PeterDavid.net

I like that: Fight fire with popcorn. Although, you have to give them credit for also tossing in a few stern words here and there.

I'd type more, but I've got butter and salt all over my fingers.

Nowhere in this is the question of whether or not Alito is competant to serve on the court even mentioned. Doesn't this matter? Or is it no a given that any pick by a president will result in the opposition party doing whatever they can to tear that person down, by whatever means necessary?

At any rate...the Democrats may be using a bit more forward thinking than you are. If Justice Stevens were to retire in the next 2 years Bush's pick could tip the balance of power on Roe V Wade (ie. the only issue most of the partisans seem to care about). At that point it will be easier and more popular with the public to threaten a filibuster against anyone not seen as a centrist consensus choice.

Besides, what do the Republicans have to lose? They have pretty much let Democratic presidents have their picks for the court go through with little opposition--witness the near unanamous support for Ginsburg--so losing the option of filibuster will be hardly missed.

In order for the Democratic party to regain any type of real influence over the American public, they need only keep two simple factors in mind when responding or challenging their adversaries:

1) Be specific with criticisms.

2) Be specific with propsals.

I am one who believes that they react, rather than respond to situations, attacks, crappy nominees. Forget the popcorn, they need only take just enough time to read the "ABC" label on the extinguisher before fighting the fire. A skill that the party seems to have forgotten in their reactionary mindset.

Fred

If Justice Stevens were to retire in the next 2 years Bush's pick could tip the balance of power on Roe V Wade (ie. the only issue most of the partisans seem to care about).

Well, when you see the abortion groups (those for and against) being the first ones to comment on a judicial nominee, you know the system has gone to shit.

These people act like that's the only type of case the Supreme Court will hear these days.

I'd find it rather amusing if, for some reason, one of these anti-abortion groups found themselves in front of the Supreme Court for something other than abortion and lost with Alito as the deciding vote.

Ahh, I can hear the cries of "judicial activism" already.

If you see yourself as the good guy, it's hard to summon up bloodlust because that's not what the good guys do. They try to persuade and reason with people, to sway them with logic and reality. I don't think it's bloodlust that they need, I think it's a clear and cohesive vision, a charismatic leader or three, and a final acknowledgement that there's no longer a "center" to move to so they should once again consider speaking for the majority of US citizens who generally have much more liberal views than they (the Congresscritters) do.

If you see yourself as the good guy, it's hard to summon up bloodlust because that's not what the good guys do. They try to persuade and reason with people, to sway them with logic and reality.
*********************************

That's not what politicians do. What was the line from the American President about Shepard being the "most loved economics teacher" at a university or something like that? That's what happens to brilliant people who aren't stategists. Politics is war, as Garafalo said in a recent West Wing. It's often not about nice guys. Yes, there's a difference between low blows but there's also a difference between George Washington and Ghandi. The latter is a great man but he wouldn't have won the Revolutionary War.

Bill Mulligan posted:
Besides, what do the Republicans have to lose? They have pretty much let Democratic presidents have their picks for the court go through with little opposition--witness the near unanamous support for Ginsburg--so losing the option of filibuster will be hardly missed.

Bill, exactly how many members of the Supreme Court have been nominated by a Democratic president in the past 33 years? I'll tell you exactly how many--TWO! That's it. TWO. Ginsburg (whose nomination was supported by that oh-so-liberal member of Congress, Orrin Hatch, before Clinton formally put forth the nomination) and Breyer. That's it. No one else. All SEVEN of the other members sitting on the Court this past January 20th had been appointed by Republican Presidents, largely with the support of the Democratic Senate (O'Connor and Scalia were the only justices whose nominations were approved by a GOP-controlled Senate). Until Ginsburg's appointment and confirmation, the last Democratic-appointed justice was Thurgood Marshall (by LBJ).
Now, let's also not forget that the GOP was a very strong factor in leading the filibuster against LBJ's nominee (Abe Fortas) for Chief Justice when Earl Warren informed LBJ of his decision to retire, and one of the strongest opponents of Fortas' elevation to Chief Justice was none other than Strom Thurmond who used Fortas' "liberal" record as the sole reason for the filibuster. That, mon ami, was way back in 1968! A Democratic President's nominee was thwarted by a GOP-led filibuster. (This, in fact, was at a time when the motion for cloture required a solid 2/3 majority, rather than the current 3/5 vote. The reduction didn't come until 1975.)
I am so bloody sick of these lies being spewed by the far-right extremists who simply choose to ignore those facts which don't support their ridiculous assertions. What's even more astonishing is the way that those lies are being swallowed so willingly by a media and public which simply doesn't want to take a few minutes to verify the historical record.
The Senate NEEDS the filibuster because it is such a small body. There is plenty of time for debate on important issues in the Senate as opposed to the House, but the current GOP leadership doesn't seem to want an open debate. When you dare assert that a mere 50 members of the Senate (remember that a tie enables the Vice-President to cast a tie-breaking vote) should be able to hold the power to put a person in a post from which they can sit for life, you fall for the trap that the party you support will remain in power indefinitely. But, just remember that any drastic changes made by one party can remain in place when the other party makes a return to power. (In other words, you may not like the Democrats being able to filibuster, but will you feel so generous when the GOP loses *its* ability to filibuster?)

When Governor Granholm was the state attorney general, the Republican-controlled state legislature tried to greatly reduce the attorney general's power . Granholm successfully fought back against that effort.

Today, the state attorney general _is_ a Republican, one who enjoys the same powers Granholm had when she held the office. But if the Republicans' short-sighted effort to reduce the attorney general to a paper tiger had succeeded, then their guy would now be essentially under the thumb of the Democratic governor.

I find it truly bizarre that the Republicans even contemplated such a move (and the same would apply if it had been the Democrats trying to do it). Did they think they would have a permanent lock on the governor's office? Did they believe that if their efforts had proven successful, that "success" wouldn't have one day come back to haunt them?

Sometimes I wonder what planet politicians are from.

Rick

For the record, here's a fairly informative article concerning the filibuster against Fortas from a man who's not exactly reknowned as a liberal, John Dean.
http://hnn.us/articles/11753.html

"What was the line from the American President about Shepard being the "most loved economics teacher" at a university or something like that?"

The line is from the scene when a pissed Shepard is shooting pool with Chief of Staff A.J. (Martin Sheen, ironically). A.J. makes it clear that he's not happy with the way Shepard is handling things, and Shepard challenges A.J.'s right to criticize him considering that--as he points out angrily--he's never seen A.J.'s name on a ballot for anything. And he says, "Why is that? Why are you always one step behind me?" To which A.J. shoots back, "Because if I wasn't, you'd be the most popular history professor at the University of Wisconsin." And the president shouts back a rather explicity profanity and slams down his pool cue.

PAD

Actually, Joseph, yes, I do think that the next Democratic president should have the right to nominate a qualified person to the Supreme Court and expect to have that nominee voted on by the Senate, without fear of the Republicans denying them the chance by fillibuster threat. It would have been wrong to do it to Ginsberg. It would be wrong to do it to Alito, unless some damaging information comes out. Just my opinion, but at least it's consistant.

One other thing--it isn't that the Democrats don't go for the jugular--they often just aren't good at it. Too arrogant. Using the corpse of Rosa Parks to attack Alito before she has even been buried is hardball blood in the water politics. It also comes across s crass and ugly to a lot of non-partisan folks.

Obviously I don't want to condemn all Democrats for the actions of Schumer and jackson, but it would be nice if some of the saner ones told them to cool it

It would be wrong to do it to Alito, unless some damaging information comes out.

Eye of the beholder.

To many, being anti-abortion is "damaging information" enough.

The problem is that too few on either side care any more.

The filibuster will get the "nuclear option" treatment (I saw some Republican calling it the "constitutional option" the other day... what a crock), Alito will be confirmed by simple majority, and then the Republicans will shit a brick when they lose the majority while blaming the Democrats for forcing the "nuclear option" to begin with.

"Because the GOP fights fire with fire, while the Democrats fight fire with popcorn"
The analogy I've been using for years is that the Democrats are out for a sporting day of fencing, unaware that the Republicans are waging a brass-knuckle brawl.

"Nowhere in this is the question of whether or not Alito is competant to serve on the court even mentioned. Doesn't this matter? Or is it no a given that any pick by a president will result in the opposition party doing whatever they can to tear that person down, by whatever means necessary?"
Well, if Bush had actually consulted with Democratic Senators before nominating an extremist like Alito, then this entire issue could be avoided. Just take Ginsberg as an example: Clinton actually had the audacity to get her approved by Senate Republicans before he officially nominated her, which is why her nomination went through so seamlessly...

...Not that you'll hear that inconvenient fact from the right-wing insta-pundits.

--R.J.

I think it's always been known that Orrin hatch was instrumental in getting Justice Ginsberg in--and why not, since i contrasts nicely with what Senate Democrats are doing today. He knew that the President would want to nominate someone who shared his political philosophy and helped to find someone who was competant.

meanwhile, Senator Reid was one of the one's who suggested Ms. Meirs. Bush may be forgiven for not wanting to go back to that particular well of advice.

For what it's worth, today's Washington Post -- no bastion of conservative activism -- has a big feature profile on Alito that quotes a long roster of his liberal friends who suggest he's a good judge, a good man, and an honest strict constructionist, not an ideologue like Scalia.

"No sense of blood lust."

Jeez. You really are an arch liberal, or is it arch socialist? Which do you prefer?

Anyway, I find it kind of sad that people feel the need to talk about politics in such terminology.

This, unlike other things, isn't a life and death war. It's politics. When you talk about blood lust in reference to what should be civilized debate it kind of dilutes the time when blood lust is actually warranted.

As far as the SCOTUS is concerned, I never understood the hubub.

If the people disagree with SCOTUS there's ways to get around it.

Ever heard of an Ammendment? SCOTUS can't do jack if enough people want something changed.

Not that you can get 2/3rds of Americans do agree on anything these days. But that's more to do with the kind of politics that's been practiced in this country for the past fifty or so years.

Heck, early in this century enough Americans agreed that alcohol was a bad thing that it was banned.

And enough of them were smart enough to realize their mistake and change it.

If only people would realize the way to get things done is not through political parties, it's through demanding the parties speak for you, not blindly following their lead and voting for them just because that's how you have always voted.

You want things to get better, more civilized?

Boot all of these politicking crooks out. Democrat, and Republican.

Then we'll be able to get some shit done.

Peter -- it seems that the CBLDF, for one, might have reason to hope that Alito could be an ally in free-speech matters:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=16003

"Washington Post -- no bastion of conservative activism..."

Oh, yeah, the Post would never carry water for the Bush White House: Wash Post Distorts Level Of Congressional Interest in Downing Street Memo

--R.J.

Oh, yeah, the Post would never carry water for the Bush White House:

This is why it's hard to take some liberals seriously when they talk about the "conservative media"; if a magazine or newspaper or Tv show ever A- says something nice about a Republican or B- says something bad about a Democrat they are suddenly part of the of the Vast Right Wing Machine.

The Post is a left of center paper. And a generally good one. What do you you think qualifies as a genuinely liberal paper...Pravda? The Village Voice? (No, they were once owned by Rupert Murdoch. Also, they print stuff by that right to lifer Nat Hentoff, so you KNOW they are part of the Bush Regime).

This is why it's hard to take some liberals seriously when they talk about the "conservative media"

Oh, c'mon now, Bill. That phrase is rarely used outside of FauxNews.

Especially compared to the usage of "liberal media", which is used to describe just about anything left of Bill O'Reilly.

C'mon Craig, I've seen it or variations of it used right here in this blog!

And using the "logic" that people use to call a liberal newspaper or TV show "conservative", since I've seen Fox News having segments about how badly Bush did with Katrina and the Miers nomination, they must, in fact, be liberal! Hey, and their polls have shown him doing poorly! Would a "conservative" media outlet let that happen?

Not sure I like Alito for the court...but at least I know he's a competent jurist with a well thought out judicial philosophy, that's consistent with a major part of mainstream America. That's more than I can say about Bush, who seems far more results oriented--the thinking that underlies the results is far less important to him (which actually explains his previous pick).

Alioto's confirmation wouldn't necessarily sit well with me (he's a tad too derential to Executive power), but it's something I could live with, based on what I've read about him.

Would a "conservative" media outlet let that happen?

Not even FauxNews can deny the truth every time the shit hits the fan with the Bush Administration. Every now and then they have to give the impression that they are, indeed, supposedly "fair and balanced".

Ann Coulter even went off on Bush over the Miers nomination, but that doesn't mean that she suddenly isn't a psychotic ultra right-wing bitch. :)

Bill: Nowhere in this is the question of whether or not Alito is competant to serve on the court even mentioned. Doesn't this matter?

The social conservatives put the final nail in that coffin when they decided to sink Miers for not being enough of a blatant ideologue.

Craig:Well, when you see the abortion groups (those for and against) being the first ones to comment on a judicial nominee, you know the system has gone to shit.

I've been saying that for weeks. People are not looking enough at the big picture because both the pro-life and the pro-choice factions have poisoned the process. Reid's endorsement of Miers is a prime example of this. As a pro-life democrat (yes, they do exist), I suspect he believed that Miers was a good choice to avoid another Bork shitstorm.

Looking at his resume, I think Alito is well-qualified. Certainly, he should have been tapped ahead of Miers. I think there were also some strategic reasons for picking Alito as well. He's from the 3rd circuit in Philly. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter is also from Philly and already knows Alito. Perhaps, after Specter made noises about questioning Miers about treatment of prisoners at GITMO, Bush felt that someone the Specter is already familiar with might have an easier time with the committee.

That said, there are two rulings in his career that do give me concern. One is his dissenting opinion to uphold Pennsylvania's spousal notification law. The other is one in which he allegedly ruled that a warrant to search a man "naturally" extended to strip searching his wife and daughter. Those rulings go beyond the issue of whether abortiont should be legal and indicate a way of thinking that women and children have little rights of their outside their relationship to their husbands and fathers.

That way of thinking gives me pause.

if a magazine or newspaper or Tv show ever A- says something nice about a Republican or B- says something bad about a Democrat they are suddenly part of the of the Vast Right Wing Machine.

Why not? The right has been using the exact same argument everytime anything appears in the media that is even remotely critical of a republican or nice about a democrat for the past 20+ years.

I'm not sufficiently caught up on the news to have a competent opinion on Alito, but it doesn't surprise me that he's more competent than Miers: I could coherently argue that my youngest cat is more competent to be on the court than Miers. (Among other things, he exhibits a hell of a lot more independent thought.)

There are two separate issues here: Alito's appointment and the Democrats' behavior in general.

Alito's appointment: the main question in my mind is whether he's someone who will rule based on the facts, or will fit the facts and the argument to fit his own already-entrenched opinions. Bush is very clearly a case of the latter, which automatically gives me some pause when it comes to Alito -- but like Roberts, I'm willing to be convinced. Roberts, I think, DOES exhibit at least a certain degree of rationality and thoughtfulness, which I think means there's a reasonable chance that he can grow and (gasp!) evolve on the court. I don't know whether Alito fits that or not. If he does, then I'm much happier with him than with Miers. If he doesn't, but is simply going to put his own opinions in place regardless of circumstances, then I think he's a poor choice. Committed ideologues always are, simply because of the nature of the court -- I'd (theoretically) be fine with a Clarence Thomas type as a senator, but not as a jurist who is supposed to dispassionately examine the law.

(I'll admit that Alito's nickname, "Scalito", certainly doesn't fill me with optimism.)

As an aside: I'd love it if another Roe v. Wade case came up and the anti-abortion bloc once again failed ... due to a surprise swing vote from Roberts. That would be lovely.

PAD's greater point, however, is one I think is worthy of note -- the Democratic party at this point isn't much of an opposition party. If it is an opposition party, it needs to oppose. That doesn't mean they need to have knee-jerk opposition to absolutely everything, but as someone above said (Fred, I think), it means that when they disagree they need to state very specifically why they're in opposition and what they would do differently.

I think either Gore or Kerry could have done a great deal of good by setting up, in effect, a "shadow government" detailing what policies they had in mind and presenting an alternative to Bush's. Get the debate out there.

I don't know that I'd call it "lack of bloodlust", though I certainly understand how Peter means it. I think it's simply lack of any sort of political courage right now. After 9/11, basically no one was willing to stand up in opposition to the Patriot Act. Lots of people are speaking out against Iraq now, but where were all those senators back when Congress was rubber-stamping everything Bush did and attaching its collective lips firmly to his sphincter?

The media doesn't help much -- not necessarily because it leans liberal or conservative (though I think it's far more conservative than people like Bill are ever going to believe), but because it so frequently implicitly lets the Republicans frame the terms of the debate. How often do genuinely liberal ideas really get examined in the media? It's always taken as a given that yes, Saddam has WMD's; that yes, Social Security is in an obvious crisis; that yes, Abu Ghraib was only the result of a few misfits and not policy; that yes, the only way to personal morality is through religious faith; and that yes, most of Europe is opposed to Bush because they hate freedom.

(That last may seem like an exaggeration, but back on Bush's European tour in the spring, Good Morning America covered it with the following: 'President Bush today continues his European tour as he attempts to mend fences with allied leaders and outlines his plan to spread democracy to the Middle East. Interestingly, a new poll shows two-thirds of Europeans disagree with Bush's plan,' thus strongly conflating the issues to suggest that Europeans hate democracy.)

So yeah, I'm with PAD on this for the most part. The Democratic party has tried for far too many years to get away with being the party of "Republican ideas, but not quite so much." That nonsense needs to stop now. The media needs to let the debate be a real debate, and Democrats need to get coherent people out there who can effectively challenge the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration.

TWL

Way back in the early 1980s, I was a student at Anne Arundel Community College in Arnold, MD. I worked on the school paper, then called the Campus Crier, for the full five semesters it took to get my two-year AA degree (I had a couple of courses I had trouble scheduling).
Like many college papers, we received copies of other papers from around the country and around the world. One of those papers was a delightful little piece of work called The Pyongyang Times. The Pyongyang Times was an English-language paper published in Pyongyang, North Korea. Just about every article was about then-President Kim Il Sung in some respect. Every single article referred to him as "The Great Leader President KIM IL SUNG," with his name in all caps like I just wrote. Anyone else involved in the government was referred to as "Dear Leader (title)(name)."
I mention this because I think of it every time I see another opinion column, letter to the editor or Internet post that talks about the "liberal bias" supposedly dominating the media. I imagine picking up a newspaper largely filled with articles about the administration, all of them describing the actions of "the Great Leader President GEORGE W. BUSH" and "Dear Leader Vice-President DICK CHENEY," and wonder if that would make the Bush fans happy.

Just a thought.

Paul

Whoops, left out a phrase. The last sentence should read:
"...CHENEY,' only in the most glowing terms, and wonder..."

Paul

One is his dissenting opinion to uphold Pennsylvania's spousal notification law.

Yes, this one really bothers me as well.

This is an adult woman we're talking about. If such a decision isn't made in consultation with her spouse (in a good marriage) and it leads to fall out, well, that's a situation for adults to resolve, isn't it?

The other is one in which he allegedly ruled that a warrant to search a man "naturally" extended to strip searching his wife and daughter.

This one was explained to me on another site that the man in question was a drug dealer, and in the past dealers have been known to try and hide the drugs on children. Also, the child was searched by a female officer in private.

I'm not sure of the mother was/should have been suspected of dealing in drugs as well.

So, on the face if it, I'm still not very accepting of the practice, but the logic isn't horrible - drug dealers have been known to go to pretty extreme lengths to hide/smuggle the stuff.

The entire Democratic federal legislative congress, and I mean every single Democrat Senator and Representative, needs to hold a press conference on the steps of the capital. The Minority leaders of both chambers need to step to the mike and first acknowledge that in the aftermath of the tragic events four years ago, they united with what they thought were their like-minded Republican counterparts to move the country forward with a singular agenda and purpose. However, times have changed, and we need new approaches to major issues. And then they need to lay out some specific, detailed ideas that are markedly different than what we're doing now. Will these absolutely, positively solve the problems our country faces? Nothing's guaranteed, but the status quo isn't cutting it. And then they need to invite the Republicans to react to each point they just made with similar specificity and detail. And then they need to make their last apology for a while, an apology for having their collective heads up their asses while this Republican president, who they've been billing as the dumbest guy to ever hold the office, has beaten them at every single opportunity available, with several bonus points for becoming the "issue" president on topics for which the Democrats should be providing leadership. The Democrats need to put up or shut up if they ever hope to again be a party of ideas, instead of a party of apologies for voting the wrong way in the heat of a moment.

And keep in mind, all of you who think the 2006 election is an in-the-bag victory for Democrats; I and many others vote for the congressional representatives that bring the most home for my state first. Sure, some of my neighbors are going to be one-issue fanatics, but if there were enough of them to tip the balance in my district, they've already made their voice heard in every election since the federal districts were last redrawn early this decade. The swayable voters in a congressional race are a much smaller pool than a presidential one.

El Coyote said:

"This, unlike other things, isn't a life and death war. It's politics. When you talk about blood lust in reference to what should be civilized debate it kind of dilutes the time when blood lust is actually warranted."

So a war where 2000 of your own people are killed should be a matter for a debating society? Something about which you should feel no passion? Kind of like that guy in "Saw 2" who kills people simply to show how clever he is, and how dumb other people are, and gee, their lives are no consideration?

(I could go on about filmmakers who make films like "Saw 2" and how they spread callousness about murder and sadism, but I'll restrain myself right now.)

There are matters about which one should be passionate about. Politics is not a debating game. It is the way that issues of power are resolved. The Republicans understand this, and they have effectively turned the Bill of Rights into toilet paper because they see politics as war. The Democratic response is to tsk-tsk the Republicans for wasting paper, and to suggest that it would be more ecological to use a bidet instead.

Well Peter, it appears that the lion woke up today and the popcorn was replaced with a flame thrower. Wow, more power to them, it's time for them to get their spines back and let these crooks eat crow. I'm emailing my senator and giving him a high-five!

"Why not? The right has been using the exact same argument everytime anything appears in the media that is even remotely critical of a republican or nice about a democrat for the past 20+ years."

My 4 year old child uses the "they did it first" arguement all the time. My 7 year old is now too mature to use that excuse (I taught him better than that). Evidently see some people never outgrow 1st graders.

I happen to agree mostly with Jason. The Democratic Party needs a Contract with America. The GOP one in 1996(?) worked.

Though I don't think they need to admit Bush is smart. Just that his staff have made some smart moves in addition to their dozens of dumb ones. (Of course, it wouldn't exactly be phrased that way.)

Since the Right-side of the media brands everything Liberal they don't agree with, the Left-side has to respond in kind. Not because "they did it first", but because this kind of labelling works, unfortunately, on many people.

You can try to argue that the Left should be above this, and appeal to the intelligence of the American people. But we've tried this strategy, and it hasn't worked. No one has ever gone wrong underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

We need the Moore's and Franken's out there to cancel out the OReilleys and Limbaughs.

Yes, the Democrats called for a closed session of Congress, so they could discuss classified issues related to the Iraq War, etc. So now the Democrats are not only happy with continuing the blame game, they're also going to do it IN SECRET?! I suppose if you wanted to keep the focus on how we got into the mess we're in, instead of how we're going to get out (which, regardless of whether they're doing it right or even doing it at all, that's the impression the Republicans keep pulling off), then kudos to them for making the continuing bipartisan game of political crassness a covert op, so at least I don't have to hear about it anymore...

Woo!! The Democrats in the Senate exercised a little-used rule to kick the media out and slam the door shut!! Did they also threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue?

So now the Democrats are not only happy with continuing the blame game

There's no blame left to assign - everybody knows the entire reasoning for going to war in Iraq is a complete crock - so I don't know why the Dems are wasting time with this.

I dressed up as Dubya last night. I wore a huge stuffed albatross labelled "Public Opinion."

"The Minority leaders of both chambers need to step to the mike and first acknowledge that in the aftermath of the tragic events four years ago, they united with what they thought were their like-minded Republican counterparts to move the country forward with a singular agenda and purpose. However, times have changed, and we need new approaches to major issues. And then they need to lay out some specific, detailed ideas that are markedly different than what we're doing now."
Unfortunately, the democrat leadership's message over the last years has been 'we would do the same things as the republicans but only different'. That's not much of a message to send. Until both parties stop throwng rocks and objecting everything the other party does, the general public will be content to keep things as they are. Why change if nothing is going to be different?

"Woo!! The Democrats in the Senate exercised a little-used rule to kick the media out and slam the door shut!! Did they also threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue?"

Actually, that's exactly what Bill Frist said he was going to do, until he realized that the Harry Reid just kicked his ass.

Jeff, that's the point I'm trying to make. The Democrats need to say "You know what? We agreed to start this fight, but that was four years ago. This is the last time we're apologizing for it. Now, several problems challenge this country, and here's our plan to shake things up and try some new things." A gradual shift away from the current status quo and back towards the Democratic Party's ideals isn't going to demonstrate the kind of strong, definitive leadership the dissatisfied swing voters of this country want. I registered as a Republican ten years ago and still believe in the core ideas today that I did then. But I'm terribly disappointed in my party for the utter lack of leadership and/or positive movement on any major problem this country now faces. The gut question many of you are asking yourselves now is "well then, why would you continue to vote Republican?" My response is why would I vote for a paler, even more ineffectual version of what I'm disappointed in already. If the Democrats want my vote, grow a spine and give me a plan I can get behind - Please, I'm begging you. Because if you get your crap together, most likely the Republicans might straighten up, too, and irregardless of who wins, we'll get some folks in office interested in leading.

Knuckles, it's just another weapon of mass distraction... what's it going to prove? How's it going to move this country forward? We've heard these arguments for two years now; hell, the Republicans are probably laughing their asses off, because not only will everything that's discussed be considered classified and therefore not helpful to the Democrats politically, but now they can call the Democrats out for holding up the flow of government (ineffective as it is) for another "petty attempt at character assassination" or some such crap. Craig's right; whether you agree with his assessment of the reasons we went to war, forcing a double-secret probation hearing of massively ineffectual consequences just shows that the Democratic leadership doesn't understand what game is actually being played and what it's going to take to win it.

Jason: I'm trying to think of how to explain how wrong you are, but I'll let others do the dirty work for me.

From Kos

"For more than two years we have been seeking this investigation. Finally thru the course of this closed session we were able to get the attention of the majority and lock in (with a timeline) the commitment of the senate intelligence committee to investigate how intelligence was manipulated and manufactured with. Its an investigation we desperately need."

This wasn't a double-secret probation hearing. This was the Democrats forcing the GOP to actually address the issue of intelligence manipulation that they've been putting off for years now. The Dems have few tools at their disposal to get results. This is one of them. I, for one, am continually impressed by Harry Reid. I think he has a far greater grasp of what game is actually being played than you are apparently giving him credit for.

Here's a much better analysis of what potentially occurred today by Mark Schmitt, someone I read regularly on TPMCafe.com.

Power Shifts

Draw your own conclusions, of course, but I think this moment might be quite a bit more important than some of you believe it to be. Time will tell.

Harry Reid is doing much more than simply confronting those who have lied us into war. He is giving hope to many of us who wondered if the Democrats would ever become the opposition party. Way to go Harry! It is time for government to work for the people, all of us, and stop simply working for the Republican Party.

This one was explained to me on another site that the man in question was a drug dealer, and in the past dealers have been known to try and hide the drugs on children.

Then the police should have included searching the person of the child in the warrant. Of course he was a drug dealer, that's why the police wanted to search him in the first place, but warrants are supposed to be narrowly focused and to say that a warrant to search one person "naturally" implies searching the bodies of anyone in his immediate family is a very bad precedent.

Even if you accept that searching an adult's body implies the right to search his children's, how does that then extend to searching his wife? Is his wife considered an extension of his body?

Yes, the deference given to the police in the Doe v. Goody case gives me pause; it seems to me that defenders of Alito are saying that going by the wording of the warrant is being too....legalistic. Hm. Isn't that the POINT of the law in events like these? To be precise so that there's no intrusiveness above the strictly necessary?

Again, from Kos, courtesy of Maryscott O'Connor:

"The media shills kept trying to ask why he didn't consult with Frist (the gist of Frist's complaint was, essentially, that he wasn't consulted).

Finally, when asked one more time, Reid sighed exasperatedly and said, forcefully, "CONSULT with him? CONSULT with him so he could SHUT IT DOWN before it got to the point? WHY would I do that??? You guys need to learn a little bit about Senate procedure. We wouldn't be standing here talking about it if I had CONSULTED him."

Whereupon he looked at his Democratic colleagues and asked if they had anything to add. Amused, Durbin said something like, "You said it all.""

Not even FauxNews can deny the truth every time the shit hits the fan with the Bush Administration. Every now and then they have to give the impression that they are, indeed, supposedly "fair and balanced".

Which is also my point to those who say "New York Times liberal?!? Why, they reported all kinds of bad things about Bill Clinton!"

The social conservatives put the final nail in that coffin when they decided to sink Miers for not being enough of a blatant ideologue.

Wow, that has to be a record for historical revisionism. Just go back to PAD's entry on October 9th We'll never forget good ol' What's-her-name and tell me that the ones who opposed her were "social conservatives".

It was eventually only a few social conservatives who ended up backing her and that wasn't enough. Even before the White House started frantically sending signals that she was indeed a strong conservative, most conservatives opposed her (go back and read the posts on the National Review webpage if you don't believe me). After the White House response she lost many of those few who were on the fence. The fact is, she was unqualified and set a poor precedent and conservatives and liberals were correct in pointing this out.

I rather doubt that Alito is anywhere near as conservative as Miers would have been--Bush knows her way better than he ever could Alito. I can see liberals being upset in going from an ineffective conservative to one who is both conservative and good at what he does but let's not imply that Mier's defeat was something that only (or even mostly) socal conservatives were behind.

Why not? The right has been using the exact same argument everytime anything appears in the media that is even remotely critical of a republican or nice about a democrat for the past 20+ years.

Hey, if you want to sound like Ann Coulture...:)

it doesn't surprise me that he's more competent than Miers: I could coherently argue that my youngest cat is more competent to be on the court than Miers. (Among other things, he exhibits a hell of a lot more independent thought.)

I always had you pegged as a secret social conservative...

I think either Gore or Kerry could have done a great deal of good by setting up, in effect, a "shadow government" detailing what policies they had in mind and presenting an alternative to Bush's. Get the debate out there.

I think that's actually a great idea, though fraught with peril. Why shouldn't a candidate tell us who their cabinet would be? Especially if they are getting some good talent. (the danger, I guess, is that if anyone you pick ends up having some skeleton in their closet you will take some hard lumps in the news cycle.).

Of course, Gore would have had a hard time doing that since he was part of the administration when he ran.

The key to doing this well would be to be seen as something other than reactive--if it ends up just being you reading the news of the day and then going on TV and droning on about what you WOULD have done differently...not so impressive.

After 9/11, basically no one was willing to stand up in opposition to the Patriot Act.

Why assume that the folks who voted for the Act actually wanted to vote against it? Bush is weak now, so where is the movement to undo the Act?

Now if I were a Senator with presidential ambitions, I'd stake out the potentially lucrative niche of "Catastrophe Preventer". Be the guy who is always trying to get more money for New Orleans levees, stockpiling of anti-flu vaccines, NASA anti-asteroid detection, that sort of thing. So if you get, um, lucky and one of those things happens you can pop up on TV and talk about how if only everyone had listened to you...

How often do genuinely liberal ideas really get examined in the media?

Well, it begs the question, what are "genuinely liberal ideas"? I don't think you have to be espousing Noam Chomsky to be a genuine liberal.

It's always taken as a given that yes, Saddam has WMD's;

He did. That's just a fact. He may have gotten rid of them but he did have them. That's not a conservative or liberal thing; many good liberals thought he had them and would use them against our soldiers, one of the reasons they opposed the war.

that yes, Social Security is in an obvious crisis;

Part of the reason for this was that some liberals have portrayed every dollar spent in non-social security expenditures as somehow being one more dollar that wasn't going to "save" social security.

The media has been crying wolf on SS for too long to now suddenly admit that the program isn't in such terrible shape.

that yes, Abu Ghraib was only the result of a few misfits and not policy;

I don't know if it's been proven that this wasn't the case, though I certainly think that the loose policies encouraged the misfits (and why were such people even in that position? These prisoners may well have had useful information and they were being guarded by refugees from Plato's Retreat?)

that yes, the only way to personal morality is through religious faith;

I don't see that at all.

and that yes, most of Europe is opposed to Bush because they hate freedom.

The Good Morning America bit was clumsy but I think it's a major major overstatement to say that the media portrayed Europe's hostility to Bush as a reaction against freedom.

All that said, it would be great to have, as you say, some coherent people to frame a real debate.

every time I see another opinion column, letter to the editor or Internet post that talks about the "liberal bias" supposedly dominating the media. I imagine picking up a newspaper largely filled with articles about the administration, all of them describing the actions of "the Great Leader President GEORGE W. BUSH" and "Dear Leader Vice-President DICK CHENEY," and wonder if that would make the Bush fans happy.

I again invite people to check out the National review blog, the Corner. Might surprise you.

You can try to argue that the Left should be above this, and appeal to the intelligence of the American people. But we've tried this strategy, and it hasn't worked. No one has ever gone wrong underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

I would suggest that A-you haven't really tried it and B-people can usually tell when you think that they are stupid. It doesn't make them want to vote for you.

My response is why would I vote for a paler, even more ineffectual version of what I'm disappointed in already. If the Democrats want my vote, grow a spine and give me a plan I can get behind - Please, I'm begging you. Because if you get your crap together, most likely the Republicans might straighten up, too, and irregardless of who wins, we'll get some folks in office interested in leading.

Jason, that's the post of the day. Right on.

Knuckles:

Finally, when asked one more time, Reid sighed exasperatedly and said, forcefully, "CONSULT with him? CONSULT with him so he could SHUT IT DOWN before it got to the point? WHY would I do that??? You guys need to learn a little bit about Senate procedure. We wouldn't be standing here talking about it if I had CONSULTED him."

Damn. Reid said THAT?

Hell, maybe there's hope for these guys after all.

(I did hear Frist's statement before that bemoaning the fact that he hadn't been consulted. Frickin' crybaby -- sure, you want to accuse someone of not playing fair when they *use* the rules, but you've got no problem unilaterally changing them. Twit.)

Me, then Bill:

I think either Gore or Kerry could have done a great deal of good by setting up, in effect, a "shadow government" detailing what policies they had in mind and presenting an alternative to Bush's. Get the debate out there.

I think that's actually a great idea, though fraught with peril. Why shouldn't a candidate tell us who their cabinet would be? Especially if they are getting some good talent.

Agreed ... not surprisingly, I guess, given that you were responding to my idea in the first place. Opposition parties in England have been doing similar things from time to time, and I think it makes tons of sense. (I also like the idea that Democrats need an equivalent of the Contract With America, though I'll snarkily add that maybe they could actually stick to the promises they made in the bargain.)

After 9/11, basically no one was willing to stand up in opposition to the Patriot Act.

Why assume that the folks who voted for the Act actually wanted to vote against it?

I don't assume that all of them did. I assume that some of them did -- some of them have said as much, so it seems a safe enough assumption. Given the climate of the time, though, voting against the bill would undoubtedly have been likened to getting up and delivering an impassioned defense of the Rosenbergs.

Bush is weak now, so where is the movement to undo the Act?

Bush is weak. The Republican spin machine is not, and given the name of the act it would be incredibly simple to tar people as unpatriotic. Kerry tried to talk about the fact that parts of the act were insane, and was tarred as everything from coward to traitor for it. Gee, no wonder nobody else is stepping up.

How often do genuinely liberal ideas really get examined in the media?

Well, it begs the question, what are "genuinely liberal ideas"? I don't think you have to be espousing Noam Chomsky to be a genuine liberal.

Nor do I.

You want genuinely liberal ideas?

Single-payer health care. I don't think anybody's ever breathed a word about it since Paul Wellstone passed on.

Ending corporate tax shelters, particularly those aimed at well-off CEO's. The Constitution was not designed to be of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Continuing to expand and entrench civil rights and civil liberties -- and yes, that'll absodamnlutely include gay marriage. (You may say gay marriage gets discussed, but I don't see newspapers or news shows ever treating the issue fairly, let alone favorably.)

Public financing of elections and the end to fund-raising as a political tool.

There's the beginning of a list.

It's always taken as a given that yes, Saddam has WMD's;

He did.

Sophistry. You changed the tense and thus the argument. The rationale for war was that Saddam Can Kill Us All Next Month If We Don't Stop Him Now, and it was 110% horseshit. No media outlet even considered questioning the claims until well after the fact, and conservative shills like Judith Miller beat the war drums by passing on lies from Ahmad Chalabi.

In your words, "that's just a fact."

that yes, Social Security is in an obvious crisis;

Part of the reason for this was that some liberals have portrayed every dollar spent in non-social security expenditures as somehow being one more dollar that wasn't going to "save" social security.

So what's your point? Sure, some liberals used poor phrasing (and I've no doubt that sometimes it was done deliberately). That hardly excuses the media for giving Bush's cries of Elderly Wolf blind credence.

that yes, Abu Ghraib was only the result of a few misfits and not policy;

I don't know if it's been proven that this wasn't the case,

There was a time when the media actually contained people called ... oh, what was it ... ah, yes -- investigative journalists. People who'd actually check these things out for themselves rather than relying on the latest White House press release or a sermon on "stuff happens" from Father Donald. Yet they're inexplicably unable, unwilling, or incompetent when it comes to investigating what frankly are flat-out war crimes. I'd like to know why.

The Good Morning America bit was clumsy but I think it's a major major overstatement to say that the media portrayed Europe's hostility to Bush as a reaction against freedom.

I'm not saying they did so deliberately, but the way they framed presentation made it very easy to think so. It's rather like the way Bush/Cheney/etc. always brought up Saddam and 9/11 in the same breath, but never actually said the one was behind the other. (Except, of course, that Bush/Cheney most assuredly did do so deliberately.)

people can usually tell when you think that they are stupid. It doesn't make them want to vote for you.

Doesn't seem to have hurt Bush any, and so far as I can tell he thinks every single one of us is as dopey and intellectually incurious as he is. I can't think of a single instance where he's made it clear that he thinks the American people are intelligent.

(To bring up one of my usual topics, I know many many people who've heard Dean speak in person, and they've all talked about (a) his own obvious intelligence, and (b) his delight in having intelligent debates and defending ideas.)

Jason, that's the post of the day. Right on.

Seconded. Beautifully, beautifully put.

TWL

Bush is weak now, so where is the movement to undo the Act?

There is none. The House not only renewed all parts, but added more death penalty to it as well

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/21/patriot.act/index.html

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/13020444.htm

(You may say gay marriage gets discussed, but I don't see newspapers or news shows ever treating the issue fairly, let alone favorably.)

Now that I find interesting because down here in old North Carolina the raliegh paper has been accused of constantly portraying gay couples in a positive light and beating the drum for gay marriage. Since I support gay rights this doesn't bother me much but I'm amazed that New Jersey would be less sympathetic.

As far as TV shows...all I've seen have been sympathetic gays and usually less sympathetic opponents (though that may be my bias showing). What could be more fair?

Sophistry. You changed the tense and thus the argument.

Granted, I totally misread what you said.

So what's your point? Sure, some liberals used poor phrasing (and I've no doubt that sometimes it was done deliberately). That hardly excuses the media for giving Bush's cries of Elderly Wolf blind credence.

Well if your argument is that the media is allowing conservatives to frame the debate and your example is that they claim that Social Security is in crisis, wouldn't pointing out that this claim has been used by BOTH liberals and conservatives be a counter argument?

There was a time when the media actually contained people called ... oh, what was it ... ah, yes -- investigative journalists.

Yeah, that really chaps my hide as well. What happened to these people? They got lazy, they became media stars instead of real reporters...we still don't know if the Bush national Guard papers were real and apparently nobody is going to bother to find out (the fact that CBS isn't aggressively trying to answer that question probably does answer the question).

I would happily advise someone to go into journalism now. The bar has been set so low one could really become a major force just by emulating the giants of the past.

(To bring up one of my usual topics, I know many many people who've heard Dean speak in person, and they've all talked about (a) his own obvious intelligence, and (b) his delight in having intelligent debates and defending ideas.)

that didn't come across well but it wouldn't be the first time a person's TV persona did not match their real one. People tell me that one on one Al Gore is a funny guy, while on TV, well, damn.

Now that I find interesting because down here in old North Carolina the raliegh paper has been accused of constantly portraying gay couples in a positive light and beating the drum for gay marriage.

Oh, portraying gay couples in a positive light isn't all that unusual -- but if there's really a paper in Raleigh that seems to be beating the drum for gay marriage, I'd love to see an example of how they're doing so. Accusations of such don't surprise me -- for some people, particularly those on the far religious right, portraying gays as anything other than demon-spawn is probably seen as trying to recruit children.

As far as TV shows...all I've seen have been sympathetic gays and usually less sympathetic opponents (though that may be my bias showing). What could be more fair?

Are you talking about news programs here, or entertainment?

So what's your point? Sure, some liberals used poor phrasing (and I've no doubt that sometimes it was done deliberately). That hardly excuses the media for giving Bush's cries of Elderly Wolf blind credence.

Well if your argument is that the media is allowing conservatives to frame the debate and your example is that they claim that Social Security is in crisis, wouldn't pointing out that this claim has been used by BOTH liberals and conservatives be a counter argument?

Fair enough, at least to a point. I'd argue that liberals never used the claim in nearly as major a way, but I suppose that gives conservatives credit for playing a damn good switcheroo.

There was a time when the media actually contained people called ... oh, what was it ... ah, yes -- investigative journalists.

Yeah, that really chaps my hide as well. What happened to these people? They got lazy, they became media stars instead of real reporters...we still don't know if the Bush national Guard papers were real and apparently nobody is going to bother to find out (the fact that CBS isn't aggressively trying to answer that question probably does answer the question).

More importantly as regards that issue ... forget the papers. I haven't seen any mainstream media outlet put together a real investigative report on what is and is not known about Bush's service or lack thereof. The papers are a part of that, but the flap over that one story did a marvelous job of distracting from the real questions regarding those years.

TWL

(I also like the idea that Democrats need an equivalent of the Contract With America, though I'll snarkily add that maybe they could actually stick to the promises they made in the bargain.)

I think it would be a brilliant idea, and so would the shadow government idea. Bush tried the latter, announcing several of his cabinet nominations before the 2000 election (largely to counteract his own lack of foreign policy experience).

I would take issue with the snarky addition, largely because the Republican House majority actually did pass nearly everything in the contract, and even overrode President Clinton's veto on one portion. It's one thing if you think they're right-wing nutjobs, but honestly you should give them credit for being sincere right-wing nutjobs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_With_America

Re: Jason's post
Seconded. Beautifully, beautifully put.

Agreed. I think that's why I'm so addicted to The West Wing this season-- the fake election is between two articulate, intelligent, and patriotic contenders, and wouldn't it be nice if the two parties really put some effort into giving us that choice in real life?

For what it's worth, today's Washington Post -- no bastion of conservative activism -- has a big feature profile on Alito that quotes a long roster of his liberal friends who suggest he's a good judge, a good man, and an honest strict constructionist, not an ideologue like Scalia.

Here's another interesting tidbit. This is Alito's dissent on the Planned Parenthood case that keeps getting so much attention:

Although the plaintiffs and supporting amici argue that Section 3209 will do little if any good and will produce appreciable adverse effects, the Pennsylvania legislature presumably decided that the law on balance would be beneficial. We have no authority to overrule that legislative judgment even if we deem it unwise or worse. We should not forget that legislatures are ultimate guardians of the liberty and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts.

I don't know how typical this is of him, but that seems very much like someone who wants the courts and the legislatures to do their own separate jobs. If the people want a law, they need to go to the legislature or the people, not the courts.

If this is the worst the Democrats can find on him, then I don't see how they will be able to filibuster him.

I haven't seen any mainstream media outlet put together a real investigative report on what is and is not known about Bush's service or lack thereof. The papers are a part of that, but the flap over that one story did a marvelous job of distracting from the real questions regarding those years.

My impression was that the CBS story WAS an attempt to do an actual investigative report but they didn't find anything that would have made any kind of impact--until the papers showed up. Sometimes your investigation may end up revealing that there isn't anything worth investigating.

Are you talking about news programs here, or entertainment?

Well, gays in entertainment are always always positive and anyone who tries to do otherwise will probably get more grief than it's worth. I'm talking about news programs where people debate issues for a segment--usually it's the pro-gay marriage people who come off better, in my opinion.

Here's an example of the News And Observer: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1999150p-8384940c.html

And you're correct, it hardly qualifies as "beating the drums" for gay marriage. It's quite fair to both sides.

I don't know if it's been proven that this wasn't the case, though I certainly think that the loose policies encouraged the misfits (and why were such people even in that position? These prisoners may well have had useful information and they were being guarded by refugees from Plato's Retreat?)

As far as I'm concerned, I've seen enough to convince me that Abu Gharib was not isolated. There's be at least 24 deaths connected to interrogation in several different locations. Capt. Ian Fishback has testified as to the general indifference as to treatment of prisoner (some of those who died were considered innocent of any wrong doing by their interrogators). and this was traced directly back to the Administration's directives about prisoner interrogation.

What disgusts me about this Administration is they are so INCOMPETENT at execution....and so it's totally fine for them to slip into brutality as long as it's for God and country.

In a lot of ways, the terrorists HAVE won. And they're too stupid to know it.

My impression was that the CBS story WAS an attempt to do an actual investigative report but they didn't find anything that would have made any kind of impact--until the papers showed up. Sometimes your investigation may end up revealing that there isn't anything worth investigating.

I don't think there's really much evidence one way or the other about what they'd have come up with had the papers not surfaced. The papers pretty much overrode anything else they might have had.

Could it be that they simply didn't find anything else? Sure -- but I don't think enough cards on the table for me to bet on that.

I'm talking about news programs where people debate issues for a segment--usually it's the pro-gay marriage people who come off better, in my opinion.

I'll admit I don't get a chance to see such programs very often, but I'm not sure I can even remember one where a featured debater was actually pro-gay marriage. Civil unions, sure. (I'm not saying I don't believe you -- in fact, I'd really like to -- but I haven't seen it yet.)

Here's an example of the News And Observer: [...] And you're correct, it hardly qualifies as "beating the drums" for gay marriage. It's quite fair to both sides.

I'd tend to agree -- it's certainly not pro-gay marriage, but it's more evenhanded than most articles I've seen. I could quibbble with a few wording choices here and there, but on the whole I think this was a very fair treatment. Thanks for it.

TWL

Regarding the Strip Search Ruling:

What I've got from other sources is that in the Affidavits that police submitted in applying for their warrant they specified, multiple times, that the wanted permission to search the occupants of the property to be searched. It was said that there was not enough room in the relavant section/box of the warrant to put that, so they attached the Affidavit to warrant (also signed by the magistrate) and gave a served a copy of warrant (with attached affidavit) when conducting the search. The wife a daughter were searched by a female officer in the bathroom.

It seems to me that the relavant points of dispute are:

1) whether attaching the affidavit is the same as having it in the warrant. Does not specifying occupants on the formal warrant invalidate the search or does attaching the affidavit which explicitly mentions the search of the occupants make it "good enough." My personal opinion and understanding of the constitutional issues involved is that warrants are to be narrowly interpreted and that they should have written "continued on back" or see attached sheet which would have also been signed or at least initialed by the judge. Judge Alito saw it differently.

2) There is also the question of, even is the police were allowed to conduct a search, whether the scope of the warrant allowed the police to conduct a strip-search. I have no idea about the state of law on this question, but I'd guess that it could or the question of whether the search was actually in the warrant wouldn't have come up.

Who is too stupid to know it: the terrorists, or the administration?

I haven't seen any mainstream media outlet put together a real investigative report on what is and is not known about Bush's service or lack thereof.

Boston Globe did in 2000, but it was completly ignored until 2004, when the mainstream media did a half-assed job covering it.

Holding our elected officials responsible for their actions, especially if they are proven to have lied to the American people - I definitely agree with that. I agreed with it when President Clinton was called to the carpet about the Lewinsky stuff (I don't care about whether or not something happened, just that he lied about it). Same thing with the Iraq War; if it turns out the intelligence was manipulated to purposely use it to lie to build a case for war, then we need to hold those involved responsible. But my issue is that Harry Reid and all are acting all excited, like this was a true act of leadership. You guys are making fun of Frist; well, he's likely out of the running for 2008 because of his recent scandals, so who better to be the figurehead victim of the Republican party? Congratulations: Reid got the ball rolling on a classified investigation that will take a year or two to complete, likely not be (officially) disclosed for a couple of years after that (and if it's unofficially disclosed? well, golly, I guess we'll be firing and trying any Democrats who'd dare leak classified materials, like old Scooter), the Republicans can add one more act of legislative obstruction to the list they're keeping on the Democrats for next year's election theme of making government more efficient in the wake of FEMA's example of bureaucracy inaction, and I'm still waiting to hear how voting Democrat at any point in the near future is going to markedly change course for this country.

BTW, I'm coming off like a somewhat angry cuss today, but I'm not pissed at anyone on here. My frustration is squarely placed on the apparent dearth of competence that's infecting our government at nearly all levels right now.

I mean, damn, just do ONE FREAKING THING RIGHT! I'd be so happy if one good thing happened in government by the end of the year. Maybe that should be the citzenry's campaign slogan for the 2006 election - Just One Freaking Thing Right.

My 4 year old child uses the "they did it first" arguement all the time. My 7 year old is now too mature to use that excuse (I taught him better than that). Evidently see some people never outgrow 1st graders.

It's not about who did it first, Jerry. It's the fact that the right has been making "attack the messenger" their standard reply to any criticism of their policies, to the point that it was a major theme of Bush I's unsuccessful reelection campaign. For them to now cry foul because the left has finally figured out that they can make the same argument is nothing but hypocrisy.

(From the folks at the Blame Bush Blog...because, after all, Bush is to blame for everything bad that happens)
The Perfect Supreme Court for Lyberals, I mean, Progressyves:

Gender: 4 Womyn, 4 Men and one transgendered.

Sexuality: 2 Heterosexuals, 2 Homosexuals, 2 bisexuals, one pedophile, one eunuch and one foot-fetishist.

Race: 1 (genuine) African American, 1 cracker, 1 Latino-American, 1 Inuit American, 1 Arab-American, 1 Native American, 1 Asian American, 2 French people.

Religion: 0 KKKristians, 2 Atheists, 2 Religion of Peace adherents, 1 Jedi, 3 Pagans, and 1 satanist.

Height: 1 Giant, two tall, two medium, two short, two midgets.

Weight: 3 Clinically obese, 2 Anoerexics and 4 yo-yo dieters.

Politics: 9 democrats.

Educational Achievements: 4 illiterates, 4 ivy league professors and 1 in between.

Chemical Dependencies: 2 'clean', 3 dope smokers, 1 crackhead, one LSD hallucinator, one wino and one glue sniffer.

And if the Chimperor fails to give us a court like this then it shows that he is just like Hitler, only less articulate.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

>>They try to persuade and reason with people, to sway them with logic and reality.
>That's not what politicians do.

That's precisely what won the Ontario provincial Tories (Canada's answer to the Republicans) a large majority almost ten years ago. They didn't attack the party in power, they simply offered what sounded like a reasonable alternative, the 'Common Sense Revolution' they called it. And people bought into it in droves, which was unfortunate, because they then realized they should have asked to see the fine print. Oh, once in power the Tories did exactly what they'd said they do ... the same way an exterminator can be said to have fulfilled his contract by torching your home and then claiming to have rid you of that pesky termite problem.

>If the Democrats want my vote, grow a spine and give me a plan I can get behind

A politician with a spine? Ain't gonna happen, because this would require them to ignore what the people want and give them instead what they really need. And that doesn't fly in election campaigns.

>Who is too stupid to know it: the terrorists, or the administration?

The people.

>I don't care about whether or not something happened, just that [Clinton] lied about it

I do care. He showed callous disrespect for the institution of marriage - one of the long-acknowledged cornerstones of our society - and, worse, disrespect for the office (literally as well as figuratively) of the Presidency. Not to mention apparently using his power (a well-known aphrodisiac) to take sexual advantage from at least one underling. Teachers and doctors wind up in jail for it. Why should he be exempt?

"Actually, that's exactly what Bill Frist said he was going to do, until he realized that the Harry Reid just kicked his ass."

Violence will never solve anything. When will Lyberals, I mean, Progressyves learn that? Actually, Bill Frist left the chambers immediately to go buy some didees for his wittwe Democwat cwybabies. I believe he also inquired: "Does oo wantum oo baby bottwes too?"

"and that yes, most of Europe is opposed to Bush because they hate freedom."

Sure, we hate freedom in our little banana republics here in Europe.

Or maybe some were opposed because the US changed into a unpredictable nation which really seems to believe that the end justifies the means and which claim the right to bomb each and everyone back into the stone-age they declare a threat. And proof be damned. Oh, and of course because it is God´s will.

No doubt Saddam was a dictator. But the world is full of equally nasty countries and nobody gave a damn either. This whole "we bring freedom"-thing is a hypocricy at best and a lie at worst.

Before 9/11 the crazy Taliban could happily turn their country into a slaugtherhouse and nobody gave a damn. They could stone a woman to death because she flashed her ankle or read a book, and aside a few whiners - maybe your pesky liberals - no american gave a shit.

This whole "war on terror" nonsense didn´t reduce the threat one bit, the Saddam fiasko only turned the country into a breeding ground for the next generation of terrorists and did destabilize the whole region. As the lunatics in Iran aptly demonstrated these days.

If your media really spouts nonsense like "Europe hates freedom" it is no wonder that relations are strained. And rightly so.

I mean, damn, just do ONE FREAKING THING RIGHT!

Well, maybe, just maybe, the Bush Administration's plan for a potential bird flu pandemic will be something on the path to doing the right thing.

The only glitch here is that it's a plan of necessity, not of voluntary willingness to do something useful.

And then we'll still have to make sure that, if it is a sound plan, it's actually carried out - although states are already throwing a fit over Bush's desire to see each state spend its own money to stockpile flu vaccinations.

I spent 11 years of my military career in the MidEast and got to work with a great many NATO & UN Troops from Europe. They were some of the toughest people on the planet. It was an honor and, in a couple of cases, a lifesaver, to be with them. And their political attitude made me look like a California Lyberal, I mean, Progressyve.

"Making the best of a weak hand, Democrats argued that the case was not about petty-ante perjury but, as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid put it, "about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president." The problem here is that the one undisputed liar in this whole sordid affair doesn't work for the administration. In his attempts to turn his wife into an antiwar martyr, Joseph C. Wilson IV has retailed more whoppers than Burger King."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot2nov02,0,6326316.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

And their political attitude made me look like a California Lyberal, I mean, Progressyve.

And your posts make you look like a moron, I mean... well, yeah, a moron.

Craig: Please welcome back X-Ray.

Jason: I agree with your point about the Democrats not giving you a reason to vote for them. To be quite frank, it's the Republicans that have given me reasons to NOT vote for them, and I'm quite shocked that most people don't view it the same way. That said, I think if the Dems could come up with a very cogent argument (and for fuck's sake, there are so goddam many of them floating around out there) and coherent theme, I think they could truly clean the floor. The problem is that Democrats don't tend to march in lockstep with each other. I'll give the GOP this: they are very good at agreeing to a message, and staying on that message. Party loyalty above all else. The Dems simply are not.

Both Jason and Knuckles are right: The GOP has been going out of their way to make me want to vote AGAINST them, while the dems have failed to give us a compelling reason to FOR them.

As for the GOP marching in lockstep, that appears to be unravelling. I've been predicting an eventual schism between the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives and its finally coming to pass. The iron is hot and if Reid's actions are any indication, the dems are ready to strike.

Oh, and welcome back, X-ray.

Like most Dems, I think I've been hoping that guys like Reid and Dean would give the party an infusion of spine. It appears to be working. I know a lot of people like Nancy Pelosi, but I haven't been impressed by her minority leadership in the House as of yet. Hell, I'm still pissed off about her weak-ass response to the SOU address two years ago. Me, I'd like Rahm Emmanuel in charge, but he's not senior enough to do that. The guy is an absolute pitbull. I'm very pleased with what I've been seeing out of Reid since he took over from Daschle (who I found to be completely spineless and utterly useless), and I'm moderately pleased with Dean. What I would prefer out of the good doctor if for his position as head of the DNC to not get in the way of his mouth.

At least SOME Democrats are willing to go for the jugular with a little bit of blood lust-- http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20051101-104932-4054r.htm

They've been pelting a black Republican with--hold your sides!-- Oreo Cookies! Along with obtaining his credit card records (which is illegal but you can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs). And this is being defended by legit Democratic leaders, not just the fringies.

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.
"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

Maybe if they burned a cross on his yard he's stop being different. (he's also the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland so one might wonder if being different doesn't have its up side).

I've said it in other threads, and I still think it holds true that one of the major uniting/dividing factors for each party is their particular special interests. Many, not all of them, but many of the Republican Party's special interests are very complimentary, to the point that you get a lot of crossover appeal. I think this is much less pronounced in the Democratic Party, most likely because the special interests involved often have much more narrowly defined missions. Now, these are my own perceptions, and even if I'm right, I don't think it's an overwhelming factor on either side, but I think the scales are definitely tipped in the Republican's favor regarding this. I think a good "Come to Jesus" summit of all the Democrats' special interests' leadership to get everyone on the same page and platform might go a long way towards fixing this and make things much more competitive.

As for Knuckles and Den, I agree that the reasons for not voting Republican are growing. But as you both point out, I've been given no corresponding reason to vote for Democrats, especially since they can't seem to make themselves look like anything other than the Republicans' little brother, who may have some different ideas than his big bro but still follows most of his big bro says, because when he doesn't, he gets a wedgie.

I know some of you are thinking that the Democrats gave a wedgie to the Republicans yesterday with the closed session, but it won't mean squat unless something results from it. And are they really going to prove that President Bush KNEW that the information he had was fabricated, smoothed over, or somehow manipulated to build the case for war? If Rumsfield simply presented only the worst case scenario to the President, is that manipulating the information or doing his job? If the information was proven to be flat-out wrong - after we were already at war - were people wrong for using the best information available at the time to examine the issue? We might, might, wind up getting Rumsfield to resign over negligence for not presenting the whole case both for and against war, but I doubt we'll ever be able to prove, regardless of whether they ever did or not, that the policymakers knowingly lied about the intelligence data. Did they spin it to get a desired result? You betcha. Is it a crime to present what you think is factual information in the best light possible to support your case? I don't think so.

Bill: You are familiar, of course, with Mr. Steele? This is the elected official who happens to be black who said he saw nothing inappropriate whatsoever with a fellow Republican holding a fund-raiser at a whites only country club. The people who are attacking him in the press and pelting him with Oreo cookies during his campaign aren't simply Democrats, they are African-Americans. Their status as Democrats is a side issue that detracts from the real point: white only country clubs are abhorrent.

I know some of you are thinking that the Democrats gave a wedgie to the Republicans yesterday with the closed session, but it won't mean squat unless something results from it. And are they really going to prove that President Bush KNEW that the information he had was fabricated, smoothed over, or somehow manipulated to build the case for war? If Rumsfield simply presented only the worst case scenario to the President, is that manipulating the information or doing his job?

This argument, of course, is a straw man.

You AREN'T doing your job if you present only the worst case; you ignore the possibility that your intelligence for the worst case sprang from a very untrustworthy source. This lack of vetting has been emblematic of the Bush administration, as it has continuously relied on wishful thinking instead of hard headed analysis of the facts.

"...Not that you'll hear that inconvenient fact from the right-wing insta-pundits"

please do not lump a vast majority of the republican party as being right-wing, that is an insult to the right-wing. Because as the republican party moves more and more to the moral conservative, it isolates "true" conservatives who are now being found without a party to support their views.

Forget Roe v. Wade
what about the supreme court ruling over eminent domain, that is more important to me than the touchy abortion topic. forget wether it is murder or not murder, how about making sure that private property remains private property (unless being taken for public use and fair market value is paid) and that this private property is not taken and sold to a corporation, otherwise you might not have a house to sit around and contemplate wether abortion is murder or not.

perhaps the problem with our congressman and our media, is that we are so focused on religious affiliation instead of wether someone is really conservative or not.

Do you want a true conservative viewpoint on abortion, here it is. pick a point inwhich we call it a life. If it is conseption, fine, if it is birth, fine, if it is at 3 months, fine. but pick a point. before that is abortion, after that is murder. End of discussion. Now lets get over the abortion issue and perhaps the republicans can become conservative once again (first of all by learning what the words "fiscal conservative" mean)

this is a conservative view of this because the right opinion should be that government regulation is fine, but government controll is not.

Who is too stupid to know it: the terrorists, or the administration?

Yes.

I know some of you are thinking that the Democrats gave a wedgie to the Republicans yesterday with the closed session, but it won't mean squat unless something results from it. And are they really going to prove that President Bush KNEW that the information he had was fabricated, smoothed over, or somehow manipulated to build the case for war? If Rumsfield simply presented only the worst case scenario to the President, is that manipulating the information or doing his job?

I have to agree with roger, this is not a good argument.

so lets discuss the cause for war in iraq and the "lies" used to build the case

Fact: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the 90's, the US military saw these during the first gulf war, and the UNMOVIC inpectors physically saw them.

Fact: While some biochemical agents have been found in Iraq, nothing in the quantities that we knew existed

Fact: From the report of the UN inpectors in 1993 to Hans Blix in 2002, Iraq went from having VX gas and other Biochemical and Biological agents to having none.

Fact: Hans Blix said that he was shown no evidence and no proof that the known agents were destroyed.

Those facts are, i beleive, justificaiton for war. the problem is that Bush did not have the guts to confront the american public with these facts and back his original desicion, this is because he is a man who cannot stick by his decisions and why (as a strong conservative) do not support Bush

Fact: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the 90's, the US military saw these during the first gulf war, and the UNMOVIC inpectors physically saw them.

Fact: They were originally given those WMD by the US.

Fact: No WMD have been found in Iraq since the invasion. No proof has been found that Saddam did not follow orders to get rid of the WMD after the Gulf War.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, Saddam never claimed to have WMD.

Unlike some other nations (like, oh, North Korea).

Justification? Far from it.

Bush just wanted a war, and he did and said everything he could to get it.

He's a lying son of a bitch that's cost the lives of more than 2000 American soldiers and unknown thousands of Iraqi civilians.

But I'm sure there are wonderful ways of spinning these facts.

Violence will never solve anything. When will Lyberals, I mean, Progressyves learn that? Actually, Bill Frist left the chambers immediately to go buy some didees for his wittwe Democwat cwybabies. I believe he also inquired: "Does oo wantum oo baby bottwes too?"

This is completely unrelated...but being the linguaphile I am, I'm curious.

I understand the intent of 'democwat cwybabies' and the phonetic spelling at the end of that paragraph. Using childish pronunciation emphasizes the point.

However, I am not understanding the intent of 'lyberals' and 'progressyves'. This doesn't change the pronunciation in any way, it's just spelled wrong. And I'm unaware of any political connotations related to the i/y usage, similar to the connotations one finds with the 'c/k' in 'Amerika'.

This is purely a scholarly pursuit of understanding the intent behind the wording chosen.

roger: Explain how asking two questions, presenting opposing options, is a straw man argument. I'm seriously just confused about why you're labeling it as such.

As for the content of my argument, if Rumsfield's job at the time was to respond to Bush's request for a threat analysis of Iraq, and if he presented the worst case scenario, the maximum amount of threat Iraq could be to us, based on what Rumsfield knew to be the best intelligence available, is that manipulating data or doing his job? Now, if Rumsfield has conflicting sets of intelligence - maybe not correct versus incorrect, but minimum versus maximum threat - and he decides to present maximum threat, what is that? Now, if Rumsfield flat out ignores solid intelligence that hurts his worst case scenario, what is that? There's an awful lot of 'what if's' for both sides to examine here, and I guess what I'm trying to point out is that to show any sort of wrongdoing in the buildup to the war, you're going to have to prove that at each successive level, the officials involved either knew the information given to them was bad or actively altered it to fit their particular needs. And each level was responding to a request from the next level up, so the request made is as important as the response given. And in the end, the filters that information had to get through to get to President Bush might have only left him with what he felt was the only way to look at it. In the end, everyone might have done their jobs correctly and still have gotten us to this point. Me personally, I think Rumsfield's the one who affected how intelligence was handled and what intelligence was presented further up the chain.

Pelting a candidate with oreos during a debate is wrong regardless of the color of the attackers. If Republicans did it to a Democrat because he was supportive of former KKK member Robert Byrd it would be equally wrong. Won't happen though, because they know the media would ream them, as opposed to the marked lack of attention that the Maryland Democrats will get.

It also indicates a lack of faith in the debating skills of one's own candidate but perhaps they know something I don't. Maryland Democratic Candidates are not exactly the envy of the nation.

Many, not all of them, but many of the Republican Party's special interests are very complimentary, to the point that you get a lot of crossover appeal. I think this is much less pronounced in the Democratic Party, most likely because the special interests involved often have much more narrowly defined missions.

Jason, you've been impressing me. That's a pretty good analysis. One probalem with the Democrats doing a Contract With America type deal would be in being able to say no to some of their constituants who would insist on having their own interests included. Gay marriage is a loser vote wise but the gay activists would want it included and might (legitimately) threaten to scuttle the deal if their interests were not dealt with. By the time it was over they would have a huge ungainly document, not anything that could be used for easy appeal.

What they need is one person who can instill some organiation--maybe Dean can pull it off. The others are trying to be president and won't be able to get their rivals to go along. Having tken himself out of the running Dean may have more power than if he was just another candidate out for his own self interest.

Fact: No WMD have been found in Iraq, however, biological agents are not classified as WMD unless they are found in quantities large enough to be seen as use for weapons.

Fact: When wanting to prove that one does not have WMD and has destroyed all relevent equipment. One keeps the information to prove that they have done so. Therefore, within the guidelines of the IAEA, the lack of proof that diarmament had occured was unanamously agreed upon by all members as proof that disarmament had not occured. (or did you only get your information for the entire situation only from american journalist. try opening your mind to other views, becasue making a judgment based upon one view point [and watching both cnn and fox news does not count because they are both american view points] is stupid, to make a judgement based upon 7 or 8 viewpoints to get a more accurate world view is [while not always accurate] more of a logical choice)

Fact: all this information can be found from the testomony of and following that of hans blix, from the transcripts of the UNMOVIC, IAEA, and from the International Security and Disarmament Council.

Fact: Most Americans only watch American media and attempt to make cognitive thesis based upon only this information (which is presented so that the uneducated in this country are able to understand and follow)

or did you only get your information for the entire situation only from american journalist.

Well, last I checked, the Downing Street Minutes were straight from Blair and his set of cronies.

And they too said the evidence was not there regarding Saddam's WMD.

It seems pretty straightforwad to me: there were no WMD to be found. Bush based this entire war on a pack of lies.

And we're going to pay for it for years to come.

Thank you, Dubya and his supporters.

"And they too said the evidence was not there regarding Saddam's WMD."

I have to agree with you, no evidence that when we went in that there were any WMD in Iraq. and no evidence that the WMD that everyone knew he had were ever destroyed. which is exactly what i said and what the IAEA and UNMOVIC said. that there was no evidence that the WMD in Iraq were destroyed. Hence they were either in Iraq or Sadam violated approxiamently 16 treaties by moving WMD across international lines.

again, i find justification. thank you for you help

Hence they were either in Iraq or Sadam violated approxiamently 16 treaties by moving WMD across international lines.

And here we are, back to the Ultimate Answer, no room for other possibilities.

But then, we have no proof that Saddam moved them either.

See, the problem here is you simply fail to acknowledge the possibility that Saddam did what he was told: that he destroyed his stockpile of WMD, and the has not had any for a decade.

It's always "he had them" or "he moved them". Yet you have no evidence to back such claims up. Just assumptions because you're stuck on the belief that you were right, and eveybody else was wrong.

"See, the problem here is you simply fail to acknowledge the possibility that Saddam did what he was told: that he destroyed his stockpile of WMD, and the has not had any for a decade."

perhaps i give saddam more credit than i should. I would have figured Saddam to have been smart enough to keep evidence that he did destroy them. I personally have to agree with the final ruling of the UNMOVIC which was that in a situation as important as this, no evidence of disarmament is a sign that no disarmament took place. Now that is the ruling of the UNMOVIC, not my personal opinion. so the entire international community thought that if Saddam had really destroyed them, then he would beable to have some evidence that this was done, either a piece of paper that told someone to destroy them, or perhaps something somewhere amongst the massive weapon list that was given to the UN that stated a specific biochemical agent and then next to it stated "destroyed". however, none of this was done. if he had truely destroyed his WMD do you honestly not think that there would be something somewhere that proved it. even if it was a Scud missle graveyard? something, are you that convinced that he didn't have them that you can't see past the logic that had he destroyed them, there would be something SOMEWHERE?

The international Community felt so, atleast those who are members of the IAEA and the UNMOVIC. but i mean, i'm sure that you have the supreme intellect that all of them do not have and you are able to see this situation so clearly.

roger: Explain how asking two questions, presenting opposing options, is a straw man argument. I'm seriously just confused about why you're labeling it as such.

And I'm confused why you're NOT seeing it as such.

Basically, you've over-simplified the situation (the essence of the straw man fallacy). You've stripped it down to an either/or situation; I've pointed out at least one factor (which points to the basic competence of this administration) which should NOT have been neglected.

"Pelting a candidate with oreos during a debate is wrong regardless of the color of the attackers. If Republicans did it to a Democrat because he was supportive of former KKK member Robert Byrd it would be equally wrong. Won't happen though, because they know the media would ream them, as opposed to the marked lack of attention that the Maryland Democrats will get.

It also indicates a lack of faith in the debating skills of one's own candidate but perhaps they know something I don't. Maryland Democratic Candidates are not exactly the envy of the nation."

My problem, Bill, is that you are attempting to get the entire Democratic party to take responsibility of a few people who threw Oreo cookies at a guy that they view as condoning whites only country clubs. You don't even know these people are Democrats. You're assuming they are because they don't like this guy. You're assuming they are because the one person in the article who was quoted happened to be a Democrat from Baltimore (how odd that the Washington Times would frame an article that way...). Me, I find it incredibly funny and very clever.

perhaps i give saddam more credit than i should. I would have figured Saddam to have been smart enough to keep evidence that he did destroy them.

Perhaps. But Saddam didn't stay in power as long as he did by being stupid. His army was trounced the first time around, and there really was no reason to think it wouldn't happen again (and, as history has shown, it did happen again... we just didn't account for insurgents).

I mean, really, on the face of it, Saddam has been pretty low-key since the Gulf War.

Yes, he was trying to pay families of Palestinians for blowing up Israeli's, but considering the rhetoric coming out of Iran, can you really use such an argument against Iraq and then ignore Iran? Not in my opinion.

are you that convinced that he didn't have them that you can't see past the logic that had he destroyed them, there would be something SOMEWHERE?

Yes, I'm pretty much convinced he didn't have them because we have not found them. Anywhere. At all.

Nothing in Iraq. No proof he moved them to Syria or anywhere else - and let's not forget, Saddam was on good terms with very few, if any, of his neighbors.

but i mean, i'm sure that you have the supreme intellect that all of them do not have and you are able to see this situation so clearly.

Supreme intellect? Apparently: they were all wrong.

But then, there were many doubts along the way. There were PLENTY of doubts within our own government, and from Britain as well.

Remember the claim by Bush in his SotU Address regarding Saddam trying to get uranium from Nigeria? Debunked... by Joe Wilson, who was sent to investigate (which is what lead to the whole "Plame Game" the Administration is caught up in).

But then, that info was debunked months before Bush's SotU, and he used it anyways, knowing it was wrong. If that's not a lie, well, then the sky is green.

Guys, you're arguing with a guy who is still convinced that Saddam had nukes. Why are you wasting your precious keystrokes?

I keep hoping we'll eventually reach the point where race will no longer be an issue in politics, but it's clear we still have a ways to go before we get there.

But, at least some people on both sides have the sense to disavow such tactics:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702115.html?nav=rss_technology

It's simple fact that black Americans still vote overwhelmingly democratic. As a big goofy white guy, I don't pretend to understand why the small number of black republicans generate so much ire from their own community. It's unfortunate, but until the republicans find a way to broader their appeal to black Americans, it isn't likely to change.

Why are you wasting your precious keystrokes?

Because keystrokes aren't that precious. :)

Jason, you've been impressing me. That's a pretty good analysis. One probalem with the Democrats doing a Contract With America type deal would be in being able to say no to some of their constituants who would insist on having their own interests included. Gay marriage is a loser vote wise but the gay activists would want it included and might (legitimately) threaten to scuttle the deal if their interests were not dealt with. By the time it was over they would have a huge ungainly document, not anything that could be used for easy appeal.

Good analysis. Right now, the democrats are not a unified party with a common set of goals or standards. They are coalitions of various interests united primarily by their opposition to Bush. The GOP have mastered playing the electoral map. They knew that the gay marriage and other hot button issues would play well in the south and sent their moderate faces (Scharzenegger, Giuliani) to Ohio. The dems keep thinking that all they need to do is run as the anti-Bush party. The problem with Reid's maneuver is that it's still them fighting against Bush. Until they show they're ready to fight for something, they aren't going to regain power.

Regarding Saddam and WMDs: It's clear now that they weren't there when we invaded in 2003 and there's no evidence to support that he moved them to Syria (if he had, Syria would be having a fire sale on nerve agent to every terrorist from Moracco to Indonesia). And the simple fact is, any nerve agent he had prior to 1992 would have long since degraded anyway. As for the nukes, that's a non-starter. It's clear now that he wasn't even close to building one.

I've been convinced that Saddam did destroy his stockpiles, but he played games with the inspectors for two reasons. One was to save face. If he didn't show at least some defiance to the inspectors, he'd look weak at home. The other is that I think he believe (mistakenly, as we now know), that the US would never invade Iraq if we believed there was a possibility that he could use chemical or biologial weapons on our troops. He thought he was safe as long as he could keep us guessing.

Anyway, that's just my hypothesis.

The essence of the straw man argument is to set up a dummy argument to tear down instead of the arguments your oponent is actually arguing.

Over simplification is over simplification.

The GOP is already making noises about eliminating the judicial filibuster. The Democrats should be right in their face, shouting, "Do it! C'mon, do it, you sum'bitches. Get rid of the filibuster, I double dog dare you. Because if you do, then sooner or later--probably sooner--the balance of power will be reversed, we'll be in charge, and we're going to make you eat whatever changes you make now to benefit yourselves, you hypocritical, smug, power-hungry jackasses."

Why couldn't the lame-duck congress just reverse the rules again before the session ends so they don't get stuck on the dirty end of that stick?

Den: Your hypothesis is the same as my hypothesis. One I've had since before the war started.

I keep hoping we'll eventually reach the point where race will no longer be an issue in politics, but it's clear we still have a ways to go before we get there.

Ahh, but Den, according to the article, the blogger who posted the 'minstrelized' photo of Steele was African-American himself. It's standard knowledge that one can use stereotypes to criticize a member of one's own minority.

Though I do dream of the day when an overwhelming majority of White voters also vote Democratic. Maybe then, race will no longer play a factor in politics.

As an aside about keystrokes, they ARE a great form of exercise. And finger strength can be key in a variety of situations...

roger: FYI, I am a cheater, because John and I share an office, and he's a writer, so I had to ask him about it. I will admit to being guilty of oversimplification in my first argument, but maybe that's the point. To echo Den, myself, and others, the ongoing investigation about all of this will be a wonderful display of parliamentary procedure, executive privilege, finger pointing, and most likely a token resignation at an intelligence agency or two, if they can find anyone still around from those days. In the end the only thing the Democrats have taken the lead on is avoiding issues that could get this country moving forward. All it's going to take is a politician to figure out why, exactly, we're in the state we're in and then issue a report about it a year from now; it's going to take a leader to make sure we're not still at the same place when the politician finishes the report.

And I don't see a politician of note, in any party, at any level of government, that's going to be that leader.

The other is that I think he believe (mistakenly, as we now know), that the US would never invade Iraq if we believed there was a possibility that he could use chemical or biologial weapons on our troops.

Yep. I'm unfortunately one of those poor souls who was duped by this Administration into believing Saddam had the WMD.

I believe that as soon as our troops got to Baghdad, Saddam would release his WMD on them.

But that never happened because Saddam didn't have any WMD. It's at that point I realize how much of a smegging cracker Bush is.

So, why should I believe anything Bush has to say about the war?

Why couldn't the lame-duck congress just reverse the rules again before the session ends so they don't get stuck on the dirty end of that stick?

If that actually happened, and the Dems then retook control of the Senate, I would then not hesitate to have the rule changed (again) just to show the GOP that they can't get away with dicking people around like that. :)

Dang... the point I neglected to spell out in regards to oversimplification was that the issue is a huge, complex legal morass that gives anyone involved too much wiggle room to