:: Friday, February 25, 2005 ::
The Corner on Dean
Lookit! Idiots on parade:
CNN discovers that Dean's trips to the red states are greeted by Democrats running away from happy-handshake pictures with Howard: I guess they didn't read down to the bit where Howard's rallies are selling out in hours.
Last I checked, the Smirking Chimp couldn't fill auditoriums in the reddest of states on his Social Security swing.
I don't know what the Corner thinks, but when the sitting President can't fill a room in a state that went his way by 20 points and the DNC chair can in a state his party lost by 20....well, let's just say I'd come to a different conclusion than the brain-trust at the Corner.
:: Morat 11:42 AM :: ::
How stupid is Andrew Sullivan?
Very. He spews forth about Gannon/Guckert:
Just ask yourself: if a Catholic conservative blogger had found out that a liberal-leaning pseudo-pundit/reporter was a gay sex worker, had outed the guy as gay and a 'hooker,' published pictures of the guy naked, and demanded a response from a Democratic administration, do you think gay rights groups would be silent? They'd rightly be outraged. But the left can get away with anything, can't they? Especially homophobia. Speaking as a liberal: I'd want to know what the fuck a fricking whore was doing pretending to be a reporter at Presidential Press Conferences.
My question for Andrew is this: Why doesn't he want to know? Is he in favor of fake journalism? Whores having access to the President under pseudonyms? Government propaganda?
I love the scare quotes around "hooker" and the use of the term "outed". When you set up web pages advertising what you charge for "gay sex", "hooker" stops being a question and "outing" doesn't really apply. Which leads to a follow up for Andrew "I'm no longer blogging, but can't shut up" Sullivan: If you're advertising gay sex for money on the internet, how are you not an openly gay hooker?
:: Morat 9:36 AM :: ::
How could they?
Apostropher wonders how could Powerline sink so low? Powerline states:
Powerline: How Low Will Senate Democrats Sink? As Apostropher notes: Luttig hasn't been nominated for squat, and the only person advancing that novel argument was some defendent's lawyer -- nine years ago.
Hugh Hewitt directs our attention to this post by Carol Platt Liebau regarding potential Supreme Court nominee Michael Luttig. Judge Luttig's father was murdered, and liberals may be poised to argue that this fact would render him impermissibly biased in death penalty cases (but doesn't he hear such cases now as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge?) Liebau notes that, "under this reasoning, every potential female justice should be asked whether she's ever had an abortion -- because abortion cases would come up before the Court. And minority candidates would have to discuss how/whether they ever felt discriminated against." Indeed, it would be appropriate to investigate whether, or to what extent, minority nominees have benefited personally from affirmative action.
Are the Senate Democrats dumb enough to make this argument against Luttig?
Jesus, for the "new wave of media" those Powerline folks are idiots. They could use a good dose of those old-fashioned "journalistic ethics"...although I'd suggest "logical reasoning" and "reading comprehension" first.
:: Morat 9:30 AM :: ::
Sen. Specter Urges Caution on Bush Judicial Showdown
I guess Specter's going to slammed by the wingnuts again:
:: Thursday, February 24, 2005 ::
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Arlen Specter warned on Thursday that an impending showdown over President Bush (news - web sites)'s judicial nominees could lead to turmoil in the Republican-led Senate. For the record, the possible retaliatory actions the Democrats might take include: Old style filibusters (refusing to yield the floor), refusal to grant unanimous consent (half the business in the Senate requires it), refusing to waive reading a bill aloud (requires unanimous consent) -- forcing the Senate to read each and every bill aloud, forcing live quorums, all sorts of fun.
Specter said if fellow Republicans invoke the 'nuclear option' by changing the Senate's rules to ban procedural hurdles against the nominees, Democrats could as promised retaliate with other moves of their own to 'screw things up.'
'If we have a 'nuclear option,' the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell,' Specter said. 'We can take an extended foreign trip, all of us.'
I think Specter's more concerned with the precedent, though. Unlike some of the GOP, he doesn't seem convinced of a permanent Republican majority. A GOP staffer replied to Specter's comments thusly:
Yet some Republicans privately voiced concerns, with one Senate aide saying Specter "provided the enemy aid and comfort." Sound familiar? "Aid and comfort" comes straight from the treason clause of the US Constitution.
I've often pissed off my Libertarian friends by refusing to "admit" that Democrats are as bad as Republicans. Of course, they think it's because I'm "blindly partisan" and I think their ideological belief that "both parties are equally bad" is merely a way to excuse -- as long as both are "equally bad" they can vote their short-term interests, and blame the results on the corruption of the two parties. A nice free lunch for those who don't believe in them, if you will.
However, I have to note this: We think Bush is stupid, arrogant, and dangerous. We think the GOP is power-mad, greedy, and screwing over the poor to aid the rich. I can count on the fingers of one hand the liberals who think they're traitors though -- and none of them would vote Democratic if you held a gun to their head anyways. I don't think I can count the number of conservatives and Republicans who have -- either implicitly or explicitly -- claimed the Democratic party and it's members were traitors.
The difference between "loyal opposition" and "traitor" is pretty damn profound, don't you think? (Link via Daily Kos)
:: Morat 9:19 AM :: ::
Report Faults Bush Initiative on Education
Concluding a yearlong study on the effectiveness of President Bush's sweeping education law, No Child Left Behind, a bipartisan panel of lawmakers drawn from many states yesterday pronounced it a flawed, convoluted and unconstitutional education reform initiative that had usurped state and local control of public schools. NCLB is flawed? I beg to differ! Sure, as a bill designed to improve public education, it fails any possible test. But as a bill designed to cripple public education entirely by labeling virtually every school in the US "failing" by the end of the decade? It's a masterpiece.
It's only flawed to those poor, blind souls who think NCLB had something to do with "Education".
For the serious among you: The basic flaw with NCLB -- with virtually all school reform pushed by the GOP -- is their odd belief that school is like an assembly line, where all the parts are identical. They seem to think children are cookie-cutter creations, identical from year to year, grade to grade, district to district.
:: Morat 9:19 AM :: ::
Sorry for not posting -- it's been hectic. Work goes from nothing to frantic and then back again, and my poor wife has been giving herself an ulcer preparing for TAKS.
Thankfully, things are slowly returning to normal. Hopefully I'll post more today and tomorrow.
:: Morat 9:06 AM :: ::