is very much a calculating politician, and a clever one at that. However, this has been known about him for a long time. For all that there are many who lionize him, his media coverage has always included the reality.
8. jexster - 1/1/2001 12:56:01 PM
The issue is NOT whether statistical sampling should be used to produce a more accurate count. The Census has used sampling corrections since 1970.
The scientific issue is which statistical methods will produce the most accurate results, especially in a society that is more mobile than ever with an higher proportion of foreign born than ever.
Jonathan Caulkins, Carnegie Mellon's Heinz School of Public Policy and Managemen:
It is often said that "the Devil is in the details" but with census sampling the Devil may be in the debates over the details. Even if essentially every statistician agreed that some form of sampling would be preferred to direct enumeration, we cannot expect unanimous consensus concerning exactly how that sampling should be done.
It seems possible that two equally or nearly equally valid sampling
approaches might lead to population estimates different enough to matter for political or budgetary purposes. For example, one approach might assign one more congressional seat to one state than another does. If so, then it is not hard to imagine acrimonious court cases pitting dueling statistical experts against each other in a way that makes the lay observer mistrustful of sample-based estimates, statisticians, and perhaps even science and mathematics more generally.
9. jexster - 1/1/2001 12:56:14 PM
Ed Kaplan, professor of Management Sciences and Public Health at the Yale School of Management:
If the goal is to estimate the population of the country as well as the distribution of various features of that population — race, income, employment, etc. there is no question that properly employed, statistical sampling can be used to improve the accuracy of the existing approach. The objections raised, of course, are more due to the anticipated consequences of such statistical corrections than due to the 'science' underlying sampling itself.
If it was demonstrated that the employment of sampling would not change greatly the results of the census — on the apportionment of congressional seats, for example — then the opposition would not be nearly so strong.
There will always be those who take the word enumeration'[constituton] literally, but this argument is of course a joke, as the 'enumeration' currently invoked is itself an imperfect sample.
Importantly, this cuts two ways — if it was demonstrated that the
employment of sampling would not change the consequences of the exercise, I suspect many proponents of sampling would also disappear.
Proponents might disappear, but politicians won't. When votes, political power and money are at stake, politicians will go to the mat. Count on it.
Until I finish the next 3 semesters of statistics and Econometrics that I've scheduled, I'll have to take these guys words for it or those of Rask and Slackjaw.
10. CalGal - 1/1/2001 12:59:50 PM
Does anyone doubt that if statistical sampling favored the Republicans and hurt the Dems, each would be arguing the opposite side? No. Nuff said, really.
I've always known that it was a tad alarming that the Dems rely on stupid people to keep their numbers up. But still, what with the bad voting and hiding from the census coming up at the same time, it feels very rubbed in.
Did anyone read that Slate article about how it appears that the overvotes, legitimate in nature, will be what puts Gore over the top? Now that's pretty funny.
11. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:00:08 PM
Gee I missed that. I liked Alan Cranston. Though he didn't know my name I am sure, though he never did actually, he did know me by site when I worked in the Senate for a dear friend of his. He was a giant in the Senate
12. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:04:01 PM
Cal...ask concerned....WRT the so-called "overvotes", that article refers to the punch and write-in votes for the same candidate as opposed to two votes for different candidates.
And yes, as the Orlando Sentinel reported, in a conservative county, using scanners not Votomatics, Gore's net gain was 130 votes. I believe the correct count is now Bush +27 or thereabouts.
13. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:06:17 PM
But anyone who seriously contends that Bush won Florida should seek professional help anyway.
14. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:09:28 PM
Cranston even came to me for vote briefs a couple of times when he couldn't find his LA outside the Senate Chamber. That was before Senate Offices had C-SPAN.
A gentleman and Senator of the highest caliber.
15. wonkers2 - 1/1/2001 1:24:14 PM
Cal, True. Of course Gore whom I supported is even more of a calculating politician than Powell. But, aside from a few issues like capital punishment and the war on drugs and crime, I agree more with Gore on the issues than Powell. I think Gore is more willing to project U.S. influence for good in the world than Powell. However, I recognize that it is easy to go overboard on this as in Vietnam. Clinton did the right thing in Yugoslavia. His only mistake was in not acting decisively sooner (maybe not possible). And it's hard for me to accept Powell's position on gays in the military after his own experience as an African American and his support for affirmative action in the military and elsewhere for blacks and other minorities. Maybe it was a purely political calculation. But I have difficulty with political calculations on that kind of an issue. It's more basic even than how many redwoods are we going to allow Pacific Lumber to murder.
16. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:29:45 PM
This one's for EricC...
WASHINGTON (AP) - After they are sworn into office this week, the congressional Class of 2001, mostly upper middle class, faces votes that could affect their stock holdings, from high-tech companies to health insurance firms.
Fifteen of the 52 newly minted lawmakers own stock in high-technology
companies such as Intel and Microsoft, according to an Associated Press review of financial disclosure forms filed by the candidates during the campaign etc etc...
17. CalGal - 1/1/2001 1:36:31 PM
Wonkers,
Gore was just weak at covering his math work; I don't think he is any more calculating than Powell or other political sorts.
18. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 1:39:09 PM
"And it's hard for me to accept Powell's position on gays in the military after his own experience as an African American and his support for affirmative action in the military and elsewhere for blacks and other minorities."
And considering the fact that one of his daughters is a lesbian!
19. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:42:01 PM
I've always known that it was a tad alarming that the Dems rely on
stupid people to keep their numbers up.
If THAT is a "tad alarming".....
"I also have picked a secretary for Housing and Human Development. Mel Martinez from the state of Florida."--Austin, Tex., Dec. 20, 2000
20. CalGal - 1/1/2001 1:43:16 PM
Cellar,
I have a feeling that slowly, over time, the culture of acceptance of that sort of hypocrisy is going to fade.
21. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:43:40 PM
At least the semi-literate dems the wingnuts around here love to chuckle over know the office in question!
22. CalGal - 1/1/2001 1:44:43 PM
Jex,
There is no connection between the two, you do realize. Just doing my bit to keep you focused.
I frankly don't think that any of the picks are really going to hurt the country, although I'm looking forward to the Ashcroft fight. That'll be fun.
23. wonkers2 - 1/1/2001 1:47:08 PM
CD, I didn't know that. That makes him even more of an evil person. I find it easier to forgive a Jesse Helms than a Powell.
24. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:47:27 PM
Well I think there is Cal....more than a connection in fact.
If voters should be required to have enough intelligence to cast an unmistakable vote for the candidate of their choice for a particular office, I, for one, think it only right and proper that a president should be required to have enough intelligence to know the office he is choosing a candidate for...
25. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:52:42 PM
The problem is not in the picks per se. The problem is in the unprecedented pick of Cheney as de facto president.
Each of the picks, save Norton and Ashcroft, is thoroughly undistinguished. There is a good reason for that. Cheney, has no political base, yet he is the firewall between Bush and the real world. The scheme, as I have said, is transparent. The picks themselves present little risk of independent action, gray automotons mostly who owe all to Nanny Warbucks. Yet, the scheme, is cabinet based. Its a political-organizational disaster waiting to happen
Cheney is the achilles heal of the administration, a defacto president without portfolio, without a political base, without pulpit bully or otherwise, not especially admired even by his admirers
26. CalGal - 1/1/2001 1:54:25 PM
Jex,
Oh, I see where you are going, then.
But it's not so much that voters have to have intelligence. It's the disconcerting notion that the ones who don't are disproportionately Dem.
Also, the fact that the candidate might not be all that bright is irrelevant, since we don't have intelligence requirements for elected officials.
27. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:57:09 PM
Sorry I wasn't clear. Actually I had just answered an e-mail from one of the two republican friends I have where he made light of the name of the UnInaugural Committee, "Trust The People"...it was a cross post of sorts thus the confusion
28. jexster - 1/1/2001 2:11:51 PM
Cal...have some fun
Ashcroft's 1999 Tactics Against Judge White Under Microscope
Even if Biener doesn't like it!
29. jexster - 1/1/2001 2:20:19 PM
RD - Delete this....its a repost. But I think it topical and funny so sue me, delete me, or eat me, as you will.
30. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 2:32:17 PM
Here are some interesting quotes from the article Jex linked to:
In reality, a review of White's nomination – the first defeated on the Senate floor since Robert H. Bork's – provides no evidence of racism by the man who would be America's top law enforcement officer
he has supported 90 percent of the black nominees who have come up for a vote. He also pointed out that he signed laws in Missouri honoring Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a state holiday and Scott Joplin's house as a state historic site. "I will continue to support African Americans for the federal bench because America needs their strong minds," he said in a statement in October.
Of course I am sure mere facts are not enough to derail Jex once he is on the attack.
31. jexster - 1/1/2001 2:53:34 PM
As you said JJB, its "political"
Look Biener, Its A HORSIE!!! Font
32. jexster - 1/1/2001 2:55:47 PM
southern-fried racism
33. jexster - 1/1/2001 2:57:53 PM
"This could be a bloodbath," a Democratic Senate aide said.
34. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 3:02:35 PM
Gee, I guess I called that one, didn't I?
35. jexster - 1/1/2001 3:03:32 PM
JJB, this must sound familiar
Ashcroft is taking heat for some seemingly pro-Confederate comments he made in the magazine Southern Partisan; he was also one of two members of a federal
commission to refuse to sign a report on the plight of minorities. (He thought it was too negative.) But no one has produced evidence that racial animus had anything to do with his efforts to stop White. And in the heat of a close election, there was a much more obvious explanation.
"Pure politics," a GOP Senate aide said. "I guess it turned out to be bad politics."
BushShit...pure BushShit...please chew with mouth closed!
36. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 3:07:12 PM
Jex - no one has produced evidence that racial animus had anything to do with his efforts to stop White.
So in your world no proof of racism is in fact proof of racism. I pity you. I really do.
37. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 3:07:56 PM
48K?
38. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 3:07:58 PM
48K?
39. PelleNilsson - 1/1/2001 3:31:55 PM
48K+1
40. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 3:40:06 PM
Speaking at Bob Jones U and speaking in support of the Confederacy is racist. Period. End of story.
41. CalGal - 1/1/2001 4:04:24 PM
It's true that Ashcroft needed to get White derailed as a political necessity, and that his behavior wasn't racist. But couple that with the standard genuflections that all Republicans have to make to the racist faction of their party, and it puts a nice tidy package together. At this point in time, "critics" don't see much possibility of his nomination being derailed, but I dunno. Either way, it will be fun. I don't think Bush realized he'd have this sort of problem when he screwed the Montana guy over.
42. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 4:24:30 PM
Cellar - End of story.
Pure fiction.
43. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 4:26:13 PM
Cal - But couple that with the standard genuflections that all Republicans have to make to the racist faction of their party
You are far too intelligent to make statements this ignorant.
44. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 4:28:17 PM
You mean Ashcroft hasn't spoken at Bob Jones U or made statemnts in support of the Confederacy, J.J. ?
45. CalGal - 1/1/2001 4:35:51 PM
JJ,
Hey, I'm one of those Dems that doens't know how to punch chads or fill out census forms.
But don't be silly yourself. Of course the Republicans have a racist faction; it's what they get for being the ones who oppose affirmative action. The Dems play the race card whenever they can, too, but they use it for purposes of fear, not hate, so they get a minor gimme.
46. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 5:14:49 PM
Cellar - You mean Ashcroft hasn't spoken at Bob Jones U or made statemnts in support of the Confederacy
Speaking at Bob Jones U doesn't make Ashcroft a racist any more than it makes the dozens of Democrats who have spoken there and received honorary degrees racists. I have yet to see any statements by Ashcroft in praise of the Confederacy or in favor of racism. I see lots of accusation, but no substance to back them up.
47. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 5:24:18 PM
Cal - Of course the Republicans have a racist faction
Bullshit. There may be racists who call themselves Republicans, but so do the Democrats. The GOP has never had an organized faction of racists unlike the Democrats who had one for decades.
it's what they get for being the ones who oppose affirmative action
I don't know why it is so hard for some to accept, but if you oppose discrimination, you have to oppose all discrimination no matter who the victim is. Democrats claim they oppose discrimination, but the fact is they only oppose discrimination against their constituents. They actively promote discrimination if it will help their constituents.
The Dems play the race card whenever they can, too, but they use it for purposes of fear, not hate, so they get a minor gimme.
Dems are the only ones who play the race card. They do it openly, too, at every opportunity. Republicans don't use race to promote fear or hate.
48. OhioSTOPAS - 1/1/2001 5:38:32 PM
"Willie" Horton . . . Jesse Helms . . . "a little too much diversity" . . .
Must have been some OTHER Republican party.
49. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 5:38:33 PM
Such bullshit I don't know where to begin.
So I'm not going to bother.
50. CalGal - 1/1/2001 5:45:22 PM
JJ,
I don't know why it is so hard for some to accept, but if you oppose discrimination, you have to oppose all discrimination no matter who the victim is.
I said nothing about opposing discrimination; I said they opposed affirmative action. The Dems' inconsistency is not the point; I was neither denying or excusing it, but stating a fact. The Republicans oppose AA and that is the single biggest reason why the white racists are in their camp. Keeping them happy is an unpleasant task that many of them must undertake periodically.
And the fact that the Southern Dems were racist and organized about it for years is also besides the point: this is politics, it doesn't have to be fair. The Southern Dems defected to the Republicans, who picked up all their nasty baggage. The Dems were never as vulnerable to the racist charges as the Republicans were because they held both factions in one tent and also because, alas, times have changed. But the Republicans had a party that promoted the end of affirmative action, so when the racists moved over to that side, they were expected to deliver.
It's no use denying the truth, JJ. It doesn't have to be fair. But the fact is that the Republicans have a platform that encourages white racists, and they need them for the numbers. The fact that you and in fact most Republican politicians personally dislike racists is completely irrelevant. I personally loathe a good 50 or more percent of the idiots who wear the Dem label; but I'd really rather they keep voting for Dems until the Republicans get their act together and I can switch hit occasionally.
Dems are the only ones who play the race card. They do it openly, too, at every opportunity. Republicans don't use race to promote fear or hate.
Sentences #1 and #3 are completely untrue. Sentence #2 is true for both parties.
51. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:03:01 PM
Cellar - "Willie" Horton
Republicans never mentioned Horton's race or put his picture on television.
Jesse Helms
Fritz Hollings, Robert Byrd, . . .
"a little too much diversity"
I have no idea who said this or in what context. It is not representative of the GOP now or ever.
Must have been some OTHER Republican party.
I am not responsible for your delusions.
Such bullshit I don't know where to begin.
Your bullshit has been coming through loud and clear.
So I'm not going to bother.
That will be a first.
52. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 6:19:26 PM
Oh let's change the subject. Sort of.
53. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:32:15 PM
CalGal - I said nothing about opposing discrimination; I said they opposed affirmative action.
Republicans oppose quotas, set-asides and preferences. They are very specific about their opposition because these things are discriminatory.
The Republicans oppose AA and that is the single biggest reason why the white racists are in their camp.
There are white racists in both camps. Neither camp is responsible for those who claim membership while holding beliefs antithetical to the party.
Keeping them happy is an unpleasant task that many of them must undertake periodically.
The GOP does nothing to keep them happy or encourage them. In fact they have done enough to discourage them that Duke joined the Reform Party.
And the fact that the Southern Dems were racist and organized about it for years is also besides the point
It is not beside the point. Democrats were the party of racism and segregation. In order to distance themselves from their past and to attrack black voters, they have engaged in a campaign for 30 years to accuse Republicans of the crimes the Democrats were guilty of.
The Southern Dems defected to the Republicans, who picked up all their nasty baggage.
This is still not true. A handful became Republicans, but the majority remained as Democrats.
54. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:32:29 PM
Cal - (cont)The Dems were never as vulnerable to the racist charges as the Republicans were because they held both factions in one tent
But the Republicans have never had a racist faction, so they should not be vulnerable. That is why Democrats have had to lie and distort the record to escape their past.
But the Republicans had a party that promoted the end of affirmative action
Ending preferences is not racist whether that policy appeals to racists or not. Republicans do not oppose preferences to appeal to racists. Republicans strongly support the enforcement of civil rights laws which racists oppose.
It's no use denying the truth, JJ.
I hate to disappoint you but the truth doesn't come from the DNC or Jesse Jackson. In fact if you find the truth in either place, it is purely accidental.
But the fact is that the Republicans have a platform that encourages white racists
The Democrats have a platform which encourages the likes of the PETA and the ALF. Should the Democrats have their feet held to fire for every thing those groups do?
Sentences #1 and #3 are completely untrue.
We've seen a dozen example of Democrats using race as a weapon in the last month. Provide some examples of Republicans doing the same thing.
55. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:34:59 PM
Just in case
56. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 6:39:32 PM
"Republicans oppose quotas, set-asides and preferences. They are very specific about their opposition because these things are discriminatory."
And that's why the opposed Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, and won't offer jobs to Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell, and didn't have any porch monkeys at their last convention.
57. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 6:40:33 PM
"Republicans never mentioned Horton's race or put his picture on television. "
LOL!
58. wonkers2 - 1/1/2001 6:41:34 PM
JJ, Give us a break. You have a fantasy view of the GOP. You belong in the Democratic party.
59. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 6:42:08 PM
"A handful became Republicans, but the majority remained as Democrats."
So Nixon's Southern Strategy didn't work, eh?
News to millions, J.J.
60. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:43:54 PM
Wonkers - I hardly have a fantasy view. It is just that I can see it free of the influence of Democratic propaganda.
61. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:44:35 PM
Cellar - You are a dupe.
62. wonkers2 - 1/1/2001 6:45:14 PM
Whether Ashcroft's motive in helping block White's appointment, racial or political, his conduct was shameful and he got what he deserved. He lied about White's record on capital cases. Whatever happened to the GOP's pious bleating about the importance of telling the truth?
63. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:48:11 PM
Cellar - And that's why the opposed Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, and won't offer jobs to Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell
If the GOP had opposed eminently qualified individuals for these positions based on their race, that would be racism. That kind of mentality remains the province of Democrats.
64. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 7:40:22 PM
So the GOP supports unqualified lawn jockeys instead. Brilliant!
65. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 7:41:03 PM
And don't forget that Great Moral Bellweather of Our Time, J.C. Watts.
66. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 7:41:56 PM
What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats/
Republicans drive their wives to the abortion clinics. Democrats call them a cab.
67. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 8:11:11 PM
Cellar - No, The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans judge people by their abilities and Democrats judge them by their political beliefs.
68. arkymalarky - 1/1/2001 8:12:21 PM
Hahahahaha!!!! JJ, do you have a wind-up key in your back?
69. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 8:19:37 PM
Arky - No, but I think Cellar does.
70. arkymalarky - 1/1/2001 8:21:16 PM
But Cellar's a communist, not a Democrat!
71. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 8:31:22 PM
Make that an Anarchist, arky.
72. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 8:32:18 PM
"Cellar - No, The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans judge people by their abilities and Democrats judge them by their political beliefs."
You've got that precisely backwards.
73. arkymalarky - 1/1/2001 8:34:18 PM
Uh-oh. This Bush election has radicalized the radical. At least you didn't say Nihilist.
True Democrats like me are covering their eyes and whistling really loud with their fingers in their ears, hoping 2002 hurries up and gets here and brings with it a Democratic majority in both houses of congress.
74. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 8:44:14 PM
Cellar - You've got that precisely backwards.
Sorry, #48026 proves otherwise.
Arky - True Democrats like me are covering their eyes and whistling really loud with their fingers in their ears, hoping 2002 hurries up and gets here and brings with it a Democratic majority in both houses of congress.
Dare to dream, Arky. Dare to dream.
76. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 8:57:58 PM
Pas de tout, J.J. I stand by #48026 -- especially in light of the Supremes recent decision re the "election," and Uncle Clarence's performance the next day before a group ofvery carefully chosen high school kids on C-Span.
77. joezan - 1/1/2001 11:47:39 PM
Cal:
But the Republicans had a party that promoted the end of affirmative action...
A platform many, many Democrats signed onto, you might add.
And no Republican needs to apologize for promoting the end of AA.
AA is wrong. It is discriminatory, demoralizing, and it promotes mediocrity - which the US can ill afford in a global economy.
78. CalGal - 1/1/2001 11:57:38 PM
Lord, when will someone see my point? I am not saying that the Republicans are baaaaad for wanting to end AA, I am saying that it's what drew the ignorant white racists to their side and added the requirement to subtly cater to them in order to win key elections.
79. don s. - 1/2/2001 12:01:53 AM
"He also pointed out that he signed laws in Missouri honoring Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a state holiday and Scott Joplin's house as a state historic site."
Scott Joplin? Oooh. Well, I'm convinced.
80. joezan - 1/2/2001 12:04:12 AM
Cal:
But you offer this as one of the reasons you can't see yourself voting for a Republican.
If it's not bad, then what's the deal?
Are you worried about your image?
81. robertjayb - 1/2/2001 12:05:55 AM
.
TIME magazine? Who needs it?
Lagos, Nigeria...
Nigeria's foremost Independent newspaper, The Guardian, has named outgoing US President Bill Clinton its Man-Of-The-Year 2000 for his support for Africa and his quest for peace around the world.
"He struck such a chemistry with Africa that he was once labelled the first black president," the paper's Managing Director/Editor-in Chief, Eluem Izeze, said in a front page piece explaining the choice Monday.
"Whether being patted on the back by the great man Nelson Mandela, or swinging in Babanriga (Nigeria's traditional attire) in the dusty village of Ushaffa, near Abuja (Nigeria's capital city), or championing the African Growth and Opportunity Act in Washington, he stands in full length as a friend of Africa," he wrote.
82. joezan - 1/2/2001 12:09:17 AM
...and Africa still starves.
83. CalGal - 1/2/2001 12:15:40 AM
Joe,
?????
AA? No. The only thing that has kept me from voting Republican for a long time now is the power that the religious right held, which was well out of proportion. It is nearly at the point of being just another special interest group, rather like feminists and unions on the left. Irritating, but nothing to get much fussed about.
I am far less concerned about the RR than I was even a few years ago. I don't see myself voting Republican for a while, though, because any party that goes for a dolt like Bush over McCain is one that values status quo a little too much for me. But that is a philosophical, rather than political, objection. Much like my objection to Bush himself.
So I don't know where you got the idea that I voted against the Republicans because of AA, but 'tain't so. I was just correcting some of JJ's statements.
84. don s. - 1/2/2001 12:16:37 AM
Perhaps if Bubba had shared some of his fries.
85. Cellar Door - 1/2/2001 12:14:13 PM
Talkin' 'Bout Good and Bad Hair !
86. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 12:20:17 PM
I think the writer of that column had that copy laying around waiting for an excuse to use it. Its attachment to Colin Powell and Condi Rice is pretty thin.
87. Cellar Door - 1/2/2001 12:55:17 PM
Talkin' 'bout Good and Bad Hair,
Don' matter if you're dark or you're fair,
Go on and swear,
See if I care,
Good and Bad Hair!"
Ah yes -- back when Spike was still talking to his father, and before he lost his mind.
"I think the writer of that column had that copy laying around waiting for an excuse to use it. Its attachment to Colin Powell and Condi Rice is pretty thin."
Any Lawn Jockey will do!
88. ranheim - 1/2/2001 12:58:34 PM
Cal
And Gore was not status quo in the Democratic Party?
Remember! I voted Harry Browne. And am registered as a Democrat in Louisiana. But, I wonder where all of you anti-Republican Party people get the idea that Bush is a "dolt". He has an MBA from Harvard. Gore is the one who dropped out of law school. And wasn't there an attempt at Divinity School as well?
Due to the fact that the Washington press claims that Gore is a policy wonk, he is brilliant?!
89. Electric Slide - 1/2/2001 12:59:51 PM
Cellar--did you really report me to Nolan the witch?
Very uncool.
90. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 1:02:34 PM
Any Lawn Jockey will do!
Does having straight hair make you a lawn jockey?
Best not tell James Brown!
91. Cellar Door - 1/2/2001 1:16:06 PM
Is James Brown a Republican?
"Cellar--did you really report me to Nolan the witch?
Very uncool."
I'm the King of Uncool.
92. jonesatlaw - 1/2/2001 1:35:10 PM
As a white guy I really don't know what to think about Bill Clinton as a "Black President." I have heard the claim made by many blacks, and having no basis in experience or data to debate it, I guess I accept it. However, he did pick up where Carter left off in sub-Saharan Africa, and that is overwhelmingly a good thing.
Yes, Africa still faces huge problems. Their governments are still not stable mature democracies, their economies are still being plundered by klepotocracies in far too many instances, and the strong man will continue to dominate the continent for some time to come. However, South Africa has undergone a tremendous change for the better. If it continues the current trends, it can be a strong leader for change on the continent.
Africa faded from the American radar screen with the end of the cold war and the transition in South Africa. It may yet re-emerge.
93. jonesatlaw - 1/2/2001 1:46:40 PM
I hope that Bush continues to be engaged in Africa, supporting the efforts of the most democratic nations to answer the problems they face with regional action instead of the US playing nanny and having to try to impose solutions.
94. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 1:59:12 PM
instead of the US playing nanny and having to try to impose solutions.
Lawyerin' Cuz: What would you give as an example of the US imposing solutions there?
From the little I've read, I think Bush's policy will be very hands off (in Africa).
95. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 2:00:43 PM
Also, which nations in Africa qualify as the "most democratic"? (This might be better answered in International.)
96. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:01:35 PM
I wonder where all of you anti-Republican Party
people get the idea that Bush is a "dolt".
- He's all but given the job of Chief Executive to Cheney before he's even sworn in[sic]
- He abdicated the most important decision of his post-election political life, the decision whether or not to file a federal lawsuit for injunctive relief against the
recounts to James Baker
- "I also have picked a secretary for Housing and Human Development. Mel Martinez from the state of Florida."--Austin, Tex., Dec. 20, 2000
97. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:04:53 PM
Would You Go To A Doctor Who Calls An "Appendectomy" a "Tonsilectomy"?
In other words, who didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground?
98. Ronski - 1/2/2001 2:07:17 PM
99. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:07:26 PM
"It was just inebriating what Midland was all about then."—From a 1994 interview
100. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:09:20 PM
Since the policy recommendations that come out of Heritage, or the Cato Institute, or even the American Enterprise Institute are so predictable, what purpose do these organizations serve? Good question.
101. Ronski - 1/2/2001 2:12:11 PM
Since the policy statements that come from the mouths of Democrats and liberals are so predictable...
102. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 2:13:44 PM
Ronski: Apparently New Hampshire has elected a libertarian representative (he ran as a Republican to get in, but says he's really a libertarian).
Some Republicans are calling for him to resign the office for comments he made about the killing of police.
If he switched parties instead, would that make him the highest elected libertarian official?
103. concerned - 1/2/2001 2:23:48 PM
Do I detect a hint of disingenuousness from Jexster? Clowntoon offloads work to Bore='good'? Bush may or may not do same with Cheney='bad'?
104. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 2:26:38 PM
Ranheim:
I wonder where all of you anti-Republican Party people get the idea that Bush is a "dolt".
Have you never listened to the man? I wouldn't say a man was intelligent who brags that he doesn't like to read. Remember, someone always has to graduate last in their class.
And it isn't just "anti-Republican Party" people who think Bush is all hat and no cattle.
105. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 2:28:07 PM
Concerned - Do I detect a hint of disingenuousness from Jexster?
Not at all. What you detect is Jex flailing around trying to find some excuse to pour out his hatred. Consistency has no place in such a troubled mind.
106. concerned - 1/2/2001 2:28:48 PM
Bush has you lefties right where he wants you. Underestimating him.
107. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 2:30:20 PM
Judith - I wouldn't say a man was intelligent who brags that he doesn't like to read.
Where exactly did Bush brag that he doesn't like to read?
108. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 2:30:37 PM
I have no problem with Bush "delegating" to Cheney...but that's not what I feel he is doing. He is turning over the office to the man, period.
109. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 2:32:06 PM
Judith - I have no problem with Bush "delegating" to Cheney...but that's not what I feel he is doing. He is turning over the office to the man, period.
I didn't realize that you were privy to inner workings of Bush's transition team and his plans for his administration. What is your source for this information?
110. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 2:33:45 PM
JJ:
In interviews. Do you think I just made that up out of thin air? I am not the only one who says it, you know.
He said he hates to read...he said he has his people read all that "policy stuff" and break it down for him. He likes to relax by playing video games; Clinton was a voracious reader...Bush is not. I can live with that. But I don't have to think Bush is smart. Do I?
111. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 2:35:20 PM
JJ:
I didn't realize that you were privy to inner workings of Bush's transition team and his plans for his administration.
Well, surprise, I am...they run everything by me first.
112. Ronski - 1/2/2001 2:38:33 PM
Indy,
It's news to me, but if the fellow made bizarre remarks about harming police officers, I'm sure the LP wouldn't want him. And yes, he would be the highest elected official, as a Vermont House libertarian was this past election banished to the VT GOP for anti-gay (and thus anti-libertarian sounding) remarks.
Alaska's legislature has also had Libertarians, but I don't think one serves there presently. I'll check to make sure, but I think there are about a thousand elected Libertarians, usually on town councils and the like, nationwide.
Libertarians are occasionally elected to the New Hampshire assembly because it has about as many members as the U.S. House. There's a district every ten farms or so, it seems.
113. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:40:07 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect George W. Bush (news - web sites) will gather an array of experts to ponder the economy's health this week, but an aide said Tuesday his nominees to head the Treasury and Commerce departments will not attend
114. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:41:04 PM
Not at all. What you detect is Jex flailing around trying to find some excuse to pour out his hatred. Consistency has no place in such a troubled mind.
115. Ronski - 1/2/2001 2:43:00 PM
116. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 2:43:04 PM
Ronski: I haven't seen the actual quotations so I don't know what they were. The Rep (wish I could remember his name) said they were "barroom talk"--actually, they were letters to the editor--and distanced himself from them.
117. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:45:07 PM
Who said that? Who the fuck said that? Who's the slimy communist shit twinkle-toed cocksucker who just signed his own death warrant?
118. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:46:59 PM
WRT "fall of dotcoms"
Picked this up in this month's issue of The California Lawyer
FuckedCompany.com
119. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:49:17 PM
Free ISP NetZero wasn't making any money. The execs sat around in their board room one day scratching thier heads trying to figure out just why they weren't making any money. The result of that meeting? They now charge actual *money* to their customers. Woohoo!
When: 12/29/2000
Company: NetZero.com
Severity: 75
Points: 171
Comment/view this fuck in the Happy Fun Slander Corner!
120. Ronski - 1/2/2001 2:49:37 PM
Indy,
I should add that the LP is the only political party in the U.S. requiring its members to sign a pledge NOT to advocate violence against the government, ever.
Still, people with distinctly unlibertarian ideas about one thing or another wrest an LP nomination for office from time to time, as wresting these things is not particularly difficult in most jurisdictions, not being all that hotly contested to say the least.
121. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:54:59 PM
Since the policy statements that come from the mouths of Democrats and liberals are so predictable...
Ronksi-
And THAT was PRECISELY Krugman's point. Cato isn't a reputable policy analysis organization, its an ideological hack shop
122. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:56:34 PM
I didn't realize that you were privy to inner workings of Bush's transition team and his plans for his administration. What is your source for this information?
Perhaps public statements reported in the Post, The Economist and the NYT?
Just a guess
123. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:57:39 PM
124. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:58:59 PM
What is their purpose?
Mainly they have become waiting rooms for the conservative nomen klatura — a class of intellectuals among whom talent is much less important than political reliability.
125. glendajean - 1/2/2001 3:00:03 PM
New York Times article about Bush judicial appointments. Have they been reading the remarks of the late Jack Vincenes? (Jack, we hardly knew ye)
Mr. Bolick said that one tactic Mr. Bush might use to deal with any Democratic opposition would be to name people "whose conservative credentials are enhanced by some other feature so it would be hard for the liberals to defeat them." For example, Mr. Bush might fill the first Supreme Court vacancy he has with the first Hispanic person to sit on the court. Such an event might overwhelm any debate over philosophy.
In fact, lawyers close to Mr. Bush have suggested he might do that and he has two ready-made candidates, Emilio Garza, a conservative federal appeals court judge in Texas and Alberto R. Gonzales, a longtime aide who was recently named to be Mr. Bush's White House counsel.
126. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 3:00:29 PM
Ronski:
Here's the article. My mistake...the statements in question were actually Internet posts.
LOL. Guess we should all keep that in mind should we ever decide to run for office.
He also wrote a letter but it wasn't published.
127. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 3:05:04 PM
Judith - Do you think I just made that up out of thin air? I am not the only one who says it, you know.
I am sure you heard it from somewhere. I was just curious if you actually heard Bush saying this, or if you are merely repeating what others claim. Since you are so sure of his disinterest in reading, I figured you had a reliable source for the information. It would seem that you are just repeating the "conventional wisdom." Not exactly wise when you are crticizing someone else for their lack of intellectual curiosity.
I find it curious that Bush would say he doesn't like to read considering the fact that he was reading some of Jefferson's writings during the election battle.
128. Ronski - 1/2/2001 3:08:56 PM
Speaking of trite, that was about the thinnest bowl of gruel I've ever seen from Krugman. He usually vents with a lot more style.
129. Ronski - 1/2/2001 3:12:38 PM
Indy,
I think the fellow's political career will be a brief one, whatever party he chooses.
130. Ronski - 1/2/2001 3:16:18 PM
For the Esteemed Cellar, Who Recently Declared Himself an Anarchist
131. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 3:29:13 PM
JJ:
Go ahead and stake your reputation on the fact Bush is a tower of intellect. I don't care. I heard him say in an interview that he hardly ever read anything he didn't have to...I cannot cite chapter and verse, where or when he said this but I heard the man say it and it was probably while he was Governor. I know he was interviewed about his daily routine late last year and he stated he liked to play video games evey day to relax.
You jump on everything negative I say about the guy because you like him and feel differently about him than I do...why is it I am just amused by your position but you are so angered by mine?
And by the way, Bush said he was reading Jeffersons writings during the election battle? Are you basing that on the fact some of Jeffersons quotes ended up in the speech that was written for him or do you actually KNOW he was reading them? Maybe that explains his reliance on Cheney and Baker during the actual "battle"...he was too enthralled by reading Jefferson to involve himself.
132. jexster - 1/2/2001 3:33:25 PM
thinnest bowl of gruel
loutishness
the Cold War....
Nice turns of phrase with so little content!
Against Krugman's charge that conservative "think-tanks" have become little more than waiting rooms for policy hacks what?
a thin bowl of gruel
133. Raskolnikov - 1/2/2001 3:34:12 PM
Ronski: Krugman has a long track record of supporting academics of the expense of researchers who don't do peer-reviewed work. He has praised right wing economists on many occasions, and has said a lot of nice things about Milton Friedman. So I don't think you can dismiss his concerns that easily.
134. jexster - 1/2/2001 3:36:04 PM
Biener quit while you're ahead. The man doesn't watch news programs. ESPN, that's about all the Moron can handle.
Which is fine, if you're Managing Partner of the Rangers.
By the way, look what he did for the Rangers!
And that's why the bastard-president select has a Nanny.
135. jexster - 1/2/2001 3:40:23 PM
Whether you agree with Krugman's judgement or not, Rask is right, you cannot dismiss them out of hand.
The man's been on a crusade against polich quackery for nearly 20 years.
And Cato is, if its anything, trite and predictable. That's fine for the chairpersons of political parties, but not for an outfit that lays claim to intellectual respectability.
136. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 4:53:31 PM
Judith - Go ahead and stake your reputation on the fact Bush is a tower of intellect.
I didn't say he was a towering intellect, did I? Are you unable to accept that the man is reasonably intelligent without him having to be at the either extreme?
I heard him say in an interview that he hardly ever read anything he didn't have to
I heard him say that he doesn't do much recreational reading. Is that what you are referring to? I take that to mean he doesn't read much John Grisham. That is far different from what you implied.
You jump on everything negative I say about the guy because you like him and feel differently about him than I do
I comment on what you say because you have the tendency to make sweeping statements condemning Bush that have no basis in fact. It is kind of like when you take Tommy to task for calling Clinton a rapist.
why is it I am just amused by your position but you are so angered by mine?
What have I ever said that makes you think I am angry? I am just disappointed that an intelligent woman like yourself can be willingly misled and that you repeat as fact accusations with no foundation.
Are you basing that on the fact some of Jeffersons quotes ended up in the speech that was written for him or do you actually KNOW he was reading them?
It was mentioned on MSNBC. I can't prove he was actually reading Jefferson, but I can think of no reason why MSNBC would lie about something like that.
137. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 4:53:53 PM
Judith (cont) - Maybe that explains his reliance on Cheney and Baker during the actual "battle"...
Bush called the shots. He spent several hours each day on the phone with Baker and others discussing strategy. This was also reported on MSNBC and the other news outlets. I thought Bush staying away from the cameras was far more dignified than Gore's numerous appearances where he claimed he wanted to count every vote while his people worked diligently to only count Democratic votes.
138. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 5:05:40 PM
JJ:
....can be willingly misled and that you repeat as fact accusations with no foundation.
These "accusations" have foundation. Bush has said he doesn't like to read. How is stating that fact an accusation? Must you have MSNBC documemnt it before you will believe it?
I don't mean reading recreationaly, either...I consider John Grisham to be no better than a video game as recreation, personally. I mean reading history because you want to improve your mind; I mean bbiographies because you wish to learn more about people; I mean comparative religion because you want to see how people come to believe as they do; I mean having an innate curiosity about the world and the people in it. He doesn't have that...or at least, he has shown in the past that he has less of that than what I would wish a President to have. Sorry if you can't see this could be a disappointment for me rather than thinking I have some sort of vendetta against the man.
He's enough for you....he's not, for me.
139. Ronski - 1/2/2001 5:14:28 PM
I'm familiar with Krugman's defense of Friedman and globalization, and his critiques of the looney left. But I think it's pretty lame to criticize a libertarian think tank for being consistenly libertarian.
140. Fielding - 1/2/2001 5:37:49 PM
Ronski:
What is this "Krugman's defense of Friedman and globalization" that you are referring to? I'd love to read it. Friedman spent about a third of his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree slamming globalization, so a defense of both Friedman and globalization could make for some interesting reading.
141. Raskolnikov - 1/2/2001 5:39:18 PM
Fielding: *Milton* Friedman.
142. Raskolnikov - 1/2/2001 5:44:28 PM
"But I think it's pretty lame to criticize a libertarian think tank for being consistenly libertarian."
I think you missed his point. It isn't that the think tanks are consistently libertarian that irks Krugman, it is that Bush might end up relying on conservative/libertarian ideologues, rather than respected economists, to fill the economic policy slots in his administration.
143. Fielding - 1/2/2001 5:47:00 PM
Oh, that guy.
Did Krugman really defend Milton Friedman's current views? That is almost as surprising as what I thought Ronski had said.
144. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 5:50:18 PM
Rask - *Milton* Friedman
That's a relief. I thought you meant Kinky Friedman.
145. Raskolnikov - 1/2/2001 5:50:39 PM
He has defended Friedman's work as an economist back in the late 60s and 70s, when Friedman's macroeconomic analysis anticipated the stagflation of the 70s. I haven't much heard him comment on Friedman's political views, but Krugman would easily separate Friedman the economist from Friedman the libertarian ideologue anyway.
146. Fielding - 1/2/2001 5:55:28 PM
"I think you missed his point. It isn't that the think tanks are consistently libertarian that irks Krugman, it is that Bush might end up relying on conservative/libertarian ideologues, rather than respected economists, to fill the economic policy slots in his administration."
As a separate point regarding "think tanks", Krugman has also complained that think tanks who are funded by partisans of a particular ideology (irrespective of which ideology) tend to produce product that is more like "advocacy" than "research", and less able to withstand academic scrutiny.
147. Raskolnikov - 1/2/2001 6:06:06 PM
That dovetails with why he doesn't want them managing economic policy, but it is certainly worth noting when critically evaluating think tank research.
And I *do* think that being consistently libertarian is a legitimate criticism in itself, as is being consistently Marxist.
148. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 12:36:23 AM
.
A plum for Kathy...
Washington Post
Wednesday, January 3, 2001
Katherine Harris, the controversial secretary of state of Florida and a staunch supporter of President-elect George W. Bush is being considered for the post of the president's special envoy for the Americas, according to sources in the White House and in both Republican and Democratic circles. Sources said she is interested in the position, currently held by another Floridian, Kenneth H. "Buddy" McKay Jr.
Following her role at the center of the Florida vote recount, the sources said it was unlikely she could be rewarded with a top job requiring a Senate confirmation process. The special envoy job does not require confirmation. Several Latin American ambassadors, who got to know Harris through her involvement in the Summit for the Americas held in Miami three years ago and her efforts to promote trade with Florida, have said they would be pleased if the reports are confirmed. The job was created under President Clinton for Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty. When McLarty opted to go to the private sector, he was replaced by McKay, who had lost the Florida gubernatorial race to Jeb Bush.
149. concerned - 1/3/2001 2:32:15 AM
Hey, how 'bout Katherine Harris for AG? Talk about 'riffing' off of Stooge Reno. The differences are that Harris isn't corrupt, cataleptic or compromisable, as the DNC and Lefty media have already discovered.
150. ArtVandelay - 1/3/2001 2:56:58 AM
Matlock would be a good AG too .He always seems to figure out whodunnit, which is what you want in a crimnial lawyer. Or the guy from "Law & Order", Chris Waterston ; who has moved on to play Mr. Big in that naugthy HBO show "Real Sex in the City".
Book em, Danno.
151. ArtVandelay - 1/3/2001 3:01:12 AM
I'm not corrupt or compromisiable either. But i might be persuaded to throw a monkey wrench into things, if someone offered me a ambasador-thingy to Jamaica or Costa Rica or somewhere nice. Special envoy to St. Bart's, Bikini Inspector with-Portfolio.
Everybody has his price, and that is a true fact.
152. ArtVandelay - 1/3/2001 3:08:37 AM
I read , either in 'USA Today" or somewhere else, that Condoleeezzza Rice has a oil tanker named after her. Now that would be something, I say. I could impress some women with that one you know....
I wonder what it would take, to make something like that happen. Imagine -- the Exxon Art Vandelay! I;d probly get more tail than Randy Quaid ,which I"m told is alot....
153. ArtVandelay - 1/3/2001 3:09:38 AM
I read , either in 'USA Today" or somewhere else, that Condoleeezzza Rice has a oil tanker named after her. Now that would be something, I say. I could impress some women with that one you know....
I wonder what it would take, to make something like that happen. Imagine -- the Exxon Art Vandelay! I;d probly get more tail than Randy Quaid ,which I"m told is alot....
154. ArtVandelay - 1/3/2001 3:13:21 AM
Oopps, sorry., my forearm muscles still have the post-Festivus shakes. At least this year I was finally abel to beat Elaine 2 out of3, in Feats of Strength.
Airing of Greivances did'nt go so well thoguh. This year I was on everyones shit list [pardon my español].
155. DaveM - 1/3/2001 5:36:33 AM
1. JJ's "recreational reading" comment pertained to Condeleeza Rice:
The New York Times, 12/18/2000
As a high school student in Denver, she became both a competitive ice skater (getting up at 4:30 a.m. for lessons) and an accomplished pianist (sometimes staying up until 3 a.m. to practice). She did her senior year of high school and her freshman year in college at the same time. Her parents piled up so many books by her bedside table that she stopped reading for pleasure, and still does not.
"I grew up in a family in which my parents put me into every book club," she recalled. "So I never developed the fine art of recreational reading."
As Mr. Bush's top national security adviser during the campaign, Ms. Rice played a variety of roles. She was his private foreign policy tutor, the person, Mr. Bush once said, who "can explain to me foreign policy matters in a way I can understand." She was his intellectual quarterback, "both a good manager and an honest broker of ideas," he said in an interview. And she was his trusted friend, "a close confidante and a good soul," he added.
156. DaveM - 1/3/2001 5:36:46 AM
2. There have been quite a few reports which question Bush's intellectual curiosity. An example:
The New York Times, May 21, 2000
No one has ever accused Mr. Bush of being an intellectual, and the indifference to books started early. Childhood friends recall Mr. Bush reading only two sets of books for pleasure -- the Hardy boys and a series of mystery books about baseball. As one asks about his reading habits, there are a few snickers.
"Did we sit around in those days reading books?" asked Mr. McCleskey, smiling broadly. "No."
George and Barbara Bush led a drive to build a school library (the school did not previously have one), but books were not a major part of a boy's childhood in Midland. Erstwhile acquaintances, while deeply admiring of the Bushes' goodness and decency, have trouble recalling early signs of greatness in the son.
"Well, no, I never did think about what he might do in life," said Austine Crosby, his third-grade teacher. "He was just a good, well-rounded young man, and he did his work."
And academically? "He was O.K.," Mrs. Crosby said, a bit defensively. "He was O.K."
So was he in the top quarter of his class academically?
"Well, in the upper half, anyway."
157. Electric Slide - 1/3/2001 8:53:01 AM
Looking good for the big W. Looking good.
158. jexster - 1/3/2001 9:43:05 AM
One of the arguments CERTAIN people sucessfully used to lobby a CERTAIN former Senator from a CERTAIN southern state to dissuade him from taking the job of Energy Secretary was that Bush was going to get WATTED as in James Watt II
Now he's got two James Watts!
Loser Abrahams An Energy Zero
Looking good for the big W. Looking good.
159. jexster - 1/3/2001 9:47:56 AM
Big W. Lookin Good!
160. jexster - 1/3/2001 9:57:35 AM
Dave -
Lookin good!
161. jexster - 1/3/2001 9:58:45 AM
So the school library wasn't one of the inebriating experiences that Duhbya was referring to in his 1994 interview?
162. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:00:02 AM
MORON!
163. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:00:17 AM
moron
164. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:04:45 AM
Yarafat Accepts Clinton Peace Proposals - LOOKIN GOOD!
165. cmboyce - 1/3/2001 10:09:20 AM
Great pic! (The Whiz is to be congratulated.)
166. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:12:11 AM
Yea sorry Wiz for failing to attribute (where's your TM on this pic?)
and thanks CM for pointing that out (such artistry is TOTALLY beyond me!)
167. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:13:02 AM
The Wiz -
LOOKIN GOOD!
168. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:15:32 AM
Chavez, Ashcroft, Abrahams, Norton - on the hit list, "Good Morning America"
Corporations sloppin at the public trough
169. Cellar Door - 1/3/2001 10:32:51 AM
170. rubberducky - 1/3/2001 10:33:59 AM
so - any commentary on Mineta as Bush's Transportation Sec? does it matter? is he just an excuse to say Bush fulfilled his pledge to nominate a Democrat?
171. JJBiener - 1/3/2001 10:48:32 AM
What Cellar forgot to mention is that the web site he linked above contains the following disclaimer:
All content on The New York Slime web site is intended solely as political satire and social commentary protected under the First Amendment. Quotes attributed to celebreties, living or dead, are fictional and strictly for laughs.
172. rubberducky - 1/3/2001 11:04:30 AM
Why the House May Not Go Demo In 2002
if nothing else, this just goes to show my theory of Congress seats being decided on local issues and that there really aren't any national issues, as a whole, a deciding factor.
173. Thoughtful - 1/3/2001 11:47:56 AM
Re the Wiz's picture -- it isn't doctored much... I have the original on my desk, from the Financial Times and the caption reads "Junior partners: Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush and six-year-old Kadeja McElmuray look equally perplexed during his visit to her school in Peoria, Illinois." Actually, W looks more confused than Kadeja.
174. cmboyce - 1/3/2001 11:53:30 AM
Message # 48135
Well, she's perplexed at him; he's just perplexed.
The doctoring seems to include only a) the placard on the easel, and b) Prince Charles' eyes. (Right, Wiz?)
175. Indiana Jones - 1/3/2001 12:02:02 PM
Thoughtful: One thing I forgot to mention before our previous discussion was swept away by the holidays and other posts...because of the way the NBER calculates recessions, its marking the start of the 1990 recession as July isn't particularly relevant to the point of whether the recession was caused by a war that began in the first week of August.
If you look at the column headings, you'll see that NBER measures a recession from the peak of business activity. Ergo, business activity in fact reached its highest point in July and had started to decline by the end of August. That certainly doesn't weaken the thesis that the war precipitated the recession.
176. concerned - 1/3/2001 1:25:47 PM
177. labwabbit - 1/3/2001 1:29:46 PM
con
Haha...that guy in the white tee-shirt seems prepared to go beyond glove deep.
178. Indiana Jones - 1/3/2001 1:30:45 PM
LOL!
Meanwhile, in other "recession" news
179. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 1:36:56 PM
.
Wednesday, January 3, 2001; 1:32 PM
Fed Cuts Interest Rate...WashPost...
The Federal Reserve, faced with a rapidly slowing economy, unexpectedly cut a key interest rate Wednesday by one-half point in an effort to avert a serious downturn. It was the first decrease in rates in two years.
The rate cut was unusual in that it occurred between meetings of the central bank's interest-rate committee. The last time the Fed changed rates between meetings was a quarter-point cut in October 1998, when the central bank was moving aggressively to counter worldwide financial turmoil caused by the Asian currency crisis.
The Federal Open Market Committee, which includes Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, Fed governors and five of the 12 presidents of Federal Reserve banks, is scheduled to meet Jan. 30-31 to review interest rates.
The Fed said it was cutting its target for the federal funds rate – the interest banks charge each other on overnight loans – to 6 percent from 6.5 percent, a nine-year high.
It also cut its mostly symbolic discount rate by a quarter point to 5.75. The Fed said it stands ready to cut the discount rate by another quarter point to 5.50 percent on the request of Federal Reserve banks.
180. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 1:38:41 PM
.
x-post
181. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 1:43:45 PM
.
Shazam!
NEW YORK (AP) - Stock prices surged higher Wednesday, propelling the Dow Jones industrials more than 300 points higher and the Nasdaq composite up more than 100, after the Federal Reserve unexpectedly lowered interest rates by a half percentage point.
The rate cut, the first in two years by the Fed, was larger and sooner than expected, and gave a depressed stock market its first real good news in months.
182. Thoughtful - 1/3/2001 1:44:38 PM
IJ, I have little desire to continue this discussion with you as I strongly suspect that whatever data I use, you will dismiss/ignore it. However, call me stupid (if you haven't already) 'cause here I go again.
Below I'm listing a number of economic indicators that are considered to be cyclical in nature. I'm looking on a quarterly basis, selecting the peak prior to the recession and comparing it to the data as of 90:Q2, prior to the NBER economic peak and prior to the invasion of kuwait:
Housing Starts, 88:Q4, 1.55 mil units AR; 90:Q2, 1.21 mil units AR
Car Sales, 88:Q2, 10.6 mil units AR; 90:Q2, 9.3 mil units AR
Industrial Production in Manufacturing, 89:Q1, 82.3; 90:Q2, 81.5
Employment Growth, 88:Q2, 3.5%; 90:Q2 0.6%
Consumer Sentiment, 88:Q3, 96.0; 90:Q2, 90.9
Fed Funds Rate 89:Q2, 9.7%; 90:Q2, 8.2%
The point of this being, as I've said before, there were signs that the economy was heading south before the invasion of kuwait, before the resulting run up in oil prices. Falling consumer sentiment, housing starts and car sales and the resulting impact on employment and industrial production all provided sufficient signals of a weak economy prompting the Fed to cut interest rates by 150 basis points in the year prior to the economic peak and prior to the august invasion.
One could easily argue that the Fed erred in raising rates as high as it did in 89 and failed again in not cutting them fast enough thereafter to prevent the economy from slipping into recession.
BTW, oil prices, 89:Q2, $18.9; 90:Q2, $16.1
183. Thoughtful - 1/3/2001 1:52:14 PM
Thank you robertjayb, I missed the announcement. How exciting! and what a surprise!
184. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 1:59:10 PM
.
All in the family...
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -Kathleen Shanahan, who was Vice
President-elect Dick Cheney's top staffer during the presidential
campaign, will be Gov. Jeb Bush's new chief of staff, Bush said Wednesday.
Shanahan, 41, worked as a special assistant to the governor's
father, former President Bush, from 1985 to 1989, during the time
he was vice president.
185. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 2:25:23 PM
Keeping it close, huh? Nothing like being rewarded for loyalty and hard work...
186. Electric Slide - 1/3/2001 2:28:10 PM
Or, as George Bush once said: "Don't squat with your spurs on."
187. Indiana Jones - 1/3/2001 2:35:26 PM
Thoughtful: I have little desire to pursue any discussion with you (as I've stated in the past) because I consider you unreasoning, and worse, pricklish and rude. Pricklish would be okay, rude would be okay, but the two in combination make for little entertainment and less communication. You, however, initiated this by addressing me despite my past request that you not do so anymore.
Now when your own previously much-touted source demonstrably supports your position not at all, you reply with a grab bag of economic data to buttress further hand-waving arguments by you. Is it not enough to you that you have previously voided the traditional definition of what constitutes a recession in terms of time, that you will also now measure a recession not by declining GDP but by housing starts, etc.?
As for oil, prices, I marvel that someone who claims to be an economist continues to pooh-pooh the importance of energy costs in the US economy. Are you completely unfamiliar with what the oil embargo of 1973-74 did? With the Iranian Revolution?
BTW, oil prices, 89:Q2, $18.9; 90:Q2, $16.1
What the invasion did to oil
See #42-43 on the chart.
It's also not surprising that prior to the invasion oil was relatively cheap. If you recall, Saddam used the low price as an excuse for the invasion, saying that Kuwait was sabotaging Iraq by over-producing.
188. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 2:51:25 PM
Here's a taste of an interesting little article in Salon:
Jan. 3, 2001 | George W. Bush constantly assured us during the election that he was a new breed of Republican -- a "compassionate conservative." He promised to reach across party lines to work with Democrats, just as he had in Texas. There would be no manifestos and tantrums à la Newt Gingrich, no secret Reagan-like plots to prop up "freedom fighters." The Bush years, he and his handlers soothingly insinuated, would be kind of like the Clinton years, but without the sleaze --genial, charming, reassuringly centrist.
After Bush's dubious "victory," there was reason to think he would in fact move to the center. After all, he had lost the popular vote by more than 500,000, and likely lost Florida and the Electoral College too; it took the timely intervention of five conservative Supreme Court justices to install him in the White House. Immediately afterwards, he at least sounded like a chastened man; his victory speech dutifully struck the chords of reconciliation and humility. And with a large percentage of Americans unconvinced of the legitimacy of his election, it seemed quite possible that Bush would reach across the aisle.
He did -- but only to flip Democrats the bird.
And this is the rest of the story.
189. JJBiener - 1/3/2001 3:16:48 PM
Judith - Here's a taste of an interesting little article in Salon
I now understand why Salon is taking on water and sinking fast. They don't seem to understand the difference between a news article and an uninformed opinion piece.
190. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 3:20:39 PM
I suppose MSNBC never does anything in the opinion area? Is Salon supposed to just do hard news? What's wrong with opinion? We all have one.
191. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 3:22:35 PM
...and I never said it was a NEWS piece; it was an interesting article.
192. Ronski - 1/3/2001 3:28:09 PM
The silliest part of the article is the "likely lost Florida and the Electoral College too" part.
Bush won Florida and the electoral college based on the simple fact that the rules in place at the time of the election objectively disallowed spoiled ballots that may have or may not have tipped the scales in the other direction.
I didn't vote for Bush, but it is certainly getting tiresome hearing from Democrat partisans that the GOP stole the election or the Supreme Court stole it for them. The fact that you don't hear this from Democrats in the House or Senate is a credit to them.
193. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 3:35:21 PM
Ronski:
I don't think the election was stolen. But I'm dissatisfied with the outcome and, like 9/10s of the Republicans have done for the last 8 years, intend to gripe about the "winner" whenever I feel the urge. Since I didn't vote for Gore, I don't feel I need to justify my complaining about the Republicans acting as though we should be rejoicing in the outcome of an election we didn't win. They haven't let up about Clinton for 8 years...why do they think we would react any differently?
194. Wombat - 1/3/2001 3:37:32 PM
The Dems in the Senate and House won't have to say anything about it. If Bush doesn't do a consistantly superb job as "President," you will be hearing a great deal of comment on his electoral illegitimacy. Better steel yourself.
195. Ronski - 1/3/2001 3:44:20 PM
I don't mind the griping over Bush's policies and appointments, only this nonsense about stolen elections and the idea that somehow Bush is forbidden to appoint anyone but centrists.
I'm not happy with Ashcroft, for example. But I will give him and Bush the benefit of the doubt for the moment, since they aren't actually running anything yet. I suspect that Bush felt he could not avoid giving the religious right an important appointment, what with the number they did on the socially moderate Racicot, and Ashcroft was a suitable replacement, given that it's unlikely the Senate would reject a former colleague.
As for Ashcroft himself, while I'm sure he has some genuine core beliefs, I've heard it said he is a politician first, with all the opportunism such a description implies. We'll see. Perhaps he will change some of his spots.
196. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 3:57:50 PM
Well, if he doesn't change some of his spots, we'll all suffer from it. But we'll live, regardless.
197. EricCartman - 1/3/2001 4:02:42 PM
Naw, Bush didn't steal the election -- it was given to him by Poppy and his henchmen as a graduation present.
Hell, all I got for graduation was a '71 Dodge Coronet, and I had to pay for half of it.
Think I'm lying? Where the hell else could two -- not one, but two -- clearly conflicted Supreme Court justices who should have recused themselves have the fucking nerve to make a ruling? And then go party with the winner that same evening? Nope, nobody here but us chickens.
What's really pathetic is how easily people are accepting this chicanery. Oh well, at least with oil people running the country we can all fill our gas guzzlers more cheaply, which is all that matters.
We'll see what happens when all the votes are finally counted thoroughly and the presumptive winner turns out to be the loser. Nothing.
198. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 4:03:55 PM
.
Ronski,
Here's a Gene Lyons column for you:
Q. and A. Inside George W. Bush...
Dubya, as the Texas dauphin likes to be called, lost the popular vote by 539,897 votes. Both Kennedy and Nixon became president with smaller margins than Al Gore's. But thanks to an intellectually incoherent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush will soon occupy the White House. Meanwhile, it's also clear that separate recounts of the Florida ballots by the Miami Herald and a media consortium including the New York Times, Washington Post and others will ultimately show
that Gore also won Florida, and hence the Electoral College, and by all rights ought to be taking the oath of office come Jan. 20.
199. Thoughtful - 1/3/2001 4:28:25 PM
IJ,
Thoughtful: I have little desire to pursue any discussion with you ...You, however, initiated this by addressing me despite my past request that you not do so anymore.
Huh? Are you two different people? Or did you misaddress post #48137 which begins, Thoughtful: One thing I forgot to mention ... As I told you before, if you think I'm going to sit silently by and accept everything you say as gospel like a good little woman, you've got another thing coming.
Is it not enough to you that you have previously voided the traditional definition of what constitutes a recession in terms of time, that you will also now measure a recession not by declining GDP but by housing starts, etc.?
I have not voided a "traditional definition of recession." I have said all along that the NBER looks at a wide variety of economic indicators including monthly ones like auto and housing to determine when a recession begins and ends. You however cling desperately to this notion of "2 consecutive quarters of real GDP decline." If there is someone else around here who is willing to explain that "2 consecutive quarters of real GDP decline" is only a rule of thumb, I wish he would speak up. Perhaps then IJ will accept it. He certainly seems unwilling to accept it from me or the NBER.
I will say it again...even the Fed saw sufficient weakness in the economy to ease interest rates a year before the invasion of kuwait. It was not the potential of an Iraqi invasion they were reacting to ... it was the potential of an economic slowdown. I have given you the data which demonstrate that the cyclically sensitive sectors of the economy were giving off distress signals before Kuwait was invaded & before oil prices shot up. Are you really suggesting that housing was weakening in 1988 in anticipation of a potential iraqi invasion and a subsequent run up in oil prices?
200. Thoughtful - 1/3/2001 4:28:59 PM
(cont.)
...to pooh-pooh the importance of energy costs in the US economy. Are you completely unfamiliar with what the oil embargo of 1973-74 did? With the Iranian Revolution?
Again, using your own chart, do you not see a difference between these two cases:
201. Ronski - 1/3/2001 5:49:23 PM
The idea that two justices should have recused themselves in this case is preposterous. On what grounds? The fact that one has a spouse who works somewhere in the bowels of the conservative movement? That one was appointed by the candidate's father? Ridiculous.
As for the recount, it is entirely possible that a respectable institution will devise a reasonable standard (something well short of trying to divine the intent of the voter through creases, indentations and the like) and come up with the conclusion that Gore had more votes than Bush, and equally possible that the count will not show that.
But given the standards in place at the time of the election, there is no credible evidence that anything was stolen.
In every election, there is incompetence among the people running it and a small measure of chicanery on the part of both major parties. To suggest in the face of a complete absence of evidence that there was some sort of malfeasance only on the part of the GOP is absurd.
The history books will get this one right: It was rare election in which the margin of error exceeded the margin of victory, but unlike the Tilden-Hayes election, nothing fraudulent of any great consequence occurred.
202. Raskolnikov - 1/3/2001 6:02:09 PM
Hayes-Tilden was well beyond the margin of error, as I recall. But I agree with you here.
203. Cellar Door - 1/3/2001 7:58:45 PM
204. CalGal - 1/3/2001 9:04:54 PM
Final Pre - election Polls Accurate
The final pre-election polls in the presidential race were more accurate than in any presidential elections except 1976 and 1960, a study released Wednesday found.
The year's final polls had an average error of just 1.1 percentage points on the estimates for George W. Bush and Al Gore, slightly higher for Ralph Nader.
205. concerned - 1/3/2001 9:27:06 PM
I hope Nader goes for the Federal matching funds in 2004.
206. Fielding - 1/3/2001 9:59:23 PM
Hey, Cartman! How about that Bush cabinet? Isn't it just like the Gore cabinet would have been? No difference at all! I bet you love those tree huggers he put into Interior and Energy.
207. Fielding - 1/3/2001 10:03:23 PM
Can anybody explain why Hillary is 97th in seniority? It would make more sense to me if she were tied with all of the newcomers.
208. concerned - 1/3/2001 10:07:31 PM
Maybe it's because she's insisting on being 'a little more' equal.
209. joezan - 1/3/2001 10:08:00 PM
Judith:
Since I didn't vote for Gore, I don't feel I need to justify my complaining...
This is about the 35th time you've mentioned this, and I don't blame you one bit for not wanting to be associated with the loser.
But before you left for the holidays, you said "Don't blame me - I voted Democrat".
Now, there are lots of ways around this -you might say, for instance, that the majority of candidates you voted for were demos, etc.
But your post was in response to something specifically regarding Bush.
Come on now - fess up...
210. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 10:15:53 PM
I've already stated that I did a write-in vote for Bill Bradley.
211. joezan - 1/3/2001 10:21:30 PM
...like I said - lots of ways around it.
Come on, Judith....I swear - I won't make fun of you.
You voted for Gore, didn't you?
212. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 10:27:20 PM
joezan:
I don't know what it is about you Conservatives but you have such a hard time believing anything someone other than your ilk says. I have no reason to lie to you. I supported Bradley in the Primaries and was very disappointed when he wasn't chosen to run for President. My vote in the election was for whom I wished to be President. That man was Bradley. There was a space on the ballot for a write-in vote and I wrote in Bradley.
Now, you can choose to think I'm a cowardly, lying weakling or you can be a man and take me at my word.
213. concerned - 1/3/2001 10:37:41 PM
I wish more Democrat voters had the independence to do what Judith at Home did here.
214. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 10:40:03 PM
Thanks...
215. labwabbit - 1/3/2001 10:42:28 PM
George Mitchell
is who I voted for.
No bones about it. I didn't think I had much conscience left, but it reared its dormant head for this play.
216. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 10:56:43 PM
.
Yes, Jim, it's personal...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Rep. James Traficant of Ohio broke party ranks on Wednesday and was effectively kicked out of the U.S. House of Representatives' Democratic Caucus.
On the opening day of the 107th Congress, Traficant, a Democrat, voted with the chamber's majority in giving Republican Dennis Hastert of Illinois a second, two-year term as House speaker.
Democratic leaders promptly said the party caucus would give Traficant no committee assignments in the new Congress and he would no longer be welcome to caucus meetings.
"If he wants a committee assignment, he is going to have to go the Republicans," said Laura Nichols, a spokesman for House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri.
217. concerned - 1/3/2001 11:03:11 PM
Re. 48178 -
Bet they wouldn't've done that if he was Senator Traficant.
218. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 11:05:52 PM
Is this the guy with the bad wig?
219. Greystoke - 1/3/2001 11:34:48 PM
Bio of James Traficant.
While sheriff Traficant was indicted and tried on charges of accepting bribes from organized crime to overlook their activities in the county. In his 1983 trial Traficant defended himself of the charges, telling the jury that he was actually running his own sting operation on the criminals at the time. He was acquitted.
In 1984 Traficant took on incumbent GOP Rep. Lyle Williams. The combative tone of that campaign has continued throughout Traficant's House career. He drew large crowds and enthusiastic support for his portrayal of corporate America, the banking industry and the federal government, particularly the IRS, as sinister enemies of ordinary Americans. He beat Williams, 53 percent to 46 percent.
Traficant is notorious for tirades from the House floor in which he denounces government waste and intrusion into the lives of its citizens. He often rails against international trade pacts such as NAFTA and GATT and against foreign aid, particularly to Israel.
220. Greystoke - 1/3/2001 11:37:07 PM
Traficant is a doofus. He would make a good Republican.
221. CalGal - 1/3/2001 11:38:47 PM
I just read a piece on that--was it in the New Yorker? I can't imagine the Republicans are all that thrilled to see him.
222. Greystoke - 1/3/2001 11:49:37 PM
More on the moron.
Following through on a months-long threat, Democratic Ohio Rep. James Traficant defected from his party and voted to re-elect Republican Dennis Hastert as House speaker.
Republicans gave a standing ovation Wednesday after Traficant cast the vote. Some Democrats stood and applauded, too, apparently glad the unpredictable congressman now is aligned with the GOP.
...
Traficant is a well-known free sprit on Capitol Hill. Sporting unruly hair and polyester suits, he often takes to the House floor for one-minute rants, which he usually ends by saying, ``Beam me up.''
During a floor speech last March, Traficant pledged to ``fight like a junkyard dog'' against a Justice Department corruption investigation. Federal authorities have not said whether Traficant is a target of the investigation in his hometown of Youngstown. The investigation has produced about 50 convictions, including a guilty plea from one of Traficant's longtime aides.
...
Despite the investigation, Traficant easily won election to a ninth term in November.
Traficant rarely attended Democratic caucus meetings over the years, and he distanced himself almost completely from his Democratic colleagues after a bitter primary battle last March. Traficant claimed Democratic Party leaders sided with a rival in that race, though party officials denied that.
Meanwhile, he was forging relationships with Republicans and even injected himself into a thorny partisan debate, crashing a meeting of Republicans last June to deliver his opinion that if GOP members killed a minimum wage bill they would be more likely to lose their majority in the upcoming election.
223. jexster - 1/3/2001 11:53:38 PM
Reporting from Ground Zero, Enemy Territory, Tom DeLay's hometown
"She is a member of a labor union at one point."--Announcing his nomination of Linda Chavez as secretary of labor, Austin, Texas, Jan. 2, 2000
And the view from here is the same for no matter where you find yourself, there you are and he's
Still A MORON!
224. jexster - 1/3/2001 11:55:43 PM
Trafficante isn't a Moron....
Just Mental
225. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 1:21:20 AM
Ronski Message # 48163:
The idea that two justices should have recused themselves in this case is preposterous. On what grounds? The fact that one has a spouse who works somewhere in the bowels of the conservative movement? That one was appointed by the candidate's father? Ridiculous.
It's not preposterous at all. Scalia's son works for the firm that represented Bush. Thomas' wife works for an organization that was vetting Bush cabinet prospects at that very moment (and undoubtedly still is). Sounds like conflicts of interest to me. And yes, I'd say the same damned thing were it Souter's son working for Gore's firm or whatever.
Anecdotal case in point: Last summer, a friend of mine got sued in small claims court for $3000 in damages. As it happens, the local judge is a friend of his. So, just to err on the side of caution, the judge recused himself from hearing the case. Keep in mind, this was a dispute over $3K, in a podunk county in Northern CA. Lot smaller than, say, a presidential election.
Now tell me again that it's cool that Scalia rules on a case in which one of his sons is closely affiliated with one of the petitioners. Bullshit.
As for Thomas' wife working "somewhere in the bowels of the conservative movement", I believe that technically, the Heritage Foundation is actually either the alimentary canal or the sphincter muscle of the conservative bowel movement. But I may be wrong -- past a certain point, it's all shit to me. Still, I don't just ignore the fact that the guy's wife was involved in scouting for Bush cabinet posts. If you do, okey fine.
226. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 1:24:00 AM
As for the recount, it is entirely possible that a respectable institution will devise a reasonable standard (something well short of trying to divine the intent of the voter through creases, indentations and the like) and come up with the conclusion that Gore had more votes than Bush, and equally possible that the count will not show that.
True. Maybe some sort of "respectable institution" should have devised a "reasonable standard" some time ago. Just a thought.
Then again, even the GOP couldn't decide on which standard they wanted -- just one that favored them. They swore by the machine counts -- except in Nassau County. Hand counts were no good -- except in New Mexico and Texas. Dimpled chads no good -- again except in Texas.
The point is, there's an awful lot of high-handedness and sanctimony about the purity of all things electoral, and the fact is that nobody's hands are totally clean.
But given the standards in place at the time of the election, there is no credible evidence that anything was stolen.
No? Machine recounts were overturned in Nassau, hand recounts were stopped elsewhere. I mean, shit, if I didn't know better, I'd say that someone didn't want the full story to come out, and they used the legal muscle at their disposal. That doesn't make it right, not by a long shot.
227. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 1:25:36 AM
In every election, there is incompetence among the people running it and a small measure of chicanery on the part of both major parties. To suggest in the face of a complete absence of evidence that there was some sort of malfeasance only on the part of the GOP is absurd.
Fine. Substitute "attrition and opportunity" for "malfeasance" then. Add a little bias and judicial fiat. Simmer until tepid. Serves almost half the population.
The history books will get this one right: It was rare election in which the margin of error exceeded the margin of victory, but unlike the Tilden-Hayes election, nothing fraudulent of any great consequence occurred.
If you think the loser bulling his way to victory with muscle and gall (and better lawyers) is "no great consequence", then I guess you're right.
228. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 1:27:09 AM
Fielding Message # 48168:
Hey, Cartman! How about that Bush cabinet? Isn't it just like the Gore cabinet would have been? No difference at all! I bet you love those tree huggers he put into Interior and Energy.
Oh, come on, Fielding. Like Al, they're fighting for us. Or something.
Seriously, conserve your energy. Once again, Nader was a symptom, not the problem. Ask yourself how many people defected to Bush, as opposed to Nader. Ask yourself why that is. Then ask yourself which is the worse of the two, and you will be on the right track. For a change.
Good luck, Grasshopper.
229. joezan - 1/4/2001 7:15:39 AM
Now, you can choose to think I'm a cowardly, lying weakling or you can be a man and take me at my word.
Lighten up, Judith. I know you said you wrote someone in (although I'd thought it was Nader).
I'm just teasing you because you've been, by virtue of your Bush attacks, the biggest Gore supporter here...besides jexster.
230. jexster - 1/4/2001 8:34:28 AM
Join People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, NARAL and others to STOP JOHN ASHCROFT!
Send the Moron a message.
Human Rights Campaign (1999) Rating: 0%
Ending Workplace Discrimination: Ashcroft is not a cosponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and voted against the measure on the Senate floor in 1996.
Combating Hate Crimes: Ashcroft does not support Hate Crimes Prevention Act, never cosponsored the measure, and voted against it on the Senate floor in June, 2000.
Fighting HIV/AIDS: Ashcroft has not cosponsored the Ryan White CARE Act despite the bill having 51 cosponsors.
Protecting a Woman's Right to Choose: Ashcroft has scored 0% from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood in 1999.
While 65 senators have adopted a non-discrimination policy for their office indicating that sexual orientation is not a factor in employment decisions, Senator Ashcroft has not.
He supported in 1999 a conference report that would prohibit organizations in San Francisco and other cities from receiving federal funds if they conduct needle exchange programs, and prohibit The City from implementing its domestic partner program for City employees.
Contact Your Senator Today!
Senators' Websites Here
231. jexster - 1/4/2001 8:35:58 AM
Why thank you JoeZ!
I cannot abide that Mental Defective bastard-president.
{in case anyone missed it}
232. jexster - 1/4/2001 8:47:37 AM
Another Bush Wingnut Worthy of Obloquy
"When one of George W. Bush's "Victory 2000" buses pulled into Tucson five days before Election Day, more than 100 demonstrators picketed the campaign stop. They weren't protesting Bush. They were after Linda Chavez, the firebrand opponent of affirmative action, who was appearing on his behalf."
Chavez, A Bush Bitch
233. jexster - 1/4/2001 9:05:29 AM
Linda Chavez's 1987-88 stint heading an organization that promoted English as the official language was dropped from her biography released by President-elect[sic] Bush.
234. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 9:22:24 AM
joezan:
I'm just teasing you because you've been, by virtue of your Bush attacks, the biggest Gore supporter here...besides jexster.
I guess if I dislike Brussels Sprouts, I'm automatically supporting cabbage, right?
235. iiibbb - 1/4/2001 10:01:07 AM
Message # 226
"Then again, even the GOP couldn't decide on which standard they wanted -- just one that favored them. They swore by the machine counts -- except in Nassau County. Hand counts were no good -- except in New Mexico and Texas. Dimpled chads no good -- again except in Texas"
Did anyone see that article the LA times did breaking down each county in the US and their method of counting? The vast preponderance of counties in Texas use op-scans or paper ballots. In Florida about half use op-scans and the other half punch cards. In both states there was a sprinkling of other methods.
So it seems reasonable to me to promote handcounting of op-scans or paper ballots because I can easily visualize how to discern "true intent". But it still seems to me there are a lot of problems hand-counting punch cards. I don't think a dimpled chad should count anywhere Fl or otherwise. If Texas, or some other state, has a law/policy that says count dimples I say get rid of that policy or law rather than lower the whole standard.
236. greystoke - 1/4/2001 11:45:09 AM
"the Heritage Foundation is actually either the alimentary canal or the sphincter muscle of the conservative bowel movement. "
That is a wonderfully fitting and evocative metaphor you came up with there, Cartman.
Did you have to pay Ronski to set you up with the "deep in the bowels" line?
237. concerned - 1/4/2001 11:49:17 AM
Does anyone doubt that if statistical sampling favored the Republicans and hurt the Dems, each would be arguing the opposite side? No. Nuff said, really.
I doubt your assertion, quite strongly. Statistical sampling, wrongly applied, can allow abuse that may favor either party, depending on who is setting the parameters. Republicans don't want to open that unconstitutional can of worms for the obvious reason of its illegality as well as the abuses that sampling techniques open the door to.
238. concerned - 1/4/2001 11:52:34 AM
Gore was just weak at covering his math work; I don't think he is any more calculating than Powell or other political sorts.
Not more calculating? Then perhaps he is just stupid mean, as evidenced by his knife work on Bill Bradley and his constant low road campaigning and lies such as implying Republicans were racists and that Bush was a 'pirate'. Bush always maintained a more elevated tone than Pinocchio Bore during the campaign.
239. concerned - 1/4/2001 11:59:04 AM
No? Machine recounts were overturned in Nassau, hand recounts were stopped elsewhere. I mean, shit, if I didn't know better, I'd say that someone didn't want the full story to come out, and they used the legal muscle at their disposal.
Puhleeze! Why couldn't they have gotten it right at the first recount, for chrissakes. Are the Demorats really that incompetent that we have to give them five or six strikes before they're called out? Talk about using the spoiled self-centered brat argument for extra chances - that exactly fits the excerpt above.....
240. Ronski - 1/4/2001 12:01:49 PM
greystoke,
Let me answer your question.
I required no remuneration as I enjoy playing the straight man from time to time, so to speak. (It goes back to my old theater training.)
241. rubberducky - 1/4/2001 12:11:47 PM
it's fun to play 'What If'... 
242. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 12:12:24 PM
concerned:
Bush always maintained a more elevated tone than Pinocchio Bore during the campaign.
I think Bush maintained a more bored tone during the campaign. Neither one was elevated. And face it, any tone that Bush maintained was set there by Rove so it's just amusing to claim Bush had much to do with it, elevated or no.
243. greystoke - 1/4/2001 12:14:05 PM
Gore just won't let it go.
A blaze on a motor boat owned by President-elect George W. Bush and his choice for commerce secretary resulted from arson, fire investigators say.
The state fire marshal's office said Wednesday that last month's blaze at Yacht Harbor Marina, previously considered an accident, was set on board the 22-foot HarrisKayot deck boat.
...
The 300-horsepower boat, which can accommodate up to 14 people, sells for $30,000 to $40,000, according to dealers.
"The president-elect and Mr. Evans are anxious to learn of the findings of the investigation," said Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett.
Bartlett said that Evans, who had registered the boat, and Bush, a water enthusiast, shared an insurance policy on the craft.
"Both families used the boat," said Bartlett.
Hanna said the boat's burnt remains are in the custody of State Farm Insurance.
"It was charred, ruined and destroyed," he said.
244. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 12:16:05 PM
I hope Bush gets better treatment from State Farm than most of their customers do...
245. greystoke - 1/4/2001 12:16:43 PM
Ronski,
I'm glad to hear that it was spontaneous.
I'm still chuckling about it.
246. greystoke - 1/4/2001 12:18:51 PM
rubberducky
I hope someone has e-mailed that one to Scalia himself.
247. concerned - 1/4/2001 12:59:23 PM
Where Democrat Partisans can feel at home
248. Cellar Door - 1/4/2001 1:23:24 PM
Stanley Crouch suddenly remembers that he's black!
249. concerned - 1/4/2001 1:28:20 PM
Cllrdr -
Tell you what, the Democrats should lose Gephardt - who gave speeches to racist organizations and Robert Byrd - former KKK member. Then maybe Bush should consider 'cutting loose' Ashcroft?
Sounds like a plan to me. Fair's fair.
250. Electric Slide - 1/4/2001 3:59:46 PM
I just checked a mailbox on my son's computer and found one from Katherine Harris that was sent to me in December. Classy lady.
I had used his computer when I wrote her an e-mail in November.
Dear J... T........:
Thank you for your encouragement and support. I am deeply humbled by the compassionate communications we have received.
Your kind words and generous advice have been an inspiration to the employees of the Florida Department of State and to me. We have worked diligently to execute our responsibilities for the citizens of our state with independence, deliberation and integrity.
It is my sincerest hope that this great nation will unite under the rule of law. Thank you again for your support and may God bless America.
Your truly,
Katherine Harris
Secretary of State
The Capitol
Tallahasse, Florida 32399-0250
251. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 4:02:55 PM
Oh please, I just ate my lunch.
252. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 4:03:35 PM
Maybe she'll send you some Cuban cigars.
253. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 4:30:51 PM
Greystoke Message # 236:
Thanks. I guess I owe Ronski a solid; that was such a choice set-up, I had to triple-check it because it just seemed too damned easy.
I would have added some gratuitous enema imagery as well, but it is part of my resolve in the [cheesy dramatic pause] New Millennium to be a kinder, gentler, cleaner Cartman.
(And if you believe that, I have some lovely oceanfront property in New Mexico you might be interested in.)
Message # 243:
So W and his Commerce appointee co-own a yacht? Isn't that just super-special? The family that water-skis together, something something something.
Hanna said whoever set the watercraft ablaze knew that it belonged to the president-elect.
Well yeah, the name of the boat --Poppy's L'il Moron -- was probably a dead giveaway.
In honor of Parsdent Gump, I'll be changing the name on my yacht from "Seafood" to "He Fucking Won?!?"
254. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 4:31:49 PM
Concerned Message # 239:
Puhleeze! Why couldn't they have gotten it right at the first recount, for chrissakes.
I actually agree with you there. Recall though, the first recount was mandatory, and Florida is such a clusterfuck they don't have any real statewide standards for handling chads and such.
But you just keep on keepin' on there, Champ. Keep polishing them knobs and you might eventually get to sit at the big boys' table in Freeperland.
In the real world, however, when GOP party members whine and moan constantly about hand counts and chads in one state, while endorsing those things in other states, that is what rational people recognize as situational ethics. No doubt gleaned from those evil, evil Demorats.
You should probably pull your kids out of public school too -- no doubt some atheist Demorat union teacher is turning Concerned, Jr. into a flaming homo, even as we speak.
255. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 4:38:31 PM
Eric:
Hanna said whoever set the watercraft ablaze knew that it belonged to the president-elect.
Well yeah, the name of the boat --Poppy's L'il Moron -- was probably a dead giveaway.
I laughed so hard at this I now have a migraine.
256. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 4:44:33 PM
I aim to please, Juditha.
257. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 4:46:40 PM
'Course, for all I know, the boat may share the same inspired moniker as Gump's yappy ranch mutt -- Spot. Without Laura's intervention, the twins might have shared in that glory as well.
258. joezan - 1/4/2001 6:55:16 PM
Cartman:
If a boat valued at between $30,000 - $40,000 is a yacht, then I'm living in a pretty spiffy neighborhood.
259. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 7:14:24 PM
Well, as Hemingway said, the rich are different from you and me...maybe the boat was only "valued" at that amount. That doesn't mean it cost that amount or would even bring that little in a sale.
260. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 7:15:52 PM
Besides, I'm amazed it wasn't a bass boat...which are pretty pricey to those who are serious recreators, as I'm sure GW is.
261. joezan - 1/4/2001 7:24:26 PM
Judith:
It was a friggin' deck boat - 22 ft.
262. joezan - 1/4/2001 7:46:26 PM
WoooooOOOwwwwWWWeeeeeee!
Check out Dubya's yacht! I can just imagine babes in bikinis lounging around all over this monster, can't you? 
263. joezan - 1/4/2001 8:08:30 PM
Oh, wait...
I'm sorry.
It was the yot in Kayot that fooled you.
Common mistake, I'm sure.
264. Fielding - 1/4/2001 9:56:44 PM
EC:
Saying that Gore alienated voters doesn't take Nader and his Sancho's off the hook for giving us Ashcroft. You can talk about Gore's shitty campaign until you are blue in the face, but the fact will remain that if not for Nader, Gore would have won Florida and the election.
265. JJBiener - 1/4/2001 10:27:35 PM
Fielding - the fact will remain that if not for Nader, Gore would have won Florida and the election.
And if not for Perot, Bush would have won over Clinton. You play what-ifs forever.
266. Fielding - 1/4/2001 10:47:59 PM
Biener:
You said this a month ago. You were wrong then. Why repeat it?
The polling data does not show all of the Perot supporters favoring Bush over Clinton. The polls show over 95% of Nader supporters favoring Gore over Bush.
In any case, even if you were right (which you never are), the argument with EC only relates to Nader, so stop obfuscating.
267. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 11:03:12 PM
Joezan:
I wasn't claiming the doofus had a big boat; as a former boat owner myself, I know it's not the size of the boat that makes the man. :-)
268. JJBiener - 1/4/2001 11:18:07 PM
Fielding - You said this a month ago.
You must be thinking of someone else.
The polling data does not show all of the Perot supporters favoring Bush over Clinton.
No, the polls showed them supporting Bush over Clinton by 2 to 1. More than enough to overcome Clinton's 5.6 point lead. Of course you could resort to Leinsdorf's analysis to show Clinton would still win, but then that would completely discredit your position.
269. jexster - 1/4/2001 11:22:14 PM
"The person who runs FEMA is someone who must have the trust of the president. Because the person who runs FEMA is the first voice, often times, of someone who's life has been turned upside down hears from."—Austin, Texas, Jan. 4, 2000
270. robertjayb - 1/4/2001 11:23:10 PM
.
Linda Chavez seems an apt candidate for borking.
Chavez's Writings Arming Critics...
-Chavez argued against the ``glass ceiling'' blocking women from
advancing at work, saying women make different job choices from
men, often putting their families first.
-Wrote that ``discriminating against employees who won't work
overtime or who will put in fewer hours per week in a salaried
position isn't irrational, it may be good business.''
-Ridiculed the Americans With Disabilities Act as ``special
treatment in the name of accommodating the disabled.''
-Called raising the minimum wage ``bad policy'' and suggested
that ``the folks at the Clinton Labor Department'' who disagree
think that wage policy should be based on Marxism.
-Suggested the increase in sexual harassment lawsuits is making
the United States ``a nation of crybabies.'' She added: ``With men
so often the targets of such witch hunts, it's no surprise that a
few strike back.'' (Associated Press)
271. JJBiener - 1/4/2001 11:32:01 PM
RJB - What exactly is your problem with those statements?
272. concerned - 1/4/2001 11:55:17 PM
273. concerned - 1/4/2001 11:58:29 PM
And please, Lefties, don't conflate the DoJ and Commerce on me.
274. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 12:07:38 AM
In 16 days George Walker Bush will restore honor to the White House, by making the Presidency of the United States an honorary postion.
275. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 12:08:57 AM
And now the death watch can begin; let's see who flys when the next world leader dies.
276. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 12:36:33 AM
Joezan Message # 258:
If a boat valued at between $30,000 - $40,000 is a yacht, then I'm living in a pretty spiffy neighborhood.
Okay, my bad. Doesn't matter to me either way; it wasn't a classist swipe, so much as a brief riff on the chumminess of all the players. Lord knows when I get elected, I want to be able to drag all my fishin' buddies with me to DC.
Perhaps W also has a time-share with the Rumsfelds in Boca. Who's to say? Nonetheless, I shall retreat forthwith and say 40 Hail Lauras and 10 Our Spots as penance for my snarkiness.
So let it be mumbled; so let it be dumb.
277. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 12:39:56 AM
Fielding Message # 264:
You can talk about Gore's shitty campaign until you are blue in the face, but the fact will remain that if not for Nader, Gore would have won Florida and the election.
Yeah. So? If not for Bush, Gore would have won Florida and the election. If not for a partisan court making weird decisions, Gore would have won. If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle. What's your fucking point?
Look, Fielding, you usually seem to be a fairly intelligent guy, so maybe this is just a huge brain fart on your part, but what exactly makes you single out Nader for all this?
Is it Nader's fault that eleven states defected to Bush? Just carrying AR and TN would have made FL's outcome irrelevant. Is it Nader's fault that so many people voted for a $100 million jackass? Is it Nader's fault that said jackass has to throw the Falwell Reich wing a bone every time the fat fuck clears his throat?
No, no, and no. The margin in FL was what, 150? About 100 really, if we count the 52 that got tossed in Nassau County. You gonna sit there and tell me 100 people in FL didn't vote Libertarian, or Peace & Freedom, or Socialist or whatever? Fuck, I bet more than 100 people wrote in "Seymour Cox" or "Harry Butts". But nooooo -- it's all Big Bad Ralph's fault.
278. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 12:41:12 AM
This is so fucking dumb, I'm amazed you even have the balls to keep running this rag up the flagpole. Fine then -- it's all Ralph Nader's fault, that Gore lost eleven states, that he fumbled a cakewalk to a moron who can't even say "subliminal", that senile codgers in Boca don't pay attention to what the fuck they're doing, that ChoicePoint "mistakenly" categorized 8,000 registered voters as felons, thereby disenfranchising them.
Yep. All Ralph's fault. I understand he's also the culprit responsible for the heartbreak of psoriasis, as well as the pain and embarrassing swelling of hemorrhoid flare-ups. Now the truth can finally be told.
In all seriousness, Fielding, I'll tell you something straight up -- it's this sort of mindless, babbling, selective myopia, crying about Nader costing Gore the election (as if it were his by divine right) that is your (meaning Dems in general) real problem. Once again, your biggest problem is not the 90,000 in FL who defected to Nader, but the 11 states that defected to Bush.
279. Stumbo - 1/5/2001 1:02:59 AM
Fielding:
An answer to your why-is-Hillary-ranked-97th question appeared in Slate's "Explainer" column, the other day.
280. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 1:05:09 AM
Lest I come off as being, well, a bit testy on the subject of Nader, let me clear a little something up here.
Nader, bless his pointy little head, was not a very good candidate. A couple of parts of this were inherent --for one, he has all the charm and personality of a shit sandwich, and for another, his very platform obviated his ability to generate the funds required to run a truly competitive campaign. And God knows, to have any hope at all of Getting Your Message Across to people who are simply too gosh-darned busy to actually inform themselves, charisma and money are the left and right hands of any successful pol.
Now, we all knew this going in. But here's the dirty little secret about the Nader voters -- everyone mistakenly believes we're hidebound cynics. We're not. Hell, if we were cynics, we would've voted for Gush or Bore, both of whom ran the most mindlessly cynical and platitudinous campaigns. Nonsense catchphrases and buzzwords and alliterative doodads, designed to catch the slowest common denominator like some cheap semantic flypaper.
One guy says, "Look ev-ery-body! I am kissing my wife very forcefully! I may even be using some tongue! You can bet I won't be getting blowjobs from husky interns!". The other guy campaigns on the strategy that if he sticks to the script and doesn't sound too stupid, people will vote for him and his oil cronies on the basis that he didn't seem quite as stupid as the know-it-alls in the media kept saying.
Talk about your lowered expectations. Really, why even bother going through the motions?
281. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 1:06:04 AM
No, we voted for Nader because for all his faults, he means what he says. He wants to push the balance of power back towards the citizens a bit. And he means it. You can say otherwise, but if you've ever had a loved one whose life was saved in a car accident by a seat belt, you oughta send the guy a fucking thank-you card.
Anyway, we're tired of people like Gush and Bore. Most of us wouldn't have voted for either of them anyway. And we just thought that for once, we'd pretend that our vote was a mode of expressing our political opinion. We just didn't think about the notion that Al Gore was entitled to our votes.
Do you see? My impatience with the Nader haters is not that they don't like who I like, it's that they're so fucking willing to put up with bullshit, and pretend that they're really working for change on an incremental basis. Well, great -- but it's like standing in front of a funhouse mirror with your pants down, and telling yourself that your dick really is two feet long.
Shame on us Naderites. Back in line, bad little sheep.
282. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 1:11:00 AM
Cartman - I see you're in rare form tonight.
283. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 1:14:21 AM
Biener:
Yeah. I ate my Wheaties today, and have been working my guitar chops back to snuff lately, which always gets me in an aggressive mood.
284. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 1:18:12 AM
Cartman - I have been learning how to use my new computer/recording equipment, so I haven't been practicing as much as I should. The band has two shows in January so I won't get too rusty.
285. Stumbo - 1/5/2001 1:25:50 AM
EC:
"... if you've ever had a loved one whose life was saved in a car accident by a seat belt, you oughta send [Nader] a fucking thank-you card."
Regardless of the worthiness of that claim (as in, surely a very cheap device that greatly increases one's life-and-limb safety would've become popular in any case, esp. in a highly-competitive market) -- this isn't much of a reason to vote for someone for president.
And when he says "towards the citizens," he really means "towards the State." With him, preferably, as Head of State.
No, thanks.
286. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 2:07:50 AM
Biener:
I know what you mean, and it's been a test of wills for me anymore to practice on a regular basis. Mainly because of time constraints. Still, even the most difficult stuff comes back very quickly with regular workouts, much to my surprise.
I used to be very heavily into practicing, sometimes running scales and the like for 10-12 hours a day, but of course real life tends to take a lot of that time away. Ten hours a week is a pretty full week these days.
287. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 2:13:52 AM
Stumbo:
Regardless of the worthiness of that claim (as in, surely a very cheap device that greatly increases one's life-and-limb safety would've become popular in any case, esp. in a highly-competitive market) -- this isn't much of a reason to vote for someone for president.
You're incorrectly dismissing the advent of seat belts. They had been around for years -- recall that Preston Tucker put them in the few dozen cars he managed to crank out in the '40s -- but automakers deliberately refused to put them in their cars. This is not even in dispute -- the Big Three felt that seat belts implied that the cars were unsafe.
And when he says "towards the citizens," he really means "towards the State." With him, preferably, as Head of State.
Nonsense. One could just as glibly posit that the Bush clan acts as if they feel that they are to the manor born -- bred to lead us lesser men, as it were. Is that a true fact? I don't know, and neither do you.
Nader, while an idealist, is undoubtedly an autocrat as well. Anyone who thinks he has a better way of doing things is, to some extent. That does not make him a despot. If anything -- and I can say this having listened to him first-hand and met him -- he's more your basic garden-variety grass-roots populist. He is genuinely trying to get individuals motivated enough to do something, anything, for their community, state, whatever.
288. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 2:14:56 AM
Writing letters, organizing, just getting involved at some level. Instead of wearing in that ass-groove in the couch watching When Regis Philbin Attacks, one could be making an effort to improve his lot in life, and possibly that of his neighbors, as an ancillary benefit. Nothing wrong with that.
Now, I realize that Gump also "trusts people". (Except, of course, when it comes to Poppy's many lucrative gov't and business connections. Then it's okey-doke to take the helping hand; no need for the pretense of bootstrapping. The proles, however, are duly encouraged to just keep on keepin' on.)
Nader's desired use of state power is generally in the area of regulation. Hidebound libertarians are certainly welcome to lament the advent of such anti-competitive measures as the minimum wage and the 40-hour work week, but a brief perusal of, say, Lincoln Steffens or Upton Sinclair between re-readings of Atlas Shrugged may help set the record straight.
289. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 2:27:06 AM
While we're on the subject of state regulation vs. the magic of the free market, I'd like to reiterate for all you non-Californios what a smash-up job our friendly deregulated cocksuckers at PG&E are doing.
Nader, of course, is the only figure of any consequence even bothering to advocate for ratepayers, who are expected to bail PG&E out of its $5 billion-and-climbing shortfall. Our weasel-ass governor broke out the kneepads long ago, hoping to placate his corporate benefactors.
Anyway, this morning PG&E finally made good on its threat of rolling blackouts, as my power was out for 3 hours this morning. Perfectly clear, calm weather, no one had hit a power pole or anything.
Now, I have an average-sized home, maybe 1500 sq. ft. or so, which I heat with a wood stove. My wife and I each take 1 shower a day, wash the cars at the car wash, water the lawn sporadically during the summer, turn lights and such off when not in use, and have replaced most of the appliances with energy saver-rated units.
My average bill runs about $140 per month. I am not making this up.
So you can imagine how my faith in the magic of the free market gets regularly tested. I voted against deregulation because I knew it was going to be a snafu, and I knew those vultures would come up with some bullshit excuse to fuck me even harder every month. Sure enough, here they come. Like I'm not paying too fucking much already.
Frankly, I hope PG&E has to file bankruptcy, and the state picks it up for pennies on the dollar. The two most efficient power companies in CA, LA's ConEd and Sacto's SMUD, are gov't operated.
290. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 5:25:10 AM
Too bad California didn't look to Nebraska's experience regarding power distribution and public ownership. We have no natural advantages in the power business compared to other states save for a slight transportation savings of low sulfur coal from Wyoming and traditionally have had very low electrical costs and good service, largely thanks to statewide public power companies. This despite two nuclear power plants with the headaches associated with them for a small population base. Private power rates in neighboring states have traditionally been higher.
291. jexster - 1/5/2001 7:35:37 AM
Nader means what he says?
Bullshit.
The man is a hopeless egoist. He gets an erection from pissing people off. The more attention he gets from being an asshole, the harder he gets. It doesn't matter what he believes just so it pisses people off, gets him attention and gets him hard.
That's Nader in a nutshell.
Now the fruit of Nader is the bastard president elect. The guy who just had a closed door economic summit with corporate America; the guy who appointed Chavez, Norton, Ashcroft and the atavistic affirmative action foreign policy team to teach him the difference between Greeks and Grecians....
Nader means what he says?
Back on the turnip truck Eric
292. jexster - 1/5/2001 8:06:26 AM
width=350>
Don't Worry Naderites, Help Is On the Way!!!!
293. jexster - 1/5/2001 8:15:38 AM
Jonesy..your state's experience is not unique to Nebraska....The Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power is providing excellent service at reasonable rates...
Its ironic, thoug, that CA lefties are now holding LADPW forth as a model for the future after having excoriated the Agency Mullholland Built as Killer of Mono Lake, Diverter of Rivers, politically-unaccountable despoilers of the environment etc etc for the past 50 years
But that's another tale entirely...or is it?
294. glendajean - 1/5/2001 9:42:52 AM
Slate's Explainer on why Hillary Clinton is ranked 97th in the Senate.
(rankings of new members are determined in order first by former House members, then former governors, then, for Democrats, state population, vaulting NY's junior Senator over the Widow Carnahan and Minnesota Mark Dayton. At this point, non former House members or governors Republicans draw lots).
295. Fielding - 1/5/2001 11:03:04 AM
Thank you, glendajean. :)
296. Fielding - 1/5/2001 11:08:39 AM
EC:
I didn't say that it is "all" Nader's fault. I am merely pointing out that while Bush voters and Gore voters were voting in their self interest, Nader voters were voting against their self interest. It is all well and good to sacrifice one's self interest for a principal; I'm just asking you to be a man and admit what the cost was.
Nader was always only interested in it for his own vanity and ego, and now you are paying the price in Ashcroft and Norton. Was it worth it?
297. Fielding - 1/5/2001 11:10:20 AM
EC:
Nader kept saying that Gore and Bush were Tweedledee and Tweedledum. After looking at Bush's cabinet, can he still make that claim with a straight face?
298. Wombat - 1/5/2001 11:23:39 AM
Claiming that Bush and Gore are two sides of the same coin strikes me as incredibly cynical.
299. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 12:43:30 PM
I am scooping Rosetta and saving everyone the trouble of going to that slime pit, The Drudge Report:
WORLD EXCLUSIVE: INDEPENDENT COUNSEL SETS DATE FOR CLINTON INDICTMENT DECISION
President Clinton's final days in office promise to be his most anxious days as Independent Counsel Robert Ray orders his divided staff to settle the question whether Clinton should be indicted in events surrounding the Lewinsky grand jury investigation.
First to report the affair with the intern. First to announce the investigation. First to report the "garment with dried semen". First to report the cigar.
Now the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal that Independent Counsel Robert Ray has determined: Issues surrounding a Clinton indictment must be resolved no later than February 15.
According to sources directly involved in the decision process, a timetable has been set and Ray is preparing to publicly announce whether he will prosecute Clinton within weeks, if not days, of the president leaving office.
Senior staff at the Office of the Independent Counsel have drawn up extensive arguments for and against a Clinton indictment, it has been learned.
Ray impaneled a new grand jury last July to help decide whether the president should be indicted on charges he committed perjury or obstructed justice.
"If they had asked if he committed perjury, I would say yes," the forewoman of the original Lewinsky grand jury told stunned reporters after being dismissed in 1999. Freda Alexander revealed that she would have voted to indict Clinton for perjury if prosecutors had asked her to.
In the past, Ray has suggested that he would bring charges against Clinton only if " there's a substantial federal interest in bringing a case."
Developing Hard...
I've no doubt Drudge has something developing hard......
300. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 12:52:28 PM
And this from that paragon of style (snort!) Peggy Noonan:
And so it begins. And appropriately enough with what appears to be another of Mrs. Clinton's transformations. She appears to be in the middle of another metamorphosis. The last was of her outward appearance--there is almost no recognizing the Hillary of 1997 in the Hillary of the campaign trail three years later.
What is so wrong about a woman changing her hairdo and overall appearance over a 4 year period? Where is it written that a woman has to look the same year after year? It might not hurt Ms Noonan to spiff up her dated look a bit. We can't all be Barbara Bush....
301. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 12:57:48 PM
Nader's followers have fallen for much more bullshit than followers of either major political party.
But my primary resentment around Nader is that he accomplished nothing except the election of Bush over Gore, despite his followers leftie leanings.
Establishment of Greens as a major party? No.
Forcing the presidential campaign to discuss his pet issues (Perot's excuse)? No.
Throwing the election to a President who appoints a follower of James Watt as head of Interior? Yessiree, Bob, he sure accomplished that.
Call me crazy, but someone who purports to care about the environment and liberal causes embarks on a selfish course of action which leads to things be worse off for his alleged constituency, knowing in advance that there was only a remote chance of any social benefit coming from his candidacy, I'll be first in line to take him to task for it.
302. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 12:58:52 PM
Fielding - Nader was always only interested in it for his own vanity and ego, and now you are paying the price in Ashcroft and Norton. Was it worth it?
It was worth it for me. I'm thrilled.
303. Wombat - 1/5/2001 1:04:45 PM
Naderite reasoning (it's got to get worse before it gets better) smacks dangerously of European left-wing terrorist thinking: If our actions provoke a government crackdown or military coup, the masses will rally to our side against the reactionaries..., etc. It is equally fallacious, and ignores all the gains that have been made in cleaning up the environment over the last two decades, some of which may now be jeopardized as a result of the election.
304. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 1:07:29 PM
JJ:
It was worth it for me. I'm thrilled.
I hope you can still say that when we are all choking to death and can't see across the street...
305. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:09:20 PM
Judith:
Noonan was not talking about Hillary's hairdos. She was talking about Hillary's rather obvious cosmetic surgery (eye perks, fat taken from cheeks and under neck) which the Liberal Media considers verboten to discuss.
Of course, it's open season on Linda Tripp. But when the Queen gets a little plastic make-over-- shhhhhh.
306. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:10:43 PM
Tipper also had a bit of work. But hush-hush on that, too.
I don't know why both women didn't get more liposuction done. Hillary's truck-sized dumper and fat piano legs surely need some attention.
307. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 1:15:52 PM
What does interest me is that Cartman seems to think that Nader's relative political honesty (I think his ideas are bullshit, but that he comes by them honestly - sort of like Reagan and supply side) is a prima facia reason to vote for him over Bush and Gore. He doesn't seem to think that many of us simply don't care all that much, preferring slightly dishonest political centrists to honest wingnut cranks.
308. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:16:58 PM
On Cartman's blatherings:
A "Conflict of interest" is present when a judge, or a close relation, has a direct finanical or similar interest in the outcome of the case. Scalia's son had no interest in the outcome of Bush v. Gore, because Scalia's son wasn't a partner in the firm, and furthermore, even if he had been a partner, he still wouldn't have a direct interest in the outcome, because he isn't paid on contingency. He gets paid, win or lose.
Ditto Thomas' wife. That's even sillier.
Ethics experts were quizzed about this, and every one I read about said: No conflict.
Cartman wants to transform the fairly strict "conflict of interest" guidelines into a much looser set of rules-- when it serves his interests.
He wants to make it a "conflict of interest" when a judge has, arguably, a mere "Rooting Interest" in one side or another. Not an actual interest, but just a fuzzy "Jeeze, I'd sort of like to see a lawyer who works for the same firm as my son (although in a different practice area entirely) win this case." That's about as indirect and speculative and fuzzy an "interest" as you can get.
There's a good reason conflict of interest guidelines are fairly bright-line and limited: Because the legal, political, advocacy, and judicial communities of any city will tend to be pretty incestuous. You can't have judges recusing themselves every time a sister-in-law is a partner in a firm handling a case.
309. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 1:23:02 PM
Instead, I think Naderites represent one of the curious things I dislike about the left - the preference for futile and meaningless symbolic gestures over real accomplishments. Eric - have you read about Clinton sequestering 1/3 of national forests from most commercial activity? That is a significant environmental accomplishment, and one that Bush might try to overturn.
But if that happens, you can console yourself with the knowledge that at least you didn't demean yourself to vote for a man who would tactically decide to kiss his wife in a way to attract votes.
310. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 1:24:35 PM
Objections to Nader's campaign based on the fact that all he did was elect Bush are part and parcel of the "instant gratification" ethos. Every new political party must start somewhere. The Green Party has started somewhere, with a tremendous impact. The Green Party under Nader's direction changed an election. The Democrats must now either incorporate some of the Green agenda in a manner palatable to the voting population in 2004, or respond with anger and resentment, hereby punishing Nader, and perhaps suffer the same consequences.
The Green Party under Nader was making a statement for political entree into the policy agenda of a major party. The Democrats ignore and deride that bid at their own peril. If they incorporate more liberal positions, they may learn to sell those positions, and the defeat of Mr. Gore will have been a necessary casualty in a broader effort for the future.
Had Nader not exercised his muscle, the Democrats would have had no incentive to re-think corporatist, conservative Clintonism.
It as if some people object because Nader did not win.
311. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:24:44 PM
And it should be noted that Breyer and Gore are friends, and that Gore was Breyer's biggest advocate during the vetting for Breyer's slot on the Court. Gore did much to get his pal the job.
Is that a conflict of interest?
According to Cartman's fuzzy "rooting interest" rules, it would seem to be. But oddly enough he doesn't mention it.
Of course, it isn't a conflict at all. DA's, defense cousel, judges, etc., are often friends. They travel in the same circles. Judges will previously have served a colleagues, as lawyers, with a good many lawyers who come before them. And there will be the odd son, daughter, aunt, cousin, poker buddy, etc., in the mix.
Judges don't recuse themselves for shits and giggles, though.
Were Scalia's son actually arguing the case, that would be a conflict. We can guess that fillial love might overcome strict impartiality in such a case.
But the mere fact that a son works for the same ENORMOUS DC firm as an appellant's counsel? Puh-fucking-lease. Scalia's going to lose his impartiality because Olson and his son work at the same firm?
Hey, I work for a huge insurance company. I can assure you that my brother, were he a judge, wouldn't favor my company over a claimholder merely because I work for this big company. Why the fuck would he?
Now, if I owned a 10% stake, that would be different.
The Ludicrous Left never stops whining.
312. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 1:25:50 PM
Well, Ace, I think GW ought to have his smirk straightened out and also, while he's at at it, get someone to teach him how to walk so that his arms don't look so simian. But that is almost as shallow as worrying about Hillarys ass or Tippers jowls.
313. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 1:28:36 PM
An apt example of a follish charge of conflict was the Bush motion to have Judge Nikki Clark recuse herself because she was not chosen for a higher judicial office by Jeb Bush. Judge Clark rightly declined to recuse herself.
314. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:29:46 PM
Re: "Why the fuck would he?"
Why the fuck would my brother even care that I worked for a company which was a named defendant?
How, precisely, does a loss by the defendant law firm hurt me personally? Answer: It doesn't.
Neither does my firm winning HELP me personally (assuming I was not actually involved in working on the particular case).
And speaking of rooting interests-- The Florida Supreme Court obviously had a rather big rooting interest in seeing a liberal win the presidency. Shall we say too that they were tainted by a conflict of interest?
It does my heart good, though, to see three people who claim not to be liberal Democrats and claim not to have much affection for Gore -- Eric Communist, Judith, and Cellar -- whining the loudest about Bush winning.
I'm ever so glad y'all didn't actually care if Gore won or not. Heavens! You're having kittens now and you didn't care. Imagine if you actually had cared!
315. Wombat - 1/5/2001 1:31:05 PM
What part of the Green Party agenda could the Democratic Party adopt that it doesn't already support or that wouldn't be akin to political suicide?
316. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 1:33:02 PM
Oh get off it, Ace...Mr. I'm so worried that it may not go my way, I'm so so so worried, oh look! he won...see, I told you so!!!
317. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:33:04 PM
"An apt example of a follish charge of conflict was the Bush motion to have Judge Nikki Clark recuse herself because she was not chosen for a higher judicial office by Jeb Bush. Judge Clark rightly declined to recuse herself."
Indeed, she was right to refuse to recuse herself. That's not a real "conflict of interest." Especialy when you consider that the previous Governor had also passed her over for appointment to the appeals court.
On the other hand, Nikki Clark's sister worked for the Elder Bush's administration, is a Republican, and speaks lovingly of Bush the Elder. Shall we claim that Nikki Clark had a conflict in favor of BUSH merely because her sister was once employed by the defendant's dad?
How fucking far do we want to go with this? How fucking stupid do we want to get?
318. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 1:33:40 PM
Another example of a non-conflict conflict would be the Florida Supreme Court justices who contributed to Gore's campaign.
319. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 1:35:56 PM
How fucking stupid do we want to get?
I'm sure you'll let us know when we reach our limit.
320. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:36:44 PM
Tell it to Molly Ivins.
321. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 1:39:58 PM
FU:
1) I think the Democrats reversing Clintonism is patently a bad thing, so Naderites lose points from me there.
2) It is hardly clear that Nader's role will cause the Democrats to shift anyway. It is true that *sometimes* major parties shift to accomodate the demands of third parties (the Populists and the Progressives spring to mind), but that is not always the case. Sometimes, they just succeed in marginalizing themselves by losing any political influence (think of the Dixiecrats, the Buchananites, and the Know-Nothings). Nader's support was very weak (much weaker than any other 20th century third party movement that had a significant impact)I don't see a political shift happening.
3) It isn't as if the major parties were ignoring green issues, and this was thus the only way of gaining attention. As such, the Naderites shot their cause in the foot by putting a far less green candidate in the White House. As an environmentalist, that pisses me off.
322. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:40:03 PM
And if I remember correctly, wasn't Breyer a former clerk for Lawrence Tribe, who argued for Gore in the first SC hearing?
If that's not a conflict-- and I don't hear Eric Communist claiming it is-- how can it be that Scalia's son, who didn't argue the case, didn't work on the briefs, didn't do diddly squat on the case at all (his specialty is Labor law, not constitutional law), presents a conflict merely by being employed by the same super-huge firm as Ted Olson?
How on earth could the latter be a conflict while the former isn't?
323. CalGal - 1/5/2001 1:42:37 PM
The Democrats ignore and deride that bid at their own peril.
Why?
324. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 1:44:48 PM
Nader was getting little or no respect for his agenda before his candidacy. The Democrats have learned a hard lesson for their lack of attention - the presidency. It may be necessary that they learn two hard lessons.
The point is that the Democrats seek the blind allegiance of liberals like Nader, yet the only thing they offer the Green Party is that they are not the bogeyman.
That may work with some of the Democratic constituency, but the Green wing is politically committed, tough, young, and hard to soft-soap.
As for how to incorporate Green issues to gain their support, I'd suggest the Democrats start by hiring a liaison much as the Bush campaign hired Ralph Reed.
Instead, the Democrats are licking wounds and vowing further contention.
325. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 1:46:56 PM
Cal
For the reasons I have explained. To spit in the eye of an upstart constituency that has traditionally supported you but recently cost you the election may feel good, but it invites another energized candidacy - and similar results.
326. Wombat - 1/5/2001 1:48:22 PM
Young, tough, and hard to soft soap? Callow, stubborn, and immune to rational discussion, is more like it.
327. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 1:52:09 PM
And I think FU's comparison of the Greens to the Religious Right is quite apt, and my only point of agreement with him.
330. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 1:56:15 PM
FU: You don't think shifting toward Nader would have serious consequences? Gore was perceived as much more liberal than Bush was considered conservative by the electorate. I think that affected more voters than Nader did.
Think about it, does it logically make sense to you that you can capture a larger percent of the vote by moving closer to a political extreme?
331. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 1:56:40 PM
Raskolnikov
I do not think that the Democrats can suffer another 96,000 votes in Florida. Rather than attacking Nader, and thereby making him a martyr to his constituency, they should either try to cut some deals on things that he wants or support an insurgent Green to hijack the party (much as Buchanan hijacked any potential Reform threat to the GOP).
332. CalGal - 1/5/2001 1:58:59 PM
Frank,
There are far worse things than the liberals being ignored. They are the equivalent of the RR, which means it's pretty much their job to bitch and moan about how they get no respect.
333. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 2:01:28 PM
Raskolnikov
There are risks. But the damage done by Nader is known, and it was lethal. Accordingly, logic dictates that you do what is necessary to avoid that same, known, lethal damage. If Nader is an egoist and intent on forming a third option come hell or high water, than you have tried. But if he is calculating concessions on some issues of importance to his constituency, these should be explored.
No matter, what you do not do, be Nader an egoist or a horsetrader, is repeatedly show how angry you are and declare that he will never get a hearing from Deomcrats on the Hill due to his treachery in 2000. There is no conceivable upside to this political fit of pique.
Nader's support is even more important given Bush's strength - masking conservatism as conviviality.
334. CalGal - 1/5/2001 2:01:54 PM
Besides, the liberals will come back next election. The only reason they had the luxury of supporting Nader is because they'd been spoiled for 8 years.
335. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 2:02:37 PM
Judith - I hope you can still say that when we are all choking to death and can't see across the street...
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
336. CalGal - 1/5/2001 2:04:33 PM
And (continuing my series of random thoughts--it's difficult to post while interviewing on the phone), if the liberals all take their marbles and go home, it may fuss the Dems temporarily, but they'll be better for it in the long run.
337. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:05:09 PM
FU: I prefer option C - ignore him. Attacking him gives him too much attention, and caving to his more radical agenda loses centrist votes.
This is not to say that all of Nader's agenda is ignored. Environmentalism, in general, is a centrist issue. National parks, clean air, and clean water, are popular with suburban types that make up most of the political center (I love to remind people that the national park system and the EPA were both created by Republican administrations). I think Gore erred in largely ignoring the environment in his campaign.
But hell, as it is Gore's corporation bashing is largely seen as costing him his reputation as a centrist. If he actually went closer to Nader in this regard, he wouldn't have come close.
338. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 2:05:42 PM
JJ:
It amazes me that with all the things posted here you could argue with or comment on, you choose to respond in such a clever way to my remarks. I'm thrilled with the attention. (s)
339. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:11:19 PM
FU:"There are risks. But the damage done by Nader is known, and it was
lethal. Accordingly, logic dictates that you do what is necessary to
avoid that same, known, lethal damage."
And without exposing yourself to much worse potential damage.
"If Nader is an egoist and intent on forming a third option come hell or high water, than you have tried. But if he is calculating concessions on some issues of importance to his constituency, these should be explored."
Nah, you learn from Clinton. Use leftist opposition to triangulate, come across as a centrist, and grab the middle ground. Had Gore done this, he would be picking his cabinet right now.
"No matter, what you do not do, be Nader an egoist or a horsetrader,
is repeatedly show how angry you are and declare that he will never
get a hearing from Deomcrats on the Hill due to his treachery in 2000. There is no conceivable upside to this political fit of pique."
Primarily, it is to convince Naderites that they gained nothing except a Watt protege in charge of managining public lands. And that if they keep it up, they will gain more of the same.
340. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 2:12:01 PM
Rask - I think Naderites represent one of the curious things I dislike about the left - the preference for futile and meaningless symbolic gestures over real accomplishments.
That's what I like best about them. They are far less troublesome that way.
have you read about Clinton sequestering 1/3 of national forests from most commercial activity? That is a significant environmental accomplishment, and one that Bush might try to overturn.
Clinton is desperately seeking a legacy. He is hoping to be remembered as some kind of environmental hero. I hope Bush does overturn it along with Clinton's last couple of land grabs which made the US dependent on his pal Riady for low-sulphur coal.
341. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:14:23 PM
"land grabs"? These are Federal lands. I thought as a conservative you respected property rights.
342. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:17:06 PM
JJ: I see it more as classic Clinton: being more than willing to do the right thing when there is no political cost. Almost all of these federal lands are in states which consistently vote Republican. Hence, you can do what you want to Federal lands and local opposition doesn't cost you meaningful votes. Clinton doesn't dare do similar things in environmental issues that strongly affect the industrial heartland or Florida.
343. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 2:18:23 PM
Wombat - What part of the Green Party agenda could the Democratic Party adopt that it doesn't already support or that wouldn't be akin to political suicide?
The trick for the Democrats would be to actually do something about what they supposedly support instead of just paying lip service to it during elections and taking huge contributions from the industries they rail against in between. Naderites became Naderites because Democrats have shown such hypocrisy on the issues they feel are important.
344. rubberducky - 1/5/2001 2:18:41 PM
Wombat's double post and apology (328 & 329 were deleted)
and now, just so that this isn't just a housekeeping message:
The Kennebunkport Hillbilly (sung to the tune of The Beverly Hillbillies Theme Song)
Come and listen to my story 'bout a boy name Bush.
His IQ was zero and his head was up his tush.
He drank like a fish while he drove all about.
But that didn't matter 'cuz his daddy bailed him out.
DUI, that is. Criminal record. Cover-up.
Well, the first thing you know little Georgie goes to Yale.
He can't spell his name but they never let him fail.
He spends all his time hangin' out with student folk.
And that's when he learns how to snort a line of coke.
Blow, that is. White gold. Nose candy.
The next thing you know there's a war in Vietnam.
Kin folks say, "George, stay at home with Mom."
Let the common people get maimed and scarred.
We'll buy you a spot in the Texas Air Guard."
Cushy, that is. Country clubs. Nose candy.
Twenty years later George gets a little bored.
He trades in the booze, says that Jesus is his Lord.
He said, "Now the White House is the place I wanna be."
So he called his daddy's friends and they called the GOP.
Gun owners, that is. Falwell. Jesse Helms.
Come November 7, the election ran late.
Kin folks said "Jeb, give the boy your state!"
"Don't let those colored folks get into the polls."
So they put up barricades so they couldn't punch their holes.
Chads, that is. Duval County. Miami-Dade.
Before the votes were counted five Supremes stepped in.
Told all the voters "Hey, we want George to win."
"Stop counting votes!" was their solemn invocation.
And that's how George finally got his coronation.
Rigged, that is. Illegitimate. No moral authority.
Y'all come vote now. Ya hear?
345. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:21:19 PM
This proves my point: when a conservative is offering arguments for why the Dems should move to the left, you *know* he is licking his chops at the prospects of resulting GOP electoral prospects.
346. concerned - 1/5/2001 2:21:22 PM
But if that happens, you can console yourself with the knowledge that at least you didn't demean yourself to vote for a man who would tactically decide to kiss his wife in a way to attract votes.
That's one of the less important things I'm 'consoling' myself with.
347. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 2:21:50 PM
Raskolnikov
You offer the Naderites nothing more than a stern lesson of "I told you so" when they knew and did not care.
This only invites another rebuttal "I told you so" in 2004.
Your "I told you so" is toothless rhetoric. You can take nothing from the Naderites that they have not already lost, or that they have never possessed.
Their "I told you so" is millions of votes.
348. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 2:23:41 PM
Thanks, Ducks...
I try to send my liberal husband something chuckle-making every day...he's surrounded by Republicans! Your little ditty is on its way...
349. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:25:11 PM
"You offer the Naderites nothing more than a stern lesson of "I told
you so" when they knew and did not care."
I don't believe you. You think Greens don't care if a Watt protege is running Interior? Maybe you don't, but I work with a lot of Greens, and they are outraged. They are in public denial that voting for Nader had anything to do with it, but deep down in their naive little hearts, my bet is that they will think twice next time, particularly if their noses are rubbed in it a little more.
350. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 2:25:34 PM
Raskolnikov
I think conservatives would be thrilled to see the Democrats remain as angry as they are at Nader. I think your strategy of "ignoring" Nader would make Jim Nicholson very happy.
351. CalGal - 1/5/2001 2:26:30 PM
Frank,
But who gives a fuck? The Dems will screw themselves even further if they move left--this is so obvious that it means you could only have one motive for suggesting it. You've offered no rebuttals other than the Dems can't afford to lose the Naderites. Yes, they can, if the alternative is losing even more badly. Consider: with all of Nader's votes, Gore won more of the popular vote and only lost the electoral due to a technicality.
The Dems can cheerfully tell the Naderites to pout away.
352. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 2:28:18 PM
Raskolnikov
Your political advice appears based on presumptions as to how future events may affect a constituency deep in their hearts, hearts you deride as naive.
Political advice based on shame and remorse does not sway. Shoving people's noses in their own mistakes as the solution to their disaffect, while macho and very "West Wing", is absurdist as a political strategy.
353. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:28:36 PM
"I think conservatives would be thrilled to see the Democrats remain as angry as they are at Nader. I think your strategy of "ignoring" Nader would make Jim Nicholson very happy."
I meant ignore Nader personally. I do think that the Dems need to change their tactics to deal with him. I prefer triangulation, with more attention to centrist Environmental issues.
354. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:32:53 PM
"Your political advice appears based on presumptions as to how future
events may affect a constituency deep in their hearts, hearts you
deride as naive."
Yep.
"Political advice based on shame and remorse does not sway. Shoving
people's noses in their own mistakes as the solution to their disaffect, while macho and very "West Wing", is absurdist as a political strategy."
I disagree. I think it would be a mistake to be taking this tone 3 and a half years from now, as tactics like this backfire in the short term. But I don't think they do in the long term. 3 years is an eternity in political memory. By that time, you will have forgotten you pissed you were by the finger wagging, and when the Democratic candidate says that there is a significant difference between Democrats and Republicans on environmental issues, you (or at least many of your brethren) will believe him.
355. CalGal - 1/5/2001 2:39:08 PM
I'm not sure if Gore did wrong by ignoring environmentalism. Any sign that he was catering to the Green goofballs would have been negatively perceived--and everyone knew Gore's interest in the environment anyway. Other Dems are likely to play it up.
356. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:40:00 PM
As a reminder, recall what Clinton did with Jesse Jackson in 1992. Jackson led a much more powerful (and less radical) wing of the left than the Naderites. Clinton deliberately contrasted himself with Jackson, and showed that he was not beholden to the left wing of the party. Now, I recognize that he did this *after* he had the nomination locked up, but *that* is the way you deal with splinter groups, particularly when they only represent a few percent of the vote. (I think the GOP could even do this with the religious right, if they chose an election where the opposition was a real liberal).
357. concerned - 1/5/2001 2:44:12 PM
Another example of a non-conflict conflict would be the Florida Supreme Court justices who contributed to Gore's campaign.
Anybody would have to admit that the above is more of a conflict than anything that any USSC justice has been accused of. Therefore, to avoid hypocrisy, those who accept the above should not cavil at the USSC justices' non-recusals.
358. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:44:29 PM
"I'm not sure if Gore did wrong by ignoring environmentalism. Any sign
that he was catering to the Green goofballs would have been
negatively perceived--and everyone knew Gore's interest in the
environment anyway."
He should have contrasted himself with both Nader *and* Bush. An attack on Bush's environmental record (steal a page from Bush Sr and speak in front of some industrial cesspool in Houston) while simultaneously criticizing leftist policies that unnecessarily threaten economic growth and prosperity.
359. janjon - 1/5/2001 2:49:28 PM
Gore didn't ignore environmentalism. He just didn't seize it the way the selfish and myopic Greens "say" they wanted.
Right. No way he could have. They really didn't want to be blessed by the Dems. this year.
Their agenda was quite simple this year - do everything within their power to have Gore lose. This so-called strategy is predicated on their hopes/assumptions that Bush will turn out to be soooo bad on the environment (and, God knows, his choice for Sec. of Interior must give them hope. As for Christie, well, the OMB will keep her under a short leash.) that both the Dems. and the country will not only see it in their best interests but will actively want to incorporate the Greens' positions (and a few of the leading Greens too, while they are at it.)in 2004.
Right. Like Hell.
No matter what outrageous stuff W's handlers try to pull off on environmental topics and no matter what positions the Dems. eventually take in 2004 on environmental issues, the Greens will be (and should be) left out in the cold. Both publically (although that will be discreetly handled with appropriate lip service to honoring all that wonderful idealism displayed by all those young and fresh-scrubbed souls who worked so hard for (what they saw as) their convictions) and, most certainly, privately within the inner sanctums of the party.
The Greens are history in terms of any serious role in national politics.
360. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 2:51:50 PM
Rask I see it more as classic Clinton: being more than willing to do the right thing when there is no political cost.
Absolutely. The Art of the Possible describes Clinton perfectly.
361. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 2:55:45 PM
CalGal - Consider: with all of Nader's votes, Gore won more of the popular vote and only lost the electoral due to a technicality.
A technicality? Bush got more votes in Florida. That's hardly a technicality.
362. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:00:48 PM
JJ--Whatever. If you count it as a decisive win, more fool you. If you count it as a bare eking out coupled with a desperate refusal for recounts demonstrating a clear fear that he might not survive one, it seems pretty clear that Gore didn't get his ass kicked, which was the point.
363. janjon - 1/5/2001 3:01:20 PM
Add the word "counted" between the words "votes" and "in" in the second sentence in 361 and it is then accurate. A winner, if you will.
364. Fielding - 1/5/2001 3:04:58 PM
Raskol:
"Call me crazy, but someone who purports to care about the environment and liberal causes embarks on a selfish course of action which leads to things be worse off for his alleged constituency, knowing in advance that there was only a remote chance of any social benefit coming from his candidacy, I'll be first in line to take him to task for it."
Second in line. :)
365. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:07:08 PM
No cutting!
366. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 3:09:52 PM
janjon - Add the word "counted" between the words "votes" and "in" in the second sentence in 361 and it is then accurate.
It is accurate as it stands. Gore's only chance was to post huge gains from the recounts in Broward, Dade and Palm Beach counties. Those votes failed to materialize. Recounts in the rest of the counties, even the punch card counties, would have favored Bush. I think Bush should have pushed for a full recount with consistent standards and then the Democrats would not be able to whine about his victory.
367. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:10:40 PM
Y'all can sit there in the wussy "take him to task" queue. I'm over at the head of "kick his skinny little supercilious ass" line, and we always go first.
368. Wombat - 1/5/2001 3:11:11 PM
It seemed that the Bush campaign lacked your confidence, JJ.
369. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 3:11:50 PM
CalGal - it seems pretty clear that Gore didn't get his ass kicked, which was the point.
If that was your point, that is what you should have said.
370. robertjayb - 1/5/2001 3:12:24 PM
.
Bushisms:
"I mean, these good folks are revolutionizing how businesses conduct their business. And, like them, I am very optimistic about our position in the world and about its influence on the United States. We're concerned about the short-term economic news, but long term I'm optimistic. And so, I hope investors, you know--secondly, I hope investors hold investments for periods of time--that I've always found the best investments are those that you salt away based on economics."--Austin, Texas, Jan. 4, 2001
371. Fielding - 1/5/2001 3:12:25 PM
Biener:
Nader was always only interested in it for his own vanity and ego, and now you are paying the price in Ashcroft and Norton. Was it worth it?
"It was worth it for me. I'm thrilled."
I don't know which of my points this proves better: That Nader helped Bush, or that Nader supporters are idiots.
372. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:13:54 PM
JJ--I did. That's what "technicality" means. I'm not going to revisit it over and over again. It's clear that Bush's win will probably not stand up to scrutiny, and the "technicality" is that it didn't have to tolerate it.
373. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 3:14:57 PM
Wombat - It seemed that the Bush campaign lacked your confidence, JJ.
Perhaps. Or it could be that when you are playing a high-stakes game, you don't any unnecessary risks however slight. Submitting to a manual recount was an unnecessary risk.
374. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 3:16:07 PM
Gore got his ass kicked.
It's hard to defeat an incumbent. Especially an incumbent presiding over terrific growth and generations-low unemployment figures.
But Gore did it.
Imagine Gore running without the incredible advantage of incumbency during a time of prosperity. You think he'd win? Ha, ha!
We'll see in 2004. Assume the country is not in recession, or at least slips into recession soon but is growing and stable by the time of the 2004 election, such that it is now Bush who is the incumbent presiding over a growing economy.
Now: Imagine the rematch, Bush v. Gore.
Can any of you claim with a straight face that Gore would win? That he'd even come close?
Will he be the "Candidate of Ideas"? If so, how come he didn't come up with a single daring, original idea for 2000? Bush came up with several. You might not like SS privatization, but it was a ballsy, daring proposal. You might not like vouchers, but that too was a ballsy call.
See, Bush actually had "The Vision Thing." Certainly he did not propose a transformation of American society, but he proposed much more fresh & original & daring policy than did Clinton or Bush the First.
And what did Gore propose? A bit of paleoliberal tax-code tinkering to distribute "tax refunds" to people who don't pay taxes and "Civil unions." And a bit of very scaredy-cat de minimis gun control. Wow. His ideas galvanized the country like no candidate since Walter Mondale.
Whatta fucking putz. How much of a douchebag do you have to be to lose when you're the incumbent VP of an economically successful administration? Even the charisma and vision challenged Bush the Elder won the presidency handily.
375. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:20:34 PM
It's hard to defeat an incumbent.
He wasn't an incumbent. He was a sitting vice president. Only two sitting vice presidents have won the presidency in the past 150 years. When Bush was running, it was often counted as one of the strongest historical precedents against his chances.
I don't know why people keep forgetting that.
376. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 3:21:48 PM
CalGal - It's clear that Bush's win will probably not stand up to scrutiny
The numbers don't support this. The numbers and Gore's own strategy show that the only chance Gore had was for him to make large gains in Broward, Dade and Palm Beach. When that didn't happen he was out of luck.
377. Wombat - 1/5/2001 3:23:34 PM
I wouldn't assume Gore will be running in 04.
378. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:23:41 PM
"He wasn't an incumbent. He was a sitting vice president. Only two
sitting vice presidents have won the presidency in the past 150 years."
One. Bush. You have to go back another 16 years for Van Buren.
379. concerned - 1/5/2001 3:25:18 PM
Re. 361 -
JJ -
To CG, anything can be considered to be a technicality. The law of gravity - a technicality. Determinism - a technicality. Quantum mechanics - a technicality. See how easy it is to generalize in CG's world?
380. rubberducky - 1/5/2001 3:25:44 PM
Gore got his ass kicked.
i see the definition of 'ass kicking' gets less and less as i get older.
i had no idea that losing a state by ~100 votes and the EC by a 3 votes constitutes getting one's 'ass kicked'
381. concerned - 1/5/2001 3:27:32 PM
To whom it may concern:
The world doesn't accept dimpled/pregnant chads. Don't be fooled into believing otherwise. Oops. There go nearly 600 Broward County votes.
382. Wombat - 1/5/2001 3:27:57 PM
Hey, but Bush won the vote in more counties than Gore, and more states. If that doesn't constitute an ass whuppin', I don't know what does.
383. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:28:19 PM
I thought Van Buren was in 36? Was he in the 20s?
384. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:31:12 PM
JJ,
Actually, Gore's strategy was probably incorrect, and it would have been easy enough to order a statewide recount.
Nonetheless, Bush still won by a technicality.
385. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 3:31:42 PM
Letters, I get letters....
Fielding Message # 296:
I didn't say that it is "all" Nader's fault.
Well, that's all I hear anybody bitching about these days. Nader is responsible for Ashcroft. Nader is responsible for Rumsfeld. Nader is responsible for your wife not fucking you more than once a month.
Again, Nader is a factor. But the refusal to explore the reasons why 11 states defected to Bush is telling. Y'all would rather piss and moan about What Might Have Been had Big Bad Ralph not brainwashed 90,000 Floridians, but no one wants to figure out how Forrest Gump pulled ELEVEN FUCKING STATES away from the Democrats.
Touching, but I still think the focus is askew.
I am merely pointing out that while Bush voters and Gore voters were voting in their self interest, Nader voters were voting against their self interest.
No, they voted against your self-interest. As did Bush voters. Nader voters voted for something they believed in. Maybe they should have fucking stayed home and let the big boys run things, I don't know. But if you're going to shit on one group for doing what they thought was right, at least have the sack to go after 'em all.
I mean, where's the venom for the traitors who deserted you for Gump? Huh? Hmmm?
It is all well and good to sacrifice one's self interest for a principal; I'm just asking you to be a man and admit what the cost was.
Yep. My fault that Barnum was right. My fault that people are more interested in dissecting what color power ties each pol wears than what they actually stand for. My fault that we have devolved into a culture of lowered expectations and marketing flummery. Okely dokely. I'll be a man and admit it then.
386. janjon - 1/5/2001 3:31:44 PM
by its nature, the Vice Presidency tends to make its occupants look small, since they spend so much of their time only reflecting the views of the President.
W and Cheney may indeed demonstrate that this need not be the case, but I somehow doubt it. At least publically. For a couple of reasons: 1. W has demonstrated enough ego (all this emphasis on "loyalty" which is another way of saying don't try to cast a shadow on ME) to indicate that on a superficial level he wants the primo attention. 2. And, that notwithstanding, his handlers and even he surely must realize that it is important politically for him to at least look like he's in charge AND involved.
It will indeed be interesting to see how this MBA mentality (CEOs delegate) plays out. I somehow don't think W is smart enough to have figured out that he's been sold a bill of goods on this one (easy enough to do since it fits his temperament) by a lot of people who want the POWER for themselves.
387. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 3:32:06 PM
Nader was always only interested in it for his own vanity and ego, and now you are paying the price in Ashcroft and Norton. Was it worth it?
Jesus Christ, this is rich. Yes, Nader is the only guy in politics awash in vanity and ego. Everyone else is there to serve us chilluns. Yes indeedy.
Nader kept saying that Gore and Bush were Tweedledee and Tweedledum. After looking at Bush's cabinet, can he still make that claim with a straight face?
Hey, when you're right, you're right. Nader and his flock should have just stayed the fuck home and taken whatever bones the Democrats threw them. Lord knows the proles should just be thankful for whatever shit their betters deign to give them.
And yes, evidently there was some misunderestimating as to what sort of appointments Gump would make. But the Democrats also misunderestimated how many votes might defect to Nader. As Rask pointed out, they could have at least made an attempt to triangulate Nader, to bring him in. Instead, they decided to treat him like a jerk, until the last fucking minute when their pants were down.
All in all, a pathetic campaign from the get-go. How do you blow 11 states? How do you take debating tips from Saturday Night Live? How do you lose to a guy who can't even speak coherently?
Well, you got four long years to think on that one, buddy. But first, you have to get past the denial. Yes, a few people defected to Ralph. Many more defected to Gump. Why is that?
388. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 3:32:49 PM
AssOfSpazz Message # 308 et al:
Short answer: Blow me.
Long answer: Blow me long time.
Longer answer: Between all the cozy professional and personal relationships of the players involved, it sure as hell smells like conflict of interest to me. Of course it's fine by you, because your moron won.
Now, if you want to sit there and tell me with a straight face that had all this been reversed, you and concerned would not raise a stink over every possible relationship -- well, I guess I'll just have to take your word for it.
389. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:34:04 PM
"Can any of you claim with a straight face that Gore would win? That
he'd even come close? "
Depends. There are more economic factors than just the lack of a recession. Look at Bush Sr, when the economy was growing and stable as well, just growing slowly with a stable high unemployment rate.
For what its worth, in US presidential election history, the record of incumbents when running for re-election is 20 wins and 10 losses.
390. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:35:12 PM
Rask,
Van Buren's term began in 1837. Is my math off?
391. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 3:36:04 PM
RD,
Gore got his ass kicked. A team playing on home court, with a streak going, and very friendly referees (the Media), which (due to its record) is expected to win by 21 points but instead loses by a field goal did, in fact, get its fucking bitch-ass kicked, and kicked hard.
If Dole had eked out a slender victory over Clinton in 1996, Clinton would have had *his* ass kicked. And George Bush the First, of course, did get his ass kicked, even though he had lots of external problems (the vagaries of the business cycle, Ross Perot).
Gore lost a game in which he had a 35 point lead going into the fourth quarter. He got his ass kicked. He got his clock cleaned and his balls put into a sling. He got demolished by a man who has the thinnest public-service resume of any serious Presidential candidate, and who's pro-life (an electoral loser), and who proposed a big tax cut the public basically didn't want.
And still he fucking lost.
Because he's a douchebag. And a corrupt douchebag at that. Buddhist Bagman Comrade Gore.
392. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:36:09 PM
"I thought Van Buren was in 36? Was he in the 20s?"
No, 36 is right, but that was over 164 years ago (not 166 - I made an error).
393. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 3:37:23 PM
"well, just growing slowly with a stable high unemployment rate."
Wrong. GWB left office with a stronger rate of growth than we've enjoyed for the past year.
Higher unemployment rate, yes. But that is a lagging indicator.
394. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:38:25 PM
Oh, lord. I was counting from Bush's term! I usually say "No standing veep had won the presidency in 150 before Bush did it" and forgot to add the 12 years.
395. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 3:38:57 PM
Ace:
Gore lost a game in which he had a 35 point lead going into the fourth quarter. He got his ass kicked. He got his clock cleaned and his balls put into a sling. He got demolished by a man who has the thinnest public-service resume of any serious Presidential candidate, and who's pro-life (an electoral loser), and who proposed a big tax cut the public basically didn't want.
Exactly.
So you're saying that Gore is Warren Moon, and Gump is Frank Reich? Interesting....who would be Bruce Smith then? Poppy? Bar?
396. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:39:41 PM
Actually, pro-life candidates have won more often than pro-choice candidates since it first became an issue in 1980.
397. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 3:40:00 PM
"Between all the cozy professional and personal relationships of the players involved, it sure as hell smells like conflict of interest to me."
It sounds that way to you because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Go look it up, idiot. Find "Legal Canon of Ethics" on-line. Go search for the dozens of articles on the silly conflict of interest claims, and read all the legal ethicists who said, flatly, there was no "conflict of interest" as that term has ever before been defined.
398. concerned - 1/5/2001 3:40:18 PM
Again, the SCOFLA justices who contributed to Pinocchio Bore's campaign are much more justifiably guilty of conflicts of interests.
But, I guess that smell is just fine to lefty noses. Sort of like the Porta-San maintenance people who are particular about the kind of lunchmeat on their sandwiches.
399. rubberducky - 1/5/2001 3:41:15 PM
gore may well indeed be a douchebag, Ace. certainly a man who needs to look at reevaluating his personal anti-perspiration hygiene choice.
nevertheless, he lost an election he shouldn't have had any problem winning but still won half a million more popular votes than the ultimate 'winner'
loser? yes. recipient of an 'ass kicking'? nope.
400. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:41:42 PM
Eric:"No, they voted against your self-interest. As did Bush voters. Nader voters voted for something they believed in. Maybe they should have fucking stayed home and let the big boys run things, I don't know. But if you're going to shit on one group for doing what they thought was right, at least have the sack to go after 'em all. "
No, the point is that it was against the self-interest of the *Naderites*, based on their self-described political goals. By backing Nader, they are much worse off than they would have been by backing Gore.
"As Rask pointed out, they could have at least made an attempt to triangulate Nader, to bring him in."
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "triangulate". "Triangulate", as defined by the Clintonistas, means to position yourself between someone on the left and someone on the right in order to grab the political center. So, triangulating Nader would not be to "bring him in", but to use his presence on the fringe to better portray yourself as a moderate. That is, I think Gore should have treated Nader *even more* like shit.
401. Fielding - 1/5/2001 3:43:34 PM
EC:
The Dems did not want you and your fellow Nader sanchos to stay home. They wanted you and your fellow sanchos to choose between A Gore AG or Ashcroft, between a Gore Interior pick or Norton, between a Gore Supreme Court nominee or Garza. You guys made the WRONG choice. Now we have Ashcroft, Norton and Garza. And I ask, are you happy with the results of your choice?
402. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 3:44:45 PM
Cartman:
When all informed parties unanimously agree that there was no conflict, and only uninformed, ignorant partisan asswipes yourself whine about a "conflict," perhaps -- just perhaps -- you're wrong and the experts are correct.
Just maybe, Cartman.
403. rubberducky - 1/5/2001 3:45:09 PM
Bush has already fielded Supreme Court nominees?
404. janjon - 1/5/2001 3:46:56 PM
I agree with Rask and the others that Gore should have triangulated Nader more. I know from personal experience having talked ad nauseum in the Fall with both Green "leaders" and, alas far too many, some of the bushy-tailed young idealists who fell for the Nader crap, hook line and sinker, that there was NO WAY they were going to fold their tents and vote for Gore. Gore surely knew this too. So, instead of continuing to court them, he indeed should have painted them as what they really were being - out on the fringe (and loving every self-important moment of it). This could have corralled a few more votes (say 600 or so clean ones in Florida) from souls who had bought into the idea that Gore was a bit too liberal for their taste.
405. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:49:52 PM
"Wrong. GWB left office with a stronger rate of growth than we've
enjoyed for the past year."
Why do you just make shit up like this? Annual growth in 1992 was 3.1%. Annual growth in the past year, as measured through September, was 4.2%
"Higher unemployment rate, yes. But that is a lagging indicator."
It had an abnormally long lag in 1992. Not that I blame this on Bush, mind you, but I do think it had a lot to do with his loss.
But anyway, my point still stands - even with stable economic growth (and you seem to think growth was higher than it was, so you don't really disagree with this point) it is quite possible to lose an election.
406. Fielding - 1/5/2001 3:50:13 PM
Ducks:
"Bush has already fielded Supreme Court nominees?"
No. I think Garza is a forgone conclusion, but any of the guys he is supposedly considering will suffice for Nader-bashing.
407. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:52:21 PM
janjon: More than 600. I like to point out that there are a lot more votes in the political center than there are on the political fringes. Moving to the center will almost always gain you more votes than moving to the left. It is the nature of a bell-shaped distribution.
408. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:53:29 PM
And the Nader voters probably wouldn't have stayed home. Based on exit polls, many more of them would have voted for Gore than would have stayed home, had Nader not been on the ticket.
409. rubberducky - 1/5/2001 3:54:54 PM
Re: Message # 406, Fielding.
No. I think Garza is a forgone conclusion, but any of the guys he is supposedly considering will suffice for Nader-bashing.
very good. do carry on.
410. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 3:55:08 PM
Rask - No, the point is that it was against the self-interest of the *Naderites*, based on their self-described political goals.
I don't think this is true in anything but the very short term. The hard left has been marginalized by the Clinton Administration for the last 8 years. They saw themselves being equally marginalized in a Gore administration. They want their seat at the table like they had with the Democrats in the 80's. The only way they could do that was to let the Democrats know how it feels when they shop elsewhere.
411. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:05:00 PM
JJ: Even in the long term, it is tilting at windmills, akin to the behavior of the Dixiecrats. They just aren't a powerful enough bloc to force the Dems to shift in their direction. They don't have the numbers, the organizational structure, or the money of the religious right, for instance. That being the case, by far their best bet is to take whatever success they can get.
Unless of course, they are more interested in making public, self-righteous, symbolic, and ineffectual (but "principled") stands than they are in actually having a positive impact. With leftists, that is always a concern.
412. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 4:10:08 PM
Raskolnikov
"They just aren't a powerful enough bloc to force the Dems to shift in their direction."
In their first, fledgling demonstration of power, they changed the outcome of an election.
413. jexster - 1/5/2001 4:11:35 PM
Heh-heh-heh
"AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - For now, President-elect Bush can do little but watch as President Clinton (news - web sites) orders last-minute changes big and small - from protecting millions of federal acres to changing the presidential license plates to promote statehood for Washington, D.C.
``He has been a busy beaver,'' Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said Friday, promising a review of ``each and every one'' of Clinton's orders once Bush takes office. ``We are taking note of them all.''
But while the incoming administration clearly has an eye on undoing some of what Clinton has done, turning back the clock is not always easy - either politically or procedurally. Some executive orders can be canceled simply by issuing later ones, but new federal rules are hard to undo."
414. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 4:11:37 PM
In their first, fledgling demonstration of power, they have solidified the conservative wing of the Supreme Court for perhaps decades.
415. jexster - 1/5/2001 4:12:56 PM
Niner you climb obstacles like old people f**k.
416. janjon - 1/5/2001 4:14:53 PM
francis - you underestimate the Senatorial approval process, as it will now unfold.
417. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 4:15:10 PM
Rask,
You are comparing the growth rates for the year as a whole. I said Bush left office with a stronger growth rate than we have now-- not that the growth for his last entire year was stronger.
If I remember right, Bush's last quarters were something like 4.1% growth, and Clinton's last quarter was 2.6% growth or thereabouts, with the last quarter looking like it will be a bit less than that.
418. CalGal - 1/5/2001 4:15:40 PM
In their first, fledgling demonstration of power, they changed the outcome of an election.
With the smallest percentage of a vote ever received by a third party candidate. It was the external factors that caused their influence, not their popularity.
419. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:16:41 PM
In a very close election, and you have yet to make any sort of argument showing that they wouldn't lose more votes moving toward Nader than they would gain. The political distribution contradicts you on this.
No, my point on power had to do more with logistics. Look at the religious right. They provide a lot of the manpower for the GOP, and a lot of money. Yes, the GOP could gain a lot of centrist votes if they cast them off (including mine a good share of the time), but they would lose the logistical support which allows them to reach centrists and win elections.
But the Greens are poor, unorganized, and do a shitty job of passing themselves off as centrists when stumping for votes (the "legalize hemp" t-shirts give them away), and there ain't that many of them anyway.
420. CalGal - 1/5/2001 4:17:51 PM
Besides, Frank, it ain't like they caused the Dems to shift. They just played spoiler. And I'd like to think that the Dems aren't criminally stupid enough to shift. But you never know.
If they do shift, however, all that suggests is that the Republicans will move left, too, to pick up the disaffected Dems in the center.
421. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:20:31 PM
Niner pointed out several times that John Hagelin swung the election to Bush as well as Nader.
The difference is that the Natural Law freaks didn't have anything obvious to lose by Bush winning the Presidency. The Greens did -that is where the frustration of Democrats comes from.
422. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 4:21:36 PM
"But anyway, my point still stands - even with stable economic growth (and you seem to think growth was higher than it was, so you don't really disagree with this point) it is quite possible to lose an election."
Yes, but you miss the whole point.
I was merely correcting your factual misstatement. I didn't mean to undermine my own statement.
Bush had stronger growth in his last couple of quarters than Clinton has now. But perception is everything.
No one believed Bush when he declared the recession over. The unemployment rate was still high, and people were still hurting. At least some people were.
It was believed then, as it is believed now by many partisan liberals, that the Bush recession lasted for years and did not dissipate until the Genius Godling Clinton took office. Of course the recession only lasted for two quarters, and the economy was growing at a nice pace even as Clinton criticized Bush on the economy.
As it stands now, it looks like we are moving towards a recession or at least a near-recession. We may be looking at a year of very small growth.
But none of that will come to pass until Bush is inaugurated.
To the public, it seems like the economy is still okay. Surely the economy seemed to be in great shape as of November 7th.
it wasn't. But the public didn't really appreciate that. And the recession was over, and solid growth underway, in November of 1992. But the country didn't appreciate that, either.
The public believed Gore was presiding over a still-surging economy on November 7th. They were wrong. But Gore still had the advantage of the public's belief in "the greatest prosperity in history."
423. Wombat - 1/5/2001 4:21:49 PM
Urquhart:
And this is something that you are pleased with?
424. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:22:03 PM
"You are comparing the growth rates for the year as a whole. I said
Bush left office with a stronger growth rate than we have now-- not
that the growth for his last entire year was stronger. "
Well, you mentioned annual growth in your post, not quarterly. I do believe you are right that 1992 ended strong, but of course people didn't know that in November. Just like they didn't know the current slowdown was occuring during this past election day.
425. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 4:22:18 PM
Wombat
Yes.
426. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 4:22:46 PM
A team playing on home court, with a streak going, and very friendly referees (the Media), which (due to its record) is expected to win by 21 points but instead loses by a field goal did, in fact, get its fucking bitch-ass kicked, and kicked hard.
Ace forgets the referees are the guys with the stripes on their uniforms, and Rhenquist dresses the part. They huddled, argued and called Gore's touchdown pass out of bounds, five of the crew unplugged the instant replay monitor, and said review was impossible because it might cast doubt on the correctness of the original call.
This is called a great win by the underdog who says bad and good calls are part of the game, and a royal screwing by the favorites. An ass kicking is when the blown call doesn't even affect the spread.
427. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:23:18 PM
Ace: Okay, I agree with that.
428. Wombat - 1/5/2001 4:24:21 PM
Urquhart:
Why are you pleased with the result?
429. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:24:57 PM
Wombat: I think Francis is the latest incarnation of Niner/Jack Vincennes, that he has been pretending to be a Naderite for the fun of it, and that his comment about the conservative court was his way of "announcing his presence with authority".
430. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 4:25:25 PM
Wombat
Because I am more consonant with conservative political positions and conservative legal doctrine.
431. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 4:26:49 PM
Raskolnikov
At no point have I pretended to be a Naderite. I have offered sound advice as to how the Democratic Party should deal with Nader, and I have offered my opinion that if they deal with Nader in the manner you suggest, I would be pleased.
432. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 4:26:56 PM
"Ace forgets the referees are the guys with the stripes on their uniforms, and Rhenquist dresses the part."
The Boys in the Booth had to review the call, because the hopelessly biased refs on the field (the Fla Supreme Court) had made a fucking has out of every call in overtime.
433. Wombat - 1/5/2001 4:27:15 PM
Ah, so.
434. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 4:27:40 PM
I apologize for an error in the earlier analogy- something closer would be that the rationale is that "because reviewing the tape might cast doubts on the point spread in the next round of the playoffs."
435. janjon - 1/5/2001 4:28:15 PM
This Francis could only be Jackie in new outerclothes.
436. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 4:29:21 PM
Ace- the whole point was that there was no review of the call on the field-the vote count in Florida, and the boys in the booth refused to look at the tape.
437. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:29:28 PM
"At no point have I pretended to be a Naderite."
True, you just defended Nader's actions, allowed us to jump to conclusions, and refrained from correcting any errors we made in doing so.
"I have offered sound advice as to how the Democratic Party should deal with Nader, and I have offered my opinion that if they deal with Nader in the manner you suggest, I would be pleased."
You don't think triangulation would work?
438. CalGal - 1/5/2001 4:31:12 PM
I have offered sound advice as to how the Democratic Party should deal with Nader, and I have offered my opinion that if they deal with Nader in the manner you suggest, I would be pleased.
Quite the contrary. If the Dems were so dim as to follow your advice, you'd be pleased. And if they are that dim, so be it.
But if the Dems see a real advantage in catering to Naderites, be very, very scared. It would suggest that the country is moving left. Since that's extremely unlikely, they're far better off ignoring Nader and focusing on the environment as is their habit anyway.
439. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:32:21 PM
Francis: Let me flip this around. If Gore had managed to win Florida by the same margin Bush did, would you now be arguing that the GOP needs to follow the strategy you advise for the Dems in dealing with Buchanan? Buchanan would have had just as much a claim to costing Bush the election in such circumstances.
440. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 4:33:00 PM
Raskolnikov
I have not defended Nader's actions, as I believe they do not require a defense. I have explained what I believe to be his rationale. You, in your milieu of noses rubbed in it, and punishment, and just desserts, have read my advice as a defense.
As for triangulation, it has become a catch-word of the day and means less and less upon each careless use. I'd be interested in hearing specifics on your plan to "triangulate" Nader.
441. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:33:27 PM
OK people: please note that two out of the three voices advocating that Democrats should embrace Nader (JJ and St. Francis of A-Sissy, here), are Republicans.
442. janjon - 1/5/2001 4:33:42 PM
It may be extremely unlikely that the country is moving left, but it also is even more extremely unlikely that the country is or will want to be treated as if it has or is moving to the right.
Therein lies one of many Achilles heels for W's handlers. Ain't gonna be too long before they all begin believing their own shit.
443. janjon - 1/5/2001 4:36:15 PM
apropros of not much, can anyone explain why this is suddenly a new thread?
444. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:38:30 PM
"As for triangulation, it has become a catch-word of the day and
means less and less upon each careless use. I'd be interested in
hearing specifics on your plan to "triangulate" Nader."
I have given them a few times. Attack Bush's environmental record as bad for business. Attack Nader's ideas as horrible for economic growth. Tout yourself as the advocate of a middle ground that favors a clean environment without consigning billions of people to poverty.
Use Nader's ideas on health care reform to contrast Gore's plan, proving that it isn't socialized medicine.
Basically, "Sister Souljah" his ass.
445. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:39:55 PM
That is, you don't need to attack Nader personally and risk offending his voters, or those who sympathize with them. But find a marginalized proxy that no one has ever heard of, and pick a fight with him.
446. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 4:41:15 PM
W's biggest problem is that the election came at a time where the body politic is near the center and drifting to and fro without any appreciable trend to either return to Reaganite/Neo-Reaganite conservatism, or to truly swing left towards progressivism or classical liberalism. The dynamic is driven increasingly by ad hoc coalitions of single issue groups on the fringes while the majority dithers in the center.
447. rubberducky - 1/5/2001 4:43:30 PM
Re: Message # 443, janjon.
apropros of not much, can anyone explain why this is suddenly a new thread?
just an effort to make the thread more reader friendly, basically.
hopefully, more people will contribute if there is less of a back log to wade through.
it was my suggestion, so feel free to blame or praise me as you see fit.
448. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:43:43 PM
Additionally, I think a lot of Naderites honestly believed that "Tweedlee and Tweedledum" bullshit, but after 4 years of Bush, with his Interior secretary, AG, and likely Supreme Court nominees, are much less likely to believe it next time.
(And I do apologize for "St Francis A-Sissy", but it was too good to pass up)
449. Indiana Jones - 1/5/2001 4:44:01 PM
I can't believe you folks didn't recognize Furquhart the first time he posted.
The kung-fu grip is a dead giveaway.
450. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:45:54 PM
I was pretty sure it was him in the Movies thread, but his defense of Nader's thinking threw me off temporarily, and I wondered if Angel-Five had taken a new pseud. But writing styles didn't match.
451. janjon - 1/5/2001 4:46:27 PM
Am I wrong in thinking that FU was the name of that oh-so-cleverly evil Prime Minister in some Masterpiece Theater series of several years ago?
Jackie always did strike me as a guy with a big wannabe complex.
452. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 4:46:51 PM
"If Gore had managed to win Florida by the same margin Bush did, would you now be arguing that the GOP needs to follow the strategy you advise for the Dems in dealing with Buchanan? Buchanan would have had just as much a claim to costing Bush the election in such circumstances."
No. Nader was a larger factor than Buchanan (or Hagelin). Worse, he contaminates young Democratic voters and committed Democratic voters. Accordingly, his influence is more pernicious.
Moreover, I have only suggested modest entreaties to Nader and horsetrading, if he is so inclined, as well as a cessation of personal venom and punishment. This seems reasonable and practicable.
453. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 4:52:04 PM
jonesatlaw:
I bet you dollars to donuts GW couldn't explain what you meant by this paragraph:
W's biggest problem is that the election came at a time where the body politic is near the center and drifting to and fro without any appreciable trend to either return to Reaganite/Neo-Reaganite conservatism, or to truly swing left towards progressivism or classical liberalism. The dynamic is driven increasingly by ad hoc coalitions of single issue groups on the fringes while the majority dithers in the center.
454. CalGal - 1/5/2001 4:52:36 PM
Worse, he contaminates young Democratic voters and committed Democratic voters.
Hahahahaha! Contaminates young Dem voters. Right. So the Dems need to move left to keep a bunch of whiny green punks happy?
455. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 4:52:40 PM
Neither W nor his father has a grip on the "vision thing" save for a missionary zeal for writing thank you notes and fundraising.
I'd be hard pressed to settle on a overarching vision for the current administration either. This is as much a reason for the wishy washy election results as anything. I am not saying that there was no difference between parties or candidates, just that they were not on public display. They played out largely in the form of who's writing whose checks, and the winks and nods that accompany them.
456. janjon - 1/5/2001 4:52:51 PM
Not a doubt in my mind that the first Sup. Ct. nominee will be a Hispanic. That will put the Dems. into a big box.
457. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 4:53:43 PM
Rask - I think you misunderstand me. If I were advising the Democrats on how to win elections, I would not advise them to embrace Nader. As a Republican I hope they do embrace Nader and shift to the left because that will establish them as the minority party. I see this as a big problem for the Democrats. They need to be able to hold the center and recapture the left in order to become the majority. Without someone with Clinton's charisma, I don't think they can do it.
A case in point, the next Democratic nominee for President will have to convince the left of his strong commitment to the environment while not scaring business and workers with that commitment. Many Naderites believed that even though Gore talked the environment talk, he wouldn't walk the environmental walk. They saw him beholden to business interests who contributed to his campaign. The next candidate will have to walk a fine line between these two sides.
458. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 4:54:32 PM
I knew who FU was from the get-go because Jack spoke so glowingly of him prior to taking on his initials...which I'm sure make Jack chuckle each time we address him thus.
459. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 4:55:09 PM
jonesatlaw:
I bet you dollars to donuts GW couldn't explain what you meant by this paragraph:
I'm just hoping that the folks around here can.
460. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 4:56:30 PM
"Francis Urquhart"?
This is Niner's big change?
Please.
Gaywad name for a gaywad poster.
461. janjon - 1/5/2001 4:58:14 PM
jones. Call it vision or lack thereof, the inherent problems with formulating policy that has a bite after an election of this type, whatever. It portends a first class disaster when you have a President who really does want to stay above the Fray and just be content with setting out broad principles and then delegating. (Oh sure, he talks about holding people accountable. Right.)
This particular MBA model may work for some corporations. But not the really successful ones (in other words, W ain't no Jack Welch).
And, gee golly gosh whiz, the U.S. government ain't a corporation.
462. CalGal - 1/5/2001 4:58:14 PM
Well, the names have been getting lighter and lighter, loafer wise.
463. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 4:58:33 PM
Ace:
There are levels to FU that you might not be able to appreciate...
465. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:59:52 PM
"No. Nader was a larger factor than Buchanan (or Hagelin)."
Well, your earlier argument was simply that Nader was powerful enough to throw the election. Evidently we then both agree now that this isn't sufficient enough, and you were engaging in sophistry.
"Worse, he contaminates young Democratic voters and committed Democratic voters. Accordingly, his influence is more pernicious."
This is a better argument, but I think it will be inconsequential after 4 years of Bush. Democrats were spoiled after 8 years of Clinton, particularly younger ones who never really experienced what environmental exploitation *really* looked like. The post-election controversy helped as well, as the all the post-election hand-wringing was over the vote count, and damned little of it was over how the Democrats could better deal with Nader. My prediction is that Nader is a non-factor 4 years from now, no matter what the Democrats do.
"Moreover, I have only suggested modest entreaties to Nader and
horsetrading, if he is so inclined, as well as a cessation of personal venom and punishment. This seems reasonable and practicable."
Horsetrading: no fucking way. Any concession to Nader is a move away from the center, and will only encourage him. Look at how unsuccessful this was for the Democrats wrt Jesse Jackson. They didn't regain the White House until they publicly spurned him. Cessation of personal venom and punishment: I actually agree. I think he will be a non-factor anyway, but I am in favor of hedging my bets. No sense pissing him off more than you have to.
But I don't think a few months of recriminations now are a problem, as part of preliminary planning for 2004. Emotional resentments fade over time, but practical lessons stay longer. As such, I think it is worth making it quite clear to Greens that their actions had a decisive impact in putting Bush in the White House.
466. concerned - 1/5/2001 4:59:54 PM
With his name changes, will he next go to FU2 when challenged?
467. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 5:00:29 PM
Francis Urquart Conservative Keeping Others From Faltering.
468. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 5:01:09 PM
janjon:
Maybe W can do for the country what he did with his baseball team...trade off the best guys, get the public to pay for his house, and then sell out for big bucks when he gets bored.
469. Fielding - 1/5/2001 5:01:23 PM
I thought "FU" was short for Felix Unger.
470. robertjayb - 1/5/2001 5:01:36 PM
.
Mary, Mary, quite contrary, gets a new job...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Mary Matalin, named as an adviser to the Bush White House on Friday, is a sharp-tongued Republican ideologue known for her outspoken support of candidates on television and campaigns and her marriage to Democratic partisan James Carville.
Vice President-elect Dick Cheney said Matalin will be assistant to President-elect George W. Bush after he takes office on Jan. 20, and counselor to Cheney in such areas as communications, political strategy and coordination.
Matalin has a history of backing Bushes -- she was deputy campaign manager for political operations in then-President George Bush's unsuccessful 1992 re-election bid against Bill Clinton -- and a taste for political battle.
471. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:01:44 PM
And with a name like Francis Urquhart, I really suspect that his action figure's Kung Fu grip has a limp wrist. Maybe Cellar was right all along?
472. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:04:17 PM
JJ: I agree with that. However, I think it is a fairly easy walk. It isn't businesses you really have to worry about. Business owners vote the Elephant ticket anyway. Instead, you have to pay attention to employees, who like clean air, clean water, and national parks, but also want jobs.
473. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 5:05:24 PM
"Well, the names have been getting lighter and lighter, loafer wise."
I thought I was the only one who noticed.
What will the next name be? Little Lord Fondleboy?
474. janjon - 1/5/2001 5:06:12 PM
Judith. God Bless America. Ain't it great how a guy who was a total failure for the first 20 years of his adult life can just turn it around? (sshhh - lets not talk about how Pete Uberroth was brought into the picture by Poppy to insure that the group that had been convinced to bring W into the picture for that name value got the team.)
475. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 5:07:34 PM
Francis Urquart Notorious NAMBLA Youth!
476. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:07:37 PM
I did a search on "Francis Urquhart", and I found this review of a British Movie starring Ian Richardson.
"Perhaps the most challenging experience for the viewer, is a pensive self examination of why the filmmakers succeed in generating your almost axiomatic sympathy for the reptilian scoundrel that is Urquhart. A kind of wicked grin tends to materialize on the lips of first time viewers of the film, as Urquhart advances ingeniously from victory to victory through subversion, deceit, the tacit betrayal and eventually murder. An evidence that the vindictive darkness of the pure Machiavellian Urquhart, inhabits many of us."
[shudder]
477. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 5:09:13 PM
THAT'S the Francis we know and love!!
478. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 5:10:53 PM
Rask- did it mention his height, or lack thereof?
479. CalGal - 1/5/2001 5:10:55 PM
Next up: Mr. Ripley.
480. Fielding - 1/5/2001 5:11:37 PM
Great. Now Mary Matalin can do to the country what she's been doing to Carville.
481. concerned - 1/5/2001 5:12:08 PM
Borrowing the first name of the NAACP president, how about this gut-twisting appellation:
Kweisi Urquhart
482. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 5:13:36 PM
Fielding:
Great. Now Mary Matalin can do to the country what she's been doing to Carville.
What's that? Giving him ugly kids?
483. janjon - 1/5/2001 5:14:27 PM
If I recall correctly, FU deposes of one of his enemies (female) by throwing her off the roof of a building tall enough for the purpose.
And, that was one of his less despicable acts.
The role models some people pick. (Jackie's fantasy life must be something....)
484. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:15:34 PM
jones: later on in the review...
"this viewer was very surprised that a diminutive latino with a lousy jump shot could convey such Thatcher-esque menace"
485. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 5:16:12 PM
Actually, that was not one of his enemies but his lover.
486. Fielding - 1/5/2001 5:16:21 PM
487. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:16:29 PM I am disappointed that Jack didn't take my suggestion of "Kinsey Milhone". It would have been more macho. 488. janjon - 1/5/2001 5:17:22 PM That is funny, Rask. 489. Indiana Jones - 1/5/2001 5:18:06 PM I tried to create a new log in as James Traficant the other night but never received my password. 490. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:18:14 PM Thank you Jack, for allowing us mono-noms to amuse ourselves at your expense. It is awfully big of you. 491. Fielding - 1/5/2001 5:18:25 PM 492. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:19:15 PM Jan: Even funnier if you know that I really *did* suggest he use Kinsey Milhone as his name. 493. janjon - 1/5/2001 5:19:17 PM That is funny, Rask. 494. Fielding - 1/5/2001 5:19:31 PM 495. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 5:20:11 PM 496. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:21:52 PM The first of the 497. janjon - 1/5/2001 5:21:56 PM Jackie's always seemed the Pink Panther type to me. If you make the PP a bit more fey, that is. 498. Fielding - 1/5/2001 5:21:58 PM 499. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:22:44 PM The first of the Francis Urquhart novels. 500. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:23:13 PM Sorry, Jan. Bad link on my part. 501. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 5:23:45 PM Rask - Business owners vote the Elephant ticket anyway. 502. Indiana Jones - 1/5/2001 5:24:24 PM From Rask's link... 503. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 5:24:37 PM 504. CalGal - 1/5/2001 5:24:54 PM hahahahahahahahah! 505. CalGal - 1/5/2001 5:25:26 PM That was to Indy's post. Lord, that's funny. 506. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:25:36 PM JJ: In which case, a radical environmental platform would do wonders for fundraising? 507. janjon - 1/5/2001 5:26:07 PM It is becoming clear that Jackie did thorough research into the complexities of the character before picking FU as his newest alter ego. 508. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 5:42:09 PM Rask - In which case, a radical environmental platform would do wonders for fundraising? 509. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:54:20 PM JJ: 510. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 6:05:50 PM Rask - Business money tends to go to the GOP anyway. 511. concerned - 1/5/2001 6:19:11 PM Re. 510 - 512. concerned - 1/5/2001 6:21:02 PM Personally, I think truly principled people are the exception. In that regard Bore can't even run with the herd. 513. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 6:27:17 PM 514. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 6:41:27 PM Tommy - You once thought Bore was a man of principle? When was that? 515. concerned - 1/5/2001 6:53:24 PM JJ - 516. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/5/2001 7:59:07 PM 517. concerned - 1/5/2001 9:53:53 PM 518. concerned - 1/5/2001 9:57:12 PM What Bush should not consider doing is interfering with the Robert Ray IC investigation or possible prosecution itself. That's Demorat bullshit. 519. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 10:01:26 PM 520. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 2:19:21 AM Ace Message # 397: 521. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 2:21:11 AM Rask Message # 400: 522. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 2:25:53 AM Fielding Message # 401: 523. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 2:27:52 AM The sad part is, I think the Democrats know the truth. They have to. They know that the real reason they lost is because they couldn't make the sale in those eleven states that defected to the GOP. Did those people leave because they think the Dems are too liberal? Possibly; stranger things have happened. People are stupid sometimes, and far more willing to react than to think. 524. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 2:28:53 AM Ace Message # 402: 525. joezan - 1/6/2001 2:47:05 AM 526. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 3:06:44 AM Joezan: 527. alistairconnor - 1/6/2001 4:21:46 AM Eric : I think you'll come round to sane environmental positions too, one day. 528. alistairconnor - 1/6/2001 4:24:11 AM Message # 508 JJ, I'd just like to say that I agree with your post. 529. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 9:41:20 AM How right-wing is John Ashcroft? Out of sight. Tony Lewis in today's NYT 530. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 10:02:04 AM Frank Rich's op-ed is even better. "Give Me That Old-Time Partisanship" 531. Cellar Door - 1/6/2001 10:20:33 AM "People are stupid sometimes, and far more willing to react than to think." 532. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 10:21:19 AM More Frank Rich 533. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 10:35:08 AM Rich, concluded 534. Cellar Door - 1/6/2001 11:35:44 AM The Official George W. Bush Inaugural Song! 535. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:06:47 PM "I mean, these good folks are revolutionizing how businesses conduct their business. And, like them, I am very optimistic about our position in the world and about its influence on the United States. We're concerned about the short-term economic news, but long term I'm optimistic. And so, I hope investors, you know--secondly, I hope investors hold investments for periods of time--that I've always found the best investments are those that you salt away based on economics."--Austin, Texas, Jan. 4, 2001 536. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:13:23 PM Elvis is leaving the building. After an eight-year virtuoso performance, a concert of aching lows and remarkable (alternative: "striking") highs, he is singing his final encore, taking his last bows. For 96 months (alt: "nearly 3,000 days"), he has been the indispensable man (alt: "alpha and the omega"/"sun and moon"/"rock and roll"/"wise King Henry and roguish Falstaff") of American politics. 537. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:16:18 PM The Only Presidential Assessment You Will Ever Need: Bill Clinton, the Alpha and the Omega 538. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:19:49 PM 539. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:20:18 PM Courtesy THE WIZ! 540. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:24:56 PM 541. Electric Slide - 1/6/2001 12:31:49 PM For the sake of cable news channels everywhere, please indict Bill Clinton for perjury. 542. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:39:07 PM from a recent e-mail... 543. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:49:49 PM Mandate or no, George W. Bush is forging ahead with Cabinet appointments, policy forums and talk of a "first 100 days." Bush and his team have assembled a Cabinet faster than any administration since Richard Nixon's, and before Bush takes the oath of office on January 20 they'll have laid the groundwork for passage of an agenda that closely resembles the worst-case scenario painted by Bush critics during the 2000 campaign. 544. Electric Slide - 1/6/2001 1:26:46 PM YooHooo! Isn't life sweet. I love Karl Rove and he's going to keep the Republicans in power in Washington for another generation. 545. JudithAtHome - 1/6/2001 1:34:45 PM 546. JudithAtHome - 1/6/2001 1:38:43 PM 547. Electric Slide - 1/6/2001 2:18:29 PM CLINTON TRIES TO ERASE THE PAST 548. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 2:45:06 PM Connor Message # 527: 549. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 2:51:13 PM Jexster Message # 535: 550. JudithAtHome - 1/6/2001 3:01:09 PM 551. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 3:54:35 PM Juditha: 552. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 3:58:59 PM You know, the more I watch Bush and the guys around him, and how things are starting to come down, I'm more convinced than ever that I was right about him, and them. This whole "dumb guy" thing, the lifeless oratory, the fractured syntax, the folksy "major-league asshole"-isms -- stupider like a fox. 553. Indiana Jones - 1/6/2001 4:12:52 PM Have you noticed how many of the good ole boys around Bush are fat? 554. JudithAtHome - 1/6/2001 4:40:13 PM 555. Indiana Jones - 1/6/2001 5:22:26 PM Judith: How can you tell that Tony Snow has dry skin? 556. JudithAtHome - 1/6/2001 5:29:43 PM 557. Electric Slide - 1/6/2001 5:30:59 PM Tipper is furious at Hillary. Expect dirt on the Clintons from her friends after January 20th. 558. JudithAtHome - 1/6/2001 5:32:12 PM 559. Indiana Jones - 1/6/2001 5:42:01 PM Judith: But the other senators haven't stood with Gore at the Democratic Convention twice with arms raised in victory. And the other senators didn't have Gore "open a political vein" by supporting her husband during his time of need. And the other senators (with the exception of Schumer) weren't from a state that voted for Gore by a margin greater than her own (as I recall). 560. Indiana Jones - 1/6/2001 5:47:13 PM On another subject, I see where OPEC is apparently going to cut production to keep up the price of oil. Given that Greenspan has just reduced interest rates by 1/2 point, it will be interesting to see which way the economy goes with these conflicting moves. 561. joezan - 1/6/2001 8:45:28 PM 562. JJBiener - 1/6/2001 9:04:30 PM After reading the attacks on Ashcroft over the past few days, I realized that the Democratic Party has a new patron saint: Joseph McCarthy. You guys must be so proud. 563. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 11:09:44 PM Ashcroft is beyond the pale of rational tolerant and civilized society, the American counterpart of the fundamentalists in Afghanistan. JJ I'm surprised you would extend yourself to defend such a backward (or barely?) thinking, intolerant, phony. I don't know many people like him, and I almost forget they exist in real life outside the ones like Falwell and Bob Barr who inhabit the talk shows. So I'm indebted to Tony Lewis and Frank Rich to remind me how bad he really is. The one consolation is that nearly all of them have gravitated to the GOP. 564. JJBiener - 1/6/2001 11:24:49 PM wonkers - I have been looking for you. Send me an email at jjbiener@yahoo.com. 565. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 11:27:40 PM He's a barbarian. He doesn't even believe in dancing or sex standing up because it might lead to dancing. 566. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 11:31:20 PM JJ, it's his position on the issues of abortion, civil rights, race relations, corporate welfare, etc., that bothers us. Call it politics if you will, but that's just a way of hiding the ugly truth of his ugly beliefs. Or, if it's just "politics" that makes it even worse as in the case of Bush pere and his dirty racial ad attacking Dukakis. 567. JJBiener - 1/6/2001 11:32:54 PM McCarthyism is alive and well and living in the heart of the Democratic Party. 568. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 11:39:08 PM JJ, I know you from the Fray and the Mote well enough to know that you aren't a racist, fundamentalist, homophobic, mysogynist. You are carrying loyalty to the GOP too far. 569. JJBiener - 1/6/2001 11:39:12 PM Wonkers - it's his position on the issues of abortion, civil rights, race relations, corporate welfare, etc., that bothers us. 570. JJBiener - 1/6/2001 11:42:18 PM Wonkers - You are carrying loyalty to the GOP too far 571. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 11:42:43 PM You are right I don't know what the senator from Claritin and Anheuser Bush's deep down beliefs are or if he has any. I am judging him by his words and his actions and the positions he has taken on quite specific issues. 572. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 11:46:28 PM JJ, Did you read Lewis's and Rich's op-ed pieces in today's NYT? How about dealing with the specifics. If they are innacurate or erroneous please let us know how so? Did he get an honorary degree from Bob Jones "University?" Does he oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest? Does he oppose handgun control? Did he take $50,000 from Schering-Plough after sponsoring a bill to extend the patent on Claritin? etc, etc. Is he opposed to dancing? 573. cmboyce - 1/6/2001 11:47:58 PM The "Democratic heart" has merged itself and is now simply a ventricle of the Republicrat heart. This organ's pathological history encompasses one quite serious attack and numerous minor episodes of McCarthyism, to be sure, but I don't see that the remarks I've seen on Ashcroft qualify as symptoms thereof. He has not been accused of treason; he has not been threatened in his livelihood (rather the opposite); remarks have been made about his politics, and they seem to me unexceptionable. 574. cmboyce - 1/6/2001 11:49:06 PM My 573 was in response to JJ's McCarthyism is alive and well and living in the heart of the Democratic Party. 575. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 11:55:19 PM cm, Very good. Ashcroft's nomination shows that McCarthyism still lives in the GOP. Ashcroft is a millenial fundamentalist protestant near-clone of McCarthy without the bad manners. 576. cmboyce - 1/6/2001 11:59:35 PM Well, I can't say I've seen any resemblence, actually. He reminds me more of the Christian right. I think the bigots and rightwingers of our political world learned that the techniques of McCarthy—and that's all M'ism refers to; there isn't any belief-system there, whether anti-dancing or anything else—were and are counterproductive. 577. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 12:08:05 AM Wonkers - Did he get an honorary degree from Bob Jones "University?" 578. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 12:09:11 AM Well, I guess what I meant is that Ashcroft probably would have been a McCarthy supporter had he been McCarthy's contemporary, not that he is using McCarthy's tactics today, although his attacks on Judge White seem to have bordered on McCarthyism, substituting soft on crime and capital punishment for communist or fellow traveler. 579. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 12:11:14 AM CMBoyce - My 573 was in response to JJ's McCarthyism is alive and well and living in the heart of the Democratic Party. 580. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 12:15:29 AM You seem not to have read very far, JJ. Either that or, like those who call Republicans "Fascists" you have only a vague, arguably sentimental notion of what McCarthy actually was. 581. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 12:15:44 AM cm, You go way to far in characterizing the Democratic Party as a ventricle of the GOP. You are talking like a Naderite. 582. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 12:25:57 AM And notice that I certainly don't think he resembles Uncle Joe. I think he's a moral troglodyte, based on what I read are his opinions and positions. It is morally trogloditic to want to deny abortion to a rape or incest victim (the latter a subset of the other, actually); it is trogloditic to invent the evidence one presents to keep a black of a court. It is morally trogloditic to insist on the unacceptability of other people's sexual natures because you subscribe to a doctrine that disaspproves of them, and especially if one also take a job which in principle protects the citizenry against bias. It is merely a misdemeanor (and foolish) to oppose the regulation of dangerous appliances. 583. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 12:25:58 AM No doubt Ashcroft changes his socks and underwear daily, and if you lent Ashcroft $1000 he would no doubt repay it on time with interest. And he probably isn't screwing his secretary. If that's what you mean by honorable I concede the point. But his positions on several issues are anathema to the majority of Americans. And those positions aren't even good politics for the GOP, and apparently they weren't even good politics for Ashcroft himself. 584. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 12:30:03 AM wonkers, not of the GOP, of the Republicrats. And Nader is right about a good deal; he just has no political sense whatsoever, and so he shot himself in the foot, or maybe the heart. 585. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 12:30:56 AM cmboyce - You seem not to have read very far, JJ. 586. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 12:33:07 AM Sebastopol is nice. The bottom up approach makes more sense to me than Nader's contribution to the election of Bush. I hope he did shoot himself in the heart! 587. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 12:35:28 AM CMBoyce - I think he's a moral troglodyte, based on what I read are his opinions and positions. 588. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 12:46:23 AM CMBoyce - I think he's a moral troglodyte, based on what I read are his opinions and positions. 589. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 12:48:35 AM JJ, do you suppose that "saving America from the Communist Menace" is not intended for political gain. The reason people did, and/or do, regard Communism as a menace is that they fear that if it gets the political gain, their political culture will be changed in a way they won't like. Shit, that's what all politics is, getting society done the way you want it done. 590. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 12:51:03 AM JJ, I'm not intolerant of Ashcroft and his trogloditic ilk. I just don't think the sonofabitch should be enforcing the law. He can conduct his moral life as he wants to, otherwise. 591. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/7/2001 12:54:57 AM 592. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 12:56:00 AM CMBoyce - I bet you think your shit doesn't stink either. Don't look in the mirror too long. You might not like what you see. 593. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 12:57:20 AM Hey, there's some salient political commentary, JJ. 594. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 1:05:48 AM cmboyce - It wasn't a political commentary. It was a commentary on your inability to see in yourself the very things you accuse other of. You are appalled by Ashcroft's supposed intolerance, and yet you are completely blind to your own. I thought it worthy of comment. 595. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 1:07:36 AM See Message # 590, JJ. Supposing that you can, through the vapor you seem to have wrapped about yourself. 596. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 1:13:16 AM CMBoyce - I read #590, and #592 still stands. 597. arkymalarky - 1/7/2001 1:23:43 AM It is perfectly legitimate to have concerns about someone's fitness as AG based on the individual's political history. That's not intolerance, it's exercising a basic civic interest. 598. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 1:32:06 AM Arky - It is perfectly legitimate to have concerns about someone's fitness as AG based on the individual's political history. 599. concerned - 1/7/2001 3:44:02 AM How much will NMD really cost, and how well will it really work? You don't need to know. 600. concerned - 1/7/2001 3:48:55 AM To the Mote Lefty droolers: Now, even Pinocchio Bore has officially conceded as President of the Senate that Bush bested him in the electoral college tally. 601. concerned - 1/7/2001 4:47:32 AM Personally, I think John Ashcroft's position on abortion is peripheral to any effect he will have as AG. A 'litmus test', inappropriately applied, IOW. 602. OhioSTOPAS - 1/7/2001 6:03:30 AM Hmmm . . . according to his defenders, John Ashcroft is threatened with rejection to a federal post for which he is well qualified by partisans who are misrepresenting his record for their political purposes. 603. jexster - 1/7/2001 8:56:01 AM rReligious Rights' Push For Crypto Racist, Homophobe Ashcroft - The New York Times 604. jexster - 1/7/2001 8:59:05 AM We needn't be concerned with bastard-elect's plans for missile defense or the wildlife refuge if Congressional democrats and sane republicans do their duty.... 605. jexster - 1/7/2001 9:03:57 AM The Florida EC votes should have been tossed as the product of the corrupt electoral and judicial system that produced them. 606. jexster - 1/7/2001 9:05:33 AM 607. jexster - 1/7/2001 9:14:27 AM The Moron's Bipartisan BushShit 608. jexster - 1/7/2001 9:16:54 AM "The New Republic has obtained a copy of President Bush's inaugural address, and it reveals the new president's determination to end Washington's adversarial culture and restore comity between Democrats and Republicans. "A new breeze is blowing, and the old bipartisanship must be made new again," Bush declares. "The American people await action. They didn't send us here to bicker." 609. Greystoke - 1/7/2001 10:24:21 AM Gale Norton, the polluters' best friend. 610. Greystoke - 1/7/2001 10:25:30 AM The federal government was forced to spend $150 million in an emergency cleanup of Summitville, and Norton's inaction opened her to criticism that she was a hypocrite because she just had won election with numerous television ads calling her Colorado's "tough law" candidate. 611. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 10:51:49 AM 612. Greystoke - 1/7/2001 10:56:40 AM The Gale Norton article gives us a little snapshot of the future. A future where George Bush spearheads an effort to give large chunks of federal regulatory authority to the states. And then the states sit on their hands and allow business a free reign. 613. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 11:00:05 AM 614. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 11:02:27 AM 615. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 11:03:09 AM Ashcroft from today's NYT: 616. OhioSTOPAS - 1/7/2001 11:10:11 AM There he goes again: Senator Kyl (R - Arizona) bullshitting on Meet the Press, claiming that the Supreme Court has held that a union member has a right to individually approve or disapprove in advance use of a portion of his or her dues for political purposes. Wrong. 617. Wombat - 1/7/2001 11:17:32 AM What Ashcoft did to Judge White was very much McCarthy-style smear politics. In order to find a stick to beat the late Mel Carnahan, Ashcroft smeared Judge White, claiming--on the basis of no evidence whatsoever--that Judge White was a friend to criminals and opposed the death penalty. 618. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 11:19:43 AM Or "The more you stir a turd, the more it stinks." From Morris Palmer Tilley's "A Dictionary of the Proverbs in England from the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries." 619. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 11:25:28 AM "I would have grave concerns about Gale Norton's aggressiveness in enforcing environmental compliance and protecting citizens from environmental damage..." 620. Wombat - 1/7/2001 11:26:52 AM Jeez, is Ashcroft a loon or what? Mighty prideful of him to "anoint" himself. 621. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 11:30:17 AM 622. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 11:38:37 AM Hmm. Governor Ashcroft appears to have taken it upon himself to improve upon the Bible. I'm surprised his constituents tolerated that. 623. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 11:43:25 AM 624. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 11:47:23 AM I strongly disagree with Ashcroft's position on all the above issues as do most educated, rational and tolerant Americans. 625. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 11:51:22 AM 626. OhioSTOPAS - 1/7/2001 11:54:16 AM "[The President] can choose his cabinet as he sees fit, provided that cabinet is qualified apart from their political views." 627. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 11:56:38 AM 628. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:03:24 PM I don't agree with that statement. Nor, apparently, did the Republican Senators who refused to confirm Bill Lann Lee as an Assistant Attorney General. 629. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:08:54 PM Well, technically, that should read "enough ELECTORS" as far as the Presidency part goes. 630. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 12:09:46 PM 631. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 12:13:12 PM 632. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 12:14:35 PM 633. Toenails - 1/7/2001 12:15:54 PM 634. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:24:41 PM Linda Chavez, the Labor Secretary-elect, had a Guatamalan woman, an illegal alien, living with her for over a year but she didn't pay her a salary or anything... 635. Greystoke - 1/7/2001 12:27:33 PM Toenails 636. OhioSTOPAS - 1/7/2001 12:28:42 PM "Ohio: Are you saying the Senate should be able to reject a nominee to 637. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:30:00 PM Unless, of course, you mean that those 500,000 voters were not educated and rational. 638. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:31:45 PM Ohio: Fair enough. 639. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 12:36:47 PM 640. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:43:21 PM Ohio: I have to go, so my answer was going to be short, but then I thought I'd point out that the two extremes are: 641. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:47:34 PM To begin with, I don't think that is what he implied 642. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:50:07 PM And it also implies that more than 50 percent of educated, rational, and tolerant Americans agree with wonkers. So if you disagree, then there is a greater than 50 percent chance you are again either uneducated, irrational, or intolerant. 643. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 12:52:09 PM 644. Stumbo - 1/7/2001 1:07:33 PM IJ: 645. Stumbo - 1/7/2001 1:10:43 PM Ohio, #636: 646. OhioSTOPAS - 1/7/2001 1:35:55 PM I don't know what these "Dem. charges" are you refer to, but I don't think Lee's race was a factor. Rather, what offended Lee's critics was his view on race: that minority races are discriminated against and that there should be, and is, a legal remedy for that discrimination. 647. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 2:12:31 PM The majority of Americans, especially those who are educated, rational and tolerant, support the right to choose, handgun control, separation of church and state and minority rights. They are not homophobic and therefore tend to frown on hanging gays from fenceposts. University professors and other well educated Americans tend not to buy into the social conservative agenda of the Christian right. Many Republicans also shrink from the Ashcrofts of the Party and their positions many of which hearken back to the Salem witch trials. When I see Ashcroft I am reminded of the minister who succumbed to Sadie Thompson. 648. Cellar Door - 1/7/2001 2:41:04 PM The most important analysis of the "election" to date. 649. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 2:59:26 PM 650. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 3:00:27 PM 651. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 3:00:54 PM Well? 652. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 3:01:37 PM 653. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 3:02:06 PM 654. EricCartman - 1/7/2001 4:02:42 PM Concerned Message # 599: 655. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 5:08:43 PM Stumbo: 656. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 6:26:36 PM Wonkers - The majority of Americans, especially those who are educated, rational and tolerant, support the right to choose, handgun control. . . 657. robertjayb - 1/7/2001 6:32:01 PM . 658. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 6:37:05 PM JJ, You may be correct about Brittany. But, alas, she's a bit young for ole wonkers. 659. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 6:43:02 PM Linda Chaves is nearly as bad as Ashcroft. I recently saw a column remarking on the availability for cabinet jobs diverse candidates in all shades of the political spectrum, making it possible for candidates like Bush to have a conservative but diverse candidate. Chavez is a good example. Of course Bush senior picked Thomas, the ultimate Uncle Tom for the "black seat" on the Supreme Court. But the voters seem to be onto the game. 660. concerned - 1/8/2001 7:13:43 AM Could Lefties be so stupid and dishonest as to condemn Linda Chavez for assisting a battered Guatemalan woman? Guess so. 661. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 10:20:01 AM 662. cmboyce - 1/8/2001 10:23:02 AM #659: " But the voters seem to be onto the game." 663. CalGal - 1/8/2001 10:35:11 AM I actually don't dislike Chavez at all, but I agree with BobbyJ. She's probably gonna be Zoe'ed and Kimba'ed. 664. Wombat - 1/8/2001 10:36:38 AM A reading of the Op-Ed piece cited indicates that WSJ was against what happened to Zoe Baird as well. According to the writer, Baird was torpedoed by the "left" as well, who were concerned about some of corporate ties. So, the "left" was consistent in its actions, according to the article. 665. jexster - 1/8/2001 10:49:42 AM I forget the author, but a few days back, one of our more astute Motiers, posted a message, a litany of BushSh**t, Howdy Doody slogans without detail... 666. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 10:54:29 AM 667. Cellar Door - 1/8/2001 10:57:29 AM So Linda Chavez has an illegal alien lesbian lover. So what? Who cares? 668. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 11:05:13 AM 669. jexster - 1/8/2001 11:12:09 AM Linda Chavez is Mr. Bush's selection to head the Labor Department. The secretary of labor is supposed to serve the interests of working men and women. If Ms. Chavez's career to date is any guide, America's working men and women should run for cover. We have been enjoying the greatest period of prosperity in the nation's history, but Ms. Chavez has steadfastly opposed even a modest hike in the minimum wage. A few years ago she derided a proposed minimum wage increase as Marxist, saying, "The folks at the Clinton Labor Department seem to think wage policy should follow Karl Marx's dictum, `From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."' 670. RustlerPike - 1/8/2001 11:13:43 AM 671. jexster - 1/8/2001 11:14:03 AM Wingnuts Predominate in the Bastard Cabinet 672. CalGal - 1/8/2001 11:18:16 AM Jexter has just posted all the reasons I'm so fond of Chavez. In fact, union members are not representative of the working public, while there may be a glass ceiling, there's far more evidence that women just make idiotic career decisions, and far too many harassment suits (but not all) are brought by whiners. 673. jexster - 1/8/2001 11:20:21 AM Chavez's compassionate conservatism resonates with similar themes the crypto-racist and homophobe Ashcroft sounded in The Southern Patriot and by my dear Southern grandpa. 674. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 11:21:08 AM 675. jexster - 1/8/2001 11:22:03 AM Yea the minimum wage is Marxist. Linda Chavez thinks she can become white by out-limbaughing Rush. Her views are rank, her intellect shallow. 676. CalGal - 1/8/2001 11:22:46 AM 677. CalGal - 1/8/2001 11:24:53 AM Chavez isn't shallow. I don't always agree with her, but she's quite bright. I think it's great to have a ruthless chick in charge of Labor, and I'd like to see her confirmed. But the Republican explanation of the Guatemalan situation (she was just helping out a friend in need. Oh, the generosity.) is astonishingly lame. 678. jexster - 1/8/2001 11:25:09 AM toys 679. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 11:31:29 AM 680. jexster - 1/8/2001 11:40:25 AM 681. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 11:54:33 AM I guess Chavez is now learning that no good deed goes unpunished. How dare she think that she could personally make a difference in lives of the less fortunate? Doesn't she know that only the government has the grace and wisdom to save people from their lot in life. 682. Electric Slide - 1/8/2001 11:57:10 AM Clinton's Legacy... 683. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 11:57:12 AM Once upon a time there was a GOP tradition of appointing a Secretary of Labor who was acceptable to labor. Eisenhower appointed Durkin, a former union president, as I recall. Nixon appointed George Shultz an arbitrator and professor from University of Chicago and a supporter of the collective bargaining process and John Dunlop, a noted labor economist from Harvard and a mediator who had credibility with the AFL-CIO. Only with Reagan did this wise tradition fall by the wayside. If Bush knew his history and truly wanted consensus he would have followed the tradition of giving labor a sympathetic or at least a neutral voice in his cabinet. Instead he appointed a strident opponent of unionism, OSHA, the minimum wage, etc, etc. which was like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, Chavez was probably recommended by Cheney and Falwell. 684. Wombat - 1/8/2001 11:58:59 AM Only if she is an illegal immigrant, JJ, and if your party is always hoohawing about how the US is being flooded by them, and not enough is being done to keep them out, and how the other party is registering them to vote. Then you would be hoist on your own petard, and deservedly so. 685. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 11:59:03 AM Of course unions are not as important a factor in the American economy as they once were when it was helpful in times of crisis to have a cabinet member trusted by labor. 686. Electric Slide - 1/8/2001 11:59:09 AM Once upon a time, the unions didn't work 24/7, year in and year out, to destroy Republicans--even ones who try to help the working man. 687. Jonesatlaw - 1/8/2001 12:03:57 PM Rosie- The Teamsters endorsed RR and have been fairly friendly to the GOP. Are they not a union? 688. concerned - 1/8/2001 12:06:05 PM Re. 666 - 689. Wombat - 1/8/2001 12:06:18 PM Once upon a time, administrations stood aside or provided support to industries that fought unionization. The Democrats got out of that habit in the 1930s, and for several decades, so did the Republicans. 690. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 12:06:34 PM Wonkers - If Bush knew his history and truly wanted consensus he would have followed the tradition of giving labor a sympathetic or at least a neutral voice in his cabinet. 691. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 12:06:46 PM Linda Chavez isn't one of the few Republicans who try to help the working man. And, except for Jimmy Hoffa and one or two others most unions have traditionally been solidly in the Democrat camp. However, Rockefeller-style Republicans like Arlen Specter have enjoyed a fair amount of union support. But starting with Reagan the GOP pretty much gave up on labor union and black support in its decision to go for the redneck, bible belt, NRA vote. 692. concerned - 1/8/2001 12:07:42 PM Btw, in 1993, few Republicans attempted to put any obstacles in the way of the WH Rapist's cabinet appointees due to partisan bias, and certainly not as attempted 'revenge'. 693. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 12:08:32 PM JJ, Yeah, I guess that is an example of his "reformer with results" slogan. The question is what results?? 694. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:11:23 PM While Chavez's views are more distasteful, her competence less, Ashcroft remains the greater danger... 695. Wombat - 1/8/2001 12:13:01 PM By the way, Clinton won a decisive victory (in the now-sacred electoral college) in the 1992 elections, and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by more comfortable margins than the Republicans do now. 696. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:13:19 PM Ya gotta luv Concerned....still trying to whack at Clinton 697. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:14:03 PM Clinton didn't steal an election either. 698. janjon - 1/8/2001 12:15:15 PM I for one want them ALL confirmed. And, let them go forth on their missions with vim, vigor and conviction. 699. bubbaette - 1/8/2001 12:15:23 PM Wonder why Chavez didn't list her stint at English First on her resume. Isn't she proud of her efforts to make English the official language of the USofA and all its subdivisions? 700. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:15:36 PM I say any motive which leads to resistance to the Moronic bastard president is an honorable, righteous, and just motive. 701. janjon - 1/8/2001 12:17:31 PM jexster - oh, the resistance will come. In due course and in spades. 702. janjon - 1/8/2001 12:19:42 PM In addition to all of the prescient stuff quoted above, Frank Rich had another gem over the weekend. 703. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 12:20:03 PM She has so many dubious entries on her resume she couldn't decide which ones to include. By the way, Norman Podhoretz was singing her praise on C-Span yesterday which gave him two hours of free time to push his books. C-Span didn't waste any time to ingratiate itself with the Bush administration. Podhoretz also praised Rumsfeld because of his support for missile defenses, but he apparently couldn't bring himself to praise Ashcroft. 704. concerned - 1/8/2001 12:20:04 PM Re. 697 - 705. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 12:23:48 PM But Bush Bush Bush Scalia and Thomas were more effective. 706. CalGal - 1/8/2001 12:28:17 PM Ashcroft isn't incompetent--my lord, he was a respected governor and senator. His politics are ick, but he is apparently quite popular. Of the two, I think Chavez could be the sacrificial lamb, should one be needed. 707. janjon - 1/8/2001 12:30:48 PM There is a theory afoot (cynical as it may be) that Chavez was intended to be the sacrificial lamb/victim from the outset. 708. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:31:30 PM A tired old bunch of sods from the 70's. A cabinet designed by and for Nanny Warbucks, bastard Chief Executive of the US 709. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 12:31:39 PM Jex - Clinton didn't steal an election either. 710. janjon - 1/8/2001 12:31:58 PM My objections to Ashcroft have nothing to do with whether he is competent or not. 711. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:33:07 PM Gimmme That Ole Time Partisanship! 712. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:34:53 PM I define steal as 1. losing the popular vote 2. losing the electoral vote 3. having 5 members of the Supreme Court corruptly decide to hand you an election 713. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:38:44 PM Jex, 715. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:46:34 PM 716. concerned - 1/8/2001 12:46:39 PM Re. 712 - 717. concerned - 1/8/2001 12:48:37 PM Re. 715 - 718. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:55:01 PM ust how bad an Attorney General would John Ashcroft be? And is his nomination worth fighting? To answer the first question, talk to those who have experienced Ashcroft up close and personal. Like Harriet Woods, Missouri's lieutenant governor during the first of Ashcroft's two terms as that state's chief executive: She calls him "a disaster for minorities and for women." Or like retired Missouri Supreme Court Judge Charles Blackmar. Blackmar--a Republican appointee--accused Senator Ashcroft of "tampering with the judiciary" by blocking the federal court nomination of the amply qualified Missouri judge Ronnie White. Ashcroft opposed Judge White, an African-American, on the ostensible grounds that he voted against too many death sentences, leading Blackmar to this pungent assessment of the philosophy guiding Bush's chief law officer in the the crucial job of appointing federal judges: "The senator seems to take the attitude that any deviation is suspect, liberal, activist." 719. cmboyce - 1/8/2001 1:02:33 PM A propos of nothing but having found this quotation, I post it to refresh our recollections of first Bush administration, that we may hope the second will be better. It is from a diary kept by Adrienne Rich. 720. CalGal - 1/8/2001 1:07:35 PM CM, 721. Wombat - 1/8/2001 1:12:35 PM Bush senior's subsequent experience belies Ms. Rich's nonsense. 722. cmboyce - 1/8/2001 1:23:46 PM Wombat: Huh? By "subsequent experience", do you mean "winning" the war, which in this case would seem to mean getting most of the troops back home after winning the first encounter? How's that belie Rich's sentiments (which seem unexceptionable to me)? 723. concerned - 1/8/2001 1:23:51 PM Ashcroft opposes one AA judge out of more than a dozen and that makes him 'dangerous'? Why are Lefties suddenly requiring that Ashcroft has a problem because he wasn't a damned rubber stamp? This defines 'intellectual dishonesty' on the part of the Left. 724. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 1:25:43 PM 725. janjon - 1/8/2001 1:29:06 PM Judith - in general, let's giv'em enough rope.....BUT, Ashcroft does go too far. 726. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 2:05:08 PM Judith - I'd like to see Bush actually DO anything...everything you've seen thus far is Karl Rove and Dick Cheneys ideas of guts. 727. robertjayb - 1/8/2001 2:07:48 PM . 728. Wombat - 1/8/2001 2:21:27 PM CM: 729. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 2:31:11 PM 730. concerned - 1/8/2001 2:34:43 PM So JAH doesn't think GWB does 'anything'. 731. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 2:36:15 PM 732. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 2:43:34 PM Judith - Oh come on, concerned, what I believe is no more ludicrous than what you do.... 733. labwabbit - 1/8/2001 2:45:04 PM Oh come on, concerned, what I believe is no more ludicrous than what you do.... 734. seadate - 1/8/2001 2:49:02 PM "Oh come on, concerned, what I believe is no more ludicrous than what you do...." 735. Wombat - 1/8/2001 2:53:27 PM Joke: 736. concerned - 1/8/2001 2:58:48 PM Wombats - 737. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 3:03:21 PM Wombat - How would you break Concerned's or Rosie's nose? 738. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:04:36 PM You know you're in the very pit of hell when, cruising down Farm to Market Road 1092, you spy a billboard 739. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:05:16 PM 740. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:06:30 PM Message # 730 741. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:09:13 PM 742. RustlerPike - 1/8/2001 3:11:25 PM 743. Wombat - 1/8/2001 3:12:12 PM We'll let you have your drunkard coke fiend instead, Insouciant. 744. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:14:26 PM Time: Ashcroft Will Ignite Most Furious Confirmation Fight Since Bork & Thomas 745. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:15:50 PM RP....go to and ask the Wiz himself! 746. concerned - 1/8/2001 3:16:36 PM Re. 743 - 747. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:18:18 PM 748. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 3:19:07 PM I don't see how Democrats can complain about Bush's supposed drug use when Clinton's entire cabinet showed up stoned to his first State of the Union. The coke parties Clinton threw in the AR Governor's mansion (courtesy of First Brother Roger) set the standard. 749. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:20:02 PM The drinking stuff - all a Lefty smear. 750. Wombat - 1/8/2001 3:22:19 PM Why, GW admitted he had a drinking problem, didn't he? As for his other peccadilloes, there may be as much evidence on them as there is on those you claim for Clinton. 751. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:22:47 PM 752. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:24:47 PM "Bastard President" is fine by me because it is true....I will never use a title usurped nor will I even quote without [sic] 753. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:45:19 PM Look Biener, A Horsie! 754. janjon - 1/8/2001 3:49:22 PM Jex. Give it a rest. You should know by now that it is impossible to let facts get in the way of Biener's convictions. Besides - that is a quote from Time, and everyone knows how that is just part of the liberal-biased media. 755. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 3:51:37 PM Jex - Gee, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial staff is repeating the standard Democratic mantra on Ashcroft. What a surprise. The PD is just slightly to the left of Maxine Waters. Their desire to spike Ashcroft's nomination is probably second only to your own. 756. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:57:07 PM and so is Time magazine...boy the tentacles of the vast liberal media conspiracy must give you real nightmare Biener.. 757. janjon - 1/8/2001 3:59:16 PM Jex. I understand the sentiment. But how many times can one try to punch a hole in dense water? 758. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:01:11 PM 759. janjon - 1/8/2001 4:04:48 PM judith. This is a new tangent seeping out of concern's so-called mind. What it tells me is that, understandably, he's going to be verrry defensive about W as time goes on. 760. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:06:12 PM 761. bubbaette - 1/8/2001 4:07:05 PM Too bad. He's damned near apoplectic now, so I expect him to blow a gasket in short order. 762. janjon - 1/8/2001 4:08:36 PM Well, yes. The next four years indeed would be funny, if it weren't for the fact that W's handlers' acts will have consequences. 763. bubbaette - 1/8/2001 4:09:11 PM It doesn't have quite the same ring to call Bush the "white house druggist" or the "white house sot". George 'Duh'bya -- the "president". 764. janjon - 1/8/2001 4:10:10 PM President Bush. It was an oxymoron the first time around and it will be a oxymoron this time too. 765. PsychProf - 1/8/2001 4:15:12 PM 766. Wombat - 1/8/2001 4:17:42 PM Proof that the theory of evolution is correct! Which one is evolving? 767. bubbaette - 1/8/2001 4:21:51 PM Curious, George. 768. bubbaette - 1/8/2001 4:22:16 PM Does that make Dick Cheney the "man with the yellow hat"? 769. Wombat - 1/8/2001 4:23:18 PM Bubba 770. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:25:00 PM 771. janjon - 1/8/2001 4:25:01 PM Both of the By Georges above are quite funny. 772. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:25:35 PM 773. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:26:24 PM 774. bubbaette - 1/8/2001 4:33:56 PM curiouser and curiouser in a "through the looking glass" sense. 775. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:34:40 PM 776. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:36:28 PM 777. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:41:01 PM 778. robertjayb - 1/8/2001 4:44:53 PM . 779. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:47:12 PM 780. robertjayb - 1/8/2001 4:52:04 PM . 781. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:53:15 PM 782. janjon - 1/8/2001 4:55:13 PM The ruling class should be entitled to a few perks, eh? Like el cheapo household help. 783. Fielding - 1/8/2001 4:57:52 PM concerned: 784. jexster - 1/8/2001 5:23:16 PM LAT: Racist Record Dogs Ashcroft 785. janjon - 1/8/2001 5:28:54 PM Boy, the troubles in Paradise in Waiting certainly seem to be piling up. Not only do we learn about Rumsfeld's YESSIR BOSS responses to the ludicrous comments Nixon was making to him about negroes (it was in 1971 remember), you also have the spectacle of Chavez practicing compassionate conservatism in what I guess can charitably be called a unique manner with that poor illegal alien she took under her wing. But, much more currently, we now see that Colin Powell (yes, the saintly Colin) will have a few things to explain. Turns out he accepted a $100,000 fee for a talk at Tufts five days before the election. This of course was at a time when he had acknowledged more or less publically that he would accept a position in a W cabinet. The fee was paid by a Lebanese billionaire. Now, I have little doubt that you can rather easily weave a justification here that will make it rather clear that this does not constitute any violation of any laaw. (W had not yet been given the Presidency, etc.) BUT, talk about poor judgment. And, it is not as if Colin needed that last $100,000 fee. He's been raking in that or close to it for years. And, boy, has he been loquacious. 786. jexster - 1/8/2001 5:30:15 PM "I do remain confident in Linda. She'll make a fine labor secretary. From what I've read in the press accounts, she's perfectly qualified."--Austin, Texas, Jan. 8, 2001 787. janjon - 1/8/2001 5:31:35 PM Did he actually say "From what I've read in the press accounts"? That IS moronic. Naive, too. 788. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 5:32:25 PM 789. janjon - 1/8/2001 5:33:45 PM If there is ANYTHING that you would expect a President-Select to be knowledgeable about at this point, it would be the qualifications of his cabinet nominees. I mean, really. 790. CalGal - 1/8/2001 5:34:00 PM Actually, I don't have much trouble with Chavez's actions as described thus far. It does seem as if she genuinely does help out people and that this wasn't just used as cover. There are other occurrences of her helping out immigrants. 791. Fielding - 1/8/2001 5:37:11 PM 792. glendajean - 1/8/2001 5:39:35 PM I agree. I knew folk in DC who often helped immigrants, providing shelter, food and assistance. If this is a one or two month example of such, then Chavez should be commended. 793. glendajean - 1/8/2001 5:41:44 PM My agreement was to Cal's post, but I ditto to Fieldings. 794. concerned - 1/8/2001 5:41:49 PM Re. 783 - 795. glendajean - 1/8/2001 5:46:28 PM The woman nominated to Interior Secretary was Colorado AG who defended Amendment 2, the chilling state law that would have overturned municipal equal protection laws (it was designed to remove gay people from housing and job anti-discrimination ordinances). As an official, she had to defend the law. Supposedly is a "libertarian" who didn't care one way or the other, but just did her job. OTH, she paid Paul Cameron $15,000 to serve as a witness (but ended up not using him). 796. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 5:47:14 PM 797. janjon - 1/8/2001 5:47:26 PM I actually agree on all fours with Fielding, except that how does one distinguish between the Chavez (assuming the worst interpretation of what she did, namely that she was paying this woman for household help, without withholdings, etc., while knowing she was an illegal alien) and Whitman examples and those of only eight years ago with Clinton's first two AG nominees? 798. concerned - 1/8/2001 5:50:55 PM Re. 796 - 799. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 5:52:35 PM 800. concerned - 1/8/2001 5:53:19 PM Speaking of "AA", perhaps the NAACP should rehabilitate its own name. 801. CalGal - 1/8/2001 5:54:30 PM Ashcroft is the most ethically secure of the bunch, by far. It would be unlikely for him to be rejected purely for his views, and he appears to be Mr. Clean thus far from that pov. He's going to face the most opposition, but I'm not sure that it'll kill him. 802. concerned - 1/8/2001 5:54:42 PM Re. 799 - 803. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 5:59:07 PM 804. concerned - 1/8/2001 6:00:08 PM Oops. JAH meant her *other* suggestion. Sorry about scanning too fast. Guess I could get into the habit.... 805. Fielding - 1/8/2001 6:04:45 PM 806. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 6:07:34 PM Ashcroft already said what his reasoning was--that Judge White was soft on crime and even "pro criminal." According to Ashcroft the judge's record "showed a tremendous bent toward criminal activity." Further, he said that Judge White was the most anti-death penalty judge on the state Supreme Court. These were complete lies told in hope of helping him beat Carnahan. The Senate Republicans distributed a memo that described White as "notorious among law enforcement officers in his home state of Missouri for his decisions favoring murderers, rapists, drug dealers and other heinous criminals. More lies, much worse than any told by Bill Clinton, all from a most "honorable" former U.S. Senator who apparently overestimated the redneck vote in Missouri. Moreover, they were much more serious and unforgiveable lies than any told by Bill Clinton. Apparently concerned is only concerned about Dem lies. 807. Fielding - 1/8/2001 6:10:37 PM 808. CalGal - 1/8/2001 6:11:07 PM I disagree about both Baird and Wood--in fact, one of the things that really amused me was how badly Washington, with its reliance on illegal nannies, didn't realize how thoroughly that would piss off the general populace. It was a big fucking deal, and any excuses about how hard it is to be a working mother would be slammed back with a baseball bat. Also, it was flagrantly against the law, not just an iffy situation. In fact, if Chavez weren't Hispanic herself with "issues" with the Hispanic community, I'm not sure that her situation would be nearly as problematic. 809. jexster - 1/8/2001 6:11:55 PM While Israelis would surely disagree that Powell's Payola is remotely equivalent to Hillary's, the issue pales in comparison to his utter lack of ability in the policy arena, a deficit only made worse by Condo Rice. 810. concerned - 1/8/2001 6:16:34 PM Re. 807 - 811. concerned - 1/8/2001 6:39:12 PM Whether Ashcroft was 'fair' regarding Ron White is another matter. On the face of it, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he may have, in his public statements, deliberately exaggerated White's leniency towards offenders when deciding, as only one member of the committee, not to cast his vote to confirm this lone instance of an AA Clowntoon judge appointment as compared to the 26 he approved of, but, even if so, similar isolated possible discrepancies in judgment by Democrat Senators seem quite forgiveable (and even praiseworthy) to most of those with a liberal bent, and certainly wouldn't justify the charges of racism and calls for Borking that Ashcroft is enduring. 812. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 8:20:01 PM Ashcroft was not merely voting as one member of the committee. The practice is to give deference to the views of the senator from the state from which the prospective appointee comes and from the circuit where he is to serve. That's why the 4th circuit has, until recently, never had a black federal judge, namely because black nominees from South? Carolina have been vetoed by Strom Thurmond and/or Jessee Helms, just as Ashcroft offed Judge White by lying about his record, not necessarily just because Ashcrtoft personally prejudiced against blacks but because he thought it would help him get re-elected. 813. concerned - 1/8/2001 9:28:27 PM Well, somehow, I suspect there may be more of relevance to the situation, but Ashcroft may not be that big a loss, if he's as culpable as you imply in the Ron White case. 814. Jonesatlaw - 1/8/2001 10:15:08 PM Ashcroft implied that White was soft on crime by opposing the death penalty in a recent case. He did so knowing that White had often voted for the death penalty in other cases. It's one thing to have a philosophical or political objection to a nominee, its quite another to fabricate a characteristic of the nominee and oppose him/her on that basis. 815. bbb - 1/8/2001 11:52:24 PM Is Salon TT very slow tonight? 816. CalGal - 1/8/2001 11:53:38 PM I think it's dead, isn't it? Has been for a few hours. Generally, you should ask off-topic questions in Try the Mote, Cafe, or the Inferno. 817. bbb - 1/8/2001 11:55:56 PM CalGirl, 818. CalGal - 1/8/2001 11:56:28 PM Answer in Try the Mote. 819. Cellar Door - 1/8/2001 11:56:50 PM Having trouble connecting to "Salon." 820. CalGal - 1/9/2001 12:00:02 AM Actually, I believe the general objection to Spud's "links to racist connections" has always been the emphasis on connections, rather than racist. Although I do hope Spud stops by. 821. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 12:18:04 AM The manifest evidence of Ashcroft's racism is simply overwhelming.Yet no one in the cowering press wants to deal with it, save for a small handful of columnists. With everyone else the watchcry is "Now we don't want to call Mr. Ashcroft a racist" and "Well I know him nad he's an honorable man." 822. CalGal - 1/9/2001 12:36:05 AM Well, sure. It's a meaningful insult, the way you apply it. 823. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 12:36:38 AM Cellar - You have become unglued. Take your valium and go to bed. 824. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 12:42:05 AM I don't take Valium. And I'm glued quite well. 825. Jonesatlaw - 1/9/2001 12:44:47 AM Cellar- the legal press made quite a stink of it in the professional papers. 826. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 1:19:25 AM Cellar - Fess up. You're really Roy Cohn in disguise, aren't you? 827. concerned - 1/9/2001 1:54:39 AM re. 821- 828. concerned - 1/9/2001 1:57:10 AM Re. 819 - 829. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 7:55:19 AM Cellar, you go to far. Ashcroft is not a fucking racist. He doesn't believe in fucking. 830. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 9:23:44 AM The charge that Ashcroft is a racist is easy to make with vague generalities. The facts, as set forth by Kris W. Kobach, a professor of Constitutional Law and Legislation at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, demonstrate just the opposite. 831. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 9:23:57 AM All this, even though Edwards was a Democrat who had been a campaign manager in a prominent Democratic political campaign. Edwards recalls, "It was a fair interview. He did not have a litmus test. He did not ask me if I was pro-life or pro-death penalty." 832. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 9:28:01 AM I concede, however, that it is more glamorous to level charges of racism. 833. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 9:34:39 AM 834. jonesatlaw - 1/9/2001 9:40:08 AM FU- So Ashcroft torpedoed White's nomination by lying about his record for personal reasons? Oh so much better! Gives me all the confidence I need in the guy's character. Maybe Linda Trip can be his chief aide. She's not a racist either. 835. glendajean - 1/9/2001 9:49:36 AM The Salon article that was linked here yesterday said that Ashcroft played up the pro-criminal stuff on White because of anti-abortion politics, something that it isn't cool to bring up. 836. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 9:50:10 AM jones 837. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 9:52:41 AM glenda 838. glendajean - 1/9/2001 9:53:31 AM Here's the Salon article, John Ashcroft's Big Mistake. 839. glendajean - 1/9/2001 9:55:45 AM Isn't he also one of three Senators who killed James Hormel's nomination as US Ambassador to Luxembourg based on Hormel being gay? 840. glendajean - 1/9/2001 9:56:05 AM toys? 841. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 9:59:59 AM 842. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:03:09 AM Juditha, glenda 843. glendajean - 1/9/2001 10:04:08 AM Ashcroft opposed Hormel's nomination because of Hormel being gay, but I am not sure he was one of the three who blocked it. Inohofe from Oklahoma was the main one (he's the one who campaigned on God, Guns and Gays). 844. Wombat - 1/9/2001 10:05:25 AM Sinister Prime Minister: 845. glendajean - 1/9/2001 10:07:22 AM The religious right didn't like the Montana Governor's support of hate crimes legislation including sexual orientation. 846. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:07:59 AM Wombat 847. rubberducky - 1/9/2001 10:11:28 AM 848. CalGal - 1/9/2001 10:13:21 AM The charge that Ashcroft is a racist really isn't sticking anywhere that I can see. When Salon says he's not a racist, it's pretty clear it's not going anywhere. 849. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:13:40 AM No "spin" was put on it. It was his quote. 850. glendajean - 1/9/2001 10:15:35 AM I wonder if we are entering a period when it is hard to pick attorneys general. Clinton went through three nominees. Ashcroft looks like he is going to have a bumpy ride. 851. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:16:49 AM Ashcroft may very well not be to the ideological, religious, or philosophical liking of many Democrats or Republicans. Many had similar reservations about Mr. Lieberman. Interestingly, very few of those who are so vocal about Mr. Ashcroft's ability to enforce laws with which he may have personal, religious or philosophical disagreement expressed similar concerns about Mr. Lieberman. 852. glendajean - 1/9/2001 10:18:48 AM Lieberman doesn't hoe a strict orthodox line as a Senator. For example, he is one of three lead co-sponsors of ENDA. 853. Wombat - 1/9/2001 10:20:53 AM Sinister: 854. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 10:22:02 AM 855. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:22:37 AM "According to Lefty myths, Caucasians are the only people with a racist gene...." 856. glendajean - 1/9/2001 10:23:43 AM Probably stayed in the Sam Houston bedroom. 857. Wombat - 1/9/2001 10:25:34 AM Urquhart: 858. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:26:15 AM The charge that Ashcroft isn't a racist is easy to make with vague generalities. 859. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:26:44 AM glenda 860. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:28:07 AM "All this, even though Edwards was a Democrat who had been a campaign manager in a prominent Democratic political campaign." 861. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:29:18 AM "He wouldn't appoint anybody just because they were a minority. But he clearly wanted to consider minority candidates who were qualified." 862. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:32:40 AM "I concede, however, that it is more glamorous to level charges of racism." 863. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:33:25 AM Cellar 864. glendajean - 1/9/2001 10:34:20 AM Francis -- Lieberman is able to support policies that conflict with his religion (abortion, gay rights are two examples). 865. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:36:11 AM "I have made no public pronouncement on Ashcroft's nomination." 866. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:36:26 AM glenda 867. glendajean - 1/9/2001 10:36:46 AM Francis -- I agree about the Bill Lann Lee situation (not even brought up for a vote because of ideology). 868. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:37:50 AM "When Salon says he's not a racist, it's pretty clear it's not going anywhere." 869. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:39:07 AM Cellar 870. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:39:08 AM "Interestingly, very few of those who are so vocal about Mr. Ashcroft's ability to enforce laws with which he may have personal, religious or philosophical disagreement expressed similar concerns about Mr. Lieberman." 871. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:42:36 AM "Unless something concrete comes out on Ashcroft (footage of him speaking at a KKK rally, for example),his hearings will consist of some pointed questions about his various activities, which he will attempt to explain, followed by his assurances that he will administer justice fairly, and most likely a vote in favor of his confirmation." 872. CalGal - 1/9/2001 10:43:03 AM Cellar, 873. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:44:26 AM "Your desire to defeat Ashcroft is so great that you must smear the intellect of every African-American jurist whom he supported. You have rhetorically destroyed the village in order to save it." 874. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:46:29 AM "I have a vivid imagination," 875. bbb - 1/9/2001 10:50:17 AM CalGal, 876. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:51:07 AM Neither could I. Are they dead? 877. bbb - 1/9/2001 10:51:58 AM 878. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 10:54:19 AM 879. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 10:55:33 AM 880. bbb - 1/9/2001 10:56:37 AM Does Salon have a new internet address? 881. rubberducky - 1/9/2001 10:56:39 AM i can't connect to salon.com or tabletalk either but this thread isn't the thread to discuss TT 882. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 10:58:11 AM Great article in Boston Globe on Salon. 883. bbb - 1/9/2001 10:59:50 AM Al Gore shares the same fate as Salon.com? 884. rubberducky - 1/9/2001 11:02:28 AM 885. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:04:14 AM Where will those die-hard TT liberals go after the crash of both Al Gore and Salon.com? 886. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 11:04:19 AM If Salon goes under, we have to be very careful who we allow on mote. 887. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 11:07:07 AM 888. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:10:52 AM Court Limits Clean Water Act 889. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 11:11:54 AM 891. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 11:14:25 AM 892. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:16:02 AM Protester Hits Blair With Tomato 893. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:17:21 AM TT posters are only of entertainment value,like Bill Clinton. 894. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:21:41 AM http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/09/plant.shooting.ap/index.html 895. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 11:22:16 AM Eat shit and die, CD. And stop using my so-called last name. 896. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:22:31 AM 898. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 11:31:43 AM Hit bbb with a strike, duck. And remember, three and your out and you'll have to start posting at C-SPAN's forum. 899. Wombat - 1/9/2001 11:33:23 AM Southern Partisan--perhaps wisely--does not appear to have a working web site, so I must quote J. Micah Marshall in a past edition of Slate. Spin away! 900. rubberducky - 1/9/2001 11:35:30 AM cellar 901. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 11:45:15 AM "please" 902. rubberducky - 1/9/2001 11:47:48 AM 903. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 11:48:55 AM "Eat shit and die, CD. And stop using my so-called last name." 904. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 11:49:02 AM 905. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 11:49:18 AM Well, start. CD is threatening to bring some dangerous homosexuals over here from TT. 906. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:50:11 AM W.W. Dimmitt of TT on CNN boards 907. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 11:50:54 AM That's right, Rosie. e're going to turn The Mote into a Virtual Gay Bar! 908. rubberducky - 1/9/2001 11:53:20 AM 909. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 11:54:11 AM On topic. 910. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 11:54:29 AM 911. greystoke - 1/9/2001 11:55:33 AM Illegal votes in Broward County. 912. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:56:49 AM Is Al Gore down in Florida doing the hand recounts? 913. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 11:58:07 AM 914. bbb - 1/9/2001 12:03:08 PM Cheney who? Is he the CEO of Halliburton? 915. bbb - 1/9/2001 12:07:21 PM Elaine Chao would be a good backup plan for Chevez's potential trouble as the Secretary of Labor. 916. bbb - 1/9/2001 12:10:10 PM Elaine Chao would be a good backup plan for Chevez's potential trouble 917. bbb - 1/9/2001 12:17:35 PM 918. CalGal - 1/9/2001 12:21:14 PM bbb, 919. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 12:23:28 PM Here's something sure to annoy the neo-connies (especially connie) who post in here. 920. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 12:25:09 PM "I wonder if you liberals have yet awakened to the problems that the Democrats created by giving the black racist Donna Brazille carte blanche to use any tactics to mobilize the African-American vote and by turning Jesse Jackson, Sharpton and NAACP's Mfume loose to savage Republicans both before and after the election." 921. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 12:25:59 PM Question of the day. If the Democrats in the Senate vote against hispanic Linda Chavez, does that make them all racists? 922. robertjayb - 1/9/2001 4:37:45 PM . 923. rubberducky - 1/9/2001 4:39:41 PM Rosetta Slide: 924. Fielding - 1/9/2001 4:47:37 PM 925. Fielding - 1/9/2001 4:48:49 PM 926. CalGal - 1/9/2001 4:50:15 PM I'm bummed, since I liked Chavez. I also thought she should have fought. But you know, I think that's the Republican way--running off in the misguided belief that it's noble. 927. Fielding - 1/9/2001 4:52:42 PM 928. glendajean - 1/9/2001 4:53:19 PM The W. Post story said that Bush people told her it was all over. She wanted to fight, but they said no. There was the problem of her talking about Zoe Baird and illegal aliens in 1993 -- "That's the worst part," she said. And then, there is a conflict between her and the woman about whether or not she knew the woman was illegal. 929. CalGal - 1/9/2001 4:55:54 PM Fielding, 930. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 4:56:23 PM Is lesbian sex illegal where Linda Chavez lives? 931. glendajean - 1/9/2001 4:59:55 PM I've never heard that Chavez is a lesbian. But certainly the Clinton Administration has set a precedent for closeted lesbian cabinet secretaries. 932. mgleason - 1/9/2001 4:59:57 PM It looks as though Chavez was prepared to fight, what with trotting out beneficiaries of her bounty at her news conference. 933. Fielding - 1/9/2001 5:00:33 PM 934. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:03:22 PM GJ, 935. glendajean - 1/9/2001 5:05:18 PM I never assume Reno is, but when I think about it, it is hard to deny. 936. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:06:36 PM Oh! I forgot about her. I couldn't get past Mikulski, who isn't in the cabinet and kept on thinking "now surely I would have heard any rumors about Alexis Herman". 937. robertjayb - 1/9/2001 5:06:43 PM . 938. Fielding - 1/9/2001 5:10:29 PM 939. mgleason - 1/9/2001 5:12:42 PM My favorite part of the Chavez announcement was her pious lament about the 'politics of personal destruction.' 940. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:14:46 PM Fielding, 941. janjon - 1/9/2001 5:25:37 PM Chavez is a classic example of what goes around comes around. Two aspects she wouldn't have been able to overcome - her clear awareness that she had a "problem" (by, among other things, alerting her former neighbor that she would be contacted by the FBI and that she, Chavez, did not intend to talk about the Guatamalan woman). More devastating, however, was her record of having been sooo critical of Baird/Woods. 942. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 5:26:15 PM Linda, like Thomas and others jumped on the opportunity to prostitute themselves for the GOP. She got just what she deserved. 943. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:28:26 PM To be fair, Baird and Woods really did hire someone illegally to save money. Chavez seems just to have been one of those folks who talk a tough line for others but figure that they themselves know better about who to help and why. Very much like the Republican attitude towards gays, in fact. 944. janjon - 1/9/2001 5:33:52 PM I doubt very much that either Baird or Woods did what they did to save the few pennies (figuratively speaking) involved. It is the hassle - all those forms, all those withholdings. (And, some help won't work if you do all the withholdings.) 945. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:37:58 PM No, in Baird's case, she hired illegal immigrants, did she not? I can't remember what the Woods scenario was. 946. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/9/2001 5:40:35 PM “. . .Republican attitude towards gays, in fact.“ 947. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:41:34 PM As for hiring people illegally--I once had a nanny who lived in my house. She had three other jobs. She also directed her own work, made her own decisions about how she would run my life. So I told her to pay her own taxes and she agreed. Checked it out with an accountant just to be sure. 948. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 5:41:40 PM Chavez: No good deed goes unpunished. 949. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:43:46 PM Well, now I don't buy that line either, JJ. Had Baird said, "Gosh, I was just doing a good deed for people who needed work!" no one would have bought it. 950. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/9/2001 5:45:19 PM Good line, JJ! 951. Fielding - 1/9/2001 5:46:50 PM 952. Fielding - 1/9/2001 5:48:42 PM 953. bbb - 1/9/2001 5:51:20 PM 918. CalGal - 1/9/01 5:21:14 PM 954. bbb - 1/9/2001 5:53:29 PM 918. CalGal - 1/9/01 5:21:14 PM 955. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:53:59 PM . Lewinsky was not a case of sexual harassment. 956. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:55:57 PM As for Wood (thanks for the correction), the perception that she was pulled because she, too, had nanny problems. It may be that Clinton didn't want to stand by her because of her hubby. 957. Fielding - 1/9/2001 6:06:09 PM 958. CalGal - 1/9/2001 6:08:07 PM Fielding, 959. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:09:45 PM CalGal - The operative issue for Chavez was that the woman told her she was an illegal. At that point, Chavez had no options save either turning her in or telling her to leave and get back to Guatemala instantly. 960. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:14:30 PM Fielding - Prior to Lewinsky, most femminist groups classified any relationship between employer and employee as sexual harrassment because of the unequal power in their positions. Granted it was an absurd position, but that is what they claimed. Had it been a Republican President and an intern, they would have gone ballistic and protested outside the White House 24/7 and appeared on every available venue to denounce the scoundrel. 961. CalGal - 1/9/2001 6:15:11 PM JJ, 962. Fielding - 1/9/2001 6:19:57 PM 963. CalGal - 1/9/2001 6:21:01 PM 98% of NOW would disagree with your analysis. 964. Wombat - 1/9/2001 6:23:57 PM Chavez: 965. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:30:44 PM Fielding - You are taking the extreme views of Andrea Dworkin and tarring all feminists with them 966. mgleason - 1/9/2001 6:31:56 PM JJ, Chavez was in a prime position to help Chavez gain political asylum if that was her motivation for leaving Guatemala. 967. CalGal - 1/9/2001 6:32:16 PM Wombat, 968. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:33:10 PM CalGal - You are joking. You must be. 969. mgleason - 1/9/2001 6:33:14 PM Sorry, that should be 'Chavez was in a prime position to help Marta Mercado gain political asylum...' 970. Wombat - 1/9/2001 6:34:22 PM Cal: 971. CalGal - 1/9/2001 6:35:51 PM I know--I'm just saying that I think she would have duked it out if it was only the "similar" issue. 972. Fielding - 1/9/2001 6:38:22 PM 973. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:38:32 PM mgleason - Chavez was in a prime position to help Chavez gain political asylum if that was her motivation for leaving Guatemala. 974. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:39:36 PM Toys 975. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:41:26 PM Fielding - Trust me. You don't want to hear about the treasonous activities of Congressional Democrats in Iran-Contra, and the number of people who died because of their treachery. 976. Fielding - 1/9/2001 6:42:54 PM 977. Fielding - 1/9/2001 6:44:00 PM "You don't want to hear about the treasonous activities of Congressional Democrats in Iran-Contra, and the number of people who died because of their treachery." 978. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 6:44:23 PM In Arizona they arrest people who harbor illegal aliens. Linda Chaves is a jerk who got just what she deserved. The GOP practices affirmative action for Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities who are willing to "turn." 979. CalGal - 1/9/2001 6:50:21 PM Fielding, 980. Fielding - 1/9/2001 6:53:25 PM 981. mgleason - 1/9/2001 6:54:04 PM JJ, 982. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:55:44 PM Wonkers - In Arizona they arrest people who harbor illegal aliens. 983. CalGal - 1/9/2001 6:58:28 PM Well, actually, Chavez isn't a Hispanic because neither she nor her family of origin are from South America, yes? Or does being from Spain count as Hispanic rather than European? 984. mgleason - 1/9/2001 7:00:33 PM 'Hispanic' pertains to both Spain and Spanish-speaking countries. 985. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 7:01:33 PM Fielding - Moreover, you freely make up bullshit, like when you said that the bigger states like Montana earned more federal funds per person than the smaller states because of more miles of federal highways. 986. CalGal - 1/9/2001 7:02:37 PM Maria, 987. Fielding - 1/9/2001 7:02:57 PM 988. mgleason - 1/9/2001 7:03:52 PM From the Latin 'Hispanicus.' 'Hispania' means Spain. 989. CalGal - 1/9/2001 7:07:19 PM Fielding, 990. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 7:09:00 PM JJ, yes they do arrest well meaning people in Arizona for harboring aliens running from Central America as a result of Reagan's insane policies there. I believe the people who helped Hispanics from Guatemala and Honduras and other war torn countries in Central America are participants in a movement called "Sanctuary." Many of them have been arrested for doing less than Linda Chavez did. And they don't make the refugees do house work either. 991. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 7:15:30 PM Let's be honest about it, Democrats didn't object to Chavez because she befriended an illegal alien. That would get her a medal from many of us. We objected to her because of her radical right views on many of the issues she would have been dealing with as Secretary of Labor and because she made a big fuss eight years ago over the same or similar issue involving Kimba Wood and Zoe Baird. What goes around comes around! She is the Hispanic equivalent of an Uncle Tom, a Tia Tomasina I guess. 992. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 7:22:36 PM Wonkers - We objected to her because of her radical right views on many of the issues she would have been dealing with as Secretary of Labor 993. CalGal - 1/9/2001 7:25:19 PM They had no right to object to her views as Sec of Labor. But the fact is that if you leave as big a paper trail as Chavez, you'd best be sure you haven't done anything to contradict it. 994. robertjayb - 1/9/2001 7:27:58 PM . 995. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 7:28:18 PM 996. mgleason - 1/9/2001 7:32:22 PM I do wonder how the 'what did she know and when did she know it' will play out. 997. CalGal - 1/9/2001 7:34:12 PM I wonder if she was worried that she'd been told. 998. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 7:34:59 PM 999. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 7:35:38 PM 1000. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 7:35:57 PM 1001. robertjayb - 1/9/2001 7:40:53 PM 1002. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 7:54:35 PM JJ, I don't recall anyone waging an assault on Chavez'z character. I certainly didn't unless calling her a jerk qualifies. Anyway, my dislike for Ashcroft is much greater than for Chavez. One down, two to go! 1003. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 7:58:54 PM robertjayb, thanks for the info on Elaine Chao. From the info in the link she sounds better than Chavez. But let's wait and see what crawls out of the woodwork. 1004. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 8:08:03 PM Cal, what are you talking about that we had no right to object to her views as Secretary of Labor? What could be more relevant to her appointment as Secretary of Labor than her views on the laws she will be responsible for enforcing? That's what the confirmation process is all about. If Bush had appointed a skinhead or Grand Dragon as Chairman of the EEOC we wouldn't have a right to object? Give us a break. Chavez was a near equivalent. She has publicly stated her scorn for many of the laws she would have been charged with enforcing. 1005. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 8:28:27 PM Two possible nominees for Labor Secretary were just mentioned on CNN--James Talent and Eloise Anderson. A third name which I didn't catch was also mentioned. Talent is a Congressman from Missouri, a former labor lawyer who I believe worked briefly as an attorney for the NLRB. Anderson is an African American woman who the correspondent compared to Tommy Thompson due to her creative work on overhauling welfare. I would bet on Talent. My impression is that he is a more moderate and pragmatic Missourian than Ashcroft and would be a much better and less controversial choice than Chavez. JJ, what's the word on Talent? 1006. concerned - 1/9/2001 8:29:48 PM "I would never support racism - " 1007. concerned - 1/9/2001 8:31:23 PM "I would never support racism - " 1008. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 9:53:59 PM Well, lets not get hung up on racism. Suffice it to say that Ashcroft's public statements and actions have caused nearly all African Americans,and a majority of women, gay men and women, trade unionists and Democrats to be revulsed by his nomination. Privately, many Republicans consider him well beyond the pale for the party of Abraham Lincoln. In sum, letting Falwell and Pat Robertson and their ilk pick the Attorney General was not a consensus building move on Bush's part. There are plenty of moderate to conservative deans of first tier law schools who would have been better picks. Gerry Ford picked Levi, the distinguished dean of University of Chicago Law School to clean up the Justice Department after Watergate. 1009. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 10:09:59 PM Judith - It isn't the sex; it's the lying. 1010. Fielding - 1/9/2001 10:12:47 PM 1011. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 10:21:07 PM Wonkers - JJ, what's the word on Talent? 1012. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 10:29:10 PM Wonkers - Suffice it to say that Ashcroft's public statements and actions have caused nearly all African Americans,and a majority of women, gay men and women, trade unionists and Democrats to be revulsed by his nomination. 1013. arkymalarky - 1/9/2001 10:39:09 PM "You can't expect the entire country to look the other way while the President of United States acts like a the head of an organized crime family. Clinton has more in common with John Gotti than he does with John Kennedy." 1014. arkymalarky - 1/9/2001 10:42:42 PM And fwiw, most Democrats have better things to do than preoccupy themselves with what the president does with his penis, and the fact that he wasn't up front about it should come as no surprise. What's surprising and disgusting (and scary) is that anyone, much less almost the entire Republican Party, found any way to rationalize a sick voyeuristic tendency to dig up every minute detail about it and its doings, hiding behind "the rule of law" (a phrase I despise, btw). 1015. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:57:26 PM "Seriously, 90-95% of the people you claim are "revulsed by his nomination" have never heard a word Ashcroft has said" 1016. JJBiener - 1/10/2001 12:14:58 AM Arky - If you want anyone to take your posts seriously in here, you're going to have to ratchet your hyperbole down at least a notch or two. 1017. CalGal - 1/10/2001 3:05:56 AM Truly fabulous Conan O'Brien essay, Why I'll Miss the President. The whole thing is wonderful, but these two paragraphs are sublime: 1018. milkmaid - 1/10/2001 6:59:48 AM Thanks for the link, CG. I couldn't stop laughing at this: 1019. joezan - 1/10/2001 7:15:59 AM 1020. joezan - 1/10/2001 7:22:17 AM 1021. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 8:15:58 AM JJ, hyperbole is what the Mote is all about! 1022. rubberducky - 1/10/2001 9:03:25 AM 1023. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 9:23:49 AM Chavez' withdrawal was Clintonesque. Her exit, however, should be a point of agreement between all political persuasions. She was dishonest with those who vetted her; she may have attempted to thwart a thorough FBI investigation; she was contradictory as to her knowledge of the woman's illegal status; and talking heads are unsuitable choices for cabinet-level positions. 1024. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 9:26:40 AM I don't think that Lee/Jackson day was celebrated in VA. until there was a legislative proposal for a Martin Luther King day and then Lee and Jackson were thrown in for good measure so as to keep the minorities from gettin uppity. 1025. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:31:13 AM hahahahaha! It makes sense that Frankie would disapprove of Chavez. After all, she's not really "of the club", you know. I can't help but wonder if he'd be bending over backwards to protect a true member. Of course, a true member would be a guy. 1026. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 9:37:54 AM Chavez harbored an illegal alien. That's a felony. And she tried clumsily to cover her tracks. That was stupid. She got caught. End of story. Beyond that her views were extreme and inappropriate for a Secretary of Labor--e.g,"The minimum wage is Marxist." 1027. Fielding - 1/10/2001 9:39:12 AM 1028. glendajean - 1/10/2001 9:41:55 AM I know good people that live in DC whom have harbored illegal aliens. These friends are almost to the left of Lenin. I have a hard time seeing where helping immigrants is a bad thing or dishonorable. 1029. JudithAtHome - 1/10/2001 9:42:39 AM 1030. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 9:44:29 AM Arkansas celebrates Robert E. Lee day. 1031. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:46:40 AM Judith, 1032. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 9:49:53 AM This is interesting. 1033. JudithAtHome - 1/10/2001 9:49:56 AM 1034. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 9:51:12 AM 1035. glendajean - 1/10/2001 9:53:12 AM Texas has a state holiday called Confederate Heroes day. 1036. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:54:43 AM Oh, god. Must we go through another recitation about the true heroism of Lee, blah blah blah? 1037. Wombat - 1/10/2001 9:54:57 AM Urquhart: 1038. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:58:32 AM Fielding, wherever you are: Wood did indeed hire an illegal alien as a babysitter. 1039. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 10:02:00 AM glenda 1040. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 10:02:20 AM In Virginia, I believe legislation has either been introduced or passed to split Lee-Jackson Day from King Day. 1041. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 10:09:04 AM Two or three years ago, the Gen. Assembly officially de-commissioned "Carry me Back to Old Virginny" as the Virginia state song on account of it's referernces to "where this old darky longs to go" and such. Of course a significant contingent opposed changing the state song for PC reasons and insisted that it be made the state song "emeritus". 1042. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 10:09:13 AM Wombat 1043. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:09:21 AM While the Civil War was not "about" slavery, the romanticization of it began when civil rights became an issue--around the early 60s. Hmm. I wonder why? 1044. Fielding - 1/10/2001 10:10:11 AM 1045. glendajean - 1/10/2001 10:10:13 AM Francis -- I've been interesting in hearing your comments about the Wilson book since you first posted you were reading it. 1046. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:10:16 AM However, from what I read, Chavez is now whining about how unfairly treated Zoe Baird was. Ptoeey. Burn her. 1047. Wombat - 1/10/2001 10:10:19 AM Urquhart: 1048. Fielding - 1/10/2001 10:14:26 AM CalGal: 1049. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 10:15:23 AM Fielding 1050. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:21:58 AM Fielding, 1051. Fielding - 1/10/2001 10:23:41 AM 1052. Wombat - 1/10/2001 10:23:54 AM Urquhart: 1053. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 10:25:47 AM the romanticization of it began when civil rights became an issue--around the early 60s. 1054. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 10:26:04 AM bubbaette 1055. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:26:30 AM Unless the "Lee/Jackson Day" is code for something else. I defy anybody tell me with a straight face that Lee/Jackson Day isn't intended as some kind of White Supremacy symbol. 1056. Fielding - 1/10/2001 10:31:03 AM CalGal: 1057. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 10:32:49 AM Wombat 1058. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:36:30 AM Fielding, 1059. Wombat - 1/10/2001 10:40:32 AM Urquhart: 1060. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 10:41:15 AM Of course Birth of a Nation was well before that (1915). The Daughters of the Confederacy was founded in 1894. 1061. milkmaid - 1/10/2001 10:43:00 AM -I guess you'd prefer that these women to stay home and take care of their own children 1062. Fielding - 1/10/2001 10:43:37 AM 1063. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:44:02 AM Milkmaid, 1064. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:44:55 AM Nonetheless, I would be happy to share lemonade with you at your manse. 1065. mgleason - 1/10/2001 10:47:31 AM An interesting side-note about Kimba Wood is that she ended up divorcing Michael Kramer, the columnist, but not before becoming embroiled with an investment banker whose diary was made public by his wife during their divorce. 1066. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:49:03 AM You know, I knew there was some weird marital scandal with them, but I couldn't remember what it was. 1067. mgleason - 1/10/2001 10:50:48 AM She could have acted as a useful diversion during the Days of Monica, I think. 1068. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 10:51:29 AM Wombat 1069. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 10:54:45 AM But there are black Southerners too, you might be surprised to learn, and some of them might be a little bit sensitive to confederate imagery. 1070. Fielding - 1/10/2001 10:55:54 AM 1071. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 10:56:03 AM "served in" should be "served with" 1072. mgleason - 1/10/2001 10:58:52 AM Those parents who put 'their child's well-being ahead of compliance with arcane immigration and/or tax laws' should not be in the position of enforcing those laws at the highest levels. 1073. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 10:58:58 AM Indiana 1074. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 11:00:05 AM Thank you, suh. 1075. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 11:07:11 AM Clinton: Republicans won by stopping vote 1076. CalGal - 1/10/2001 11:08:44 AM Fielding, 1077. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 11:20:17 AM "What about blacks who served in the Confederate Army? Were they racists? " 1078. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 11:21:02 AM Cellar 1079. Toenails - 1/10/2001 11:22:15 AM 1080. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 11:26:08 AM 1081. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 11:28:39 AM Cellar 1082. CalGal - 1/10/2001 11:30:12 AM Toe, 1083. mgleason - 1/10/2001 11:37:01 AM Cellar, 1084. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 11:44:29 AM Imagine! The very nerve! After all, would Jews get all bent out of shape at admiring Hitler's military strategy and flying the Nazi flag? P.C. has certainly gone too far!! 1085. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 11:52:20 AM "Take a hair off the self-pitying, give me a little more tremor to the voice, and ratchet up the indignation." 1086. Fielding - 1/10/2001 11:53:01 AM 1087. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 11:56:28 AM We should condemn FDR for Pearl Harbor, the Japanese for "comfort women," and Harry Truman for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 1088. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 11:57:38 AM "What were blacks who owned slaves?" 1089. mgleason - 1/10/2001 11:59:53 AM Bubba, 1090. Fielding - 1/10/2001 12:05:53 PM CalGal: 1091. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 12:06:17 PM There is one particularly oddity in Ashcroft's support for neo-Confederate issues, and that is that he was from Missouri, which did not join the Confederacy. I am a little more tolerant of people from former Confederate states that feel the need to call Jefferson Davis a hero - the sentiments are a lot more common there, and if you are grown up in an environment where someone is a hero, it is more difficult to change your mind in adulthood. Too many formerly untarnished American heroes, like Jefferson and Andrew Jackson have such clear shades of gray that I have at least some sympathy toward Virginians and their support for Lee and Jackson, none of whom are clear-cut villains like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Hell, many Americans respect Rommel, who served a worse cause. 1092. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:12:24 PM This parsing of history to impugn Ashcroft is amusing, if not perplexing. Bush recently invoked Thomas Jefferson. He would, therefore, appear to be showing "indications" of racism, having drawn from the salev-holding rapist of Sally Hemmings. We can catalogue a pantheon of American giants from Wahington to LBJ and play this game, to the unending happiness of reductionist academics and other strident, stupid people. 1093. Fielding - 1/10/2001 12:14:03 PM 1094. glendajean - 1/10/2001 12:15:53 PM Rask -- Border states have sections that are much more southern than northern, and Missouri is no exception. It is in part a tribute to Lincoln's political deftness that they remained in the union. 1095. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:16:16 PM Fielding 1096. Wombat - 1/10/2001 12:17:02 PM Indy: 1097. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:17:39 PM Please ignore the second "indicates racism". Thank you. 1098. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 12:17:49 PM And it is more Ashcroft's statement that the goals of the Confederacy weren't perverted, than a defense of Lee and Jackson, that raises my eyebrow. But I'll certainly agree that it doesn't mean he is necessarily a racist. Quite possibly he is just misinformed. 1099. janjon - 1/10/2001 12:18:38 PM Ashcroft's musings about the glories of the Confederacy are not a problem. 1100. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 12:18:59 PM Nazi Germany is "shared history" between Germans and Jews. Are Jews living in Berlin not permitted to be offended by a statue of Hitler in their home town? 1101. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:19:03 PM Raskolnikov 1102. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 12:20:14 PM "Do you believe Lee is an American hero?" 1103. Fielding - 1/10/2001 12:20:27 PM "The point is whether deeming Confederate leaders as heroic and the Southern cause as less than perverted indicates racism in the face of a public record of results-backed support and encouragement for African-Americans indicates racism." 1104. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:21:22 PM This is a classic fallacy, signifying only that the fool is you. 1105. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:23:14 PM Of course Lee wasn't an American hero. If nothing else, he wasn't part of the US when he performed the deeds that made him famous, and he fought a war that, had he won, would have meant he wasn't an American. 1106. lisajolie - 1/10/2001 12:23:32 PM Is Ashcroft a racist? I don't know what's in the man's heart. It's almost beside the point. 1107. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:25:19 PM Fielding 1108. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:25:42 PM What's ironic is that it is probably abortion that will do Ashcroft in, not racism. The anger of the African American community is apparently what drove the nail in his Senate coffin (although running against a dead guy couldn't help). 1109. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 12:26:27 PM Thanks Maria. Apologies to FU -- the Lee Jackson King day was enacted in 1984 with the holiday first celebrated in 1985. I'm still looking for information about Lee/Jackson day as I don't recall that holiday as an official day off to be celebrated by state workers and closed schools. 1110. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:27:26 PM Raskolnikov 1111. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:28:32 PM Bubbaette 1112. janjon - 1/10/2001 12:28:49 PM Yes, abortion will do him in. Probably, although the old code of Senators almost always voting to confirm one of theirs or their formers may be enough to get him (barely) over the line. 1113. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 12:29:50 PM What Ashcroft's comments mean to me is that he should be asked about them in his confirmation hearings. Not that this is a trap: he could easily say that the goal of the Confederacy was not to preserve slavery but to maintain state's rights, and probably get away with it, although he would be mostly wrong. 1114. janjon - 1/10/2001 12:31:11 PM States' Rights has been the convenient mask for more than 200 years. 1115. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:32:49 PM The war was brought about by a confluence of factors. Edmund Wilson has some interesting comment on the matter. When I get a chance, I'll excerpt his thoughts in "Books." 1116. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 12:34:15 PM he wasn't part of the US when he performed the deeds that made him famous, and he fought a war that, had he won, would have meant he wasn't an American. 1117. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 12:35:25 PM Thanks for the heads up, Wombat. I've a question that I think I'll post there instead of here because it's probably not on topic for either! 1118. Fielding - 1/10/2001 12:35:30 PM 1119. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 12:35:41 PM "Is Thomas Jefferson an American hero?" 1120. janjon - 1/10/2001 12:35:49 PM Yes, of course, a confluence of factors. But one overriding one (although I will grant you that it was in many ways not just slavery but slavery/perceived economic needs for same.) 1121. Wombat - 1/10/2001 12:36:48 PM Lee was responsible for the construction of the levees that made St. Louis a viable port during his days in the Corps of Engineers before the Civil War. 1122. Fielding - 1/10/2001 12:37:57 PM 1123. janjon - 1/10/2001 12:38:47 PM And, here I thought maybe his famous horse (I forget the name, unfortunately) had been a many-generations back sire for the Budweiser ponies. 1124. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 12:38:51 PM Thanks Wombat 1125. Wombat - 1/10/2001 12:40:25 PM Lee's heroism manifested itself in his superlative performance during the Mexican War (as part of the US Army). 1126. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 12:40:58 PM Lee's horse's name was Traveler. School chirren used to be required to know that as part of Virginia history. There is an ally here in downtown Richmond named for Lee's horse. 1127. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:41:27 PM You are arguing that it is appropriate to use ad hominem attacks when you have decided that the target is a fool. 1128. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:42:38 PM Raskolnikov 1129. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 12:43:52 PM "Lee's heroism manifested itself in his superlative performance during 1130. Fielding - 1/10/2001 12:44:16 PM 1131. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:44:40 PM Wombat, 1132. lisajolie - 1/10/2001 12:45:51 PM And, here I thought maybe his famous horse (I forget the name, 1133. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:47:42 PM Fielding, 1134. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 12:49:00 PM Francis: I recognize the counterarguments, but disagree with them as Jefferson's personal views on slavery were largely irrelevant to the codification of slavery that occurred in the Constitutional convention (he wasn't even there, remember), but his general views on liberty and freedom were quite relevant to the growth of democracy and liberty worldwide - those views were eventually critical in convincing mainstream northerners that slavery was wrong, no matter what Jefferson's personal actions indicated. 1135. janjon - 1/10/2001 12:49:09 PM It seems clear that the Founding Fathers in most ways decided to shove the slavery issues under the rug as much as they could. Postponing the conflict, so to speak. (Going from memory here, but as I recall there was a early Federal law passed which in effect put a 20 year moratorium, ending in 1808 as I recall, on any Federal efforts to end slavery (although, again from memory, I think that slave trade itself was banned.) 1136. Fielding - 1/10/2001 12:52:44 PM 1137. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 12:52:57 PM On second thought, I'm posting it here. There's a story by Borges that begins with a discussion of the Spaniard who made the decision to bring the first African slave to the New World. All the details escape me, except it's extremely thought-provoking as it analyzes the cause-and-effect in a "because of a nail the shoe was lost" way. 1138. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:56:30 PM Are you saying that it was not "warranted or deserved"? If that is the case, you could have saved both of us some wasted time. 1139. janjon - 1/10/2001 12:57:44 PM As someone frequently says around here, take it to the Inferno. 1140. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:58:52 PM I never brought it up, nor did you. 1141. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:59:51 PM Janjon, 1142. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:01:17 PM Will Clinton resign in time so that Al Gore can be POTUS for a few hours? 1143. Wombat - 1/10/2001 1:02:45 PM Rask: 1144. Fielding - 1/10/2001 1:02:54 PM 1145. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:03:02 PM Will G.W. Bush nominate Elaine Chao as the Secretary of Labor? 1146. janjon - 1/10/2001 1:03:56 PM No, but some of the wingnuts around here will probably chime in that were he to do so it would be for the purpose of Gore being able to pardon him. 1147. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 1:04:50 PM Indy: that is a potentially interesting conversation, but would probably be off-topic. Maybe we should create a new thread based on historical "what ifs". 1148. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:05:03 PM John Ashcroft will be confirmed with at least a 68-32 margin. 1149. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 1:06:19 PM Rask: Fair enough. (And I think that's a great idea for a thread.) 1150. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 1:07:35 PM "I don't consider Lee an American hero. He did perform heroically in 1151. CalGal - 1/10/2001 1:07:52 PM Fielding, 1152. Fielding - 1/10/2001 1:09:16 PM 1153. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:10:36 PM Census Shows Surge for New Sun Belt 1154. CalGal - 1/10/2001 1:10:59 PM Fielding, 1155. OhioSTOPAS - 1/10/2001 1:12:38 PM "GWB's victory margin would be a 279-258 one if Census 2000 data were used." 1156. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 1:13:19 PM Ohio 1157. janjon - 1/10/2001 1:14:06 PM No, Gore's margin would have been 285-252, had the Florida vote been properly counted. 1158. janjon - 1/10/2001 1:14:55 PM Ohio- yes, yours was VERY good. 1159. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 1:15:05 PM bbb 1160. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:15:19 PM Survey Sees Slower Economic Growth 1161. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:17:11 PM Has any of the four liberal FLSC justices been impeached yet? 1162. janjon - 1/10/2001 1:17:34 PM nah, bbb. The figures will hold up quite well until after Jan. 20. Assuming bad economic figures develop after that date, Big Bill can always argue that had W's handlers done the right things, the then mess wouldn't have developed. 1163. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 1:17:46 PM Surpise surprise
CalGal:
"Well, the names have been getting lighter and lighter, loafer wise."
You know that wherever you find guys who are light in their loafers, you are sure to also find a poodle.
Just as well. Thought better of it in the light of day.
Juditha:
"What's that? Giving him ugly kids?"
We're gonna get screwed.
I preferred my suggestion of Napolean Lajoie.
Fielding....I know that; THEN come the ugly kids!
Not if they have my genes.
"Francis Urquhart is Chief Whip. He has his hands on every secret in politics - and is willing to betray them all to become Prime Minister. .."
It's not the votes, it's the money. Business owners pay good money to the Democrats to keep them from actually implementing their campaign promises. It is no coincidence that the more Gore campaigned against the drug companies, the more the those same companies contributed to the Democrats.
"You owe it to yourself to sit back, relax and enjoy the ride that is Francis Urquhart."
Was this review written by Cellar or what?
Fielding:
The progeny of Matalin and Carville defy description...suffice to say, one look and you are made aware that all babies are NOT cute.
Your argument seemed to be the exact opposite.
Not exactly. If business owners believed the candidate was serious and would really try to implement his campaign promises, they would abandon him in a heartbeat and do everything in their power to defeat him. That's why I said it was a fine line to walk. He has to be convincing enough to take in the true believers while letting the money folks know that the status quo is not going to change.
If you listened to the complaints of the Naderites, the recurring theme was that Gore was a sellout to the business interests and his rhetoric was empty. Essentially, they got a peak behind the curtain and realized that Gore was not The Wizard of Ozone, but rather just an opportunist from Occidental.
Whoever is the next Democratic nominee will have to put that curtain back in place and make people forget what they saw behind it. This isn't extremely difficult since most people want to believe, but it is still a significant challenge to hold two groups of people with drastically different agendas.
1) Business money tends to go to the GOP anyway. The exceptions that I know about aren't heavily hit by environmental regulations. So I don't think there is that much money to run screaming the other way.
2) If what money there is does bail, they are less likely to have input in the process.
3) There is not always a dichotomous choice between helping the environment and helping businesses. There are many environmental polices that can do both at the same time, mostly because much environmental regulation lacks a solid incentive structure. Basically, business costs for clean water and clean air are already sunk, and have been quite effective. Gore at his most radical probably wouldn't tighten them up much. The biggest exceptions are global warming, non-point source pollution, and commercial use of government lands. Global warming is best suited to carrots, not sticks, right now. Non-point source pollution isn't as much in the lap of corporate interests. Government land issues are concentrated in states that vote Republican anyway, so you can piss them off with impunity.
4) I am convinced the Naderites were wrong about Gore. I think he was quiet about it for political reasons, not as a matter of conviction.
Check out the DNC's contributor list. There are a surprising number of businesses contributing money who would be harmed if the Dems platform was ever implemented. I don't think they are paying for their own funeral. I think they are paying to make sure the platform never becomes law.
I am convinced the Naderites were wrong about Gore.
I think they had him nailed. I used to think Gore was a man of principle (even if I disagreed with him on most issues), but his words and his actions have diverged too many times for me to accept that anymore.
JJ -
You once thought Bore was a man of principle? When was that?
Neither can your guy....as you say, they are a rare breed.
Uh, 1972? No, actually when he was in the Senate and when he first ran for VP in '92. I later realized that in '92 he only seemed principled compared to Clinton's complete lack in that area. If Gore ever had principles, they left no lingering evidence.
I knew he was, at best, a flake; probably a charlatan, from the time I found out that he wrote 'Earth in the Balance' in the early '90's. It was all downhill from there wrt my opinion of him. 
I would hope Clinton would refuse a Bush pardon, which won't ever happen anyhow...no indictment and certainly no pardon for the guy who whipped his Daddys ass....you don't honestly think GW would do anything Daddy didn't approve of, do you? Dream on....
Go look it up, idiot. Find "Legal Canon of Ethics" on-line. Go search for the dozens of articles on the silly conflict of interest claims, and read all the legal ethicists who said, flatly, there was no "conflict of interest" as that term has ever before been defined.
Feh. "Legal ethics". Right up there with "military intelligence" or "one size fits all". Who cares what a bunch of subsidized think-tank pencil-pushers have to say about anything? The excerpts of Scalia's decision I read were horrendous and strained, like a teenager coming up with any possible bullshit excuse to borrow Dad's car.
But whatever. If you're happy with it, I'm happy with it. Tell the truth, though -- had the situation been reversed, and Gore had won with the help of such possibly conflicted justices, you'd be yelping and yarking like Alanis Morissette about the whole wicked deal.
Personally, I think the SC is a bit too fucking precious for their own good anyway. Liberal or conservative, they are hellbent on making every fart and tickle ex cathedra, possibly because cameras don't do justice to Rehnquist's cool-guy racing stripes.
Concerned Message # 398:
Again, the SCOFLA justices who contributed to Pinocchio Bore's campaign are much more justifiably guilty of conflicts of interests.
No, they're roughly the same. It's evidence of possible political bias, in either case.
No, the point is that it was against the self-interest of the *Naderites*, based on their self-described political goals. By backing Nader, they are much worse off than they would have been by backing Gore.
I understand your point, and in fact I agree to some extent. However, I also understand that ultimately, these folks went for Nader because Gore was unpalatable to them. They were not gulled by Nader's putative megalomania, unless you also concede that voters for Gore and Bush were also sucked in by lame marketing bullshit.
(In any event, I don't recall hearing anything about confusion in voting for Nader. They seem to have figured out the immense complexity of punching through a ballot card. Does it all boil down to simply paying attention? Who knows?)
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "triangulate"....I think Gore should have treated Nader *even more* like shit.
Oh. Okay. Maybe so. Or, they could have thrown him a bone or two on some relatively harmless issues, and got all those votes that they apparently feel that they were entitled to in the first place.
The Dems did not want you and your fellow Nader sanchos to stay home.
No shit. They wanted our votes, and were unwilling to do anything to get them. Pointing out how evil the other side is can be a rather shortsighted sales tactic. I already knew I wouldn't vote for Gump. But to make the sale, ya gotta make me want to vote for you.
You may want to jot that down for future reference.
They wanted you and your fellow sanchos to choose between A Gore AG or Ashcroft, between a Gore Interior pick or Norton, between a Gore Supreme Court nominee or Garza. You guys made the WRONG choice. Now we have Ashcroft, Norton and Garza. And I ask, are you happy with the results of your choice?
Given how ineptly and half-heartedly Nader finished up his campaign, no. I wish he would have either tried harder or gotten out of the way. But I'm not going to use that rationale to shit on a group of people who felt they were doing the right thing. No one says a fucking thing about people who vote just for gun control, or tax cuts, or any number of completely selfish interests, some of which are only justifiable by squinting at certain passages in the Bible.
But you have a group of citizens who genuinely wanted to change something, who are tired of having to pick between two center-right parties, and they are the biggest problem you've got? Sorry. I really don't think so. You have no right to shit on these people for voting their consciences, yet not say a word about the multitudes that defected to Gump. It's their fucking fault too, you know. If Gore had just managed to carry AR and TN -- his and Clinton's home states! -- FL wouldn't have mattered, Nader or no Nader.
So now the long knives are already being sharpened, and Nader and anybody associated with him will be excommunicated, and the Democratic Party can go back to sucking up to oil companies and pharmaceuticals and defense contractors with all the fervor of the GOP, and maybe woo back a few of the yokels that went for Gump this time around.
It's just a tactic, and a shitty one. Because, right or wrong, people should have a real, clear choice. There should be an actual liberal party, to balance out the two conservative ones. Maybe they aren't 100% alike. But foreign and economic policy are more or less the same, military policy only differs in how much money will be wasted on NMD and drug-war (actually securing oil deposits) adventurism. Domestic, social, enviro policy -- yes, there's a difference. But it's not exactly night and day.
When all informed parties unanimously agree that there was no conflict, yada yada blah blah bullshit....
Translation: When Sean "Puffy" Hannity and Ollie North agree with me, then that means I'm right and Eric Communist is wrong. On the rare occasions that they disagree with me, they're wrong and EC is wrong, and I'm right.
Close?
Cartman - Message # 522:
I already knew I wouldn't vote for Gump. But to make the sale, ya gotta make me want to vote for you.
You know, I think Nader is a nut job. But I really, really do see why people voted for him.
There are millions and millions of single-issue, knee-jerk voters in both the Repub (Guns) and Demo (abortion) ranks.
If someone were to vote for Nader based solely on his environmental views (as I think most did), I don't see how anyone could argue that that is any less valid than voting for Gore because of his views on abortion, or Bush because of his views on guns.
Actually, I voted for Nader more for his position on campaign finance reform and workers' rights, than enviro. I'm actually fairly centrist on most enviro issues, believe it or not, and I think the current administration has been very reasonable in that area.
This is about as enviro as I get -- every time I drive into a large city (usually either Sacto, SF, or LA) I wonder how people can stand living like that. Practically right on top of each other.
This is certainly the first time, and most likely the last; so I thought it was worth noting.
"A govt which takes the resources that we would devote toward the interdiction of drugs and converts them to treatment resources, and instead of saying 'Just say no' says 'Just say maybe' or 'Just don't inhale...is a government that accommodates us at our lowest and least."
Ashcroft thus scorned a policy supported by conservatives like Strom Thurmond and Bob Barr. His position, on this as on so many issues, was out of sight on the far right of our politics.
How would he enforce the law against disruption of abortion clinics when he has said that more than anything else he would like to forbid all abortions except to save the mother's life. How committed would he be to the civil rights laws, given his acceptance of an honorary degree from Bob Jones "University."
Ashcroft was chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. He held hearings not on discrimination or freedom of speech or the like. His subjects included the right to gun ownership and reversing the Miranda decision.
If he weren't a former senator, the idea of a person with Mr. Ashcroft's views being attorney general would be regarded as grotesque. He would have no chance to be confirmed. But because he was a member of the club, everyone is predicting his confirmation.
As for Dem senators, not one has had the courage to oppose the Ashcroft nomination. If Al Gore had been elected chosen someone far out on the left, would conservative senators have been so deferential? Not likely.
After the turmoil of Watergate, Gerald Ford made a non-political choice: Edward Levi, president of the University of Chicago, who restored the Justice Dept's luster. Last August I asked whether George Bush would, in choosing an attorney general would follow Gerald Ford and put politics second to respect for law. We know the answer now.
Samples:
Mr. Ashcroft is a full-service partisan pinata. He has not only left a long paper trail of race-mongering..but an equally energetic history as a hack water carrier for special interests...Ashcroft could be sparking acrimony for years...Once confirmed by the Senate as attorney general, he's on the fast track to be a Bush appointee to the Supreme Court in a year or two.
Some of Ashcroft's past is so embarrassing you have to wonder if he got this far by a fluke. After all, the first Bush admin. had been smart enough to take a pass on his resume when John Sununu tried to peddle it a decade ago. Ashcroft was chosen by W. only after another conservative choice, Gov. Marc Racicot of Montana, was abruptly torpedoed by the hard right (Mr. Racicot's hanging offense? He wanted to extend hate-crime laws to cover sexual orientation after Matthew Shepard was murdered.)
Once W. settled on Ashcroft, who endorses the right of schools to turn away gay teachers, W. tried to sugar coat the announcement by declaring that his choice "now holds the Senate seat that Harry Truman held." Mr Ashcroft is no Harry Truman-he may not even be Dan Qualyle--and he couldn't hold his seat at that...the irrppressible sports columnist Hondo of the New York post asked, "If he couldn't beat a dead man in an election, how's he going to outsmart living criminals?"
Cut the "sometimes" and you've got it!
Bush tried to camouflage Ashcroft's hardline views by simultaneously anointing the pro-choice Christie Whitman to head the EPA as if such a pairing might pass for another example of ideological bi-partisanship, but a pro-choice EPA head can only protect the reproductive rights of spotted owls. Ashcroft who opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, will actually have the power to limit women's access to those rights.
To deflect such questions, the Wash. word on Ashcroft is "integrity." Bush used it twice in introducing the man, and Ashcroft used it four times in as many minutes to describe himself. Ever since, he has been so often referred to as "a man of integrity" by fellow senators of both parties, it sounds like a Chatty Cathy tape loop. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of integrity is.
Sure Ashcroft has not committed any crimes, but Reno also passed that test. Otherwise the most consistent example in his record is his truly ecumenical hazing of all minority groups. He hasn't just attacked African-American candidates for federal jobs (including the distinguished surgeon general David Satcher), but has also targeted Asian-Americans (the assistant attorney general for civil rights, Bill Lann Lee) and homosexuals (Ambassador James Hormel).
Such "integrity" isn't otherwise a hallmark of the flip-flopping Ashcroft career. He may be from the "Show Me" state, but his won motto could be "show me the money!" A famously pious teetotaler who doesn't dance and forbade alcohol in the Missouri gov's mansion, he now takes contributions from Anheuser-Busch, whose lobbyists do battle with MADD to defeat legislation aimed at reducing alcohol-related accidents. Though Ashcroft expressed "grave concerns" in 1992 about state laws permitting concealed handguns, he reversed his stand in 1999--by which time the AP reported, the NRA had long been pouring cash into his campaign coffers.
Another Ashcroft contributor is the pharmaceutical giant Schering Plough. In 1999, weeks before it gave his campaign $50,000 Ashcroft co-sponsored a bill to extend the patent on its leading prescription drug, Claritin to prevent it from facing cheaper generic competition. This slab of corporate pork would be worth at least $9 billion to the company--all out of the pockets of American consumers.
In each of these cases, Mr Ashcroft has strongly denied any quid pro quo. Just the same, The St. Louis Post-dispatch has crowned him "the Senator from Claritin." Among the other senators from Claritin are Orrin Hatch, who hitched rides on a Schering-Plough corporate jet during his presidential campaign last year, and Robert Torricelli, the Democrat who represents Schering-Plough's home state and also boards the financial gravy train. Mr. Hatch and mr. Torricelli both have a big say over the fate of the Ashcroft nomination in the Judiciary Committee and have both been among the loudest cheerleaders for his "integrity."
It'll be rip-roaring fun to watch them defend that "integrity" in televised hearings. Will Mr. Ashcroft swear on a Bible that he "didn't really know", as he's put it, that Bob Jones "University" forbade interracial dating when he accepted its honorary degree a mere 20 months ago? Mr. Ashcroft's truthfulness will be further tested over his repeated assertion that he sabotaged Ronnie White, Missouri's first black Suprem Court Justice, only because the nominee was a "pro-criminal" slacker on the death penalty.
At least no one can accuse John Ashcroft of being a wishy-washy bipartisan. Twlo years ago he firmly condemned fellow Republicans "who preach pragmatism, who champion conciliation, who counsel compromise. He needn't worry. It's only Senate Democrats who are talking that way now.
[Isn't this enough to make you throw up?]
(Sing to the tune of "The Beverly Hillbillies"
Come and listen to my story 'bout a boy named Bush.
His IQ was zero and his head was up his tush.
He drank like a fish while he drove all about.
But that didn't matter 'cuz his daddy bailed him out.
DUI, that is. Criminal record. Cover-up.
Well, the first thing you know little Georgie goes to Yale.
He can't spell his name but they never let him fail.
He spends all his time hangin' out with student folk.
And that's when he learns how to snort a line of coke.
Blow, that is. White gold. Nose candy.
The next thing you know there's a war in Vietnam.
Kin folks said, "George, stay at home with Mom!"
"Let the common people get maimed and scarred."
"We'll buy you a spot in the Texas Air Guard."
Cushy, that is. Country clubs. Nose candy.
Twenty years later George gets a little bored.
He trades in the booze, says that Jesus is his Lord.
He said, "Now the White House is the place I wanna be."
So he called his daddy's friends and they called the GOP.
Gun owners, that is. Falwell. Jesse Helms.
Come November 7, the election ran late.
The kin folks said "Jeb, give the boy your state!"
"Don't let those colored folks get into the polls."
So they put up barricades so they couldn't punch their holes.
Chads, that is. Duval County. Miami-Dade.
Before the votes were counted five Supremes stepped in.
Told all the voters "Hey, we want George to win."
"Stop counting votes!" was their solemn invocation.
And that's how George finally got his coronation.
Rigged, that is. Illegitimate. No moral authority.
Y'all come vote, now. Ya hear?
What an idiot.
February is a Sweeps Month.
Ethics
I have a moral question for you. This is an imaginary situation, but I think it is fun to decide what one would do.
The situation: You are in the Midwest, and there is a huge flood
in progress. Many homes have been lost, water supplies compromised
and infrastructures destroyed.
Let's say that you're a photographer out getting still photos for a
news
service, traveling alone, looking for particularly poignant scenes.
You come across George W. Bush who has been swept away by the
floodwaters.
He is barely hanging on to a tree limb and is about to go under.
You can either put down your camera and save him, or take a Pulitzer
Prize-winning photograph of him as he loses his grip on the limb.
So, here's the question, and think carefully before you answer the
question below:
Which lens would you use?
Spoil Bush's Party, Send the Imposter Packing!
Great story about him at Drudge...
Well, why don't you link to it, then?
Here it is, Slides New God
(UPI) Immigration and Naturalization Service employees in Miami have been ordered to destroy or conceal documents and electronic mail related to the Elian Gonzalez case, according to an attorney who works there, says The Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel.
Well, unlike the "mainstream centrists", I don't believe that the Green enviro policy is insane. In fact, extremism is generally bred as a reaction to extremism from the other side, and is thus a logical refutation.
I think they have some ideas worth considering. I'm just not quite ready to go entirely in that direction.
Given the current appointments and priorities, Ireland is sounding better and better though....
You know, I've always found that the best investments are the ones your rich daddy and his powerful cronies set you up with. And if you cash out early and the SEC investigates your company, oh well -- just get 'em laughing at the way you talk.
Is this the sort of message we want to send to our children -- coast through life as a drunken layabout until 40, then glom on to your Poppy's connections? It's just terrible. What will the children think? What....will....the children....think?
Eh, who gives a fuck. The children are occupied with comparing Eminem and Sisqo. Let 'em go to Andover and Yale and Harvard, and still not be able to speak coherently.
And you know, it's still useful to point out that our Parsdent-elect and his l'il bald sidekick have been arrested five times.
Thug Life On Da Westsi-eeed!
Eric:
And you know, it's still useful to point out that our Parsdent-elect and his l'il bald sidekick have been arrested five times.
I'm sure those incidents occurred during their youth...like mid to late 30s, early 40s.
Have you noticed how many of the good ole boys around Bush are fat?
I'm sure those incidents occurred during their youth...like mid to late 30s, early 40s.
Heh, yeah. Cheney's two arrests were his two DUI's during the '60s. One of W's was his DUI, the other two were while he was improving his mind at Yale, en route to that coveted Harvard MBA we hear so much about. Nothing huge; neither one was busted for growing hemp or molesting collies, but still....what would the children think? How do I tell them that their new Parsdent 'n Vice-Parsdent are ex-cons?
And draft dodgers?
Have you noticed how many of the good ole boys around Bush are fat?
Honestly, no. The only one I've noticed as being truly in Fat Bastard territory is Hastert, and from what I've read, he's regarded more as a go-along-to-get-along fella, rather than a Armey-Lott firebrand. So I'm loath to pick on him any more than I already have.
To me "fat" is obese, not just being overweight. So Cheney, while overweight and unhealthy, is not what I call "fat". Just a guy who's probably had a bit too much of the good life, porterhouses and good whisky and such.
I don't usually like to fuck with fat people anyway, unless they're jerks. I'm not exactly Steve Reeves myself, though I'm pretty efficient at losing weight when I pry my ass off the couch.
Do not be lulled by his mangling of the English language, Judith. Watch who he talks to, and how he talks to them. Bush is very cagey about things, and clearly wants to run a tight ship. He's made it clear that Ashcroft is supposed to shut the fuck up unless told to speak.
Who will tell him to speak and what to say? That is the most important question. Reminds me of Vito slapping Sonny upside the head and admonishing him, "Never tell anyone outside the family what you're thinking."
I'm not saying it to sound alarmist, I just think that things are going to be handled very differently than what we're used to. We'll be on a need-to-know basis.
How much will NMD really cost, and how well will it really work? You don't need to know. How much damage will drilling for oil in the Wildlife Refuge really cause? You don't need to know. How long will be really be stuck in Colombia, helping paramilitaries murder schoolchildren while we preserve our access to their oil? You don't need to know.
Democracies are messy. Despotisms are very smooth and efficient, because the proles are deliberately kept out of the loop. We'll see. For now, I'll concern myself with the Raiders' imminent throttling of the hapless Dolphins.
Ciao.
Don't forget to mention Laura's big rear end, or Cazart will be disappointed.
I watched the roll call of the electors and thought Gore once more acquited himself very well. The highlight of course was his smackdown of Maxine Waters when the latter said, "I don't care that I don't have a Senator [to support my objection]" and Gore replied "The rules do care."
My only other comment is that lawzy but those Fox folks like to blab. What gets me is by presenting the roll call they imply that it's worth watching, but then talk over it the whole time as though no one could find it interesting without their commentary (which is of course the same stuff that we've been hearing for weeks). As a result, no one even noticed that D.C.'s electors didn't go entirely for Gore because of the one elector who refused to vote in protest of D.C. not being treated like a state. Sure, it's not that important in the big scheme, but it was one of the only interesting bits outside of Florida.
Also, at least on this occasion I would say that Fox was pretty pro the Republicans, as most liberals claim. I don't have cable so normally I never see the Fox team (very sorry not to be able to watch Paula Zahn), but they and Dan Rather are pretty divergent in reporting perspective.
IJ:
I wasn't commenting on their sizes so much as they all seem well fed and they look as though they intend to continue that way...
I watched the roll call and felt as you did that Gore did well in an awkward situation. I saw it on CNN and thus avoided hearing that massive jerkoff Fox crew telling everyone what was going on, as though they couldn't have seen for themselves. Then, as luck would have it, I was surfing channels just now and landed on Fox Headline News where "Republican Consultant", Ms Georgette Mosbacher, was waxing philosophic on what GW intends to do....this is such a hoot! She is a former cosmetologist with great skin who managed to sleep her way into consultanthood and a cushy marriage to a honcho in the Bush, pere, administration. After dumping her hapless hubby, she's become the social darling of the Bush, fils group. Such are the credentials of the Fox News "consultants".
I'm sure she could help Tony Snow with his dry skin and crows feet, though...
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why new senator Hillary Clinton didn't want to sign any of the Florida elector objections? Was she even there? I never saw her on camera, and I can't believe the newsies wouldn't have shown her if she was. And after Al swore her in and everything.
IJ:
I'm sure Hillary is aware that any Senator signing on would be opening their veins in a tub of warm water. She wasn't the only one to pass, you know....
Must be nice to so inside the power circle, Rosie....
I would hope that Demo senators who refrained from objecting did so out of respect for the process rather than their own political future. While I'm not saying that was her motivation, in HRC's case, I think you have someone whose political future clearly benefits by what transpired today.
If OPEC is able to force the price of oil back to $30 a barrel, I think that will severely weaken the Federal Reserve's ability to fight the economic slowdown. Not only will the higher energy costs hurt the economy, but the resulting inflation will make it more difficult to lower interest rates any farther.
OTOH, a slowing economy will mean less demand for oil, and OPEC hasn't shown particularly strong unity in the face of low demand.
Judith:
You have got to be joking. The Demos have the two fattest SOBs in the House and Senate in Jerold Nadler and Ted Kennedy.
In fact, I don't think even Hastert has enough time before he dies to get as fat as Jerold has-to-pay-for-two-airline-seats Nadler.
I live in Missouri. Ashcroft was our AG and our governor before he was elected to the Senate. I have met the man on several occasions. The man is not a backward (or barely?) thinking, intolerant, phony. The attacks on him are pure bullshit. The man is a politician, no question. He can and will play hardball with the best of them. But the other charges are just an attempt to spike his nomination by people who are opposed to his politics. He will pass the Senate because they know the man and they know the charges are politics as usual. The Dems will question him so it looks good for the folks back home, but they all know Ashcroft is a decent man and he will be excellent AG.
Or rather where the Democratic Party's heart used to be before it rotted away.
That's the problem. You don't know his positions. At least I haven't seen a post in this thread that demonstrates any understanding at all.
Call it politics if you will, but that's just a way of hiding the ugly truth of his ugly beliefs.
You are equally clueless about his beliefs. You are repeating baseless accusations as if they were fact and drawing conclusions based on them.
Or, if it's just "politics" that makes it even worse as in the case of Bush pere and his dirty racial ad attacking Dukakis.
As it has been documented here on several occasions, Bush had nothing to do with any racial ad attacking Dukakis. It would seem that once an accusation of racism is made, the truth is irrelevant. The accusation will be presented as fact no matter how many time it is refuted. McCarthy lives.
This has nothing to do with loyalty. This has to do with a man's reputation being trashed with baseless accusations.
The man's politics, as seen in his own statements and actions, are quite properly described as "barbaric", whatever his behavior in a receiving line may be like. His positions are plainly (even proudly) crudely unsympathetic, even inimical, to much of the American government's constituency; his philosophical inclinations, as represented by his acceptance of racial bigotry and sexism, are equally rejecting of many American citizens. This is the very opposite of the attitudes that should go with the professions of public service that all politicians are properly bound by (even if many of them are pretty slippery on the subject). Ashcroft's seems, contrariwise, to take pride in his animosity to so much of the public he is supposed to be aiding.
He is easily the worst of W's appointments so far, and I am in no way suggesting the sorts of treatment the late Senator from Wisconsin was famous for (and proud of) finding appropriate for persons whose politics disapproved of, but I see nothing at all wrong in viciously criticizing this man of vicious politics.
What do you think BJU is? Do you think they advocate racism or discrimination? They had an unenforced policy opposing interracial dating that has since been discontinued. This doesn't make them a racist organization and certainly doesn't make Ashcroft a racist. BJU has ties with a great many politicians both Republican and Democrat. To point to this as evidence of anything is absurd.
Does he oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest?
What does this have to do with his being AG? Do you really believe that this belief will prevent him from enforcing the law? How?
Does he oppose handgun control?
So do I and so do millions of Americans. How does this make him a backward (or barely?) thinking, intolerant, phony?
Did he take $50,000 from Schering-Plough after sponsoring a bill to extend the patent on Claritin?
I don't know, did he? How many other Congressmen and Senators have accepted money from industries affected by their legislation. It seems to me that the Democratic Party has taken in millions from the various drug companies despite campaigning against them. Why do you think that is?
Is he opposed to dancing?
And what would this be relevant to? Are you afraid he's going to single-handedly outlaw dancing? The man's religious beliefs are his own business. Unless you want the religious beliefs of all candidates exposed for public scrutiny, it is not fair to single out Ashcroft's beliefs. BTW, since I've seen him dancing, I don't think he is opposed to it.
And it was a perfect example of McCarthyism at that. You might want to remove the plank from your own eye before you try to remove the mote from another's.
JJ, My mention of Ashcroft's opposition to dancing was intended to be humorous! However, my teenage experience with Baptist girls in Louisiana who weren't allowed to dance was that they tended to make up for not dancing in other ways!
Incidentally, there was a nice piece about local Green politics in the NYT a few days ago. They now have something like 130 officeholders in various local jurisdictions around the country. In one of them, Sebastipol CA (an old stompin ground of mine), they control the city government. This (supposing most of them do a decent job) is the way a left can be reconstituted in this country.
I read your entire post and all of the posts in this thread if that's what you mean.
Either that or, like those who call Republicans "Fascists" you have only a vague, arguably sentimental notion of what McCarthy actually was.
I know exactly who and what McCarthy was. I know the tactics he used to discredit people. I see those same tactics being used against Ashcroft just as they have been used against other Republicans over the years. Guilt by association. Appeals to authority. Repeating accusations of others as evidence. Unsupported conclusions. All the classics. Democrats have learned their lessons well.
At least somewhere in the back of McCarthy's twisted mind, he really believed he was saving America from the Communist Menace. Democrats do it for political gain.
You should be careful about believing everything you read. Much of what is being reported are the words of those who oppose Ashcroft for political reasons. They are not realiable sources of information.
You were quite eloquent in your posts about Ashcroft's supposed intolerance. You said that his beliefs and positions as you understand them make him a troglodyte. Yet your attacks on his beliefs and positions demonstrate your own intolerance. What does that make you?
And the distinction between JM and others is not that he traduced people—really, can you be shocked at politicians traducing each other—but that he tried to really off 'em, in all but the literal sense. He and his kicked out half the Asian staffers in the State Department (to the considerable harm of the country), ran a considerable number of bureaucrats out of their careers, blacklisted those film industry hacks (and geniuses perhaps) who wouldn't accept HUAC's bullshit, impoverishing some of them, and sent some people to jail (though none for very long, I think).
Pointing out Ashcroft's dreadful qualities—even if wrongly (though I think we Dems have more or less got his number)—is not remotely the same thing. After all, should he not get his appointment, he'll still be making a pretty fine living as a rain-maker, I should imagine. He's certainly not entitled to the job, and if speechifying can keep him out of it, the speakers are simply acting politically. McCarthy was a terrorist, by comparison. 
But that isn't what is going on here.
Speak for yourself. I plan to stay in touch with SDI developments. Plus, you realize, I hope, that the questions you ask here relate to evolving and even hypothetical situations, so your wish for pat 'answers' here may be impossible to grant.
How much damage will drilling for oil in the Wildlife Refuge really cause? You don't need to know.
Minimal. Most of the refuge will not be affected in any way. Plus, it will be hardly the state secret you are trying to make it out to be.
How long will be really be stuck in Colombia, helping paramilitaries murder schoolchildren while we preserve our access to their oil? You don't need to know.
That's the kind of crap you get with a Lefty administration. You can rest assured Bush won't do what you hypothesize.
Unfortunately, some House Socialist whack jobs were trying to get the Florida EC votes tossed out. So much for the Left's bullshit posturing about 'making every vote count'.
It's not so -but if it were:
"Recognize this petard, Mr. Ashcroft?"
Not to worry. The Miami-Herald's count will soon be complete concerned and the first time that Moron steps in Cheney's doo, the chorous will loudly proclaim "Hell, Scalia elected that piece of garbage anyway - not us!"
That inaugural address was actually delivered by President George Bush in 1989 (and obtained via an electronic database)."
Gale Norton's legacy of environmental law enforcement in Colorado is decidedly mixed, according to court records and natural resource experts. That legacy is being scrutinized as the U.S. Senate debates whether the former state attorney general should win confirmation as George W. Bush's interior secretary.
Her colleagues and admirers praise Norton for her environmental successes - a major court victory over the Army's Rocky Mountain Arsenal, a pact to streamline the cleanup of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant and a national law forcing federal polluters to obey state environmental law.
But critics say Norton should be defined more by what she did not do. Though she first won election in 1990 as a "tough law" candidate, Norton rarely took on corporate polluters, they say.
...
Though Norton has been widely criticized by national environmental groups for her support of Colorado's self-audit law, which waived penalties for polluters that turn themselves in for wrongdoing, it's important to remember that the law was strongly supported and signed by Romer, Looby said.
Both Norton and Romer came under heavy attack in 1992 after leaks from the Summitville gold mine near South Fork killed life in 17 miles of the Alamosa River, and the mine declared bankruptcy. Though state records showed the mine leaked cyanide from the first day of operations - and mine operators repeatedly broke promises to fix the widespread contamination - neither state environmental regulators nor the attorney general's office ever tried to close it.
[continued]
...
While Norton was attorney general, they often asked state officials for help against polluters but were either ignored or turned away.
In the early 1990s, the state allowed the Louisiana-Pacific mill near Olathe to spew pollution for months without a required state permit. State environmental regulators then granted a permit that allowed the firm to quintuple its air pollution.
Four downwind neighbors, who abandoned their homes because of the stench, had to hire their own attorneys to fight the emissions. In 1992, the neighbors won a $2.3 million court judgment against Louisiana-Pacific.
Though evidence from that civil trial showed the company had boosted production with law-breaking midnight burns and even covered up violations by sabotaging record-keeping equipment, the state didn't pursue any criminal penalties.
That led the federal government to step in. The result: Federal prosecutors slapped L-P with a record $37 million in fines - $31 million for fraud and $6 million for Clean Air Act violations - while the company pleaded guilty to 18 law violations.
"I would have grave concerns about Gale Norton's aggressiveness in enforcing environmental compliance and protecting citizens from environmental damage," said Kevin Hannon, one of the lawyers who won the case against L-P.
JJ:
But the other charges are just an attempt to spike his nomination by people who are opposed to his politics.
This is a political appointment, have you not noticed?
I hope people are equitable and apply the same standards to Ashcrofts appointment that he applied to others when he axed them...people like Ronnie White and Bill Lan Lee and James Hormel.
You are carrying on about our objections as though you never made negative remarks about Janet Reno, JJ....surely we're allowed to dislike GWs pick as much as you and yours were allowed to detest Reno? Your attacks on people who have just cause to oppose Ashcroft smack of intolerance, the very intolerance you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of having. Just because you've personally met the man changes nothing about his core beliefs...do you admire him so much because you share all of them? If so, I'm very surprised.
And please....let's not fall back on that "the bad things written about him are from his enemies"....that just sounds soooo....Clintonian.
Note that the states are constantly competing with each other to attract new business using tax incentives, free land, etc. Just imagine how competitive it will be when the states can offer ever more lax environmental regulations and enforcement.
joezan:
You have got to be joking. The Demos have the two fattest SOBs in the House and Senate in Jerold Nadler and Ted Kennedy.
Have you taken a gander at GWs chief economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey? He hasn't missed many meals....
Greystoke:
We here in Texas have noticed, big time...just come down here and wander around any city of size. You'd do well to bring your sinus pills and eye drops...
A review of Mr. Ashcroft's public record demonstrates how his deep religious commitment is intertwined with his outspoken support for the agenda of the religious right on a number of issues, INCLUDING SOME HE WOULD HAVE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN AS ATTORNEY GENERAL. Among the isues he has embraced as abortion, the death penalty, gun control, homosexuality, prayer in schools, the judiciary and elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts.
JJ, I strongly disagree with Ashcroft's position on all the above issues as do most educated, rational and tolerant Americans. Judith is correct. A turd still stinks even when sprinkled with cheap perfume.
And of COURSE most union political activity is in support of Democrats. While an individual union member may vote Republican for unrelated reasons, his or her interest AS A UNION MEMBER will be supported primarily (if not exclusively) by Democrats.
More from NYT: "The son of an Assembly of God minister and educator, Mr. Ashcroft has woven his private faith into his public life....he wrote that he...anointed himself prior to each of his two terms as Missouri's governor. He did so again using a bowl of Crisco oil, before being sworn in in 1995 as senator.
The act of anointment, wh arote in his largely autobiographical book, replicated the practice of the "ancient kings of Israel, David and Saul," who Mr. Ashcroft said, "were annointed as they undertook their administrative duties." [I personally prefer Mazzola to Crisco!]
As a senator, Mr Ashcroft was the leading recipient of campaign contributions from clergy and religious organizations, according to a recent report.
Mr. Ashcroft's opposition to legalized abortion, with a 100 percent voting record in the most recent rankings by the National Right to Life Committee, is certain to be a flash point during his Senate confirmation hearing.
Mr. Ashcroft has a long history of support for the anti-abortion cause, as attorney general, governor and senator. He is a hero to the anti-abortion movement and anathema to supporters of abortion rights.
Raw-ther!
One is inclined to suppose that she is either corrupt or mentally defective. A typical Bushoid (he being both).
replicated the practice of the "ancient kings of Israel, David and Saul," who Mr. Ashcroft said, "were annointed as they undertook their administrative duties."
I would imagine those guys used olive oil. Probably had huge contributions from the Olive Growers Association, too...
But then, perhaps they weighed this peccadillo against the grandeur of it all and forgave him.
Perhaps they decided to adopt that little touch of panache for themselves and have a giant gang anointing right before they take their oaths...they seem sanctimonious enough to have done so.
That is irrelevant to his confirmation. The fact that some educated and rational Americans believe otherwise--enough so the House, Senate, and Presidency are at least more in their hands than yours--means those positions have for the time being won the right to govern under accordance of the law. Bush can choose his cabinet as he sees fit, provided that cabinet is qualified apart from their political views. You likely don't agree with many of Bush's views either, but he's still the President (or will be January 20).
On abortion, most polls show the nation divided. No one would be borked for being an unmitigated supporter of abortion rights, yet you think the contrary is sufficient reason to challenge Ashcroft?
As far as religious practice and belief about "anointing," who is being intolerant now? Should Joe Lieberman have been prohibited from being Vice President because his religious beliefs were at variance with the vast majority of Americans. You didn't include this part of the NYTimes article:
"It is against my religion to impose religion on people," [Ashcroft] wrote in the book. But he added, "I also believe that I need to invite God's presence into whatever I'm doing, including the world of politics."
How different is that from what Lieberman has said?
I don't agree with that statement. Nor, apparently, did the Republican Senators who refused to confirm Bill Lann Lee as an Assistant Attorney General.
IJ:
The fact that some educated and rational Americans believe otherwise--enough so the House, Senate, and Presidency are at least more in their hands than yours--
Well, technically, that should read "enough ELECTORS" as far as the Presidency part goes.
I don't care if Ashcroft batters and fries himself in oil before he undertakes his duties, frankly; I just think his stand on many issues happens to not jibe with mine. Sorta like the way you guys disagreed with Reno and called for her to resign almost every week in the past 8 years. For us, saying Ashcroft seems intolerant is the equivilant of concerned braying that Janet Reno liked to torch babies before breakfast.
Ohio: Are you saying the Senate should be able to reject a nominee to the President's own cabinet based solely on political disagreement? In which case, could not a majority of senators dictate cabinet selection to the president, and thus effectively subordinate the executive branch to the legislative branch?
Do you believe Bill Lee was opposed solely for his political views? Do you think then (be consistent with your answer above) that opposing his confirmation was okay?
Judith: The statement was accurate as written. I worded it carefully.
Sorta like the way you guys disagreed ith Reno and called for her to resign almost every week in the past 8 years.
What was the vote on her confirmation? Calling for someone to resign is to express disagreement with their job performance.
I think saying you disagree with Ashcroft is of course perfectly legitimate. Trying to choose the incoming President's cabinet for him would be more akin to the senate firing Reno because she refused to perform her duties. The senate was in Republican control during the last six years of Clinton but never did that.
Linda Chavez, the Labor Secretary-elect, had a Guatamalan woman, an illegal alien, living with her for over a year but she didn't pay her a salary or anything so it's probably not going to be any big deal. Of course, it wouldn't be a big deal; it's not like she PAID her to clean or anything.
Seems it was a surprise to the Bush vetting team; they missed it....it was mentioned just now on Wolf Blitzers Late Edition.
IJ:
I agree with your statement on the House and Senate bt still think 500,000 more votes for President lends credence to my remark about the electors.
Unless, of course, you mean that those 500,000 voters were not educated and rational.
I hope all of Bush's major appointees get Senate confirmation
and that they all live up to their reputations and to the public's reasonable expectations, based on their records.
That should assure four years and out for W.
Maybe they're lovers.
bt still think 500,000 more votes for President lends credence to my remark about the electors.
Judith: I said "enough Americans" and "in accordance with law." I think that sufficiently qualified it.
And 500,000 votes nationally represents less than half of one percent of those who even bothered to vote. It also occurred because urban pockets of the country voted overwhelmingly for Gore, meaning his support represents a narrow, deep base, and Bush's represents a broad, less-concentrated base. Remove the top five Gore-leaning counties and Bush's victory margin is in the millions.
In any case, we're not a strictly majoritarian democracy. I think a president who wins despite losing the popular vote by one and a president who wins and carries the popular vote by one ought to govern pretty much the same way: "Half the people agree with me, half don't. It's up to me to work with that."
I would agree with you if the views of these nominees were only of philosophical interest and their impact would only be felt inside the beltway. Unfortunately, decisions made by these Cabinet members will have tangible effects on real people.
I want the Democrats to rake them over the coals. What have we got to lose? You know the Republicans have done, and will do, the same to all past and future Democratic Cabinet nominees.
the President's own cabinet based solely on political disagreement? In
which case, could not a majority of senators dictate cabinet selection to the president, and thus effectively subordinate the executive branch to the legislative branch?"
If each Senator holds out for the nominee he or she considers best, no one will ever get confirmed, so as a practical matter some deference is necessary and proper. Where I disagree with you (and others) is with the statement that the nominee's political views are entirely off the table in giving "advice and consent".
"Do you believe Bill Lee was opposed solely for his political views?"
Yes.
"Do you think then (be consistent with your answer above) that opposing his confirmation was okay?"
I don't know. Rejecting a nominee for the position of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights because he favors civil rights is pretty strange.
Judith: You should ask wonkers2 about that. It was his post 615 that implied disagreeing with his views means one is likely either irrational, uneducated, or intolerant.
IJ:
ask wonkers2 about that. It was his post 615 that implied disagreeing with his views means one is likely either irrational, uneducated, or intolerant.
To begin with, I don't think that is what he implied and to end with, I suppose if it were, it might have been brought on by JJs accusing him of thinking his shit didn't stink.
"each Senator holds out for the nominee he or she considers best"
and
"the nominee's political views are entirely off the table"
Where one draws the line between the two extremes determines a lot about whether the two branches are separate and equal. I think to maintain executive independence, one ought to draw it at least pretty far toward the latter direction. Much more so on appointments to the executive branch than even the judiciary.
Judith: What is implied by the following statement?
I strongly disagree with Ashcroft's position on all the above issues as do most educated, rational and tolerant Americans.
It seems to me it says that anyone agreeing with Ashcroft is likely (i.e., more than 50 percent) either uneducated, irrational, or intolerant.
IJ:
You logic reminds me of Ace saying that because I loathe Bush, I love Gore.
No. Suppose the breakdown is:
50% -- educated, rational, and tolerant; agree with Wonkers
49% -- educated, rational, and tolerant; disagree with Wonkers
1% -- uneducated, irrational, or intolerant; disagree with Wonkers
Then most e., r., & t. folks agree with W., but if you disagree with him, there's still a 98% chance you are e., r., & t.
So you agree that Dem. charges that the GOP opposed Lee because of his race were complete garbage?
That was a good column, Cellar...I like this part:
Civic disrespect means that the illegitimacy of this administration must not be allowed to fade from view. The conventions of politics remain: Bush will be president; Congress must work with him. But those outside that process are not bound by those conventions, and to the extent that we have a voice, we should use it. Politically, civic disrespect means drawing lines around the freedom of maneuver of the incoming administration. In some areas, there may be few major changes; in others, compromises will have to be reached. But Bush should be opposed on actions whose reach will extend beyond his actual term.
Of course, that won't happen, as most Democrats are peeing themselves to get in line and kiss his ring.
Uh oh...toys.
!
Help!!
Never mind....sorry.
Speak for yourself. I plan to stay in touch with SDI developments.
Great. You do that. I plan to keep up on it as well. I want to know how much we're spending on it, and how well the tech is working. Also how much it may provoke other extremely large nations into another arms race.
Plus, you realize, I hope, that the questions you ask here relate to evolving and even hypothetical situations, so your wish for pat 'answers' here may be impossible to grant.
Not at all. Bush repeatedly said throughout his campaign that he plans to push hard for BMD. Don't know how reliable the figures are, but I've seen estimates as high as $200-250 billion.
Gore is not much better in that regard -- he was ready to commit $60 bil to it.
Most of the [Alaska Wildlife] refuge will not be affected in any way. Plus, it will be hardly the state secret you are trying to make it out to be.
We'll see. Maybe taking steps to curtail aggregate demand for oil might be helpful as well. That may be a lot to ask from oil folks, though.
[Cartman]: How long will we really be stuck in Colombia, helping paramilitaries murder schoolchildren while we preserve our access to their oil? You don't need to know.
[Concerned's response]: That's the kind of crap you get with a Lefty administration. You can rest assured Bush won't do what you hypothesize.
Nonsense. Republicans were pushing for the $1.3 billion in "military aid" just as hard as the Democrats. There is no indication whatsoever that Bush will change this anytime soon. Not that the initiative of the policy is on Bush, but continuing it will be.
However, if I'm now thinking correctly, one of two conditions must be true:
1. As in your example, the majority of people are educated and rational and tolerant. I doubt that, but perhaps wonkers believes they are. In which case, I withdraw my characterization of his statement.
2. Or non-ERT people agree with him in an even higher ratio than do ERT people. I certainly don't think he meant to imply that.
Thanks for pointing out my mistake, though. I had the nagging feeling I was engaging in lazy thinking but was just heading out and didn't do the probabilities.
They also like Brittany Spears.
It seems that wannabe labor secretary Linda Chavez will not be Borked after all. She has Zoeed herself.
Ignorant Jesse Jackson Sr. called it 'indentured servitude'. What a fucking moron.
Yeah, concerned...let's just give them all a pass without any confirmation hearings at all. Heaven forbid anyone have a dissenting opinion. Let's just all get along, why don't we?
Funny we didn't think of that once in the last 8 years...
Much good it does 'em (us).
Now to avoid inconsistency, let's hear Insouciant and other Republican apologists, who have been kvelling about the return of the rule of law to Washington, condemn Ms. Chavez for housing--and possibly employing--an illegal immigrant, contrary to the rule of law.
Another item from the NYT today, I would like to add to that rather impressive list of crap, the DD-21 destroyer
During the campaign, Mr. Bush hammered home the need to rebuild the services, calling for an acquisition program that would "propel America generations ahead in military technology." To its advocates, DD-21 fits that goal, and Mr. Bush is on record as promoting an earlier version of the DD-21 known as the arsenal ship. But Mr. Bush also never explained how he would pay for such leap-ahead technology, and therein lies the rub.
A billion here, a trillion there, its all funny Bush money anyway,, right ThomasD?
But Wombat, she was only exercising Compassionate Conservatism ....she was only helping out an unfortunate person down on her luck. She shouldn't be condemned for being charitable .
We're just being mean in bringing this up....Chavez didn't know the woman was here illeagally. The fact the woman herself says Chavez did know is just a mere trifle.
Sure, we'll all forget it in time and as soon as she gets a male lover, we'll cheer her on, right?
Ms. Chavez doesn't even attempt to conceal her disdain for the labor movement. Just last summer she wrote, "Union members are hardly representative of the American working public."
Working women? No problem. Ms. Chavez has declared that women do not face a "glass ceiling" that keeps them from advancing beyond a certain point. And she has ridiculed sexual harassment lawsuits, which are on the increase, saying they have made the U.S. "a nation of crybabies."
It will be interesting to see how Ms. Chavez, if she is confirmed as labor secretary, will respond to complaints by women of employment discrimination and sexual harassment. I presume she'll shout, "Stop crying!"
I'm disappointed in Bush. He's been prez-elect for a couple of weeks now (I think) and hasn't had a major blooper yet. What is wrong with the guy? Doesn't he realize what he was elected for?
I learned, at my maternal grandfather's knee, that the War for Southern Independence was just because the South's treatment of slaves was "charitable" and just. Thus the War of Northern Aggression was an abomination.
Linda Chavez shares with JC Watts and a certain Motier a problem common among minority republicans. Theirs is the ardor of the converted. They're little more than wannabe rich whites.
Cal:
Send your resumé to Rove...he's probably looking for a new nominee by now.
toys
and sure there are too many harrassment suits which are little more than nuisance suits. Yet such is straining at gnats. There are vastly more actions that ARE justified.
Having prosecuted and defended AA suits, having seen descrimination up close and personal as a gay man, I am glad to see this gas bag of a wignut get her ass.
How sad....MTV won't be having any Inaugrual parties for GW and Company. I guess it's because GW prefers country western. The "real" music of America. Ha! 
I hope I never have to be confirmed for public office. I am sure I will be crucified for daring to adopt an abused child.
Impeached, Indicted, Disbarred, Pardoned, Divorced
JAH -
I probably shouldn't be, but I'm still surprised that you're so consumed by partisan bias that you would condemn Linda Chavez for her charity and actions on the strength of her words and beliefs, even if you don't personally agree with helping out the less fortunate.
Maybe, but I don't think that is how Bush is going to do things.
Instead he appointed a strident opponent of unionism, OSHA, the minimum wage, etc, etc. which was like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
The guy's got guts. It is worth it just watch liberals sputter and fume. Their desperation is palpable. I'd like to see Bush barbecue a couple more sacred cows just for the entertainment value.
John Ashcroft's nomination as Attorney General is the first installment on George W. Bush's enormous political debt to the radical right. Remember back in early February when Bush's campaign for the Republican nomination was on the ropes....
Block Ashcroft -I
Block Ashcroft -II
Message # 692 must be his idea of a joke post....
Except for Ashcroft. No matter how much I want W's handlers true stripes to show both quickly and with gusto, he crosses the line. Too many vital areas are under the AG's umbrella, and there is no way that an rigid idealogue like Ashcroft wouldn't create drastic harm - both through his actions but most likely through his inactions.
Now, I don't really think the results will be much different if Mr. X or Ms. Y gets the AG job instead. The shots will be called much the same.
But, letting W's handlers get by with a pick like Ashcroft goes to fundamental principle. I would rather be blindsided on this one with an X or Y instead of have an Ashcroft slapped at my face.
All things in their place and at the right time.
He was writing about the death of Bill Rogers. Paraphrasing here, Rich said that his first reaction was sadness over the fact that the W cabinet had already lost a member to death. Then he remembered that Rogers was one of the very few old line Republicans who had NOT been reappointed to a cabinet post.
OTOH, Bore and his minions certainly gave stealing the 2000 Presidential Election the old Vanderbilt Divinity School try.
hen the news arrived this week of the death of William Rogers, my first response was to grieve for the new administration. Inauguration Day isn't even here yet, and it had already lost a cabinet member! Thankfully I was wrong: the former Eisenhower attorney general and Nixon secretary of state turns out to be one of the very few veterans of G.O.P. regimes past who has not been brought back for Bush II.
As for those familiar faces who did make the cabinet, no one can accuse the president-elect of failing to strive for the ideal du jour — bipartisanship. George W. Bush is an equal- opportunity employer of retreads: forgotten Ford and Reagan retainers are just as welcome as dad's. He has also achieved an impressive ethnic bipartisanship, though not to the point of adhering to Democratic- style quotas. There will be no Jews in the new Bush cabinet — that'll teach them to vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County — and youth will not be having its day anytime soon. With the average age pushing 60, this team is just what the gerontologist ordered for a nap-oriented president who travels with his pet pillow.
I guess that depends on how you define "steal", doesn't it?
He is hidebound in too many areas of great importance.
What's your definition Biener? 
714. CalGal - 1/8/2001 12:46:04 PM
I misread you, sorry.
Jan,
I've been wondering about that being the plan for Chavez all along.
But, jexster. Alphalfa Bore said it himself in a joint session of Congress: Bush 271, Bore 266 electoral college votes.
Guess even you are calling your boy a fucking liar.
Moron.
The means-nothing unlawful absolutely biased toward Pinocchio Bore 'recount' that only partisan pinheads pretend means anything?
Ashcroft not Chavez is the most dangerous. Perhaps Nanny Warbucks is using her as a stalking horse for the malignant loser. Its certainly clear that Ashcroft is the first in a series of payments the Moron owes his wingnuts. Chavez is a lightweight and no great loss to them if she does go under
"January 1991: War is bestowed like electroshock on the depressive nation: thousands of volts jolting the system, an artificial galvanizing, one effect of which is loss of memory. War comes at the end of the twentieth century as absolute failure of imagination, scientific and political. That a war can be represented as helping a people to 'feel good' about themselves, their country, is a measure of that failure." —
Yeah, but that's Adrienne Rich. Poetic leftist. (g)
JJ:
The guy's got guts. It is worth it just watch liberals sputter and fume. Their desperation is palpable. I'd like to see Bush barbecue a couple more sacred cows just for the entertainment value.
I'd like to see Bush actually DO anything...everything you've seen thus far is Karl Rove and Dick Cheneys ideas of guts. And if you think otherwise, you're in sadder shape than I thought.
I suppose you think it's just a peachy keen idea that the AG, whomever that may turn out to be, has to clear everything with Karl Rove?
Sure, Judith. Anything you say. BTW, Why Bush is responsible for everything negative, but anything even slightly positive is someone else's doing?
Salon has this longish piece on John Ashcroft
The Gulf War had no electoral benefit for Bush Senior, and it certainly did not unite the country. Its ending was squalid, and its aftereffects continue. I also supported the war, and regret only that it wasn't prosecuted to the point of driving Saddam out of the country.
I assume that you quote Ms. Rich's puerile sentiments to indicate that you feel President-select Bush is going to try and wage a "Splendid Little War" in order to unite the country.
JJ:
BTW, Why Bush is responsible for everything negative, but anything even slightly positive is someone else's doing?
I don't think you understand my meaning...I don't think Bush does anything , positive OR negative. He's a figurehead, period. Rove and Cheney run the show and if that's satisfactory to you, then bless you and enjoy.
Gee, just think how handily he would have beaten Bore if he'd bothered to lift his little finger during the campaign, then.
Oh come on, concerned, what I believe is no more ludicrous than what you do....
Is that the standard by which you want to live?
Best damn statement I heard yet from this thread.
Defintely reason for concern.
How would you break Concerned's or Rosie's nose? (Not that I am advocating doing so.)
Kick GWB in the ass.
You can keep your fucking rapist. Thank god the treasonous POS is just about out of the WH.
This joke was originally about Gore and Clinton.
CONGRATULATIONS!
Tom DeLay
Congressman, 22nd District
Burning Lake of Sulphur 2 mi.
News Flash Doofus....the only thing the Moron beat was his meat 
How does he do that?
Wombats -
Clowntoon was the coke fiend, not GWB. The drinking stuff - all a Lefty smear.
OTOH, why don't you emulate your this great Liberal hero of yours and sexually assault some women. I can pretty much predict that you'll spend a good part of your life in prison if you do, as Clowntoon should be doing for this alone.
Which is why the Moron makes such a big deal about supposedly being sober since the first bitch to be threatened to dump his ass
However, because I am considerably more sane on the subject of Bush than you are on Clinton, I will leave the invective and abusive names to yourself and Jexter. It will be either "President" Bush or President* Bush for the next four years.
"As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch noted in an editorial in December, Ashcroft "has built a career out of opposing school desegregation in St. Louis and opposing African Americans for public office."
When he served as Missouri's attorney general in the 1980s, Ashcroft persuaded the Reagan Administration to oppose school-desegregation plans in St. Louis, then used the issue to win the governorship in 1984. Since his election to the Senate in 1994, Ashcroft has consistently appealed to the right wing of his party, even when his approach risked appearing racist. He fought unsuccessfully against the confirmation of David Satcher, a distinguished black physician, as surgeon general, because Satcher opposes a ban on late-term abortions. In 1998 Ashcroft told the neo-segregationist magazine Southern Partisan that Confederate war heroes were "patriots." In 1999 he accepted an honorary degree from South Carolina's Bob Jones University, which hadn't yet dropped its ridiculous ban on interracial dating.
Most disturbing of all, as Ashcroft was gearing up a short-lived campaign for the White House last year, he verbally attacked Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White, an African American whom Bill Clinton has appointed to the federal bench, for supposedly being "pro-criminal" and soft on capital punishment. The charge was outright slander. White had voted to uphold the death sentence in 41 of the 59 cases that came before him, roughly the same proportion as Ashcroft's court appointees when he was Governor. No wonder Gordon Baum, leader of white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, in 1999 included Ashcroft along with Pat Buchanan in the circle of politicians he'd like to see in the White House.
"
Time
JJ -
I will never let biener or any other wingnut BushShitter rest
Clowntoon was the coke fiend, not GWB. The drinking stuff - all a Lefty smear.
Hhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha!!!!!
Bring it on...I enjoy the laughs!!
It will be fun to watch them try to pin every conceivable problem that arises on Clinton. Fat chance. He will continue to give much better than he gets and will cut them to shreds. 
"Spurious" George
Well, he certainly isn't curious in the verbal sense.
...or maybe the adverbal sense?
Cheney..."I Am Curious Yellow".
You can't say the Bush team doesn't know how to pick 'em!
Donald Just Nods And Says Yes
There seems to be a trend developing here.....
I'm sure Mr. Rumsfeld was simply in an awkward position, sort of like when all his Cabinet went out and agreed with Clinton in front of the cameras.
Oh, my goodness! These bushies are just so damned compassionate.
Gov Whitman Employed Aliens Too...(AP)
Whitman said in 1993, ``I fully acknowledge that the hiring of
this couple before they received their legal residency, and the
delinquency in filing tax payments on their wages, was a serious
mistake and one which I deeply regret.''
For a few hours, Whitman's political future seemed in doubt. But
her GOP primary opponent, Cary Edwards, disclosed that he, too, had
employed an illegal alien. Whitman went on to defeat Edwards in the
primary and to oust Democrat Jim Florio as governor.
This is becoming a regular episode of The X-Files .
I take comfort that these are not arrogant, liberal elitists so disconnected from the mainstream that they believe they can ignore laws that apply to others.
Good point, Robert! I'm sure our friends who lean more to the right will be the first to agree!
"Ashcroft opposes one AA judge out of more than a dozen and that makes him 'dangerous'? Why are Lefties suddenly requiring that Ashcroft has a problem because he wasn't a damned rubber stamp? This defines 'intellectual dishonesty' on the part of the Left."
I usuaually ignore your partisan ravings but this one is so ludicrous that I have to call you on it. First of all, the judge involved was not an "AA" judge. Your calling him "AA" because of the color of his skin is most pernicious. Second, those questioning Ashcroft's fitness to serve as AG are not questioning his vote, but rather his McCarthyite smear tactics of said judge. Ashcroft spread innuendo and lies that he knew were wrong. This, coupled with his championing of a neo-conferacy group, raises questions about Ashcroft that even you should care about.
What an idiot!
Why doesn't he just say, "From what I've been told..."
But like many Republicans are prone to do, she talks a tough line for others and then decides she can ignore the laws herself because, after all, she knows better. In any event, this one could hurt her.
Lets take some inventory here.
The Ashcroft issues are serious. His candidacy should be in question. I would probably vote against him.
The Rumsfield issue is worthy of asking him about during confirmation, but is unlikely to affect confirmation.
The Chavez and Whitman issues look pretty silly.
The Powell issue is beyond ludicrous. If Hillary can accept an $8 million book deal after being elected and while her husband is still President, than what difference does it make who pays for Powell to speak before election day?
If the woman lived there a year and turns out was household help, that would be different. I say all that while thinking that Chavez was a poor choice for Labor Secretary. On the other hand, how many wonderful great labor secretarys have there been?
It sounds like Ashcroft's nomination has more problems. As a senator, he firecely opposed candidates he had ideological differences with and now it is biting him in the butt, so to speak.
Unlike you, I am cognizant of and intellectually honest enough to properly acknowledge the fact that Ashcroft approved the appointments of 26 of 28 AA judges. Almost, but not quite a rubber stamp.
Tell you what? Rather than simply attack Ashcroft, why don't you make an attempt to discover what his reasoning on the issue was?
Your calling him "AA" because of the color of his skin is most pernicious
No. Your arbitrary whining is what's pernicious here. Clearly, I used AA as a contraction of 'African American'. I'm not sure what you might have been dreaming up here, but don't try pinning your giddiness on me.
So, I take it you have problems with Democrat Robert Byrd's affiliation with the KKK and Gephardt speaking to white supremacist groups. Why aren't you expressing your reservations about these people? Party uber alles, AFAIC.
Funny, I took AA to mean Affirmative Action....silly me.
Concerned, as a New Years resolution, why don't you resolve to link to messages to which you are responding? It's the easiest thing in the world to do and would go a long way toward being helpful to those of who still read your posts.
As for Powell, it is more just a matter of poor political judgment (assuming indeed that the facts ultimately show that he even knew the source of the funds.) Not worthy of knocking out his nomination. Far from it.
As for Ashcroft, the fun and games are just beginning.
JAH -
Hmmm. Maybe that's what Fielding thought, then, too. Honestly, that didn't cross my mind. However, I was wondering if he thought I was trying to make a reference to Alcoholics Anonymous or maybe even American Auto Association.
So okay, what do you think of my other suggestion?
NAAAA.....
Powell's isn't anything much at all. Haven't figured out what the rummy guy did yet.
Chavez is still my choice for most likely to be picked off (although it's not a given). Politically, it's the nastiest, even if it's ethically minor. It will give Dems an excuse to refuse to vote for her and it's not like she has strong backing from any groups.
If I were her, though, I'd take a page from Clinton. Wait it out, don't withdraw her name.
I wouldn't normally be ironic that particular way.
Okay, then go ahead being your irritating little self! :-)
Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood were not killed by the Republicans, they were pulled by Clinton owing to his utter lack of balls at the beginning of his administration. I still believe that either of them would have been confirmed (especially Wood), and both would have been vastly superior to Janet Reno (or John Ashcroft, for that matter).
Also, there is insufficent evidence (so far) that Chavez is the same thing as Baird.
Now, what the Republicans did to Lani Guinier is another story. If I remember correctly, the phrase they used was "Quota Queen". . . .
I am indebted to Bill Herbert's column in today's Detroit Free Press.
concerned:
If you intended "AA" to signify, "African American" rather than "Affirmative Action", than your post becomes too stupid to respond to, but at least its a little less offensive.
The point which has not registered in your thick skull is that it doesn't matter how Ashcroft voted so much as that he wrongfully besmirched the reputation of a Judge. What he has to account for is why he lied.
Byrd's relationship to the KKK has no bearing on whether Ashcroft is fit to be an Attorney General. It only bears on Byrd's fitness to be Senator. We'd probably agree on that question.
Powell is a bureaucrat -cautious to the point of cowardice and lacking in both foreign policy experience and analytical skill. Cheney chose him for precisely that reason.
What do you believe Ashcroft lied about? I'm objecting to the stupid, shallow anti-Ashcroft demagoguery that infects virtually all of the LW rhetoric regarding the Ron White situation.
George Wallace made the same crude political calculation when he changed himself from a moderate on race into a rabid segregationist after being defeated in a gubernatorial election. I believe the famous quote is "Nobody is ever going to out seg me again!" Ashcroft has used crudely symbolic acts and words for political purposes in order to attract votes. No one should be surprised when averagely tolerant Americans react unfavorably to such racial demagogery.
Hi!
What happened to Salon TT? Meltdown or technical glitch?
Ashcroft's a fucking racist. Not that this should upset you in the slightest, connie. Spudboy visited Table Talk earlier this evening and posted Ashcroft's links to a whole mess o wingnut orgs.
I'll bet Ace and connie know every single one of them and consider them "middle-of-the-road conservative."
BULLSHIT!
He belongs to racist orgs. He writes for racist mags. He speaks at racist universities. He opposes civil rights. And he speaks of those who would dare to critize the Confederacy as "perverts."
HE'S A FUCKING RACIST AND ANYONE WHO WOULD DEFEND HIM IS A FUCKING RACIST TOO!!!
GOT THAT, CONNIE?? GOT THAT JJ.??? GOT THAT ACE???
Now, don't hold back. What are you really trying to say, cllrdr?
According to Lefty myths, Caucasians are the only people with a racist gene....
cllrdr -
I would never support racism - but you're the wing nut who talks about killing Republicans. You can't do a lot worse than that, rhetoric-wise.
"In the Senate, Ashcroft voted in favor of 26 of the 28 African-American judicial nominees that President Clinton put forward.
And in two terms as governor, Ashcroft appointed eight African-Americans to state judicial positions. Among them: Fernando Gaitan, Jr., the first African-American to be appointed to a Missouri Court of Appeals (now a federal district judge), and Sandra Farragut-Hemphill, the first African-American named to the St. Louis County Circuit Court.
In Missouri, non-partisan judicial nominating commissions present to the governor a panel of three possible choices for each judicial office. The governor is limited to those choices -if none of the three candidates is African-American, the governor can't make such an appointment.
Given the choice, Ashcroft virtually always chose the African-American candidate. On only one occasion did he select a white over an African-American - and in that case, he named the candidates who were not selected to fill later judicial openings.
As his former chief of staff, Richard McClure, recalls, "Gov. Ashcroft made a concerted effort to appoint qualified minority candidates to the bench."
In many instances, Ashcroft's support launched a career. Take Jimmie Edwards. In 1988, Ashcroft named him to the Missouri Public Defender Commission - the first African American to serve there. Two years later, Ashcroft appointed him to a Democratic seat on the St. Louis City Election Board. And in 1992, Ashcroft selected him to be a Circuit Judge in St. Louis. Edwards says, "John Ashcroft's support has certainly helped my career. But for his appointment, I would not be on the bench."
Nor was Edwards the only African-American Democrat that Ashcroft put on the bench. He also tapped Jon Gray, a Kansas City Democrat, for a Circuit Judge position in Jackson County. Says McClure, "Gov. Ashcroft was looking for judges of integrity who would exercise sound legal judgment on the bench. There was no ideological test."
Ashcroft also propelled at least three African-American careers via Cabinet appointments. In 1986, for example, Ashcroft made Jerry Hunter head of Missouri's Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. This was a key step in Hunter's career, putting him on the radar screen for a federal appointment. In 1989, President Bush named him General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Says Hunter: "John Ashcroft was very supportive of me, and very supportive when I went to Washington to work in the Bush administration."
And Hunter helped the governor locate other qualified African-Americans. "Ashcroft was actively looking for minorities, including African-Americans, for appointments to state boards and commissions and government positions," says Hunter. "He wouldn't appoint anybody just because they were a minority. But he clearly wanted to consider minority candidates who were qualified."
On the face of it, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he may have, in his public statements, deliberately exaggerated White's leniency towards offenders when deciding, as only one member of the committee, not to cast his vote to confirm this lone instance of an AA Clowntoon judge appointment as compared to the 26 he approved of, but, even if so, similar isolated possible discrepancies in judgment by Democrat Senators seem quite forgiveable (and even praiseworthy) to most of those with a liberal bent, and certainly wouldn't justify the charges of racism and calls for Borking that Ashcroft is enduring.
Just thought everyone should savor this one more time. Key phrases: "may have...deliberately exaggerated" "but, even if so"
I have not stated that Ashcroft is immune from criticism. You have plenty of leeway to be as exorcised as you desire. I have rebutted the charge that he is racist. You have responded by leveling another criticism. If you could provide readers with the actual "lies" perpetrated by Ashcroft about Judge White, we can discuss them. Until that point, vague and frothy generalities are but so much typical twaddle.
The Salon article was interesting yet tenuous theorizing.
Yes, but that can be explained away as mere envy.
Ashcroft opposed Hormel because he did not believe his "lifestyle" would well represent the United States abroad. He was one of two GOP senators to vote against the nomination in committee. If I recall correctly, more than three GOP senators opposed Hormel.
If you think that the Department of Justice would best be served by an opportunist who conducts smear campaigns for his own advancement, and whose views on a number of issue areas put him outside the Republican mainstream, more power to you. You might want to delve more fully into why Keating and Racicot dropped out, before you defend Ashcroft and the President-Select's decision to nominate him.
I have made no public pronouncement on Ashcroft's nomination. Unlike so many, I will actually wait until hearings on the matter. I have debunked the smear that he is a racist, though I expect many who know the facts to continue the campaign due to its polarizing force.
Ashcroft is an idiot for, as would be most anyone who defends such an action, assuming the rest of the world gives two figs that Hormel is gay. put any spin you wish to it, but the man is, to be charitable, homophobic.
that in and of itself is not reason to reject his nomination - but homophobia is just one symptom that causes me to wonder what Bush (or whoever picked him) was thinking wrt Ashcroft other than a pay-off to the religious right for remaining quiet during the election.
I heard hints about Keating last night--he failed the loyalty test? I forget who was reporting on it.
What would have happened if Bush had picked Rogan, the House Impeachment Manager who was defeated in LA? A different kind of in your face appointment? Would the Senate Democrats avoid Impeachment anger? Bush would have made his point to his red meat supporters without going through the landmine of cultural wars that an Ashcroft nomination brings).
Since I didn't raise the issue of his alleged racism, you are apparently referring to someone else. However, I would suggest that someone who espouses the "Southern Heritage" historical viewpoint in his writings and speeches is not the best person to preside over the administration of justice in Federal sector.
Unless something concrete comes out on Ashcroft (footage of him speaking at a KKK rally, for example), his hearings will consist of some pointed questions about his various activities, which he will attempt to explain, followed by his assurances that he will administer justice fairly, and most likely a vote in favor of his confirmation.
Here's something for concerned to mull over:
THE $635 million Robert Wood ("Woody") Johnson paid for the New York Jets might not turn a profit for many years - but the $100,000 he donated to George W. Bush's presidential campaign is likely to pay off big-time.
Though the Jets crashed and burned, the billionaire is happy he ponied up more than $100,000 to Dubya's cause - directly and indirectly - over the past four years, according to government filings.
Johnson's six-figure donation to Bush makes him one of only a few hundred so-called Pioneer class contributors nationwide and one of only seven Pioneers from New York. That largesse may or may not have been a factor in getting Johnson an overnight stay in the Texas governor's mansion on June 1, 1997.
Beginning in the summer of 1997, while Bush had his toe in the water, more and more Republicans from around the country found their way to the mansion as guests, according to Texans for Public Justice.
It is illegal under Texas law to use state resources, like the mansion, to influence elections. The Texas Legislative Council, a non-partisan office within the Texas legislature, said the issue of overnights rests on whether the visits were "intended to influence the outcome of any election."
A year after his sleepover at the mansion, TPJ reports, Johnson returned to cattle country to attend a Bush-hosted bird hunt on a 10,000-acre ranch owned by a Pioneer-level contributor. A dozen other Pioneers also attended. After the hunt, Bush emerged as the deep-pocketed group's favorite, and his campaign had some traction.
I guess Hillary and Bill aren't the only slumber party lovin' couple in politics, huh?
According to Conservabot myth only Liberals are racist.
"I would never support racism - "
You support Ashcroft don't you? Well then you support racism
"but you're the wing nut who talks about killing Republicans. You can't do a lot worse than that, rhetoric-wise."
And you could do a lot worse than growing a sense of humor. Put down that Crisco bottle and lighten up.
You cannot see the difference between a personally devout person who does not subscribe to a specific politico-religious agenda, and one who is personally devout and does?
"Nor was Edwards the only African-American Democrat that Ashcroft put on the bench. He also tapped Jon Gray, a Kansas City Democrat, for a Circuit Judge position in Jackson County. Says McClure, "Gov. Ashcroft was looking for judges of integrity who would exercise sound legal judgment on the bench. There was no ideological test." "
In other words there was an ideological test. Only lawn jockeys need apply. Anyone with half brain would know that for the past quarter century racial issues are NEVER black and white.
Rice and Powell "prove" that Dubbya opposes racism. Yeah, right.
Lieberman injected religion and morality into political discourse more so than any political candidate since Pat Robertson.
Wombat
Please explain how Ashcroft has espoused the "Southern Heritage" historical viewpoint. Specifically, lay out your case based on his writings.
And as we all know, Democrats are opposed to racism. Except, of coursewhen they support racism. And that's when a) they actually do, and b) Whenever a Republican decides a Democrat is racistfor purposes of argument.
If you don't know what the above statement means then there's no point in talking to you.
My life has been one glamorous moment after another!
"I have not stated that Ashcroft is immune from criticism."
No, we have J.J. to do that.
" You have plenty of leeway to be as exorcised as you desire."
Thanks everso.
" I have rebutted the charge that he is racist."
No, you have merely ignored the blatant racism of his acts, statements and associations. The only thing that surprise me is that you haven't gone running to the First Ammendment.
Your desire to defeat Ashcroft is so great that you must smear the intellect of every African-American jurist whom he supported. You have rhetorically destroyed the village in order to save it.
Wombat
The issue is the same. Can the individual separate his personal and religious beliefs in enforcing the law? I believe that both Lieberman and Ashcroft can do these things. I don't recall the issue being brought up by supporters of Lieberman during the campaign. It appeared to be a given.
Ashcroft is a conservative. They exist in government. As near as I can tell, conservatism - even of a cultural/religious stripe - is not a disqualifier for high office.
The strongest case against Ashcroft is the Bill Lann Lee model. Of course, Lee was appointed without the advice and consent of the Senate, so it demonstrates the previous administration's commitment to the concept, and weakens the heft of a senatorial stamp of approval.
LIAR! What have all these posts been about? Rhetorical wool-gathering?
" Unlike so many, I will actually wait until hearings on the matter."
Mighty White of you!
" I have debunked the smear that he is a racist,"
No you haven't. You've finessed it in true Conservabot style. Which Think Tank do you work for?
" though I expect many who know the facts to continue the campaign due to its polarizing force."
You couldn't shut connie up foranything in the world.
As I read you, if Ashcroft commits to supporting policies that conflict with his religion, your opposition is withdrawn.
Oh yeah,right. The "Liberal" employers of David Horowitz and Camille Paglia.
Incidentally -- has "Salon" crashed completely?
I have a vivid imagination, but it does not extend to being able to explain to you the nature of my posts, as they are not in the style of grandiose sloganeering that so attracts you.
That's because Lieberman supports Brown vs.Board of Ed.
Unlike YOU!
Well you know how it is in this culture, Wombat. Unless you're a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Kln, and have personallydragged a black man to his death by tieing himto your pick-up truck, you can't possible be a racist, and anyone who dares to say that you are is guilty of "smearing" you with a charge too horrible to be so much as uttered under one's breath.
Yeah, that's right. Salon is a bastion of the right wing--how'd I forget? Yes, TT is back up.
I LOVE THE SMELL OF SCORCHED EARTH IN THE MORNING!!!!!
Don't think I haven't noticed. What do you imagine I've been responding to?
" but it does not extend to being able to explain to you the nature of my posts, as they are not in the style of grandiose sloganeering that so attracts you."
Flattery will get you everywhere!
Hi! I could not even connect www.salon.com. What happens to Salon?
i Incidentally -- has "Salon" crashed completely?
Celler Door,
I have the same question.
I've been posting to TT all morning...are y'all dreaming or am I?
bbb:
Welcome! and by the way, that little "i" at the beginning of a line doesn't work over here...sadly.
please move that conversation to Technical Issues or the Mote Cafe
thanks
PS welcome bbb!
Headline: Deathwatch begins for Salon.Com. by Alex Beam.
I saw it on www.lucianne.com, by far the wittest political site on the www.
(on topic)
bbb
i imagine people lost the same amounts of money on both!
There are a number of people who I don't want to see here.
Even neo-conservative Michael Mede is getting on my nerves.
Probably because you keep misspelling his name...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court's conservative majority continued
its gradual erosion of federal powers over the states with an important ruling
limiting the scope of a landmark environmental law. The court ruled 5-4 that the
federal Clean Water Act should not prevent a group of suburban Chicago
localities from building a landfill atop seasonal ponds used by migrating birds.
I can't believe my post about GW paying off big contributers to his cause by sponsoring overnights in the Guvs mansion has had zilch effect on the thread. Of course, it's not a big deal because those were just his personal friends (!) and it was before he was a candidate (!) and even if it IS against state law, well, piffle! He was just doin' what good ole boys do in Texas...sleepin' overnight with pals and goin' out early to shoot the hell out of defenseless li'l ole birds. It's not like he broke the law or anything.
The court ruled 5-4 that the
federal Clean Water Act should not prevent a group of suburban Chicago localities from building a landfill atop seasonal ponds used by migrating birds.
As HG Wells said, The Shape Of Things To Come.
BRISTOL, England (AP) -- Prime Minister Tony Blair was nailed by a tomato
Tuesday as he encountered a group protesting against sanctions imposed on Iraq.
''How many Iraqi children have you killed?'' a protester shouted as Blair arrived at
City of Bristol College.
Protesters were throwing oranges and other fruit, but only the tomato was seen
hitting the prime minister.
Lucky for G.W. Bush that it does not happen two months ago.
Duck: Do your job and STRIKE.
"In October 1998 Ashcroft gave an interview to the Southern Partisan magazine in which he lashed out at "revisionists" who make malicious attacks on America's founders, such as charging that George Washington was a racist. (The Q & A's introduction praises Ashcroft as a "jealous defender of national sovereignty against the New World Order.") "Your magazine helps set the record straight," said Ashcroft. "You've got a
heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like [Robert E.] Lee, [Stonewall] Jackson and [Jefferson] Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."
i don't know if you used Rosetta Slide's last name or not, but 890 was deleted because of it. please don't do that again.
hahaha
Start keeping records, duck. ES is no longer a "compassionate conservative."
897 was deleted for reposting the message before i could delete it
Rosetta Slide: i keep no records here other than what posts i delete and why.
You just a sentimental fool, Rosie.
How's the kid? Has he come out to you yet? Tell him to e-mail Uncle Cellar if he has any questions he'd like answered.
Slide:
You posted your own initials the other day when you ran that schmooze letter from your new flame, Katherine Harris. Don't be so touchy with everyone else. You've posted your real name before; grow up.
Heh!
Rosetta Slide:
better 'dangerous homosexuals' than more brain washed conservatives with penis envy - not to mention obsession.
I wonder if you liberals have yet awakened to the problems that the Democrats created by giving the black racist Donna Brazille carte blanche to use any tactics to mobilize the African-American vote and by turning Jesse Jackson, Sharpton and NAACP's Mfume loose to savage Republicans both before and after the election.
They now have a very angry and misinformed constituency on their hands and have lost considerable political clout in national politics because the did as their democrat plantation bosses demanded.
Cellar:
Make sure the "dangerous" ones identify themselves as such! Wouldn't want Rosie confused.
As many as four hundred illegal ballots were cast in Broward County's Nov. 7 election, most of them by unregistered voters.
Election records also show one man voted twice -- once by absentee and once at the polls -- while another may have voted at two different precincts.
Time after time across Broward, poll workers violated safeguards intended to thwart voter fraud by allowing people to vote when their names did not appear on precinct voter registers. All the voters had to do was sign statements swearing they were eligible to vote.
Poll workers were supposed to call elections headquarters in Fort Lauderdale to verify registrations. But in dozens of instances, the calls weren't made. Other times, poll workers tried to call but got a busy signal.
...
The irregularities in Broward cast further doubt on the hotly contested Nov. 7 presidential election and amplify similar findings of illegal voting in Miami-Dade. A Herald investigation last month showed 144 illegal ballots were cast at 138 of Dade's 617 precincts by voters who were allowed to sign in at polls where they were not registered. In one case, a Miami-Dade ballot was cast in the name of an El Portal man who died three years ago. The Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office and Florida Department of Law Enforcement are investigating.
...
``A lot of our poll workers are elderly, they are human and they make mistakes. They were dealing with a huge turnout, people in line screaming in their faces and they made mistakes.''
The 400 illegal ballots were among 587,928 cast in Broward on Nov. 7, a 66 percent turnout. Poll workers overseeing the ballot boxes received up to four hours of training and were paid $95 to $125 for a 14-hour day.
bbb:
Gore is so over...it's Rove and Cheney who are the news.
as the Secretary of Labor.
Heck,Elaine Chao could be a good backup plan for John Ashcroft too.
Is Elaine Chao the one who shows up on that chick talking head show, To the Contrary? Fifties, Asian, Republican?
I've seen Anatomy of a Hate Crime. It was directed by my old High School classmate Tim Hunter and it's truly great. I am so proud!
ROTFALMAO!!!!!
Rosie, you're a riot!
Alas, poor Linda. Done in by the politics of personal destruction.
And she was just trying to help.
they won't have to worry now
Nah, nah, nah, nah.
Nah, nah, nah, nah.
Hey, Hey.
Goodbye.
"Frank Fitts" Slide:
"CD is threatening to bring some dangerous homosexuals over here from TT."
More dangerous than you?
But then, Chavez had no constituency to egg her on.
The Republicans are more prone to fight than the Dems. They're better at it, too.
I disagree--I think the Dems are better.
GJ,
I missed that, but it sounds about right for the Bush league.
Then the woman was illegal.
The AP says that 'Chavez stepped aside under pressure from Bush's political team, according to three Republican officials involved in the case.'
CG:
If Clarence Thomas had been nominated by Clinton, he would have been withdrawn faster than you can say "Long Dong Silver."
Who is closeted, other than (I assume) Reno?
Fielding,
Yes, but that's because prior to Monica they had to give the impression that they gave a damn about sexual harassment.
Let's put it this way, if I were going to have a womens softball league, I'd pick Donna Shalala as captain.
I nominate Shalala.
CalGal:
"Yes, but that's because prior to Monica they had to give the impression that they gave a damn about sexual harassment."
Huh? Did concerned steal your password or something?
Ahem
????
No. I just mean that Dems would never have risked alienating feminists prior to Monica. There would have been plenty of other black jurists to appoint, so why risk it? That has nothing to do with whether or not they fight.
Ashcroft is toast too. Just wait and see.
We've had help ever since our daughter was born. I made a decision early on to play by the books. Period. I also made a decision to hire one of the services that does all the paper work. That was the best $$$ I've ever spent. (And, would you believe, that we've already had to haul out our records to show our compliance when one of the early "housekeepers" made a disability claim (not against us, but we got dragged into the proceeding anyway.) A couple of the people who've worked for us are now reaching Soc. Sec. age and it will be interesting to see what happens then, since I know that they also worked for people who paid them "off the books".
I don't believe Chavez hired anyone at all; she clearly has a pattern of helping people out. In her case it was the fact that she talks tough about illegal immigrants for others that did her in. 
The operative issue for Chavez was that the woman told her she was an illegal. At that point, Chavez had no options save either turning her in or telling her to leave and get back to Guatemala instantly.
CalGal:
"No. I just mean that Dems would never have risked alienating feminists prior to Monica. There would have been plenty of other black jurists to appoint, so why risk it? That has nothing to do with whether or not they fight."
This makes no sense to me. There is no way that a Gore administration or late Clinton administration would have allowed a Thomas nomination to get called to a vote. Lewinsky was not a case of sexual harassment. Most feminists supported Clinton during impeachment.
BTW, its "Wood", not "Woods". Kimba Wood's nomination was pulled by Clinton primarly because of perceived leaks by Wood's husband.
bbb,
Is Elaine Chao the one who shows up on that chick talking head
show, To the Contrary? Fifties, Asian, Republican?
Maybe. Elaine Chao was Deputy Secretary of DOT,President of the United Way,and wife of a powerful Senator .
bbb,
Is Elaine Chao the one who shows up on that chick talking head
show, To the Contrary? Fifties, Asian, Republican?
Maybe. Elaine Chao was Deputy Secretary of DOT,President of the United Way,and wife of a powerful Senator .
Sez you. Sez me. Sez not a single feminist organization prior to Lewinsky, in which any superior asking for a date, much less a blowjob, was considered harassment.
Most feminists supported Clinton during impeachment.
Yes, but most feminist organizations take hypocrisy to abysmal lows. Their support and the fact that it was appallingly self-serving was duly noted by most. IN fact, it was so appalling that it even bothered most of them.
That said, I would like to note the rare occurrence when NOW does something I agree with--they are supporting the equal rights to citizenship case recently heard by the SC.
BBB,
Refresh on this server causes a repost. It's confusing. Check out the Mote Interface (see the front page) for any other vagaries you may find confusing.
I'll have to look up a picture of Chao--but yes, I think she's a likely pick.
CalGal:
"Sez not a single feminist organization prior to Lewinsky, in which any superior asking for a date, much less a blowjob, was considered harassment."
Nobody claimed that Clinton asked Lewinsky for a date or a blowjob. Lewinsky didn't testify that Clinton was the aggressor in their relationship. There is no basis for feminist groups to opine on the Lewinsky matter, unless you are adopting the Rush Limbaugh definition of feminist.
I think that you are confusing the Lewinsky case with Paula Jones, which was a sexual harassment case.
Nobody claimed that Clinton asked Lewinsky for a date or a blowjob.
You're joking?
There is no basis for feminist groups to opine on the Lewinsky matter, unless you are adopting the Rush Limbaugh definition of feminist.
The angst of the feminist groups during the Lewinsky saga was heavily reported. As was the hypocrisy of their strong support for Clinton.
Right. I can see it now. Had she taken this approach she would be crucified as a heartless bitch who sent a desperate, abused woman back into a war zone. Classic no-win scenario. Kobiyashi Moru.
Naw, I doubt it.
Biener:
"Prior to Lewinsky, most femminist groups classified any relationship between employer and employee as sexual harrassment because of the unequal power in their positions."
Bullshit. You are taking the extreme views of Andrea Dworkin and tarring all feminists with them. 98% of NOW would disagree with your analysis.
"Had it been a Republican President and an intern, they would have gone ballistic and protested outside the White House 24/7 and appeared on every available venue to denounce the scoundrel."
Bullshit. There is no way that NOW would have overreacted as badly as the Republicans did then and continue to do today.
You are joking. You must be.
Thou shalt not criticize others while doing something similar.
Bullshit yourself. I didn't say 'all', did I? I said most self-described feminists held that view. It was the official position of NOW.
There is no way that NOW would have overreacted as badly as the Republicans did then and continue to do today.
Have you forgotten their reaction to Clarence Thomas? Check out their reaction to various cases in the private sector.
BTW, I know this has been said 14 billion times and you still don't seem to get it, but the issue for Republicans was obstuction of justice and lying under oath.
I think actually she'd be willing to fight that perception (it's not really the same thing) but I have a feeling that right behind it is the nasty little fact that she knew that she wasn't here legally.
Sadly, no. I don't think he is joking. I think he really believes it. At least for now. In a few weeks if it turns out that he needs to believe the opposite, he will have no problem claiming he has always believed the opposite.
I did say "similar."
"Prior to Lewinsky, most femminist groups classified any relationship between employer and employee as sexual harrassment because of the unequal power in their positions."
"I didn't say 'all', did I? I said most self-described feminists held that view. It was the official position of NOW."
Prove it.
"BTW, I know this has been said 14 billion times and you still don't seem to get it, but the issue for Republicans was obstuction of justice and lying under oath.",/i>
*cough*cough*Bullshit*cough*cough*Iran/Contra*cough*cough*
I don't believe that the woman qualified for political asylum. I don't think that made her situation any less desperate. Chavez did help her get the proper papers to stay in this country. I don't see what else she could have done. BTW, I don't believe her objections were to people who help illegals become legal. I believe she objected to people who exploited illegals for their own benefit.
toys
*giggle*
If Bush had wanted to be conciliatory he should have nominated an authentic Hispanic like Cesar Chavez.
A cursory search of Time and TNR on the words "feminist" "hypocrisy" and "Lewinsky" for the year 1998 provides the following:
Day Of Deliverance : It gave feminists an excuse for their pragmatic hypocrisy. (note the lack of further description--why? Because it was taken for granted)
Hypocritics: Feminist indifference to the Clinton sex scandals does constitute hypocrisy, but so does slamming feminists for abandoning their extravagant view of sexual harassment while simultaneously exploiting that view. (this article is about the conservative hypocrisy in slamming feminists--but that's because the author doesn't question the feminist hypocrisy for a moment.)
And it costs money, so I just offer you the results of the search for the words at the Washington Post. Even a look at the headlines contradicts your claims.
There are probably a ton of position papers about it at NOW, as well. You really are misremembering history if you don't acknowledge the serious shit they took for it--and the fact that it caused them no end of anguish as well.
Biener:
"Sadly, no. I don't think he is joking. I think he really believes it. At least for now. In a few weeks if it turns out that he needs to believe the opposite, he will have no problem claiming he has always believed the opposite."
Listen, Bozo, I've never distorted a position, and I admit it when I'm wrong. You have never conceded that you were wrong even though it happens almost daily here. Moreover, you freely make up bullshit, like when you said that the bigger states like Montana earned more federal funds per person than the smaller states because of more miles of federal highways.
Mercado: Chavez Was 'Like A Friend' Like thousands of other Central Americans willing to break immigration laws for a shot at achieving prosperity in the United States, Mercado came to the Washington area in 1991, drawn by tales of "the marvels of this country." She paid $2,000 for counterfeit documents to fool immigration officials.
Mercado was fleeing a foundering marriage and the drudgery of a life that held little more than the prospect of her $100-a-month ice cream factory salary and a little extra from her homemade tortilla business.
Mercado, now 40, said something terrible happened shortly after her arrival. Although she won't say under what circumstances, Mercado ended up in a police cruiser that took her to a shelter for abused women in Northern Virginia, where she lived for 10 days.
Not long after that, she met Chavez through a friend of Erika DeLeon, a Woodbridge woman who had been letting Mercado stay at her home.
......
Three months into her stay, Mercado says Chavez offered to help her become a legal resident. But months passed, and Mercado's legal residency documents never appeared, despite what she says were fervent attempts to acquire them.
Deflated, she returned to Guatemala in late 1993. Six months later, when Mercado returned to the United States using a tourist visa, she again sought Chavez's help because the visa had expired. But this time, Mercado said, Chavez seemed more concerned about her status as an illegal alien and did not invite her to stay there.
It doesn't seem as though Chavez helped Mercado get her papers.
Do they arrest people who are helping refugees from war-torn countries?
Linda Chaves is a jerk who got just what she deserved.
How dare she help the weak and abused.
If Bush had wanted to be conciliatory he should have nominated an authentic Hispanic like Cesar Chavez.
So she's not a "real" hispanic because her politics are wrong. You are quite a piece of work, aren't you?
It would help your case if you could remember who it you are talking to. I haven't made any comments about federal funds or Montana. FWIW, I do admit when I am wrong. The people who have been here for a while will confirm that. I will not admit I am wrong when the facts support my position or when there is a difference of opinion.
Really? What's the etymology of the word?
CalGal:
"A cursory search of Time and TNR on the words "feminist" "hypocrisy" and "Lewinsky" for the year 1998 provides the following:"
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. The first article you cited mentioned Paula Jones in the headline, the second one purports to be about Republicans.
Feminist groups were criticized (they always are).
In addition, Feminist groups were criticized for supporting Clinton in spite of Paula Jones, which was a clear-cut accusation of sexual harassment.
Now, there was also some criticism of Feminist groups for supporting Clinton during impeachment, but this was not the seemingly clear-cut case of hypocrisy that presents itself with regard to Paula Jones. Indeed, I heard plenty of feminists cackling that they would have try to give Clinton a blowjob too if they had been in Lewinsky's, ahem, shoes.
So there was lots of sound and fury, like there always is, but how much of it was on point?
Sigh. You said that there was no discussion of the hypocrisy of feminists about Lewinsky--or Jones, for that matter, but there is no question that the hypocrisy charges and their own angst only kicked in after the Lewinsky news broke.
There was discussion. There wasn't only discussion, there was general acknowledgement of the fact that the position taken by feminist organizations on sexual harassment--the one that you say was only taken by McKinnon, which is completely untrue--was utterly incompatible with their support of Clinton. The feminists themselves acknowledged this. In fact, it was their total hypocrisy on the subject that left them unable to argue when the dialog on sexual harrassment changed as a result of Clinton's get out of jail free.
Then why can't Democrats be honest about it? Why do you have to wage a full scale assault on her character rather than discuss her political views? Why is this the modus operandi for Democrats with all political opponents? Are Democrats incapable of being honest about political matters?
The Mentioners on the Lehrer show mentioned Elaine Chau as a sub for Linda Chavez.
JJ:
Then why can't Democrats be honest about it? Why do you have to wage a full scale assault on her character rather than discuss her political views? Why is this the modus operandi for Democrats with all political opponents? Are Democrats incapable of being honest about political matters?
I have some words to jog your memory: It isn't the sex; it's the lying. Why couldn't Republicans just admit they hated that Clinton was wagging his thing in their faces? Why couldn't they admit they hated his guts and considered him beneath them? Why couldn't they be honest and admit they were trying to hound him to the ends of the earth to weaken his Presidency? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
And I would say asking your neighbor to lie to the FBI goes a long way toward cutting your own throat...the Democrats didn't have to do a thing.
From the Times: [Chavez] conceded, too, that she was virtually certain from the start that Ms. Mercado was here illegally. But when trying to help someone in need, Ms. Chavez said, ``I don't check green cards.'' That contradicted what Bush aides have been saying - that Ms. Chavez learned Ms. Mercado was in the United States illegally only after the Guatemalan woman had left her home in 1993. Ms. Mercado, 40, said that once Ms. Chavez knew her status, ``she was very worried.''
Evidently she should have been...
Cal:
Did you see my suggestion in Movies&TV earlier today?
...or not?
These views and attitudes are what are really relevant to her appointment, not what she did for the woman from Guatemala. Nobody really cares about that any more than the Republicans really cared about Baird's and Woods's nannies.
You support Ashcroft don't you? Well then you support racism
Ashcroft opposed the appointment of Ron White because White refused to consider the death sentence for a cop killer, which, apparently in Mizzoo is bad wampum.
You support Ashcroft don't you? Well then you support racism
Ashcroft opposed the appointment of Ron White because White refused to consider the death sentence for a cop killer, which, apparently in Mizzoo is bad wampum.
Guess you don't have any evidence that Ashcroft is any more racist than Robert Byrd the former KKK member or Dick Gephardt who speechifies to white supremacist groups. And you support former KKK members, as long as they vote Demorat.
Ashcroft is no more a racist than you are, cllrdr. Suck on that one for a while.
It was the lying.
Why couldn't Republicans just admit they hated that Clinton was wagging his thing in their faces?
It would seem that Clinton only wagged his thing for Democrats. It would seem they were willing to give what he wanted.
Why couldn't they admit they hated his guts and considered him beneath them?
He is beneath most people. I have met very few people willing to stoop to levels Clinton will just to protect his sorry ass. I don't understand why the Democrats aren't furious at him for embarassing their party and making the Presidency a laughing stock.
Why couldn't they be honest and admit they were trying to hound him to the ends of the earth to weaken his Presidency?
Clinton's travails are no one's fault but his own. You can't expect the entire country to look the other way while the President of United States acts like a the head of an organized crime family. Clinton has more in common with John Gotti than he does with John Kennedy.
CalGal:
"Sigh. You said that there was no discussion of the hypocrisy of feminists about Lewinsky--or Jones, for that matter, but there is no question that the hypocrisy charges and their own angst only kicked in after the Lewinsky news broke."
What the hell are you talking about? Read my posts again. I never said "there was no discussion of the hypocrisy of feminists about Lewinsky--or Jones, for that matter".
If you could only read the two sentences I just erased!
Who knows anymore? Talent's record is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether some angry group or another decides to spike his nomination. If there is they will trump up some ridiculous charge and the Democratic faithful will repeat it on every news show 24/7 until the public believes it. He may still be confirmed, but for the rest of his life he will live under a cloud for the terrible crime of serving his country and not being a Democrat.
You say it like it's a bad thing. Seriously, 90-95% of the people you claim are "revulsed by his nomination" have never heard a word Ashcroft has said. They are depending on the word of bitter partisans who are quoted on news programs and in news articles as if what they say is fact. The fact that both Republican and Democratic Senators who have worked with him for 6 years refute the partisan attacks against him should be instructive, but those voices get drowned out in the cacophony that now passes for Democratic thought.
Ohfercryinoutloud, JJ. If you want anyone to take your posts seriously in here, you're going to have to ratchet your hyperbole down at least a notch or two.
Gee you know everyoneJ.J. I'm impressed.
"Ashcroft is no more a racist than you are, cllrdr. Suck on that one for a while."
Then I should be AG.
And I'll be glad to give you something to suck on, connie.
Then I suppose I shouldn't take #1014 seriously, should I? Or do you expect people to take your hyperbole seriously? What about the hyperbole running rampant on this thread and through the media about Bush and Ashcroft and Cheney and any number of others? Should they be taken seriously? Look around, Arky. Hyperbole is all the rage these days.
No, the reason I'm going to miss Bill Clinton is that watching him these past eight years has given me the same unbridled, childlike joy as watching a cartoon. Clinton was our first cartoon President. He ran off cliffs, was crushed by anvils and flattened by turn-of-the-century trains. Yet moments later, we always saw him, just like Wile E. Coyote or Daffy Duck, completely reassembled and eagerly pursuing his next crazy scheme. Essentially, people love cartoon characters because they cannot be hurt. They defy the rules of Greek tragedy. Clinton, unlike Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson, was not undone by his flaws. Whenever the smoke cleared, Clinton remained standing, covered in soot and looking at us slightly chagrined. But before we could pity him, the music was back on, and he was confidently strutting across the New Mexican landscape.
Clinton was such a cartoon that anyone who entered his orbit immediately became an absurd, two-dimensional character. Ken Starr, once a boring lawyer, magically sprouted a buckle hat and musket. And, like all cartoon villains, Starr became single-mindedly obsessed with catching his wisecracking prey. He did everything short of arranging sticks of dynamite into the shape of a woman, dropping a wig on it and hiding behind a nearby rock. Clinton made Starr funny and watchable. And without Clinton on the scene, Starr, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and all the rest revert back to bland, Anglo-Saxon reality.
And as we began hungrily digging in, he emerged with a hearty stew of Gennifer Flowers, "I didn't inhale" and Whitewater.
"Thanks, we're good," we said as we chewed greedily. But the dishes kept coming, each one more elaborate than the last. "Not another bite,"
"Why don't you sit down," we pleaded. But Clinton, it appeared, had been cooking for weeks. And finally, just as we were loosening our belts and picking lazily at that piece of Travelgate between our teeth, Clinton wheeled out the flaming Baked Alaska that was Monica Lewinsky.
Yeah, geez - that Bill!
We're sure gonna miss him. He's been the country's top entertainer for what - 8 years now?
It's kinda like when that old cartoon, Pogo, stopped showing up in the daily newspaper. Breakfast was never the same...
...btw - he was in the area yesterday on his "Goodbye Tour".
This consisted of reminding everyone how great the economy is, in obvious hopes that this will be what everyone remembers before we officially enter into a recession a few months from now.
sure - Clinton was entertaining - but for my entertainment tax dollar, Bush will be unbeatable in his total 4 years.
On Aschroft, Wombat, thank you for his quotes. I read them and I'm not sure where the objectionable material lay. He considers Lee, Davis and Jackson heroes. He considers the Southern cause during the Civil War something other than perverted. These sentiments are mainstream. For example, in Virginia, Jackson and Lee are honored by state holiday. Discussions of the lives of these men in historical context can be found in hundreds, if not thousands, of historical works.
There are legitimate objections to Ashcroft without resort to historical reductionism and gross distortions in leveling charges of racism.
She didn't lie to the FBI, since she hadn't employed anyone. She also told the woman to go to the FBI, which is hardly thwarting. I suspect she didn't lie.
That doesn't mean she wasn't doomed--her sin was still considerable. But the reason she left isn't because she hired an illegal maid.
Saying that Lee, Jackson and Davis were heroes is definitely a positive, especially if we are confirming a historian. Does anybody want to hear Ashcroft's views on cubism? How about favorite color?
CalGal:
She also told the woman to go to the FBI, which is hardly thwarting. I suspect she didn't lie.
Are you speaking of Mercado or of Chavez's neighbor, who she suggested answer the FBI in a certain way...in other words, asking her to lie.
Alabama celebrated Lee and Jackson Day, and then added King.
Six other states celebrate Lee and/or Jackson by state holiday.
In Stone Mountain, Georgia, there is a Confederate Mount Rushmore (Lee, Davis, Jackson, and I don't recall if there is a fourth face)
In Virginia, I believe legislation has either been introduced or passed to split Lee-Jackson Day from King Day. I also believe that King-Lee-Jackson day was enacted after King's assassination.
It is a testament to the peculiar spirit of the United States that key figures in a rebellion violently thwarted are honored without rancor.
Of course, Lee was offered the Army of the Potomac but could not bring himself to make war against Virginians.
I can't remember where I read that, now, so if you have a link saying that Chavez's neighbor told her to lie, fine.
GJ,
The problem with Chavez--and it is a problem common to Republicans--is that they talk a big line about what others should do and then ignore these rules themselves (because after all, they know better). This goes just as much for their kindnesses as it does for their sins. Chavez is tough on illegal aliens as a policy matter. That's where the contradiction would have hurt her--along with the fact that she didn't turn the woman in when she found out that she was illegal.
The Economist
July 26, 1975
History has not treated the confederate commander, General Robert E. Lee, harshly. His birthday is still a public holiday in seven or eight states, respectful tourists visit his birthplace and grave, and his residence overlooking Arlington national cemetery (across the river from Washington) is maintained as a memorial. One little matter, however, has long appeared to need clearing up: he died in 1870 without his civil rights having been fully restored. Congress put this right on Tuesday, when an overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives carried a resolution previously passed by the
Senate, "that General R. E. Lee is posthumously restored to the full rights of citizenship, effective June 13, 1865".
It would be pleasant to record that this act of historical piety passed unquestioned; but alas, the brief, fascinating debate that preceded the passage of the resolution threw considerable doubt on whether its supporters knew what wrong it was that they were righting or on how the wrong, if wrong there was, occurred. The rights that General Lee died deprived of seem to have been, in reality, no more than those specified in the third paragraph of the fourteenth amendment (one of the reconstruction amendments to the Constitution): the right to hold federal office, to sit in Congress, or to be a member of the electoral college. The chief critic of the resolution, a highly sophisticated black congressman -- Mr John Conyers of Michigan -- raised some reasonable doubt about whether General Lee, in his last years as the respected president of a college in Virginia, entertained the idea of entering federal politics in any of those ways.
Cal:
so if you have a link saying that Chavez's neighbor told her to lie, fine.
No, I don't have a link because it was CHAVEZ who asked her neighbor to lie...it was all over CNN yesterday.
Only Congress, by a two-thirds vote of each house, can or could relieve a former rebel of the particular disabilities imposed by the fourteenth amendment. Now Congress has done it, and that is the end of that, or so one would suppose. Congress, however, has acted upon, and its resolution incorporates, a version of what happened that appears to contain flaws, which Mr Conyers, apparently the only participant in the debate who had taken the trouble to send somebody over to the national archives with a few questions, made excellent play with.
In question is the so-called "lost" oath of allegiance which General Lee executed, in support of his petition for a presidential pardon, in 1865. Obviously this had nothing to do with the fourteenth amendment, which was not even proposed until the following year. Legend has it, however, that because his oath never reached the president, General Lee was never relieved of the disabilities of the fourteenth amendment.
The resolution states that the "lost" oath "was only discovered in the
national archives in 1970", a statement somewhat irritating to the national archivists, men unaccustomed to losing anything, who have held the paper since the state department passed it on long ago, and who put it on public exhibition in the 1930s.
Francis, I think you have a romantic view about the south. Of course, the south had a strong reaction to the war, and nursed its anger throughout the late 19th and early 20th century, building monuments and glorifying its past, conveniently forgetting why the war started to begin with. Southerners got some mollification from the Federal Government abandoning reconstruction in the 1870. The southern state governments promptly enacted Jim Crow laws limiting the rights of the the newly freed slaves.
The issue isn't that someone considers Lee heroic, if you must need it spelled out. The issue is where the person mentions their admiration, and whether or not it can be considered a questionable means of nudge nudge wink winking to the audience about how he shares their other values, too.
Not that it matters. It won't be racism that brings Ashcroft down, if anyone does. I suspect he'll go through--Chavez was the designated lamb.
Only part of the United States considers Lee, Jackson, and Jefferson Davis heroes. I also note that Virginia, a southern state, is the only one that I know of that celebrates the former two as a state holiday (there may be others in the South, but nowhere else).
US historiography (outside of the South) treats Lee respectfully, noting his misgivings about secession and slavery, his agonizing over which side to choose, his generally "humane" conduct of the war, and his role in ensuring that military defeat would not degenerate into a guerilla war. Jackson is respected as a superb independent commander and a motivator of the men who fought under him.
What it ultimately boils down to is that the driving force behind the Confederacy, and the most passionate advocates of state's rights, were the slave owners who controlled the governments in the deep south. The paramount right that was threatened was their right to enslave others.
For a politician to allow himself to be admiringly quoted in a journal that acts as an apologist for the Confederacy indicates that he is a racist, or that he has made a calculated political decision to seek support from a constituency that is. I think the latter, rather than the former.
Many of Ashcroft's beliefs are well outside the mainstream of the Republican party. His buddying up to apologists for the Confederacy is another example of this.
I think you miss some basics in assessing Southern attitudes towards the war, such as lineage to war dead, issues other than slavery (the modern and historically inaccurate but politically palatable view is that the war was almost exclusively about slavery - it was not), and the effect of Sherman's march/invasion. Regardless, this is not an apologia for the South, but rather, a modest offering that the issue is multi-faceted and historical reverence to Confederate institutions is not quite akin to affiliation with the Nazi party. Ashcroft's meager comments are mainstream, and hardly relevant to his confirmation. Theya re offered, however, to lend credence to the bunk that he is a racist.
I'm reading a great book on Civil War era writers. "Patriotic Gore" by Edmund Wilson. Another good book with a middle section on Sherman's March, replete with strong insight on how it affected Southern attitudes, is "The Soul of Battle." Finally, V.S. Naipaul's "A Turn in the South" is a must read on this topic.
Legislation was passed last year taking effect this week as Friday is Lee-Jackson day.
I also believe that King-Lee-Jackson day was enacted after King's assassination.
Try well after King's assassination -- as within the past decade. The King holiday was hard-fought in Va. and, as I mentioned, Lee and Jackson were thrown in as a sop to the Sons of the Confederacy to lessen the humiliation of having a state holiday for a commie negro.
Old times here are not fogotten.
Would support of a Confederate symbol or flag in a Southern state (such as Arkansas) disqualify a politician for the Attorney Generalship? Could not that individual be branded with the same swath of "indication"?
In the end, your argument ignores an unassailable record of support for African-Americans - real, live breathing African-Americans, 26 of 28 while in the Senate, and almost 10 while governor, as well as support for a Martin Luther King Day in Missouri - but elevates and waves as a bloody flag an "indication" racism from one quote about history 140 years past.
Judith,
No, she didn't tell the neighbor to lie, from what I can tell. She basically checked out with the neighbor if the story was going to come out or not before she decided to take the job.
That said, however, she should have told the vetting team about it. She didn't mislead the FBI, though.
"Of course, Lee was offered the Army of the Potomac but could not bring himself to make war against Virginians."
ahem. Does anybody believe that the soldiers in the US army were all New Yorkers? Virginians fought on both sides (including "West Virginians"), and Lee's men made war against them.
As far as interpreting slavery as the cause for the Civil War, it was the cause for the war. Slavery politics smoldered for thirty years prior to war. It affected national expansion and every single decision on organization of new lands centered on how much one side or the other got an advantaged.
As far as politically correct interpretations of history, southern historians did that in their writings on reconstruction and the south. See Eric Foners' Reconstruction.
If you want to continue a discussion of Civil War historiography, may I suggest that we take it to the "War" thread (unabashed plug).
"Wood did indeed hire an illegal alien as a babysitter."
Thanx. I don't remember the details, but I recall that her facts were significantly better than Baird's. It was something like paying the nanny on the books and helping her get naturalized. I also remember her stating "I do not have a 'Zoe Baird problem'".
The idea of waging war against Virginians, and invading his own home, caused Lee great consternation, even though some Virginians may have fought for the Union.
Wombat
I'll look for your first salvo in "War."
I thought it amusing that all these rich chicks were hiring illegal aliens as nannies, but the big deal was on whether or not the paid taxes. Fuck that noise. They can put their kids in daycare or pay full price for an 'murrican nanny. And that, ultimately, is why they were picked off--and rightfully.
Most holidays are stupid. Holidays honoring confederate soldiers are particularly stupid.
By most modern accounts, Ulysses Grant was a better soldier than Robert E. Lee, and Grant had the virtue of soldiering for the United States of America. If any soldier from the civil war deserves a holiday, it is Grant.
Unless the "Lee/Jackson Day" is code for something else. I defy anybody tell me with a straight face that Lee/Jackson Day isn't intended as some kind of White Supremacy symbol.
I stated that IMO Ashcroft was not personally racist. While I can slough off enthusiasms for bad causes that have been made up for by subsequent actions or sincere changes of mind, I have a great deal of trouble with a politician who seems to think he can have it both ways on an issue where there is a clear right and wrong.
In answer to your first question, yes I would have trouble with a politician who supported the flying of the Confederate flag in a southern state as a nominee for a Federal office. I would have the same trouble supporting a black nationalist for that position. However, the former is far more likely to happen, don't you agree?
Funny. I thought Gone With the Wind came out in 1939.
"Try well after King's assassination -- as within the past decade. The King holiday was hard-fought in Va. and, as I mentioned, Lee and Jackson were thrown in as a sop to the Sons of the Confederacy to lessen the humiliation of having a state holiday for a commie negro."
The first King day was established in Virginia in 1984. Jackson-Lee day was already a Virginia holiday prior to the addition of King.
Exactly. As I said, all this romanticization came about right at the same time that civil rights laws, school integration, and voting rights acts were put on the books.
"I thought it amusing that all these rich chicks were hiring illegal aliens as nannies, but the big deal was on whether or not the paid taxes. Fuck that noise. They can put their kids in daycare or pay full price for an 'murrican nanny. And that, ultimately, is why they were picked off--and rightfully."
I guess you'd prefer that these women to stay home and take care of their own children. I guess you'd prefer that only super-rich and childless women run for office.
Mel Carnahan used to do minstrel. Literally, he performed in black face. I found it funny, as he was then race-baiting Ashcroft, but about as relevant to whether he showed "indications" of racism as Ashcroft's mundane comments of the Confederacy.
Fielding
We can discuss the merits of Grant and Lee as generals in "War." As for your challenge, a minimal amount of time in the South would demonstrate to you the dichotomy of race and reverence for the Confederacy. You are welcome to my Virginia estate any time where we can sip lemonade and discuss the after-effects of the War of Aggression.
Wombat
You have just nixed Bill Clinton as an Attorney General candidate. Not that I think he was on the short list.
Work harder at hiding your stupidity, it's showing. I said exactly what they should do--put their kid in daycare or hire a legal nanny. They were both lawyers making mid-six figure income. For either of them to bewail the high cost of daycare and the difficulty of finding good help is an obscenity.
Carnahan appeared in blackface in a fraternity skit in college. Ashcroft was interviewed by Southern Partisan in 1998. You really don't see a difference?
Southerners have romanticized the war since it ended.
You are welcome to my Virginia estate any time where we can sip lemonade and discuss the after-effects of the War of Aggression.
That's the War of Northern Aggression, Mr. Urquhart.
Also known as the Late Unpleasantness.
I prefer mint juleps myself, suh. Are you by any chance of the Charleston Urquharts?
Hee-obviously Fielding has never been decimated in a "stay at home-back to work" debate with Calgal.
FU:
"We can discuss the merits of Grant and Lee as generals in "War." As for your challenge, a minimal amount of time in the South would demonstrate to you the dichotomy of race and reverence for the Confederacy. You are welcome to my Virginia estate any time where we can sip lemonade and discuss the after-effects of the War of Aggression."
I have spent more than a minimal time in the South, and I understand that there is an element of pride in the confederacy that goes beyond white supremeacy. Indeed, most parts of the country have regional pride. But there are black Southerners too, you might be surprised to learn, and some of them might be a little bit sensitive to confederate imagery.
Nonetheless, I would be happy to share lemonade with you at your manse.
I know. I am aghast at the idiocy of it all.
More fool you, if you're looking to a sinecure in a Democratic administration. After all, by your standards this undoubtedly makes you a racist.
'She is absolutely wonderful, very intelligent, a complete woman and able to give love wonderfully and freely,' enthused Frank Richardson III. The tabloids promptly dubbed her the 'Love Judge.'
I sure do. I see one man who was Governor of Missouri playing Slappy White while still an adult, at a time when racial sensitivities were highest on the minds of Americans. I see another former Governor of Missouri who told a magazine that he thought some Confederate leaders were heroic and that the cause of the South was not perverted.
So, the facts are decidedly different. But my conclusion is similar. I look at what they have done as public servants, and from everything I have seen, both men have been strong advocates for racial tolerance and inclusion. They have track records that should make allegations of racism based on these tenuous threads the stuff of jackasses and publicity hounds.
As I said, instead, you make a monument to Ashcroft's comments and thereby wipe away his record of support for 26 out of 28 African-American federal judicial nominees; eight African-Americans in-state judicial positions, including fernando Gaitan, Jr., the first African-American to be appointed to a Missouri Court of Appeals (now a federal district judge), and Sandra Farragut-Hemphill, the first African-American named to the St. Louis County Circuit Court; Jimmie Edwards, appointed by Ashcroft a Democratic seat on the St. Louis City Election Board, and later, to be a Circuit Judge in St. Louis; and Jon Gray, a Kansas City Democrat, apppinted by Ashcroft to be a Circuit Judge in Jackson County; and Jerry Hunter, appointed by Ashcroft to be head of Missouri's Department of Labor and Industrial (this list is by no means complete).
Fielding: It's still history--and a shared history of both white and black Southerners. I personally know of black Southerners who have visited Stone Mountain and wept over it.
What about blacks who served in the Confederate Army? Were they racists?
Personally, I don't think you get past the past by covering it up or white-washing (if you pardon the expression) either side. Tell the whole tale, good and bad. Should slavery be glorified? Hell no, but the war wasn't entirely about that, and we ought to learn the lessons of Antigone: folks want to honor their war dead and heritage whether or not a cause was entirely just.
Should we condemn all Japanese for Pearl Harbor and "comfort women"? Should every American soldier in WWII be condemned for Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
CalGal:
"Work harder at hiding your stupidity, it's showing. I said exactly what they should do--put their kid in daycare or hire a legal nanny. They were both lawyers making mid-six figure income. For either of them to bewail the high cost of daycare and the difficulty of finding good help is an obscenity."
Some parents think their kids would be better off with a nanny than in daycare. Quality daycare is not always available. Sometimes its hard to find a decent nanny that will work on the books. Some parents put their child's well-being ahead of compliance with arcane immigration and/or tax laws.
BTW, when you resort to ad hominem attacks (like "your stupidity, its showing"), you communicate that a) I have hit a nerve, and b) you don't feel like you are up to arguing the merits.
Your words are well said.
Clinton urged his supporters not to let ``any disappointment you may feel'' from the election outcome to take away the pride they have in him and Gore for what they were able to accomplish over the last eight years.
you communicate that a) I have hit a nerve, and b) you don't feel like you are up to arguing the merits.
Your exposure to debaters is apparently quite limited. In my case, ad hominem attacks communicate that I am impatient and scornful with a fool. As Milkmaid's post points out, I am wellknown for my views on sahms, and your absurd interpretation of my very clear post made me unlikely to view you or your intelligence with anything approaching tolerance.
Some parents think their kids would be better off with a nanny than in daycare. Quality daycare is not always available. Sometimes its hard to find a decent nanny that will work on the books. Some parents put their child's well-being ahead of compliance with arcane immigration and/or tax laws.
Hahahahaha. Yes, and this is who I want serving as attorney general. Someone who thinks the laws are irrelevant if they are inconvenient.
Anyone who wants to be a parent had best determine how their children are to be cared for before they have children. If they didn't do this, then they have failed in one of the basic responsibilities of parenthood. That they would then whine about it means only that they are pathetic as well as irresponsible.
Mind you, that's true for someone who makes less than six figures. Anyone who would claim that she can't get good help on $600,000/year (which is what I believe Baird made) has demonstrated not only the aforementioned attributes, but rank incompetence as well.
No, they were slaves.
What were blacks who owned slaves?
'Only thing I remember about Kimba Wood was thinking at the time that "Kimba" sounded like a good name for an elephant.
She seemed, though, to be a sound candidate with a good mind --however wonderfully and freely she may or may not have given love to investment bankers. 'Interesting possibilities for Alternative History, here.
But for a mini-scandal about aliens, social security taxes, etc., maybe we'd have had better leadership in the Justice Department for the next eight years.
Now we've lost Linda Chavez and, who knows? Maybe now Bush will appoint someone to the Department of Labor who actually believes that people who work should be paid. Alternative history can work both ways, I guess.
Take a hair off the self-pitying, give me a little more tremor to the voice, and ratchet up the indignation. We'll shoot, cut, print, and you can be in a chair across from Mr. Lipton shortly.
From what I can tell, Chavez thinks that people should be paid for working. Her opposition to a minimum wage increase is not unique.
You have to love anyone who can rail against 'revisionist history' and 'political correctness' while engaging in both.
Francis 109 -- I'll be at the capitol today and will look up the legislation creating the Martin Luther King holiday. I think you are wrong about the date the state holiday was created and about there being a Lee Jackson state holiday prior to MLK.
Eat shit and die!
IJ:
"It's still history--and a shared history of both white and black Southerners. I personally know of black Southerners who have visited Stone Mountain and wept over it.
Nazi Germany is "shared history" between Germans and Jews. Are Jews living in Berlin not permitted to be offended by a statue of Hitler in their home town?
Many (not all) blacks are rightly offended by Confederacy paraphernalia.
What about blacks who served in the Confederate Army? Were they racists?
How the hell should I know? They were fighting in a war to preserve slavery.
Personally, I don't think you get past the past by covering it up or white-washing (if you pardon the expression) either side. Tell the whole tale, good and bad. Should slavery be glorified? Hell no, but the war wasn't entirely about that, and we ought to learn the lessons of Antigone: folks want to honor their war dead and heritage whether or not a cause was entirely just.
I don't want to white wash anything. I'm not saying that either "side" of the story shouldn't be told. Rather, I'm saying that the holiday is in bad taste. Moreover, a lot of Southerners are whitewashing the nature of the confederacy.
Should we condemn all Japanese for Pearl Harbor and "comfort women"? Should every American soldier in WWII be condemned for Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
This isn't about condemning people. It is about questioning why there is a holiday.
Slave owners. Your point? (As if I didn't know.)
I found Three Heroes, One Odd Holiday for Virginians in the Washington Post.
"In my case, ad hominem attacks communicate that I am impatient and scornful with a fool."
This is a classic fallacy, signifying only that the fool is you.
"Anyone who wants to be a parent had best determine how their children are to be cared for before they have children. If they didn't do this, then they have failed in one of the basic responsibilities of parenthood. That they would then whine about it means only that they are pathetic as well as irresponsible."
People who are expecting to get divorced shouldn't have children. Condoms shouldn't break. Parents shouldn't change jobs. Parents shouldn't die. Welcome to Disneyland, brought to you by CalGal, the judge and jury for parents everywhere.
Let me know when you come up with standards that work in the real world, where everything isn't always black and white.
"Mind you, that's true for someone who makes less than six figures. Anyone who would claim that she can't get good help on $600,000/year (which is what I believe Baird made) has demonstrated not only the aforementioned attributes, but rank incompetence as well."
Okay, I'm willing to carve out of my sympathy people making over $600,000 per year. What about the other 99% who have to make this choice?
But Ashcroft is from Missouri, a non-Confederate state. Yes, it was a slave state, and many residents supported the Confederacy at the time, but but it did remain with the Union, didn't face reconstruction, and presumably wasn't immersed in the southern mythologizing that took place in the core Confederacy. Does Missouri celebrate Lee/Jackson Day?
As such, I have trouble believing that his neo-confederate enthusiasm is simply a cultural relic of fondness for native sons, like it is in FU's Virginia. And I have considerably *less* sympathy for someone who has *chosen* neo-Confederate sympathies.
The only people in this drama that require sympathy are those who either need to whittle down every nuance of American history so no one gets offended, or who take snippets of mundane writings such as Ashcroft's to bolster a baseless case of racism.
Bubbaette:
"Imagine! The very nerve! After all, would Jews get all bent out of shape at admiring Hitler's military strategy and flying the Nazi flag? P.C. has certainly gone too far!!"
Interesting how the same imagery came to both of us independently.
In America, they say "Great minds think alike". In Russia, they say "Idiots agree". :)
The point is not whether certain Confederate institutions offend certain African-Americans. They do, and they will.
The point is whether deeming Confederate leaders as heroic and the Southern cause as less than perverted indicates racism in the face of a public record of results-backed support and encouragement for African-Americans indicates racism.
If so, you're a racist. The trees are racist. The Oakland Raiders are racist. Marmalade is racist.
I discuss your post 1069 in the War thread.
There are plenty of others, however. Ones not sloughable, like the Reb-loving ones.
Fielding: I don't think it's the same thing at all. The Holocaust was an event of brief duration that can hardly be said to have given birth to a culture. For virtually all blacks in America, their pre-1865 history is a shared creation of a new culture that most of them still have a closer kinship with than anything in Africa. Certainly blacks were in the subordinate role in the culture, but the white and black Southern experience was more intertwined than I think any non-Southerner ever understands.
A closer comparison might be between the way women were treated hundreds of years ago than with Nazi Germany. (Though the truth is somewhere between the two, I think that's closer than a systemic extermination of a race.)
Many (not all) blacks are rightly offended by Confederacy paraphernalia.
Of course they are, and I of course have no problem with that (though I wonder whether you think blacks who are not are "wrongly unoffended"). Native Americans are also offended by many aspects of American history. I am offended by piss crosses, but eliminating all remnants of cultures we find offensive is ultimately akin to ethnic cleansing itself.
As far as holidays go, I don't generally cotton to holidays honoring individuals or public buildings be named in honor of anyone, myself. But I also think that what people want to do in a government unit of which I'm not a resident is their business. So, for example, I think if a state wants to fly the Confederate flag, it's up to the people of that state to decide.
Personally, I would vote against it for my state. OTOH, I would not automatically assume someone who praised Robert E. Lee was a racist.
Do you believe Lee is an American hero?
No.
As I stated above, I think Lee, Jackson and Davis are indeed worthy of praise. This issue is but a tiny piece of a much larger overall picture of Ashcroft, a picture that I find very disturbing.
"If so, you're a racist. The trees are racist. The Oakland Raiders are racist. Marmalade is racist."
Not marmalade?
It's not a "fallacy" at all. There was no "therefore" in my statement.
People who are expecting to get divorced shouldn't have children.
Who says?
Condoms shouldn't break.
Happily, abortion makes this less of an issue.
Parents shouldn't change jobs.
Why on earth not?
Parents shouldn't die.
This is idiotic, unless we are discussing a parent's planning for that eventuality. But then, I fail to see the point of any of your odd assertions.
Welcome to Disneyland, brought to you by CalGal, the judge and jury for parents everywhere.
Parents are responsible for their children. I was unaware that this was an unusual assertion.
Let me know when you come up with standards that work in the real world, where everything isn't always black and white.
I do have "real" standards. I also live by them.
Okay, I'm willing to carve out of my sympathy people making over $600,000 per year. What about the other 99% who have to make this choice?
I wasn't talking about them, dumbfuck. Did you actually read the post in question? I was talking about the outrage over Baird and Wood.
I would offer that our justice system is degraded if significant portions of our society have the perception that the nation's chief law enforcement officer has a bias against them and those laws that currently protect them.
The nomination of John Ashcroft sullies George W. Bush's pledge to be a "uniter."
There are good reasons to oppose Ashcroft. The concocted, inconsistent and dangerous incantation of racism in spite of the facts, however, threatens to drown those reasons in the soup and yes, make marmalade racist. The utilization of minor historical observation makes the scummy tactic a larger issue, one that should join all intellects, be they for or against Ashcroft, because if you sit silent for that, it can only mute and dumb-down the future.
Thanks for the straight answer.
Is Thomas Jefferson an American hero?
There is no need to apologize.
maria
Thank you as well.
Either way, this is the first visible salvo in the 2002 elections.
Interestingly (for me at least) when I was in St. Louis recently, I noticed a plaque honoring Robert E. Lee near the St. Louis arch. As I recall, the honor was something having to do with navagation and engineering rather than the civil war.
CalGal:
"In my case, ad hominem attacks communicate that I am impatient and scornful with a fool
This is a classic fallacy, signifying only that the fool is you.
"It's not a "fallacy" at all. There was no "therefore" in my statement."
I didn't think I would have to explain it to you, but here goes. I'll try not to use big words.
You are arguing that it is appropriate to use ad hominem attacks when you have decided that the target is a fool.
First of all, ad hominem attacks never enhance an argument. They signify desperation.
Second, you are the one determining that the person is a fool, but then the target is already known to disagree with you. Piling on with, "I disagree with you and moreover, you are a fool" is the very essence of logical fallacy. If you are wrong on either point, then both premises come crashing down.
Third, if you have the power to determine who is a fool, you can determine that anyone who disagrees with you is a fool. This makes your label, for rhetorical purposes, meaningless.
Finally, the "therefore" is implied. As in "If I deem a person to be a fool, therefore I may use an ad homiem attack.
I hope that this clears things up for you. Thank you for playing.
Yes, but a flawed one. Anticipating your next question, the primary difference is the worthiness of the goal that the person struggled for. I believe Jefferson's role in the founding of the country significantly outweighs his hypocrisy in owning slaves. Same with Washington.
CalGal:
"I wasn't talking about them, dumbfuck."
What exactly is a dumbfuck?
(I'll back out quietly.)
It's nice to have people around who are able to fill me in on my vague recollections.
I wonder what bit of useful information had to be jettisoned in order for this crap to take up space in my brain?
No, I wasn't. I never said anything about appropriateness. You asserted the reason I was using them was because you had struck a nerve. I said that this was untrue, that the reason I was using them is because I was impatient with a fool. Whether it is appropriate or not is irrelevant--as I said, there was no "therefore".
Nothing about whether it was warranted, deserved, or whether it proved that you personally were a moron. Just a pure explanation as to why your assertions about my state of mind were incorrect.
Your analysis is credible. But so are many others. Jefferson could be viewed as more insidious than Lee, as Jefferson owned slaves, knew better, yet codified a concept of equality excluding blacks, thereby perhaps adding to their consignment to slavery for 100 years.
But I would oppose any effort to color your views or reject your nomination for your antiquated, insensitive views on Jefferson.
the Mexican War (as part of the US Army)."
I'll take you at your word, but I can't imagine that his accomplishments there outweigh his efforts *against* the US in the Civil War. Its like calling Benedict Arnold an American hero for Ticonderoga.
CalGal:
"I do have "real" standards. I also live by them."
Its too bad that a huge demographic of our population isn't up to your standards. But then there are plenty of people who would look down there noses at the choices you have had to make.
But the fact remains, some people have very difficult child care decisions. And like it or not, you can't always blame people for the decisions they are faced with, however much Falwell and Schlafly agree with you that you should.
Yes. And that's why we have an Aaron Burr day, because of his military heroism.
unfortunately) had been a many-generations back sire for the
Budweiser ponies.
Traveller.
I think the Clydesdales came from Germany. Or Austria?
I don't know how you morphed this into a diatribe about daycare--to say nothing of the fact that your attempts to predict my views are pathetically inept. But we were discussing Baird and Wood and why their use of illegal aliens was so out of line and struck such a nerve, and why their attempts to justify it were so ill-advised.
I have made no comments about anyone else.
As such, I think your comparison between Jefferson and Lee is quite a stretch.
But I appreciate your willingness to confirm me as AG.
Leaving aside Jefferson's personal attitudes and practices, any efforts to abolish slavery at the time the Constitution was being put together would have doomed efforts to get all the states to ratify it.
CalGal:
"Nothing about whether it was warranted, deserved, or whether it proved that you personally were a moron. Just a pure explanation as to why your assertions about my state of mind were incorrect."
Ah, the classic CalGal backpedal that I've heard so much about.
Are you saying that it was not "warranted or deserved"? If that is the case, you could have saved both of us some wasted time.
(BTW, this is called being on the "horns of a dilemma").
So my question is, given everything that has happened since, was the net effect of black slavery on America a good thing or a bad thing?
The reason I bring it up is because I think the question helps illustrate my point of how impossible it is to isolate an event or person in history for total condemnation. For example, without the importation of black slaves into America, when would the first Africans have arrived here? Would they have come in sufficient numbers to contribute to the American experience as much as they have?
To put a fine point on it, would early 21st century Americans have the pleasure of reading Open Secrets?
It is irrelevant. I never brought it up, nor did you. I don't feel any need to justify telling people I think they're an idiot.
So the only waste of time was caused by your failure to read properly.
Clarification: in your original post on my attack, you didn't bring up its justification, you addressed only what you perceived as the reason for my reaction. Then, after I told you what the reason was, you called it a fallacy and it was then that you morphed to justification--something that had never been mentioned previously.
I will if it goes on further. I thought, originally, we were discussing Wood and Baird.
I don't consider Lee an American hero. He did perform heroically in the Mexican War. Benedict Arnold, on the other hand...would the United States exist today without his military feats?
Calgal:
"I don't know how you morphed this into a diatribe about daycare--to say nothing of the fact that your attempts to predict my views are pathetically inept. But we were discussing Baird and Wood and why their use of illegal aliens was so out of line and struck such a nerve, and why their attempts to justify it were so ill-advised."
This is how it morphed. You used an argument to discredit Baird (Wood was earning about 20% of Baird, so you ought to drop her from your argument). Your argument used language that was so broadbased that it could also be used against any other nominee that faces difficult choices about child care. I pointed out that under your "let them eat cake" model, we would end up with three types of people in the cabinet: Men, rich women and childless women. I knew that this was not the result you were hoping for.
Oh, and you called me a "dumbfuck".
The irony is that both Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood would have been vastly superior as Attorneys General than Janet Reno. Moreover, Justice under Kimba Wood would have been so much more aggressive in its pusuit of investigations of Government officials that it is not certain that Clinton would have survived his term.
Rather than casting stones, and destroying people like Kimba Wood and Linda Chavez (who were much better suited to their appointments than the likes of Ashcroft), I think we would be better off liberalizing taxation laws for childcare providers.
Right.
Clinton will remain a very effective thorn in the side of the GOP (and W in particular) for a long time. His speech yesterday when he talked about the Florida vote is just the beginning. (Although I am a bit surprised he let fly with that so soon. I think he was just giving W's handlers fair warning that they better not go too far with this absurd "Clinton recession" shit.)
Count on it!
BTW,John Ashcroft is no Linda Chavez.
the Mexican War. Benedict Arnold, on the other hand...would the
United States exist today without his military feats?"
I guess I am not familiar with Arnold's critical role other than Ticonderoga. I believe he was at Saratoga, but I haven't heard any claims that he turned the battle. You are much more the military history expert than I am, so I would be interested in hearing your argument in the War thread.
Your recap is incorrect. I'm done with this; you are uninteresting.
bbb,
I read that in a couple other places after you mentioned it.
CalGal:
"It is irrelevant. I never brought it up, nor did you. I don't feel any need to justify telling people I think they're an idiot."
There are only two possible choices. Either
A) You think it was justified, in which case my analysis that you are guilty of a fallacy stands; or
B) You think it wasn't justified, in which case you wasted my time, but I accept your apology and I forgive you.
You are acting like the soldier in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who just had its limbs cut off. Let it go.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A yearning for better jobs, improved quality of life and attractive retirement settings were major factors in population shifts documented in the first release of Census 2000 statistics. Some of the biggest winners among states were those that proved attractive to restless Americans looking for a better place to live. Arizona, Georgia, Colorado, Nevada and North Carolina gained seats, in no small part because they represented inviting bait for people seeking to relocate, a demographer said.
BTW, GWB's victory margin would be a 279-258 one if Census 2000 data were used.
Last post on the subject--take it to the Inferno if you're stupid enough to want to continue.
No, there are not only two choices. There are plenty others, including this one: I see no reason to justify rudeness.
No, W's victory margin would be the same: 5 to 4.
Very good.
Hehehehe.
BTW, GWB's victory margin would be a 279-258 one if Census 2000 data were used.
And I'd have less personal property tax to pay if the county used next year's blue book value instead of this years. So what?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A closely watched economic forecasting gauge is now predicting that the economy will grow by just 2.6 percent this year, the weakest pace in a decade. Blue Chip Economic Indicators said its latest consensus forecast of top economists released today represented a 0.8 percentage point drop in the 2001 growth estimate in just two months, the biggest since the summer of 1990 when the economy was entering the last recession. Economists are not predicting, however, an outright recession.
Bill Clinton finally runs out of his luck on the economy front. So much for a failed and tainted legacy.
Wait and see.
The supreme court elects a bozo
