July 02, 2007

And as the GOP Presidential candidates wince...

AP has reported the following:

"President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case. Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced."

Watch the Republican Prez candidates back away even further from the Bush Administration.

PAD

UPDATED 7-3: THIS JUST IN...It has been announced that Scooter Libby will indeed go to jail since, as it turned out, Bush commuted the sentence in error: He thought he was guaranteeing no jail time for Phil Rizzuto.

UPDATED 7-4: Well, I have to admit, I underestimated the GOP candidates. Thus far, to my knowledge, they've lined up behind Bush. In fact, amazingly, they're even managing to blame Bill Clinton. "Hey, Clinton pardoned people who the public thought shouldn't have been, so why shouldn't Bush?" The obvious answer is that because Bush set himself up as being morally superior to Clinton.

It seems that the GOP candidates are simply without shame. Or perhaps they want to preserve the option of extending clemency to their own people when they commit crimes.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at July 2, 2007 06:33 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Sandro at July 2, 2007 06:56 PM

I think you're underestimating how well this is going to play with the faithful who always thought (if 'thought' is the word I'm looking for) that Libby was being railroaded. They're also going to admire the way the President is loyal to his henchmen and looks after his own. I can't see how any of that will go down adversely with the conservative base who were whining for a pardon before Libby was even convicted.

Sandro - long time listener, first time caller

Posted by: spyderqueen at July 2, 2007 07:13 PM

Sandro

Elections are won by the undecided. This will help no one who is trying to run.


Someone on Fark nicely summed it up by saying this was WORSE than a pardon, because it's like "He's guilty, but I'm letting him out of jail anyway"

Posted by: Sasha at July 2, 2007 07:16 PM

I think you're underestimating how well this is going to play with the faithful who always thought (if 'thought' is the word I'm looking for) that Libby was being railroaded. They're also going to admire the way the President is loyal to his henchmen and looks after his own. I can't see how any of that will go down adversely with the conservative base who were whining for a pardon before Libby was even convicted.

That base is the 30%> that suffer from BDS -- Bush Delusionment Syndrome, an affliction whose victims are poor souls that still believe that Dubya is a competant and good leader. You can't win an election with just them.

And watch the spin on this. Bush will be hailed as "tough" because he didn't actually pardon Libby, and so we should all just move along and talk about other things like how Obama is one letter away from Osama (and his middle name's Hussein too!).

Posted by: Jason Michelitch at July 2, 2007 07:18 PM

Seeing as at least half the candidates said in one of the debates that they would pardon Libby themselves, I can't see it ruffling anyone's feathers too much.

Posted by: Adam Lipkin at July 2, 2007 07:18 PM

Alas, that assumes that the Republican base sees anything wrong with what Bush is doing. And early reaction seems to imply they're not concerned enough with little things like ethics to care.

Posted by: Sasha at July 2, 2007 07:24 PM

Someone on Fark nicely summed it up by saying this was WORSE than a pardon, because it's like "He's guilty, but I'm letting him out of jail anyway"

Perfect description.

At this point, I half expect the GOP to initiate impeachment articles against BushCo themselves in order to get back some credibility. And then they could slam the Dems for being soft on corruption because, despite being the majority party, the Democrats "never really tried to hold the out-of-control executive branch to account."

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 2, 2007 07:35 PM

Just makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?

Posted by: Sasha at July 2, 2007 07:54 PM

The current presidential contenders should start the mantra that they're running to "restore honor and integrity to the White House."

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at July 2, 2007 08:08 PM

Ron Paul is pretty much doing that already. He introduces himself at debates as the "Champion of the Constitution," meaning that he wants the presidency to return to its constitutional limitations.

Posted by: David Van Domelen at July 2, 2007 08:10 PM

Clearly, Bush thinks that Scooter was "Paris Hilton'ed".

Posted by: Manny at July 2, 2007 08:20 PM

That shattering sound you all heard? That was the last imaginable shred of Bush's credibility hitting the ground and exploding intom i's most basic component element...hypocrisy.

Posted by: Sean Martin at July 2, 2007 08:51 PM

Manny: That shattering sound you all heard? That was the last imaginable shred of Bush's credibility hitting the ground and exploding

Nah, his credibility vanished ages ago. And it doesn't matter how many pieces it exploded into, there are still a scary number of folks out there who will sincerely insist it exists.

Posted by: Sean Martin at July 2, 2007 08:55 PM

Although the president said he “respected” the jury’s verdict, [HA!] he added that he had “concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.”

Oh, so he’s got something shorter (but presumably still greater than zero) in mind that would have been OK and not excessive? He’d have been OK with 20 months? Or 12? [HA!]

And “excessive” based on what? On the idea that holding anyone in this administration responsible is “excessive”?

The president left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation ... Bush said his action still “leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby.”
“It’s a great relief,” said former Ambassador Richard Carlson, who helped raise millions for Libby’s defense fund.

So, yeah, coming up with $250k is really going to be difficult for him. That is "harsh".

Grrrrrrr.

Posted by: Jason Michelitch at July 2, 2007 09:05 PM

Here we go already, from Fred Thompson:

"While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the president's decision. This will allow a good a man who has done a lot for his country to resume his life."

I expect both Mitt and Rudy to follow suit. McCain's camp has already issued a "no comment", but he's dead in the water anyway.

Posted by: C. A. Bridges at July 2, 2007 09:38 PM

Now it only remains to see which medal Libby will be given.

Posted by: dave w. at July 2, 2007 10:17 PM

I Just Can Not Wait!!!!
567 days
14 hours
42 minutes.
My Life Will Be Perfect.
No More Problems.

Posted by: dan at July 2, 2007 10:24 PM

With friends like these, who needs to obey the law?

Seriously, the ONE THING that you can take from a rich/powerful person is his TIME. Money is no problem. Libby got his million$-plus legal fees taken care of...this fine will be a piece of cake. Go ahead, take his money. He can get more.

TIME was the one true punishment here, and Bush admitted as much. Criminal record? No problem. Libby's got connections aplenty. Fine? No problem. Libby's got rich friends. Time? Aw HELL no! 30 months for treason is WAY too harsh!

Unless you're an innocent person cooling your heels in Gitmo. Those people deserve to rot forever.

Posted by: dan at July 2, 2007 10:28 PM

And let us not overlook... Bush pardoned someone who committed a crime WHILE WORKING FOR HIM!

Bush is still a potential suspect in all this Plame mess. And he pardoned a WH employee involved in the investigation?

Clinton did nothing like this. Nixon didn't even reach this level.

Posted by: JamesLynch at July 2, 2007 10:47 PM

When Bush took office in 2000, he promised a new era of accountability. Too bad none of us realized that he meant *less* accountability. George Tenet provides faulty intel on Iraq? Medal. Horrible treatment of detainees at Abu Ghirav (Sic)? Secretary of Defense stays -- until the opposition party takes over. Violating the Constitution by warrantless wiretaps on our citizens? No one did anything wrong! We don't torture -- but Bush retroactively pardoned anyone who did. And after Bush promised to deal harshly with anyone involved in revealing the covert status of a CIA operative whose husband critized the war in Iraq -- he prevents the only person sentenced from serving any jail time.

Sigh...

Posted by: David Gian-Cursio at July 2, 2007 10:54 PM

You know, I remember just after the '01 election, someone said to me that "a man of honor" was now in the White House. I'd be tempted to ask if six years of stuff like this has changed this opinion, but I suspect he's enough of a True Believer to honestly say, "No." I believe he also subscribed to the "theory" that Bill Clinton ordered the murder of Vince Foster.

On the other hand, another Bush supporter I know was so disgusted by the last six years that he's now a hardcore liberal militant atheist. I mean, forget omitting the word "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, this guy would be in favor of omitting the word "God" from the Lord's Prayer. Though he does consider his own belief system unfairly persecuted, in a prime example of the ideal, "freedom is everyone having the right to choose as I wish."

Fanatical support leading to one kind of cognitive dissonance, fanatical rejection leading to another. I believe those are good reasons for me to focus my own fanatical leanings on the designs of imaginary spaceships. Leaves me calm and rational when things of real importance come up.

Posted by: Jay Cohen at July 2, 2007 11:01 PM

On an angry note, I finally wrote to the White House and told off Hizzonner. I couldn't contain the bile any more, politely phrased with the underlying "don't arrest me" tone. as it read. It took a significant effort not to end the letter by calling him a schmuck.

On a silly note,

Mommy, when I grow up, I wanna be a crony.

Posted by: Phil B. at July 2, 2007 11:03 PM

I'd be happy to write a meaningful, and insightful comment, but I'm pretty much speechless.

To paraphrase some movie or other, "How does George get his pants on with balls that big?"

Posted by: J.Alexander at July 2, 2007 11:10 PM

Hmmm. Keith Olbermann ended his newscast by stating that his commentary for tomorrow will call for Bush and the Veep to resign.

Posted by: Kelson at July 2, 2007 11:41 PM

Remember when Bush said that he wanted to know if there was a leak, and that if there was a leak, and it was found that the person had broken the law, that whoever it was should be taken care of?

Sounds like Libby's being "taken care of" quite well...

Posted by: John Conner at July 3, 2007 12:12 AM

Sandro stated that Libby had been Railroaded, well I for one believe the term is scapegoated... To be scapegoated you have to fall on your sword for a sperior and at his level the list consists of 3 people he could be covering up for, Bush Chenney and Rove...

My money is on Cheney

Posted by: Rob Brown at July 3, 2007 12:22 AM

The following is something I do not know and would like to, if anybody can supply me with the answer:

If the President were so inclined, could he pardon criminal after criminal after criminal until the prisons were empty? Or is there a limit on how many people he can pardon per term? Is there any real check on this guy's ability to keep his friends out of prison, no matter what they do wrong?

On an angry note, I finally wrote to the White House and told off Hizzonner.

I applaud you taking action, but I'd be surprised if the bastard took the time to read it. Because we all know how much he loves to hear opinions differing from his own.

Here we go already, from Fred Thompson...

I think out of all the Republican candidates this is the one I would least like to see in the White House.

Aside from disliking him as a politician due to his positions and the way he conducts himself, it's also hard for me to watch Fred Thompson in anything because not only is he a hateful right-wing jerkoff in real life, but he also usually plays one on TV and in movies.

There was the "Law & Order" where a guy was in prison for dealing drugs and was being raped and beaten daily by a gang, a gang who blackmailed the drug dealer's father into killing somebody on the outside for them using the threat of further harming his son if he chose not to comply. Investigating the murder, McCoy found out what was going on and decided to get this poor bastard transferred to another prison where the gang couldn't touch him...and Branch's (Thompson's) response to this was "We can't make a deal with a drug dealer! He's getting exactly what he deserves." I literally felt ill.

Less disturbing but also noteworthy is this line from "No Way Out", with him playing "Marshall":

CIA Director Marshall: Well, spilt milk. And you can forget about Pritchard. He's homosexual.
Kevin O'Brien: I'll be damned.
CIA Director Marshall: So will he, if you believe the Old Testament.

Posted by: mike weber at July 3, 2007 12:52 AM

I repeat what i said earlier on rec.arts.sf.fandom:

Personally, i suspect that Bush and Co were worried what Libby might have said - say, to reporters and/or prosecutors - when he realised that he'd been a stand-up guy for an Administration that was willing to let him do thirty months in prison.

And if i were busy suspecting Bush (or whoever it is behind the curtain in the corner) of being truly devious (heck, if i was suspecting Bush of being intelligent), i would admire the way that the probation was allowed to stand, so that if he *did* start getting rambunctious and doing a John Dean, they could hold it over him that they could Send Him Away.


(On a different subject entirel, may i call the readers' attention to this blog post; i promise you it will be worth your while...)
Posted by: SlashKaBob at July 3, 2007 01:04 AM

I wrote the White House, too. Don't ask me why, since it makes no rational sense, but this makes me madder than anything else these dimwits have done. They truly believe they are UNTOUCHABLE.

And what ticks me off so much is that I fear they are right...

If only impeachment covered "gross incompetence and cronyism" instead of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Or if only I could support impeachment merely for cynical political ends...

This stupid little straw breaks the camel's back. Can't we get an annulment of this "presidency"?

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at July 3, 2007 01:50 AM

Every time I think the Bush Misadministration has hit its nadir, they manage to dive a little deeper.

I remember back when the Plame scandal first broke, Bush said he'd fire anyone involved. Then he said he'd fire anyone who committed a crime. Then it became anyone convicted of a crime. Now, apparently, there are no crimes...

Posted by: Luigi Novi at July 3, 2007 03:51 AM

Ya just gotta love the hypocrisy of the righties who attacked Bill Clinton for pardoning those people at the end of his term, and for supposedly having a corrupt administration, and then electing a guy who stated years ago that he was going to bring honor back to the Oval Office, only to pull stuff like this.

Posted by: Menshevik at July 3, 2007 07:43 AM

This is just so disgusting (but hardly surprising).

But David Gian-Cursio -
if I know the English translation of the Lord's Prayer correctly, the word "God" is not used in it. Or is there a special version?

Posted by: Doug Atkinson at July 3, 2007 08:03 AM

If the President were so inclined, could he pardon criminal after criminal after criminal until the prisons were empty? Or is there a limit on how many people he can pardon per term? Is there any real check on this guy's ability to keep his friends out of prison, no matter what they do wrong?

As I understand it, the President can pardon anyone involved in a Federal crime (except impeachment--that's a specific exception in the Constitution). They don't even have to have been convicted yet. And I don't know if there's anything the other branches can do about it, short of impeachment.

There isn't a built-in numerical limit, at any rate. The exact text is:

and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

(Until looking this up I'd forgotten how many run-on sentences the Constitution has; that's from the same compound sentence that makes him Commander in Chief and lets him get opinions in writing from the executive departments.)

Posted by: Mike at July 3, 2007 08:38 AM
If only impeachment covered "gross incompetence and cronyism" instead of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Or if only I could support impeachment merely for cynical political ends...

Last year, the supreme court did go on record saying Bush approved an illegal war trial by invoking and violating UCMJ Article 36 -- which is literally a presidential privilege -- and that the illegal war trial constituted a war crime under the Geneva Convention.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 3, 2007 08:52 AM

"Clearly, Bush thinks that Scooter was "Paris Hilton'ed"."

Gods, I hope there isn't a Scooter sex tape out there somewhere. And I'm NEVER going to be able to get THAT particular visual out of my head.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 3, 2007 08:52 AM

"Clearly, Bush thinks that Scooter was "Paris Hilton'ed"."

Gods, I hope there isn't a Scooter sex tape out there somewhere. And I'm NEVER going to be able to get THAT particular visual out of my head.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 3, 2007 09:05 AM

As I understand it, the President can pardon anyone involved in a Federal crime (except impeachment--that's a specific exception in the Constitution). They don't even have to have been convicted yet. And I don't know if there's anything the other branches can do about it, short of impeachment.

If I recall correctly, Ford pardoned Nixon for crimes that he had not even been indicted for. The power of pardon that the president has is a very powerful one.

For me, I didn't like it when Clinton lied under oath and don't like it any better when Libby does it. The lame "he lied about stuff that wasn't a crime" defense is no better now than it was then. Ditto the political pardons. The New York Times was a-ok with pardoning FALN terrorists but wants Libby to serve his time--so what? They were wrong then and right now.

Both sides of the political spectrum seem more interested in "fairness" and tit for tat than with doing what is right. What a great time this would be for a thrid party candidate, if there were anyone good enough to go for it. Don't see it happening though.

Posted by: bobb alfred at July 3, 2007 09:06 AM

As revolting as this is, I don't see what else Bush could have done. If he let's Libby go to jail, what incentive does Scooter have to keep his mouth shut? Bush and crew would literally have to kill him to guarantee that Libby doesn't implicate any bigger fish. This way, Bush gets to make some claims...whether you deem them credible or not...that he let the system do it's work. Libby's been convicted of a felony, even if doesn't do time. That's always going to be on his record. Worse, it's perjury, which for a public figure is like a death sentence. Or used to be, I guess we'll find out if that remains true.

And such actions are the perogative of the President. He could pardon every criminal sitting in jail right now if he wanted to, and it would be legal.

Just goes to show you there can be a huge difference between what's legal and what's right.

Posted by: Alan Coil at July 3, 2007 09:24 AM

To keep the conversation clear-----

this was not a pardon.

And maybe I should add "yet".

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 3, 2007 09:43 AM

Well, so far, the most mind-boggling defense I've heard for Bush is that he at least had the gall to do this while he's still in office.

Yeah, that really makes it all better.

I can't wait to see the pardon list when Bush leaves office. And people complained about Clinton's pardons...

Posted by: R.J. Carter at July 3, 2007 10:21 AM

Well, yes, I "thought" Libby was being railroaded. But beside the point, this commutation of sentence is the very kind of thing that Bush does that demonstrates he goes out of his way to piss off everybody rather than a targeted audience.

Whether he pardoned or commuted, it was a foregone conclusion he'd have pissed off the left.

But if he'd have pardoned, at least the right would think he'd finally found his testicles again, rather than taking another gutless "middle of the road" approach that attempts to please everyone and pleases nobody.

Posted by: SER at July 3, 2007 11:02 AM

Paris Hilton does time but "Scooter" Libby goes free? I thought Bush cared about national security?

So, Libby's sentence was "excessive"? So, when is Bush going to commute the sentence of this poor bastard: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-teensex12jun12,1,1404182.story?track=rss

Or does Bush only care about his rich, white friends. I guess we're all finally learning what Kanye West knew all along.

Bush's disregard for the law, human life, and common decency is so blatant these days, I'm surprised that when he has a press conference he doesn't just -- to borrow from Richard Pryor -- take his "dick out and piss."

Posted by: Sasha at July 3, 2007 11:37 AM

I think this is the touchstone of right wing dickishness concerning the Libby commutation. But then again, Coulter hasn't chimed in yet.

Jonah Goldberg:
"On the merits I think Bush probably got it about right. On the politics, I think Bush would have been smarter to give Libby an outright pardon. But, having just watched Joe Wilson sputter in pompous rage on the Today Show, I'm tempted to argue that Bush should have used eminent domain to take Wilson's convertible Jaguar and give it to Scooter Libby."

Posted by: mister_pj at July 3, 2007 12:07 PM

See, just when you think a Chief Executive can’t exercise a more blatant misuse of power than the pardon of Marc Rich, along comes this debacle.

It just goes to show there are moments when presidents are given over entirely to self-motivation and partisan politics. Spin in those graves founding fathers! Spin!

I think it emphasizes more than anything else how a different set of laws apply in our country to members of the political caste, disgusting.

Posted by: Rob Brown at July 3, 2007 12:31 PM

It just goes to show there are moments when presidents are given over entirely to self-motivation and partisan politics.

It would appear that in this president's case, we're talking about every moment he doesn't spend sleeping.

As I understand it, the President can pardon anyone involved in a Federal crime (except impeachment--that's a specific exception in the Constitution). They don't even have to have been convicted yet. And I don't know if there's anything the other branches can do about it, short of impeachment.

Thank you, Doug. I really think there should be a numerical limit placed on this.

So, Libby's sentence was "excessive"? So, when is Bush going to commute the sentence of this poor bastard: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-teensex12jun12,1,1404182.story?track=rss

Yeah, I read about that. It's crazy and sad.

As revolting as this is, I don't see what else Bush could have done. If he let's Libby go to jail, what incentive does Scooter have to keep his mouth shut? Bush and crew would literally have to kill him to guarantee that Libby doesn't implicate any bigger fish.

Thing is, I held out hope that Bush would just let Libby be the fall guy and not stoop to this. We're talking about him here like he's an organized crime figure and "if I were in his position, what steps would I have to take to insulate myself?"

If he had any conscience at all, he wouldn't care about insulating himself. He would own up to the fact that people in his administration did something despicable and he would disown them. As soon as he learned of Rove's, Cheney's and Armitage's involvement he should have gotten rid of them and apologized for their conduct. Even if that meant he himself would have to answer for their conduct in a court of law. Why? Because it'd be *the right thing to do*.

A woman's career was destroyed. Her contacts were quite likely placed in danger once it became common knowledge that the pretty blonde lady they had previously been seen conversing with was a CIA agent. If this man had even a shred of conscience, he would take responsibility for it and apologize.

I don't know why I ever expect anything but the worst from this asshole. I kept hearing "Oh, Libby's probably gonna get pardoned," and yet I kept hoping he wouldn't go that far. That Libby would make a deal and testify against his bosses and the dominoes would start to fall. I should know better by now.

Posted by: Rob Brown at July 3, 2007 12:37 PM

Sorry, as Alan Coil pointed out, this is in fact not a pardon. Still, Libby got bailed out and he can afford to pay that fine and those in the Bush Administration will continue to go about their dirty business fully confident that they are above the law.

Meanwhile, the Dems are too spineless to do anything about it.

Posted by: Sean Martin at July 3, 2007 01:02 PM

So in Bushworld...

Some people get imprisoned forever without any due process of law, and others who have received full due process of law and are found guilty... get set free.

And I'm to explain this to my kids how?

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 3, 2007 01:04 PM

Meanwhile, the Dems are too spineless to do anything about it.

The question is: what CAN be done, short of a Constitutional Amendment to revoke the president's ability to issue pardons/commuting of sentences, which just isn't going to happen?

In the end, I've seen others say it accurately that yeah, 30 months is harsh, and yeah, Libby is just a small fish. But Bush is more than willing to take a few yards, even when he's not being handed an inch.

Posted by: roger Tang at July 3, 2007 01:11 PM

Gil Scott Heron should be invoked here.

Posted by: Sasha at July 3, 2007 01:20 PM

Meanwhile, the Dems are too spineless to do anything about it.

The question is: what CAN be done, short of a Constitutional Amendment to revoke the president's ability to issue pardons/commuting of sentences, which just isn't going to happen?

Congress can set its investigative power to "Full Speed Ahead," not back down when the administration says "no," play the necessary game of hardball to win, and seriously consider impeachment if the evidence warrants it.

I begin to honestly believe that the threat of impeachment is the only tool left that will bring this administration to heel. Shame certainly won't. (Gonzalez would have "resigned" a while ago if W. & Friends were susceptable to being shamed into doing the right thing.) BushCo. realizes they have nothing to lose so why not break precedent and decency? Thorough investigations that give the President and VP cold sweats will help keep them in line.

Or they'll pull a Waco, going down in a ball of fire and taking as much of the nation with them to perdition.

I swear, the Bush administration is going to radicalize me.

Posted by: Sasha at July 3, 2007 01:24 PM

So, Libby's sentence was "excessive"? So, when is Bush going to commute the sentence of this poor bastard: ">http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-teensex12jun12,1,1404182.story?track=rss

IIRC, Bush only has power over Federal crimes. This is out of his jurisdiction.

[insert sarky comment about executive overreach here]

Posted by: Wildcat at July 3, 2007 01:31 PM

"Clearly, Bush thinks that Scooter was "Paris Hilton'ed"."

Considering that this is very similar to jail officials releasing a prisoner to house arrest against the wishes of the judge and prosecution, I *know* Libby was "Hiltoned".

" I believe he also subscribed to the "theory" that Bill Clinton ordered the murder of Vince Foster."

I've encountered this type in forums, but they go *all* the way with it: they insist that the "Clinton Body Count" is REAL -- because there are so many instances that "there's got to be something to it." Nevermind that the origin of the CBC was a Jerry Falwell production.

I applaud those of you who have written to the White House for taking action, but I've been of the mind that doing so will prove fruitless.

Calling Congress, however, will get you better results. Even if you're talking to Republicans. The number for the Capitol switchboard is (202)224-3121. Ask for your Senators or Representative by name, or tell them your zip code if you don't *know* the names of your Congressmen. I called earlier, and when I got through to their offices, I told them my name and my city, and then got down to business. Then, ask family and friends to do the same. Pass it on!

Wildcat

Posted by: tommy raiko at July 3, 2007 01:52 PM

Just a few comments/thoughts:

To keep the conversation clear...this was not a pardon.

Good point, sure. This isn't a full pardon where the conviction is entirely overturned as if it never happened. But the commutation of a sentence is one of the manifestations of presidential authority to issue pardons and reprieves, and does get rightly get wrapped up in such conversations.

As I understand it, the President can pardon anyone involved in a Federal crime (except impeachment--that's a specific exception in the Constitution). They don't even have to have been convicted yet. And I don't know if there's anything the other branches can do about it, short of impeachment.

Historians may find it interesting that there was discussion during the Constitutional Convention that executive pardons should be approved by the Senate, but that measure was defeated. Also, there was apparently indeed controversy about investing clemency powers with a single individual (the president); one persuasive argument in favor of that came from Alexander Hamilton in the 74th Federalist Paper, asserting that a single arbiter for clemency "would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance" whereas a group "might often encourage each other in an act of obduracy, and might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency."

It would take on more learned than I to speak on the history of executive clemency (be it in the United States or prior nations,) but make of those rationales what you will, when applied to modern days.

Aside from disliking [Fred Thompson] as a politician due to his positions and the way he conducts himself, it's also hard for me to watch Fred Thompson in anything because not only is he a hateful right-wing jerkoff in real life, but he also usually plays one on TV and in movies.

I would hope that it is indeed Thompson's positions & public persona that make you dislike him as a candidate more than it is your reaction to the characters he's played. Otherwise, we might as well ask Vince Edwards and Hugh Laurie for medical advice, and put William Shatner and Edward James Olmos in charge of NASA...

Posted by: Mike at July 3, 2007 01:54 PM
Well, so far, the most mind-boggling defense I've heard for Bush is that he at least had the gall to do this while he's still in office.

...

Congress can set its investigative power to "Full Speed Ahead," not back down when the administration says "no," play the necessary game of hardball to win, and seriously consider impeachment if the evidence warrants it.

Congressional investigations are enforced by subpoena. Maybe Bush has already decided he's going to preemptively pardon the hell out of his staff for bucking their subpoenas, so why risk pissing off Libby by delaying his sentence commutation.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at July 3, 2007 01:59 PM

"The penalty was excessive"

This from the guy who approved of every death penalty in Texas.

Posted by: Sasha at July 3, 2007 02:17 PM

Congressional investigations are enforced by subpoena. Maybe Bush has already decided he's going to preemptively pardon the hell out of his staff for bucking their subpoenas, so why risk pissing off Libby by delaying his sentence commutation.

If Bush does that, it's a clear case of obstruction of justice that's impeachable.

Better to reward silence on the way "out the door" then critize the outraged for not embracing a cooperative spirit of bipartisanship with a new presidency.

Posted by: The StarWolf at July 3, 2007 02:33 PM

>They truly believe they are UNTOUCHABLE.

John W. Campbell, the late editor of ANALOG once wrote that it wasn't 'power' that corrupts, but 'immunity'. The amount of power one has isn't as important as the feeling that no one can reach out and nail them. And politicians are about as 'immune' as it comes. Look at just one example: one of our unlamented Members of Parliament famously stated "but that was 'just' an election promise" as an excuse for getting out of it. No, that's tatamount to a verbal contract and if anyone else had done this, they'd be open to lawsuits at the very least. Anyone, that is, except politicians.

Posted by: J. Alexander at July 3, 2007 02:36 PM

Hmmm. The problem with nailing the President with impeachment is that by the time you go through the process of setting up the hearings, it will be next year. Congress will be too busy campaigning for reelection by then.

Posted by: Sasha at July 3, 2007 02:53 PM

Hmmm. The problem with nailing the President with impeachment is that by the time you go through the process of setting up the hearings, it will be next year. Congress will be too busy campaigning for reelection by then.

Unless you manage to make the reelection narrative one that supports those who support impeachment.

Posted by: J. Alexander at July 3, 2007 03:39 PM

My guess is that this won't happen making impeachment the campaign issue. Not that I agree, but I bet that the democrats will remember the hit that the GOP took in the off-year election following Clinton's impeachment.

Now, I know that there is a major difference-Clinton was wildly popular and only the clinical insane still believe in Bush, but my guess is that the Democrats in Congress will not want to take the chance.

Posted by: Mike at July 3, 2007 04:33 PM
If Bush does that, it's a clear case of obstruction of justice that's impeachable.

What you say seems reasonable, but how does invoking an unqualified privilege specifically constitute an impeachable transgression?

Posted by: The StarWolf at July 3, 2007 04:41 PM

Re - the drug dealer having a hard time in jail.

A fictional character, but I wouldn't lose much sleep over it either way. Given the damage to society dealers, some of their clients, and the failed 'drug war' have caused, they lost any hope of sympathy I might have had for them a long time since.

Posted by: Steve Campbell at July 3, 2007 04:55 PM

Since Bill Milligan brought it up, I've been wondering about something....

Was Clinton ever convicted of lying under oath? I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I honestly don't recall that he was. (Even though everyone acknowledges that he did.)

It probably doesn't even make a difference, but I was curious.

Posted by: Sasha at July 3, 2007 05:06 PM

If Bush does that, it's a clear case of obstruction of justice that's impeachable.

What you say seems reasonable, but how does invoking an unqualified privilege specifically constitute an impeachable transgression?

Article 1, paragraph nine, of the Articles approved by the House Judiciary Committee in July, 1974:
Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

Posted by: Mark L at July 3, 2007 05:25 PM

"This from the guy who approved of every death penalty in Texas."

Yep, including two of the murderers of James Byrd, Jr. The third received life without parole.

Of course, that didn't stop the NAACP from calling Bush a racist for not supporting unneeded hate crime legislation.

Posted by: mike weber at July 3, 2007 06:27 PM

Posted by Rob Brown

I don't know why I ever expect anything but the worst from this asshole. I kept hearing "Oh, Libby's probably gonna get pardoned," and yet I kept hoping he wouldn't go that far. That Libby would make a deal and testify against his bosses and the dominoes would start to fall. I should know better by now.

My own expectation was that Libby had already *made* his deal - with Bush - and that he'd get pardoned about two minutes before the Democratic President was inaugurated. I still figure that was likely the deal - till the Court messed it up by refusing to let poor ol' Scooter go free "pending the result of appeals" until then.

Posted by Steve Campbell

Since Bill Milligan brought it up, I've been wondering about something....
Was Clinton ever convicted of lying under oath? I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I honestly don't recall that he was. (Even though everyone acknowledges that he did.)

I believe that he admitted it (without specifically pleading guilty in court) and that was the basis of his contempt of court citation.

Posted by: Marc Grant at July 3, 2007 06:28 PM

Funniest thing I've heard today:

"Bush can't complete a full sentence, so why should 'Scooter' Libby?"

Posted by: Marc Grant at July 3, 2007 06:28 PM

Funniest thing I've heard today:

"Bush can't complete a full sentence, so why should 'Scooter' Libby?"

Posted by: Mike at July 3, 2007 06:45 PM
Congressional investigations are enforced by subpoena. Maybe Bush has already decided he's going to preemptively pardon the hell out of his staff for bucking their subpoenas, so why risk pissing off Libby by delaying his sentence commutation.

If Bush does that, it's a clear case of obstruction of justice that's impeachable.

What you say seems reasonable, but how does invoking an unqualified privilege specifically constitute an impeachable transgression?

Article 1, paragraph nine, of the Articles approved by the House Judiciary Committee in July, 1974:
Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

If this didn't stop Bush from springing Libby, why would this stop him from springing his next staffer? His whole administration?

Posted by: dan at July 3, 2007 07:04 PM

Time is NOT of the essence here. It makes no difference how long the proceedings take, and how long until he leaves office. For the sake of the REPUBLIC, this criminal must be impeached.

Hardcore law-and-order types are always screaming about the MESSAGE that is sent. Well, impeaching Bush would send the message that you can't spend two terms committing crimes and leave office unscathed. How can we halt future presidents from repeating his behavior, if they can say that it's okay because Bush never got impeached for it.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 3, 2007 07:05 PM

Article 1, paragraph nine, of the Articles approved by the House Judiciary Committee in July, 1974:
Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

If this didn't stop Bush from springing Libby, why would this stop him from springing his next staffer? His whole administration?

I believe the Special Prosecuter has said that no further investigation is being done and no further indictments are being considered. Under that situation it would seem that a president is safe in going ahead with a pardon without a likely conflict of interest.

It doesn't make it the right thing to do but it probably eliminates the risk of triggering Article 1, paragraph nine.

Posted by: Rob Brown at July 3, 2007 07:37 PM

I would hope that it is indeed Thompson's positions & public persona that make you dislike him as a candidate more than it is your reaction to the characters he's played. Otherwise, we might as well ask Vince Edwards and Hugh Laurie for medical advice, and put William Shatner and Edward James Olmos in charge of NASA...

Oh god yes.

For one thing, though I can't find it right now, I recall him being quoted as saying before the invasion of Iraq something to the effect of "it's about time we had a kick-ass President like this."

Then there's his positions on gay rights. He doesn't think they should be protected by hate crime laws, if you go by his Senate vote. He thinks it should be acceptable to fire somebody based on their sexual orientation, again going by his vote. He was also for the D.O.M.A.

He doesn't believe in global warming caused by human activity, but that might just be stupidity.

He wanted to drill in ANWR.

You see, I've been trying to find the quotes from the guy I've heard that convinced me in the first place what an ass he was, but I'm not having much luck. The only one I've been able to find thus far is this response to Michael Moore after Moore challenged Thompson to a public debate on health care:

"You know, I've been looking at my schedule, Michael, and I don't think I have time for you. But I may be the least of your problems. You know, the next time you're down in Cuba visiting your buddy Castro, you might ask him about another documentary filmmaker. His name is Nicolas Guillen. He did something Castro didn't like and they put him in a mental institution for several years, giving him devastating electroshock treatment. A mental institution, Michael. Might be something you ought to think about."

Just trust me on this. He's a prick.

(Oh yes, I almost forgot. I've mentioned before how I totally lost respect for everybody who took an active role in the Republic National Convention in 2004 and helped Bush get re-elected, except for John McCain whom I lost all respect for a couple years later. Thompson was the guy who narrated a short propaganda film preceding Bush's appearance onstage, making him out to be a great leader.)

Posted by: Rob Brown at July 3, 2007 07:42 PM

Posted by: The StarWolf at July 3, 2007 04:41 PM

Re - the drug dealer having a hard time in jail.

A fictional character, but I wouldn't lose much sleep over it either way. Given the damage to society dealers, some of their clients, and the failed 'drug war' have caused, they lost any hope of sympathy I might have had for them a long time since.

I could perhaps agree with you, were it ever established what exactly he'd been guilty of dealing. Pot? Ecstasy? Coke? Acid? Crack? Heroin? It makes all the difference, friend. Some are much more addictive and harmful than others, yet you can go to prison for any of them.

The story also didn't specify how long he'd been at it. Plus, something tells me that drug dealers don't say to themselves "This year my goal is going to be to cause the deaths of as many people as I can," because it's bad business to, you know, kill your customers.

Posted by: SER at July 3, 2007 08:01 PM

Was Clinton ever convicted of lying under oath? I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I honestly don't recall that he was. (Even though everyone acknowledges that he did.)
************
SER: Clinton was never convicted of a crime. He was impeached, which was the first step toward removing him from office but it didn't get past the Senate. However, impeachment has no legal bearing other than allowing the president to be put on trial for a crime.

Oh dear God, I can't believe Clinton was impeached and Bush hasn't been. I mean, why isn't a special prosecutor digging into Bush's actions?

The sad truth is that in a horrible way this might not be about Republicans or Democrats but that Clinton's shenanigans made good tabloid fodder whereas people don't seem that interested in how Bush is destroying this country.

I will give Bush this: It's pretty impressive to ruin *two* countries during your time in office.

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at July 3, 2007 09:38 PM

"Hardcore law-and-order types are always screaming about the MESSAGE that is sent. Well, impeaching Bush would send the message that you can't spend two terms committing crimes and leave office unscathed. How can we halt future presidents from repeating his behavior, if they can say that it's okay because Bush never got impeached for it."

Actually, at this point impeaching Bush would send the wrong message and be worse for the Democrats than for the Republicans.

Think about it this way. Those 20 something percent that still support the President in the polls? They're not abandoning him no matter what, so there's no way things could get worse for the Republicans. However, an impeachment would allow Bush to play the victim. Republicans could go crazy telling everyone that the Dems are wasting everyone's time when we're at war.

Would it be honest? Not remotely. But it would work. They'd get some sympathy for the Republicans, and it would help them in the next election.

There won't be an impeachment because the Democrats want to do anything to make things harder on themselves. The phrase "President Hillary" is still something that a lot of people never want to hear. The Democrats aren't even close to having a lock on the White House in the next election.

Posted by: Mike at July 3, 2007 10:33 PM
What a great time this would be for a thrid party candidate, if there were anyone good enough to go for it.
...
The phrase "President Hillary" is still something that a lot of people never want to hear. The Democrats aren't even close to having a lock on the White House in the next election.

When people refer to challenges for the democrats in taking the white house in 2008, I don't know what they're referring to.

Of what's conventionally understood as the first tier of democratic candidates, analysis has portrayed Clinton as leading in preparation, Edwards as leading in being associated with an agenda, and Obama as leading in being seen as an agent of change: they are all already in a stronger position to take the white house than John Kerry was, and, after the person he lost to, John Kerry received the largest number of votes ever in a presidential election.

Now, in the new Michael Moore movie, he spends about 5 minutes on Hillary Clinton and her attempt to reform healthcare at the beginning of her husband's administration, with the pay-off being that she's now the second highest recipient of healthcare lobbying dollars. Right now, I don't think Clinton has much shelter from being portrayed as an opportunistic carpetbagger, but I think if she has the sense to focus on some kind of agenda to reform the system that allows insurance companies and HMOs to increase their profits by denying care to their subscribers, she'll combine her "Lisa Simpson" quality with an agenda most people seem to be in agreement on and the public already significantly associates her with. If she does that, I think the white house is hers to take in 2008.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 3, 2007 10:49 PM

I've been sayiong for some time that Hillary has a virtual lock on the nomination and will be tough to beat in 2008. Most of my Democratic friends thought I was either joking or deliberately trying to get them to nominate her so the Republicans could beat her in a landslide (Yeah, as though I have that power!). People are starting to come around.

Yeah, Obama raised more money. He won't know what hit him when the gloves come off and besides, if Hillary needs money she can raise it. And her husband can raise more. This is going to be a money filled election the likes of which have never been imagined and I don't think she's the type to, as Kerry inexplicably did, not see to it that every cent is spent where it will do the most good.

Posted by: Bill Myers at July 3, 2007 11:17 PM

Scooter was convicted of lying before a grand jury? Kermit the Frog must be very disappointed in his former assistant.

Also, do you lily-livered liberals have any idea what they'd do in prison to a guy named "Scooter?" Bush was probably trying to save the guy's life!!!

;)

Posted by: Mike P at July 3, 2007 11:20 PM

"They truly believe they are UNTOUCHABLE."

And they are until we find someone with enough stomach to actually touch them. Why shouldn't they believe that they will get away with it? They've gotten away with everything else with little more than a whimper from the People and a lot of empty hand wringing from our representatives.

Let's try and pass a few more nonbinding resolutions. Or point our finger,waggle it meaningfully and tsk. That'll show them.

Business as usual.

Posted by: Mike at July 3, 2007 11:21 PM
I've been sayiong for some time that Hillary has a virtual lock on the nomination and will be tough to beat in 2008. Most of my Democratic friends thought I was either joking or deliberately trying to get them to nominate her so the Republicans could beat her in a landslide (Yeah, as though I have that power!).

Well, of preparation, agenda, and innovation, I still consider agenda to be first, and see preparation as the weakest position to occupy from an overall perspective. She may still be carpetbagger enough to abide by the healthcare industry status quo.

I happen to enjoy very good health, and only participate in the company HMO to avoid getting charged the highest hospital rates should I get in an accident -- I've been insulated from how severe the dissatisfaction with the current health landscape is. If you want people to see how strong Hillary's position is, try portraying it from the possibility of reforming the healthcare landscape no one seems happy with.

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at July 3, 2007 11:22 PM

I believe Hillary can raise money. I believe she can put out a good message.

I don't believe this country is ready to elect a woman. It's closer than it used to be, but I just don't think we're there yet. I think the people who voted for Bush twice will show up at the polls in droves to keep that from happening.

Posted by: mike weber at July 4, 2007 12:24 AM

And now Bush is saying that a perdon isn't out of the question.

As i said - the commutationwas just to make sure that Libby didn't go to prison before it was safer to actually pardon him.

And keeping him out of prison was CYA on the part of the Head of the Current Administration (and of his assistant, George Bush, too).

Posted by: Mike at July 4, 2007 01:44 AM
I believe Hillary can raise money. I believe she can put out a good message.

I don't believe this country is ready to elect a woman. It's closer than it used to be, but I just don't think we're there yet. I think the people who voted for Bush twice will show up at the polls in droves to keep that from happening.

Accepting "[we're not] ready to elect a woman" as reason seems to be part of the fear you cite obstructing Hillary from winning national support to lead the US. It doesn't seem to have any inherent meaning, and instead seems to make your point in a circular manner. Most US college graduates are now women and, in spite of disadvantages in securing equal pay for equal work, women are the primary bread-winner in a third of US households. If the US can't find a woman capable of leading it now, then when?

I think the 2008 democratic candidate can at least look forward to the huge turnout Kerry enjoyed without any kind of message, and that, to win, a good message only needs to dampen the turnout generated by fear -- which is what put Bush over the top in 2004 -- by what's considered the margin of error of most polls.

I think that Edwards has the strongest message, and that Hillary can make a better one out of healthcare.

Posted by: mike weber at July 4, 2007 07:57 AM

A statement by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald:

"We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that prerogative.

We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as "excessive." The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

Although the President's decision eliminates Mr. Libby's sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process.

I might add that the 30 months assigned to Libby was the minimum under the sentencing guidelines. He could have received up to 37 months."

Posted by: The StarWolf at July 4, 2007 08:00 AM

>Plus, something tells me that drug dealers don't say to themselves "This year my goal is going to be to cause the deaths of as many people as I can," because it's bad business to, you know, kill your customers.

You're assuming they care. Have the tobacco manufacturers cared a whit about how many of their cuustomers died from their product? They know full well there's plenty more where they came from.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 4, 2007 09:34 AM

I think that Edwards has the strongest message, and that Hillary can make a better one out of healthcare.

Re edwards: the strength of his message is negated by the weakness of the messenger. I would suggest that a party should never nominate someone who is unpopular in their own state.

Posted by: Steve Campbell at July 4, 2007 09:37 AM

Re: Dems White House chances in 2008

It's true that Kerry got a lot of votes in 2004, but it's not a matter of how many votes one gets as much as a matter of where they come from. I still believe the Electorial College gives the Republicans an advantage. Hell, they didn't even need a majority to win in 2000.

Anyway, thinking that the Dems have a lock on the Presidency in 2008 can only lead to trouble. "Pride goeth before a fall" and all that.

Posted by: Mike at July 4, 2007 10:29 AM
Re edwards: the strength of his message is negated by the weakness of the messenger. I would suggest that a party should never nominate someone who is unpopular in their own state.

While I don't believe reason can be all things to anyone, negating the message because you simply don't like the messenger is an indulgence of privilege, and is never reasonable. As Edwards is not running on a message to preserve privilege, he will sink or swim the election season entirely on the integrity and adoption of his message -- which seems to be how leadership is always chosen in this country.

As for state unpopularity, losing his state's senate run didn't stop Lincoln from becoming president -- and abolishing slavery was not even part of his campaign.

Posted by: Mike at July 4, 2007 10:50 AM
It's true that Kerry got a lot of votes in 2004, but it's not a matter of how many votes one gets as much as a matter of where they come from. I still believe the Electorial College gives the Republicans an advantage. Hell, they didn't even need a majority to win in 2000.

I think you're too easily overlooking how severely craptacular a job Kerry did in 2004. Kerry seemed to have been chosen by his party as an alternative hero-candidate to the flight-suited George Bush -- Reporting for Duty™ and all that bee-ess -- and, when the swift-boaters stepped in, instead continuing his challenge to Bush's still-weaker hold on that position, he began managing his campaign as if his vanity was his first concern. I can't think of a worse possible approach to running a campaign, and still Kerry lost by only a few percentage points.

Posted by: Mike at July 4, 2007 10:57 AM

My reply overlooked your point about the electoral system, but electorally, the last 2 presidential elections were decided by less than 100,000 in Ohio in the last one, and less than 1,000 in Florida in the one before. The relationship between the winning the raw majority and winning the most electoral votes still seems to be very strong.

Posted by: roger Tang at July 4, 2007 12:52 PM

And, just for kicks, here's how Bush has acted in previous clemency/pardon cases.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 4, 2007 02:19 PM

Re edwards: the strength of his message is negated by the weakness of the messenger. I would suggest that a party should never nominate someone who is unpopular in their own state.

While I don't believe reason can be all things to anyone, negating the message because you simply don't like the messenger is an indulgence of privilege, and is never reasonable. As Edwards is not running on a message to preserve privilege, he will sink or swim the election season entirely on the integrity and adoption of his message -- which seems to be how leadership is always chosen in this country.

I think you're too easily overlooking how severely craptacular a job Kerry did in 2004.

Edward's mediocre performance as the VP candidate in Kerry's crapracular run (losing a debate to Dick "Mr Charisma" Cheney is no easy task) and his solidly unspectacular performance thus far in the 2008 campaign leads me to conclude that, message aside, he is not doing a great job of presenting it. You can say that the messenger does not matter but I would suggest that this has never been the case.

As I don't support Edward's on most things I would be delighted to belive that his upcoming rejection is indicative of the public being equally dismissive of his policies but the truth is they just don't like him much.

A question--has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?

Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at July 4, 2007 02:22 PM

"Most US college graduates are now women and, in spite of disadvantages in securing equal pay for equal work, women are the primary bread-winner in a third of US households. If the US can't find a woman capable of leading it now, then when?"

Mike, logic and facts aren't enough. FOX news is a successful network because people care more about what they want to believe than what the facts actually support. Bush won the 2004 election because people *wanted* to believe in him, not because he'd done things right.

This country is still sexist and racist. It's not as bad as it used to be, and I truly hope and believe it will be better in the future. However, if the Democrats nominate someone who isn't a white male, then our next President will be a Republican. I hate that as much as anyone, but I don't think we should pretend we live in a rational country.

Posted by: Peter David at July 4, 2007 04:13 PM

"I can't think of a worse possible approach to running a campaign, and still Kerry lost by only a few percentage points."

Kerry lost the day that he stated that, if he'd known then what he knew now, he'd still have made the same vote on the war powers resolution. He basically invited Americans to discern no difference between him and Bush on the issue that was of greatest importance. Seeing no difference, they'd just as soon keep Bush in office.

PAD

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 4, 2007 04:43 PM

"I might add that the 30 months assigned to Libby was the minimum under the sentencing guidelines."

So, once again Bush decided to not only play judiciary, but also legislature as well, in saying that the sentence was too harsh for Libby.

And he'll get away with it.

Here's something for everybody. Or at least anybody that truly gives a damn about our country. It's Keith Olbermann's Special Comment from last night:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

Posted by: Sasha at July 4, 2007 08:00 PM

Well, I have to admit, I underestimated the GOP candidates. Thus far, to my knowledge, they've lined up behind Bush. In fact, amazingly, they're even managing to blame Bill Clinton. "Hey, Clinton pardoned people who the public thought shouldn't have been, so why shouldn't Bush?" The obvious answer is that because Bush set himself up as being morally superior to Clinton.

Then followed up by pointing out that they then tacitly agree that the Bush Administration is *at least* as corrupt as the Clinton Administration ... and may very well be more corrupt as well.

Posted by: mike weber at July 4, 2007 10:03 PM

The whole "Look how many people Clinton pardoned" argument stimulates me to point out that a website i saw yesterday (wish i could recall where) listed pardons and commutations for the last several Presidents - may have gone as far back as FDR, i forget. (Here it is! And it lists all Presidents through Clinton.)

Interestingly enough, if you add pardons and commutations together, it turns out that Clinton issued 456 in his two terms.

Reagan issued 406 (he probably forgot a few he meant to issue toward the end there).

In *one* term, Jimmy Carter issued 566. Gerald Ford issued 409 in *less* than one full term, including the most controversial of all.

Nixon issued 926. Eisenhower issued 1157, Truman 2044, and FDR 3687.

Nineteen Presidents issued more pardons/commutations than Clinton.

Posted by: Mike at July 5, 2007 12:15 AM

Edward's mediocre performance as the VP candidate in Kerry's crapracular run (losing a debate to Dick "Mr Charisma" Cheney is no easy task) and his solidly unspectacular performance thus far in the 2008 campaign leads me to conclude that, message aside, he is not doing a great job of presenting it. You can say that the messenger does not matter but I would suggest that this has never been the case.

As I don't support Edward's on most things I would be delighted to belive that his upcoming rejection is indicative of the public being equally dismissive of his policies but the truth is they just don't like him much.

I never said the messenger doesn't matter, I said disqualifying the message based on your dislike of the messenger is an indulgence of privilege and is never reasonable. And what's wrong with a platform addressing the widening gap between rich and poor? Are you really doing so well that criticizing the guy with a professional trackrecord holding corporations to their sociopathy doesn't remotely resemble biting a hand held open to make things better for you? Look at you snarling at John Edwards and, if I'm asked, what have you said I can quote that can portray this as rational?

And where do you get this "losing a debate to Dick Cheney?" I remember Edwards gave Cheney deserved credit for embracing his daughter's lesbianism, and Cheney taking Edwards's compliment genuinely and thanking him. Then I remember Gwen Ifill of the PBS Newshour flabbergasting Cheney simply by informing him of the gap in HIV infection rates between white and black women. Maybe you're giving Cheney credit for some post-debate segment I didn't stick around to see of him and Margret Warner over tea talking about the latest Amy Tan book.

A question--has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?

I can't think of any such example. If your question is meant to make a point about Edwards, how could your point have not also been applied to Lincoln during his presidential run? Lincoln's constituents were so happy with his performance in the house they denied him the opportunity to serve them as senator. Then he was elected president. John Adams and Richard Nixon became presidents with presidential election losses on their resumés.

Most US college graduates are now women and, in spite of disadvantages in securing equal pay for equal work, women are the primary bread-winner in a third of [I think double income] US households. If the US can't find a woman capable of leading it now, then when?

Mike, logic and facts aren't enough. FOX news is a successful network because people care more about what they want to believe than what the facts actually support. Bush won the 2004 election because people *wanted* to believe in him, not because he'd done things right.

This country is still sexist and racist. It's not as bad as it used to be, and I truly hope and believe it will be better in the future. However, if the Democrats nominate someone who isn't a white male, then our next President will be a Republican. I hate that as much as anyone, but I don't think we should pretend we live in a rational country.

Your reply didn't answer my question. If not now, when?

Before the civil rights act of 1964, before Brown vs the Topeka board of education, there was... Jackie Robinson, who pissed off the kind of white men you cite will give the next election to the republican candidate if she's black or a woman.

Here's how all courage works: first you do the scary thing, then you get the courage you wanted in the first place to do it. If you wait for people to be brave, it'll never get done.

"Put in office someone we like -- or we'll put in someone we like for you." Give in, register as and vote republican yourself -- what's the difference?

Posted by: Mike at July 5, 2007 12:19 AM

...if the democratic candidate is black or a woman.

Posted by: Rob Brown at July 5, 2007 01:43 AM

I said earlier that I wasn't able to find too many Fred Thompson quotes that illustrated how he was a prick. Well, this might not qualify as showing him to be a prick, but it certainly shows you how slimy he is. Thompson released this statement on Tuesday:

"I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children. While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the President's decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life."

I really do feel that while he may not necessarily be the most despicable of the GOP candidates, he is the worst of the ones whom I'd be able to pick out of a lineup.

Posted by: Nick at July 5, 2007 08:56 AM

"Nonviolent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system."--Sen. Hillary Clinton, Democratic debate, June 28

"Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. . . . This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."--Sen. Hillary Clinton, press release, July 2

Posted by: Mike at July 5, 2007 09:08 AM

In the first quote, Hillary is saying the law is wrong. In the second, she is saying Bush is treating the law as if it doesn't apply to him. Your quotes do not demonstrate an inconsistency.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 5, 2007 12:05 PM

Are you really doing so well that criticizing the guy with a professional trackrecord holding corporations to their sociopathy doesn't remotely resemble biting a hand held open to make things better for you? Look at you snarling at John Edwards and, if I'm asked, what have you said I can quote that can portray this as rational?

Goodness, I certainly did not mean to upset your delicate constitution with my "snarling". Calling Edwards "mediocre" and "unspectacular" may not seem quite so biting to some but I had no idea how deeply my hurtful words would cut. I'm glad I didn't call him "craptacular" or something! I can only make a gentle prayer that Mr Edwards himself is made of sterner stuff; politics can be a harsh business and it would not surprise me if there were people who used even meaner language--perhaps even those in his very own party! Should that be the case I truly fear for your health. Perhaps you should take up a nice hobby to distract you for the next year and a half. Flower arranging is nice.

I will just have to hope that proof of my rationality never hangs by the slender thread of a favorable quote from you, Mike. These are the things that keep a man awake at night.

And where do you get this "losing a debate to Dick Cheney?"

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/vp_debate_poll_041006.html

Oct. 6, 2004— Dick Cheney prevailed in the vice presidential debate with help from a more Republican audience — and more support from his ticket's side than John Edwards got from his.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04misc.htm
(Time Magazin poll)

Cheney 33%, Edwards 28%

Democracy Corps, the Democratic polling group run by Carvelle, gave Cheney a slight 40 to 37 percent nod.

Of course, other polls saw it differently--CBS gave it to Edwards. Much depends on which voters are polled (registered, undecided, leaning, nutty, etc). But if you are genuinely wondering where the idea that Edwards, a lawyer with supposedly solid debating skills, came in second in a battle of words with Dick "King of Charm" Cheney, well, there you are.

I could mention that Edwards also has not exactly set the world on fire in any of the recent Democratic debates either but I hesitate dash your hopes further. Admittedly, not everyone can have Obama's genuine charisma and Hillary's leadership qualities. Life is unfair that way.

A question--has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?

I can't think of any such example. If your question is meant to make a point about Edwards, how could your point have not also been applied to Lincoln during his presidential run?

Um...because Lincoln WON his home state of Illinois in the presidential campaign of 1860? Because Edwards LOST his home state of North Carolina in the presidential election of 2004?

Rocket surgery.

My own prediction is that Edwards will not be the democratic nominee for president and he is not even remotely in the running to be given a second chance at being the vice presidential candidate. Like all prediction, it is quite falsifiable and I may well be proven wrong. No guts, no glory.

But Edwards will always have his victory in the 2000 People Magazine Sexiest Politician Alive. There’s that.

Posted by: Bladestar at July 5, 2007 12:06 PM

Good lord I agree with Mike on something.

The first quote is a "wouldn't it be nice to fix the system" quote, the second is a "the system we do have doesn't work" type quote.

You can speak out against how things work and how you think they should, and they aren't automatically contradictory.

Posted by: Sasha at July 5, 2007 12:08 PM

Nick,

Would you please inform us what the original context of HRC's quote was, or did the GOP-friendly site you copied that off of conveniently not provide one?

Posted by: Mike at July 5, 2007 01:19 PM
Are you really doing so well that criticizing the guy with a professional trackrecord holding corporations to their sociopathy doesn't remotely resemble biting a hand held open to make things better for you? Look at you snarling at John Edwards and, if I'm asked, what have you said I can quote that can portray this as rational?

Goodness, I certainly did not mean to upset your delicate constitution with my "snarling". Calling Edwards "mediocre" and "unspectacular" may not seem quite so biting to some but I had no idea how deeply my hurtful words would cut. I'm glad I didn't call him "craptacular" or something! I can only make a gentle prayer that Mr Edwards himself is made of sterner stuff; politics can be a harsh business and it would not surprise me if there were people who used even meaner language--perhaps even those in his very own party! Should that be the case I truly fear for your health. Perhaps you should take up a nice hobby to distract you for the next year and a half. Flower arranging is nice.

I will just have to hope that proof of my rationality never hangs by the slender thread of a favorable quote from you, Mike. These are the things that keep a man awake at night.

You are inferring an offense taken by me... where I have taken and implied none. Thank you for not disqualifying anything I've said.

Edward's mediocre performance as the VP candidate in Kerry's crapracular run (losing a debate to Dick "Mr Charisma" Cheney is no easy task) and his solidly unspectacular performance thus far in the 2008 campaign leads me to conclude that, message aside, he is not doing a great job of presenting it. You can say that the messenger does not matter but I would suggest that this has never been the case.

As I don't support Edward's on most things I would be delighted to belive that his upcoming rejection is indicative of the public being equally dismissive of his policies but the truth is they just don't like him much.

And where do you get this "losing a debate to Dick Cheney?"

Of course, other polls saw it differently--CBS gave it to Edwards.

You speak definitively of that which you present contradictory facts. I asked a question, and you answered it. Thank you.

I could mention that Edwards also has not exactly set the world on fire in any of the recent Democratic debates either but I hesitate dash your hopes further. Admittedly, not everyone can have Obama's genuine charisma and Hillary's leadership qualities. Life is unfair that way.

Kerry was at the bottom of the polls the December before he won the 2004 primaries. The republican primaries typically go to the front runner, because the party is more governed from the top than the democratic party. Being a republican, you might have missed that.

Also, Edwards is campaigning exactly as he should at this stage. Take for example the shot Obama gave him in the first debate. Edwards did the right thing in criticizing Hillary for waiting for the war funding to pass before voting against it, to erode her lead. Then Obama, who also waited for the funding to pass before voting against it, rebutted he didn't vote for the war in the first place like Edwards did. At first it looked like Edwards stupidly walked into a punch by Obama, but instead, in focusing on taking out the leader, Edwards demonstrated he's keeping his eye is on the prize.

Hillary is also demonstrating she is campaigning exactly as she should. The Sopranos parody has received a lot of panning, but the biggest challenge people have in voting for Hillary is her coldness, and in erring on the side of addressing her biggest obstacle, she is demonstrating the basic kind of sense that would have made a pants-load of difference in the last election.

As things stand now, Obama seems to be the weak contender of the top-tier democrats in a general election campaign.

A question--has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?

I can't think of any such example. If your question is meant to make a point about Edwards, how could your point have not also been applied to Lincoln during his presidential run? Lincoln's constituents were so happy with his performance in the house they denied him the opportunity to serve them as senator. Then he was elected president. John Adams and Richard Nixon became presidents with presidential election losses on their resumés.

Um...because Lincoln WON his home state of Illinois in the presidential campaign of 1860? Because Edwards LOST his home state of North Carolina in the presidential election of 2004?

Edwards neither won nor lost his home state in the 2004 election because he didn't run for president in the general election -- Edwards has never run in the general election for president. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery

Posted by: Rick Keating at July 5, 2007 02:08 PM

You know, it's too bad that Britt Reid is a fictional character. I wouldn't mind seeing The Green Hornet bring Bush and Cheney to justice.

But since he is fictional, that leaves it to Congress.

Yeah, right. Maybe I should hold out hope that the Hornet will show up after all.

Rick

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 5, 2007 02:11 PM

Wel,, you may well be right. Edwards may well be running a campaign of such cunning that its brilliance is going right over my head. One of the disadvantages of making a prediction like "John Edwards will not win his party's nomination for president" is that one can be proven wrong. Should taht prove to be the case I will just have to live with having been wrong.

As for the argumant that Edwards did not lose his home state in the 2004 election...I'm guessing that's the sort of rationalization the Edwards camp is using. That's one reason why he won't be the nominee.

Edward's only chance would be if Hillary and Obama so bloody themselves up that the party must turn to the relatively undamaged Edwards to unite them. I'd rate that at about a 10% liklihood, which is, I believe, about where Edwards resides in the polls.

Posted by: Mike at July 5, 2007 02:35 PM

A question--has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?

I can't think of any such example. If your question is meant to make a point about Edwards, how could your point have not also been applied to Lincoln during his presidential run? Lincoln's constituents were so happy with his performance in the house they denied him the opportunity to serve them as senator. Then he was elected president. John Adams and Richard Nixon became presidents with presidential election losses on their resumés.

Um...because Lincoln WON his home state of Illinois in the presidential campaign of 1860? Because Edwards LOST his home state of North Carolina in the presidential election of 2004?

Edwards neither won nor lost his home state in the 2004 election because he didn't run for president in the general election -- Edwards has never run in the general election for president. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery

As for the argumant that Edwards did not lose his home state in the 2004 election...I'm guessing that's the sort of rationalization the Edwards camp is using. That's one reason why he won't be the nominee.

Edwards never running in a general election for US president is a clear and literal truth that disqualifies your strike against him "has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?" The clarity and literalness of a truth does not disqualify it from, does not place it above, qualifying a rationalization.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 5, 2007 02:49 PM

John Edwards is not terribly popular in his home state. Spin the fact any way you wish. Last poll I saw had him at 30%, not a great showing for a hometown boy.

Both Hillary and Obama are well liked by the people who know them best--one reason why they are the frontrunners and Edwards...well, not so much.

Posted by: Mike at July 5, 2007 03:27 PM

A question--has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?

I can't think of any such example. If your question is meant to make a point about Edwards, how could your point have not also been applied to Lincoln during his presidential run? Lincoln's constituents were so happy with his performance in the house they denied him the opportunity to serve them as senator. Then he was elected president. John Adams and Richard Nixon became presidents with presidential election losses on their resumés.

John Edwards is not terribly popular in his home state. Spin the fact any way you wish. Last poll I saw had him at 30%, not a great showing for a hometown boy.

Spin? Well, listen to you trying to portray in me an ulterior motive from my simply observing Edwards and Lincoln entered presidential races after losing elections in the states they served in congress -- Lincoln in 1858.

If Edwards gets the nomination, guess what? He's going to get your state. Unlike Al Gore, he has a message you can only find fault with arbitrarily, and message always prevails on election day.

Kerry was at the bottom of the polls the December before he won the 2004 primaries. The republican primaries typically go to the front runner, because the party is more governed from the top than the democratic party. Being a republican, you might have missed that.

Both Hillary and Obama are well liked by the people who know them best--one reason why they are the frontrunners and Edwards...well, not so much.

Your dismissal of my observation is arbitrary and is counter-intuitive to past election lifecycles.

Posted by: Mike at July 5, 2007 04:01 PM

Wait, I just checked: Edwards never lost a congressional race. The Lincoln analogy doesn't apply -- because Edwards avoided the election loss Lincoln had to recover from.

I thought you said you were from NC, Bill. Kind of a shame I had to look that up with you just exulting in the portrayal of Edwards as someone who lost an election he didn't ("has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?"). I'd hate to see what your version of spin looks like.

Posted by: roger Tang at July 5, 2007 04:11 PM

Just for Rob Brown, an article claiming Fred Thompson was a mole for Nixon and an early enthusiast for obstructing justice.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 5, 2007 10:07 PM

Well, Mike, you may well be right. But nothing you've said makes me reconsider my prediction that Edwards will not be the next president of the United States. He has had the chance to deliver his message to those most receptive to it and they have replied by sending the vast majority of their support to Obama and Hillary.

Time will solve the mystery. As you have made no prediction you need not fear being proven wrong. I, alas, must live with that possibility.

As for the position that Edwards should not be considered having lost the 2006 election...or that he did lose the election but not North Carolina...and that this negates the analogy to Lincoln...which is something you yourself came up with and have been pushing...well, That's Our Mike!

Hang on to those Edwards buttons though--he's young and may get another shot in another year when the competition is less formidable.

Posted by: Mike at July 5, 2007 10:36 PM
As for the position that Edwards should not be considered having lost the 2006 election...or that he did lose the election but not North Carolina...and that this negates the analogy to Lincoln...which is something you yourself came up with and have been pushing...well, That's Our Mike!

Edwards ran for no office in 2006.

Ridiculing with inaccuracies a messenger he can't disqualify. Unfortunately, That's Our Bill.™

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 5, 2007 11:22 PM

Sorry, it was the 2004 election he lost. Mea Culpa.

At least he got to the dance, which is, I'm afraid, more than he will be able to say about 2008. But Time Will Tell.

Posted by: Mike at July 6, 2007 12:19 AM

A question--has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?

I can't think of any such example. If your question is meant to make a point about Edwards, how could your point have not also been applied to Lincoln during his presidential run? Lincoln's constituents were so happy with his performance in the house they denied him the opportunity to serve them as senator. Then he was elected president. John Adams and Richard Nixon became presidents with presidential election losses on their resumés.

Um...because Lincoln WON his home state of Illinois in the presidential campaign of 1860? Because Edwards LOST his home state of North Carolina in the presidential election of 2004?

Edwards neither won nor lost his home state in the 2004 election because he didn't run for president in the general election -- Edwards has never run in the general election for president. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery

As for the argumant that Edwards did not lose his home state in the 2004 election...I'm guessing that's the sort of rationalization the Edwards camp is using. That's one reason why he won't be the nominee.

Edwards never running in a general election for US president is a clear and literal truth that disqualifies your strike against him "has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?" The clarity and literalness of a truth does not disqualify it from, does not place it above, qualifying a rationalization....

Wait, I just checked: Edwards never lost a congressional race. The Lincoln analogy doesn't apply -- because Edwards avoided the election loss Lincoln had to recover from. [annotated clarification: the strike "has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?" applies even less to Edwards than to Lincoln.]

As for the position that Edwards should not be considered having lost the 2006 election...or that he did lose the election but not North Carolina...and that this negates the analogy to Lincoln...which is something you yourself came up with and have been pushing...well, That's Our Mike!

Edwards ran for no office in 2006.

Ridiculing with inaccuracies a messenger he can't disqualify. Unfortunately, That's Our Bill.™

Sorry, it was the 2004 election he lost. Mea Culpa.

Bill, thank you. Unfortunately, you speak as if votes are cast for the office of vice president. This is, again, wrong.

Considering the distress you display in our interactions, I'm going to guess that it's worth mentioning to you that the most obvious errors are the easiest to correct. Knowing this may allow you to manage your responses to minimize the most obvious readings of what you say that embarrass you.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 6, 2007 12:39 AM

Distress? Mike, you amuse me. May you never change.

I think I'm on fairly solid ground here when I say that Mr Edwards was indeed on the losing team in 2004. I suppose there are ways you can spin this to mean that he did not, in fact, lose any election in 2004, that his record as a candidate is unblemished. Fine, whatever works for you. It won't improve his shrinking chances of capturing the Democratic candidacy in 2008 so no harm, no foul.

But lest you feel that I think he will be of no consequence at all let me assure you that when he does throw in the towel and offer his support to the eventual winner it may well help them to clinch the nomination and eventually the election. No doubt his acolytes will extrapolate that into some kind of virtual presidential victory. Again, no harm.

Posted by: Micha at July 6, 2007 07:31 AM

Kerry and Ewards won in 2004. It's just that Bush and Chaney won more.

Posted by: Mike at July 6, 2007 09:03 AM

As I don't support Edward's on most things I would be delighted to [believe] that his upcoming rejection is indicative of the public being equally dismissive of his policies but the truth is they just don't like him much.

Are you really doing so well that criticizing the guy with a professional trackrecord holding corporations to their sociopathy doesn't remotely resemble biting a hand held open to make things better for you? Look at you snarling at John Edwards and, if I'm asked, what have you said I can quote that can portray this as rational?

Goodness, I certainly did not mean to upset your delicate constitution with my "snarling". Calling Edwards "mediocre" and "unspectacular" may not seem quite so biting to some but I had no idea how deeply my hurtful words would cut. I'm glad I didn't call him "craptacular" or something! I can only make a gentle prayer that Mr Edwards himself is made of sterner stuff; politics can be a harsh business and it would not surprise me if there were people who used even meaner language--perhaps even those in his very own party! Should that be the case I truly fear for your health. Perhaps you should take up a nice hobby to distract you for the next year and a half. Flower arranging is nice.

I will just have to hope that proof of my rationality never hangs by the slender thread of a favorable quote from you, Mike. These are the things that keep a man awake at night.

You are inferring an offense taken by me... where I have taken and implied none. Thank you for not disqualifying anything I've said.

Wel,, you may well be right. Edwards may well be running a campaign of such cunning that its brilliance is going right over my head. One of the disadvantages of making a prediction like "John Edwards will not win his party's nomination for president" is that one can be proven wrong. Should taht prove to be the case I will just have to live with having been wrong.

As for the argumant that Edwards did not lose his home state in the 2004 election...I'm guessing that's the sort of rationalization the Edwards camp is using. That's one reason why he won't be the nominee.

Edwards never running in a general election for US president is a clear and literal truth that disqualifies your strike against him "has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?" The clarity and literalness of a truth does not disqualify it from, does not place it above, qualifying a rationalization.

John Edwards is not terribly popular in his home state. Spin the fact any way you wish. Last poll I saw had him at 30%, not a great showing for a hometown boy.

Spin? Well, listen to you trying to portray in me an ulterior motive from my simply observing Edwards and Lincoln entered presidential races after losing elections in the states they served in congress -- Lincoln in 1858. [Annotated correction: Edwards literally never lost an election, so "has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?" applies even less Edwards than it does to Lincoln.]

Well, Mike, you may well be right....

As for the position that Edwards should not be considered having lost the 2006 election...or that he did lose the election but not North Carolina...and that this negates the analogy to Lincoln...which is something you yourself came up with and have been pushing...well, That's Our Mike!

Edwards ran for no office in 2006.

Ridiculing with inaccuracies a messenger he can't disqualify. Unfortunately, That's Our Bill.™

Sorry, it was the 2004 election he lost. Mea Culpa.

Bill, thank you. Unfortunately, you speak as if votes are cast for the office of vice president. This is, again, wrong.

Considering the distress you display in our interactions, I'm going to guess that it's worth mentioning to you that the most obvious errors are the easiest to correct. Knowing this may allow you to manage your responses to minimize the most obvious readings of what you say that embarrass you.

Distress? Mike, you amuse me. May you never change.

I think I'm on fairly solid ground here when I say that Mr Edwards was indeed on the losing team in 2004. I suppose there are ways you can spin this to mean that he did not, in fact, lose any election in 2004, that his record as a candidate is unblemished. Fine, whatever works for you. It won't improve his shrinking chances of capturing the Democratic candidacy in 2008 so no harm, no foul.

You want to use the phrases "Edwards lost in 2004" and "Edwards was on the losing team in 2004" interchangeably. It's as wrong as making Lloyd Bentsen's loss to the man he devastatingly busted for trying to slip on a Jack Kennedy mask the headline of Texas newspaper the day after the 1988 election.

Their team's dependence on Kerry and Edwards to win were not interchangeable and, had they won, their responsibilities also would not have been interchangeable. (Having voted for Bush/Cheney in the past, this fact may have been lost on you.)

Like a communist, you deny the distinction between consensus and individual accountability. Your wrongness simply gives me no room to reciprocate your "Fine, whatever works for you." What you dismiss as "whatever works for [me]" is simply the truth by default of no available, reasonable alternative.

Kerry and Ewards won in 2004. It's just that Bush and Chaney won more.

Nothing I've said depends on Kerry and Edwards having won.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 6, 2007 10:21 AM

Oh no--now I'm like a communist!!! I knew would do something like this! Curse you all!

Seriously Mike, if you are getting this bent out of shape now what will happen when Edwards actually throws in the towel? You'd best be preparing yourself for the inevitable.

You do share one attribute with Mr. Edwards. No, not the sexiest politician alive (2000 edition), c'mon man, be serious. Insisting that Edwards did not lose in 2004 just makes it worse since pretty much everyone KNOWs that e, well, lost in 2004. Kemp lost in 1996. Lieberman lost in 1992. And so on. Similarly, the stupid story about Edwards haircut (now up to $1200!) has had legs in large part because of the Edwards campaign refusal to let it die. They even mentioned it in a fundraising letter! Foolish. Talking about something you want to be a non-story just helps make it a story.

Say, have you considered volunteering for the campaign? Edwards has a history of using bloggers with, er, colorful pasts.

Remember Leon Trotsky!

Posted by: Bill Myers at July 6, 2007 10:42 AM

Bill Mulligan: "Oh no--now I'm like a communist!!!"

I thought you were a fascist. Who knew?

Posted by: Micha at July 6, 2007 10:46 AM

"Remember Leon Trotsky!"

What?

---------------

Bill (or maybe it's actually Boris), if you held this discussion with someone else (hypothetically), it would probably go something like this.

A: I think Edwards has a good message.

B: I don't like his message, but even if I did, I don't think it will be enough to win him the nomination. He is not popular enough. He couldn't even get his home state to support Kerry and him in the 2004 election.

A: Well, Edwards was only running for vice president, maybe he didn't get the support of his his home state (?) because they didn't like Kerry, and not because of his own lack of popularity.I think his excellent message will reach the public.

B: Maybe, maybe not. I still don't think Edwards has much of a chance of winning the Democratic primaries with his public image when faced with much more popular opponents as Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton. Personal image is an important part of the campaign after all. We'll see.

A: OK. Let's agree to disagree.

B. OK, bye.

But this is not a regular discussion. It follows a different set of rules.

Posted by: Mike at July 6, 2007 11:27 AM

As for the position that Edwards should not be considered having lost the 2006 election...or that he did lose the election but not North Carolina...and that this negates the analogy to Lincoln...which is something you yourself came up with and have been pushing...well, That's Our Mike!

Edwards ran for no office in 2006.

Ridiculing with inaccuracies a messenger he can't disqualify. Unfortunately, That's Our Bill.™

Sorry, it was the 2004 election he lost. Mea Culpa.

You want to use the phrases "Edwards lost in 2004" and "Edwards was on the losing team in 2004" interchangeably. It's as wrong as making Lloyd Bentsen's loss to the man he devastatingly busted for trying to slip on a Jack Kennedy mask the headline of Texas newspaper the day after the 1988 election.

Their team's dependence on Kerry and Edwards to win were not interchangeable and, had they won, their responsibilities also would not have been interchangeable. (Having voted for Bush/Cheney in the past, this fact may have been lost on you.)

Like a communist, you deny the distinction between consensus and individual accountability. Your wrongness simply gives me no room to reciprocate your "Fine, whatever works for you." What you dismiss as "whatever works for [me]" is simply the truth by default of no available, reasonable alternative.

Oh no--now I'm like a communist!!! I knew would do something like this! Curse you all!

Seriously Mike, if you are getting this bent out of shape now what will happen when Edwards actually throws in the towel? You'd best be preparing yourself for the inevitable.

You do share one attribute with Mr. Edwards. No, not the sexiest politician alive (2000 edition), c'mon man, be serious. Insisting that Edwards did not lose in 2004 just makes it worse since pretty much everyone KNOWs that e, well, lost in 2004. Kemp lost in 1996. Lieberman lost in 1992. And so on.

Lieberman did not campaign in 1992.

If by "bent out of shape" you mean "not wrong," well, I can only continue to thank you for persistently not disqualifying anything I've said.

Posted by: Micha at July 6, 2007 11:46 AM

Mike has taken the word 'thanks' which is usually associated with politeness and friendliness, and has given it a rude unpleasant meaning. It's a shame.

Posted by: Patrick Calloway at July 6, 2007 12:27 PM

Mike: "If by "bent out of shape" you mean "not wrong," well, I can only continue to thank you for persistently not disqualifying anything I've said."

And if he did not mean 'not wrong' by 'bent out of shape', but instead meant it's more common meaning of, well, bent out of shape, then I suppose you'll have to no longer continue to thank him for persistently not saying the words you try to put in his mouth?

Micha: "Mike has taken the word 'thanks' which is usually associated with politeness and friendliness, and has given it a rude unpleasant meaning. It's a shame."

It is, if perhaps sadly unsurprising. Though I was actually surprised to see he started off in a more or less rational manner in this thread. Too bad he was unable to maintain it for very long.

Bill Mulligan: "Oh no--now I'm like a communist!!!"

Bill Meyers: "I thought you were a fascist. Who knew?"

I'm still waiting for him to reveal himself as the Communist Fascist Zombie Overlord, but I guess all the plans aren't in place yet...

Posted by: Mike at July 6, 2007 01:22 PM
Mike has taken the word 'thanks' which is usually associated with politeness and friendliness, and has given it a rude unpleasant meaning. It's a shame.

How is my expression of gratitude hostile?

And if he did not mean 'not wrong' by 'bent out of shape', but instead meant it's more common meaning of, well, bent out of shape, then I suppose you'll have to no longer continue to thank him for persistently not saying the words you try to put in his mouth?

If by "bent out of shape" Bill is, again, inferring I have taken an offense I neither took nor implied taking, then he is simply wrong. I'm trying to give Bill some kind of credit for accuracy, because I am a decent person and that's what decent people do. I don't see how your portrayal of him as out-and-out wrong benefits him.

Though I was actually surprised to see he started off in a more or less rational manner in this thread. Too bad he was unable to maintain it for very long.

I am posts have been consistent this entire thread. Nothing I've said is incompatible with anything else I've said. To establish your own rationality, why don't you give citing something irrational I've said a try?

Posted by: Micha at July 6, 2007 01:50 PM

"I'm still waiting for him to reveal himself as the Communist Fascist Zombie Overlord, but I guess all the plans aren't in place yet..."

That ridiculous. Everybody knows that zombies are moderate left. They are socially liberal but are fiscally conservative: they support small government. They oppose big spending on the military and support gun control (for obvious reasons).

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 6, 2007 05:07 PM

Bill (or maybe it's actually Boris), if you held this discussion with someone else (hypothetically), it would probably go something like this.

Where's the fun in that?

"Oh no--now I'm like a communist!!!"

I thought you were a fascist. Who knew?

I WANT to be an anarchist, mostly because I've always liked the way they have those bowling ball shaped bombs in the cartoons.

Everybody knows that zombies are moderate left. They are socially liberal but are fiscally conservative: they support small government. They oppose big spending on the military and support gun control (for obvious reasons).

They are also environmentally conscious, preferring walking to driving and living in harmony with the land. They believe that the Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent or at least equally nutritious.

But of course, this is all for laffs. Zombies are apolitical. They are mindless drones. Edwards voters! I keed, I keed. The better question is what political affiliation is more likely to keep you, the voter alive. Or to put it another way, who is more likely to survive the zombie apocalypse--Dennis Kucinich, unarmed in his prius or Ted Nugent, his Hummer stocked with semi-automatics?

I will leave the conclusions to you, the reader except to suggest that one get used to the new National Anthem; Wang Dang Sweet Poontang.

Posted by: Mike at July 6, 2007 07:23 PM
...who is more likely to survive the zombie apocalypse--Dennis Kucinich, unarmed in his prius or Ted Nugent, his Hummer stocked with semi-automatics?

Look at you picking the most squeaking-mouse liberal for your example. Why don't you pick Jon Stewart vs Dick Cheney and his bottles of nitroglycerin and digitalis, or ex-marine Mark Shields vs the slumped-in-front-of-an-airplane-tire Karl Rove?

Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 6, 2007 08:11 PM

"It's a shame."

Micha, what's really a shame isn't that Mike distorts "thanks", it's that either in his head or in his game(still not sure it's not all an elaborate gag, meself) the thanking is being attached to something that he's been posting for months which no one is disputing. No one seems to be disputing it not because it's in fact true but because to dispute it would be pointless.

And from what I hear, zombies support people with low fat, high fiber diets that get plenty of exercise. After all, the zombies don't want a high fat diet any more than anyone else. Makes it harder to get to the brains, after all.

Posted by: Micha at July 6, 2007 08:41 PM

Sean, I just remember the good old days, when people said thank you because they wanted to show gratitude instead of trying to score an imaginary point in an argument, too often by twisting the words of others.

"Zombies are apolitical. They are mindless drones."

In the middle east the mindless drones are political, but except for that it pretty much the same. So I'm not worried.


Posted by: Mike at July 6, 2007 09:28 PM
Micha, what's really a shame isn't that Mike distorts "thanks", it's that either in his head or in his game(still not sure it's not all an elaborate gag, meself) the thanking is being attached to something that he's been posting for months which no one is disputing. No one seems to be disputing it not because it's in fact true but because to dispute it would be pointless.

You confirmed what I say goes undisputed, and "to dispute it would be pointless" does not disqualify the validity of what I say.

It is not in my nature for my mood to sour when people do things that benefit me. I was raised to thank people when they behave in ways I prefer them behaving. Although you have expressed dismay at the prospect of receiving my gratitude, I am going to err on the side of keeping my life experience authentic and thank you, Sean Scullion. I guess I'm just selfish that way. Thanks.

Mike has taken the word 'thanks' which is usually associated with politeness and friendliness, and has given it a rude unpleasant meaning. It's a shame.

How is my expression of gratitude hostile?

Sean, I just remember the good old days, when people said thank you because they wanted to show gratitude instead of trying to score an imaginary point in an argument, too often by twisting the words of others.

Just so you know, you haven't answered my question. You haven't distinguished my gratitude from any other.

Posted by: Alan Coil at July 6, 2007 09:58 PM

Never has more bandwidth been wasted than when Mike enters a conversation. ;)

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 6, 2007 10:07 PM

Look at you picking the most squeaking-mouse liberal for your example. Why don't you pick Jon Stewart vs Dick Cheney and his bottles of nitroglycerin and digitalis, or ex-marine Mark Shields vs the slumped-in-front-of-an-airplane-tire Karl Rove?

Conservatives have more guns. Just the way it is.

Like all generalizations, there are many exceptions. I, for example, have neither guns nor the desire to have any. You may well be sitting in bed even as we speak, doing the private Pyle monologue from Full Metal Jacket. It's a big world.

And yeah, I'd rather have Dick "Dick" Cheney in my corner than Jon Stewart. Any man who would shoot his own friend in the face with a shotgun will surely not flinch when the hordes of the living dead come a whistlin round the bend. John would say something ironic like "Eat me!" as they tore us apart. But to each his own.

Posted by: Micha at July 6, 2007 10:09 PM

I believe we have entered the traditional Mike/Zombie part of this thread. But maybe this time we'll avoid it by discussing something else. Any ideas? Anybody? Please... somebody....

Posted by: Mike at July 6, 2007 10:57 PM

I give Stewart the edge over Cheney because when it comes time to repopulate the species, Stewart's going to have smarter and better "sloppy seconds." Once the network of privileges as we know it collapses with western civilization, what kind of quality of life can one look forward to cleaning Dick's gun?

Never has more bandwidth been wasted than when Mike enters a conversation. ;)

Well, Alan, I'm glad your life is otherwise homogeneously utilitarian. I guess your parents dragging you to the Museum of Vegetables and Homework as a kid paid off after all.

I believe we have entered the traditional Mike/Zombie part of this thread. But maybe this time we'll avoid it by discussing something else. Any ideas? Anybody? Please... somebody....

Wait, why are you forcing yourself to participate in a conversation you don't want to participate in? Your first post here was to wedge yourself into conversation with a person you want everyone to think you don't even want to talk to. Why don't you simply play the role you want everyone to see you embodying?

Posted by: Bill Myers at July 6, 2007 11:43 PM

Bill Mulligan: "I believe the Special Prosecuter has said that no further investigation is being done and no further indictments are being considered. Under that situation it would seem that a president is safe in going ahead with a pardon without a likely conflict of interest."

The prosecutors clearly were after Scooter to see if he'd crack and implicate someone higher up. He didn't. If that were to change, they'd certainly re-open the investigation in a heartbeat. I'm sure George W. Bush knows that.

Bill Mulligan: "It doesn't make it the right thing to do but it probably eliminates the risk of triggering Article 1, paragraph nine."

The President's power to pardon flows from the U.S. Constitution and are unlimited. Articles of impeachment drafted by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 in no way supersede the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 6, 2007 11:58 PM

I give Stewart the edge over Cheney because when it comes time to repopulate the species, Stewart's going to have smarter and better "sloppy seconds."

Um...ewww. I'm not sure what that exactly means but it sounds a bit creepy.

People keep comparing the Libby commutation to the Marc Rich pardon. A better analogy would be to Clinton pardoning Susan McDougald. And at least she did serve time. But short of a constitutional amendment there is little that people can do but bitch about it.

I'm still curious though about the Nixon pardon--how does a guy get pardoned for crimes he is not charged with? That seems like a very powerful tool for a president to have. Can a president rescind it? If it came out that Nixon had done something far worse than Watergate would he have still been protected by the overall pardon?

Posted by: Bill Myers at July 7, 2007 12:36 AM

Bill Mulligan: "If it came out that Nixon had done something far worse than Watergate would he have still been protected by the overall pardon?"

If I recall correctly, Ford pardoned Nixon for all crimes related to Watergate. If Nixon had subsequently been charged with drowning puppies after he left office, I don't think the "overall pardon" would've covered it.

Of course, I also think Nixon is very much protected from further prosecution by virtue of being dead.

Posted by: Mike at July 7, 2007 12:42 AM
I give Stewart the edge over Cheney because when it comes time to repopulate the species, Stewart's going to have smarter and better "sloppy seconds."

Um...ewww. I'm not sure what that exactly means but it sounds a bit creepy.

I'm guessing it's only creepy to couples who have only been intimate with each other. Feel free to abstain from a second marriage if it suits you to do so.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 7, 2007 01:06 AM

I'm guessing it's only creepy to couples who have only been intimate with each other. Feel free to abstain from a second marriage if it suits you to do so.

I'm just saying I don't get it. Was the idea that you would rather share the apocalypse with Jon Stewart because he would attract better looking women who would have sex with you after they had sex with Jon Stewart? That's how it came off to me but I'm not sure that's what you were going for. It doesn't make much sense since I don't see how choosing which guy rides shotgun would improve the quality of dystopia cha cha. Furthermore, if the gals are just crazy about Jon why would they be offering you any seconds at all, sloppy or otherwise? They would just wait for their next ride on the Jon Stewart express, leaving you on guard duty. Again.

Why the low self esteem? It isn't like Mr High and Mighty Stewart can get them backstage passes once LA is overrun by fetid hordes of the undead. Surely if these women are as smart as you say they will be overcome by your lovable charm. Let Jon make do with the crumbs from your table.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at July 7, 2007 01:56 AM

And yeah, I'd rather have Dick "Dick" Cheney in my corner than Jon Stewart. Any man who would shoot his own friend in the face with a shotgun will surely not flinch when the hordes of the living dead come a whistlin round the bend. John would say something ironic like "Eat me!" as they tore us apart. But to each his own.

Of course, if Jon Stewart brings Riggle to the party, it probably all balances out.

Of course, ammo eventually runs out. Pagans and others who lean left tend to have a much more varied array of cutlery.

Also, it never hurts to have a spellcaster or two in your corner in case of a mystically induced apocalypse. ;)

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Mike at July 7, 2007 08:47 AM
I give Stewart the edge over Cheney because when it comes time to repopulate the species, Stewart's going to have smarter and better "sloppy seconds."

Um...ewww. I'm not sure what that exactly means but it sounds a bit creepy.

I'm guessing it's only creepy to couples who have only been intimate with each other. Feel free to abstain from a second marriage if it suits you to do so.

I'm just saying I don't get it. Was the idea that you would rather share the apocalypse with Jon Stewart because he would attract better looking women who would have sex with you after they had sex with Jon Stewart?

YES!!!!!!

...if the gals are just crazy about Jon why would they be offering you any seconds at all, sloppy or otherwise?

So if I find out I can't get pity sex even in the face of the extinction of mankind, how is seeking the company of women still a bad choice? Do you chafe in the company of women you find attractive but don't give you sex?

That taken co-worker who teases you by diddling her ear facing you -- is that not a safety-net ensuring your good day, or are you reaching for a screen to block your view?

I will leave the conclusions to you, the reader except to suggest that one get used to the new National Anthem; Wang Dang Sweet Poontang....

Why the low self esteem? It isn't like Mr High and Mighty Stewart can get them backstage passes once LA is overrun by fetid hordes of the undead. Surely if these women are as smart as you say they will be overcome by your lovable charm. Let Jon make do with the crumbs from your table.

So your self-esteem is tied to your romantic status?

It seems kind of counterintuitive to base the trust you have in yourself by the trust other people have in you. Then you're strapping down your own feelings and intuitions out of fidelity to the expectations of others -- who are probably also strapping down their feelings and intuitions if you are. It becomes a weird feedback-loop of repression and conformity -- republican voters! I kid.

But seriously, shouldn't you know yourself better than anyone else?

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at July 7, 2007 09:26 AM

*SIGH*

I go away for a week and come back to Mulligan dreaming of a post apocalyptic zombie holocaust to rule over, Micha looking for some other topic and Mike explaining his fantasy life's desire to be picking up Jon Stewart's sloppy seconds.

Nice to know there's someplace I can count on for consistency in life.

"Of course, I also think Nixon is very much protected from further prosecution by virtue of being dead."

Well, sure you would think that, but you forget who it is you're speaking to. One unholy rite later and Nixon is suffering eternal damnation as an undead Oliver Reed's cabana boy. Oh, the pain... the paaaiiiiiiinnnnnnn...

By the way, I'm a dad.

Posted by: Micha at July 7, 2007 09:49 AM

I have to disagree on this weighty matter.

First, Cheney is old and has heart condition, he is not fit to face zombies.

Secondly, I haven't seenmany zombie movies but it seems to me that one or two usuelly die accidently in friendly fire (or chainsaw). If he can't distinguish between a bird and a friend's face, what are the odds he'll mistakn you for a zombie (or a liberal).

And most importantly, don't underestimate the importance of comic irony. Where would Buffy be without her ironic humor? Killed by Japanese demons with a grudge. And where would Spiderman be without his quick wit? He'd be in Spiderman 3.

The main flaw I see with Jon Stewart is that Mike will be around all the time waiting for sloppy seconds. As if the appocalypse is not hard enough.

It is true that situations like zombies, vampires, alien invasions etc. present sensible arguments for private gun ownership. They present societies that are threatened from within, and the need for individuals to protect themselves in a hostile world. However, I'm familiar also with some equally swensible negative effects of easy access to guns.

Posted by: Bladestar at July 7, 2007 10:01 AM

Grats Jerry

Posted by: Mike at July 7, 2007 10:56 AM

I believe we have entered the traditional Mike/Zombie part of this thread. But maybe this time we'll avoid it by discussing something else. Any ideas? Anybody? Please... somebody....

Wait, why are you forcing yourself to participate in a conversation you don't want to participate in? Your first post here was to wedge yourself into conversation with a person you want everyone to think you don't even want to talk to. Why don't you simply play the role you want everyone to see you embodying?

The main flaw I see with Jon Stewart is that Mike will be around all the time waiting for sloppy seconds. As if the appocalypse is not hard enough.

As if you aren't going to go where I go.

By the way, I'm a dad.

Happiness is contagious, so in a sense we have a duty to be happy. I can only wish you good luck in fulfilling the trust the universe has placed in you.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 7, 2007 11:06 AM

Pagans and others who lean left tend to have a much more varied array of cutlery.

It's the Society for Creative Anachronism people who will really make out like bandits. Yeah, who's the nerd now?

So if I find out I can't get pity sex even in the face of the extinction of mankind, how is seeking the company of women still a bad choice? Do you chafe in the company of women you find attractive but don't give you sex?

Not at all--it's your fantasy to have sex with women who have been lubed up by a celebrity. Don't get all huffy when you accidentally reveal too much.

That taken co-worker who teases you by diddling her ear facing you -- is that not a safety-net ensuring your good day, or are you reaching for a screen to block your view?

Maybe she is just cleaning the wax out of her ears because she can't believe she heard you say something as creepy as comparing a second wife to "sloppy seconds".

So your self-esteem is tied to your romantic status?

Not at all. My post apocalyptic fantasy does not revolve around pity sex. Even if it did I would probably assume that the "Not if you were the last man on Earth!" line was for dramatic effect and not a literal truth.

But hey, it's YOUR fantasy and, admittedly, there are worse ones to have.

Of course, I also think Nixon is very much protected from further prosecution by virtue of being dead.

That's what Cromwell thought. Ended up with his (severely decomposed) head on a pike, he did.

By the way, I'm a dad.

Once again, congratulations! Is Jenn feeling better? I raise a cup of espresso to your family's health!

First, Cheney is old and has heart condition, he is not fit to face zombies.

You do raise a valid point. It would suck to have the old coot kick off from a heart attack and turn on me. (The new Billy Connely movie FIDO uses that premise--in a world where the dead rise old people are regarded with no small amount of suspicion).

However, I'm familiar also with some equally sensible negative effects of easy access to guns.

All joking aside, it's one of those issues where the likely scenario and the worst case scenario result in widely different courses of action. I think it likely that having a gun puts one is more danger than NOT having one--all things being equal. But there is that small but significant chance that a situation would arise where having one is very very good. So...maybe it depends on ow much of an optimist one is.

Posted by: Micha at July 7, 2007 11:38 AM

"All joking aside, it's one of those issues where the likely scenario and the worst case scenario result in widely different courses of action. I think it likely that having a gun puts one is more danger than NOT having one--all things being equal. But there is that small but significant chance that a situation would arise where having one is very very good. So...maybe it depends on ow much of an optimist one is."

Agreed. As is often the case, a balance needs to be found between two legitimate but myopic extremes.

And now back to our regularly scheduled zombies.

I wonder. We've talked about zombies, vampires, werewolves, trolls, Republicans, Democrats... what's next? Witches?

-------------------
"Your first post here was to wedge yourself into conversation with a person you want everyone to think you don't even want to talk to."

Why would I want anybody to think I don't want to talk with Bill Mulligan?

---------------
Congratulation again Jerry. Health and happiness to you, your wife and the newborn.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 7, 2007 11:51 AM

I wonder. We've talked about zombies, vampires, werewolves, trolls, Republicans, Democrats... what's next? Witches?

witches they were persecuted,
Wicca good and love the earth
and women power, and I'll be over here...

Posted by: Mike at July 7, 2007 11:55 AM

...if the gals are just crazy about Jon why would they be offering you any seconds at all, sloppy or otherwise?

So if I find out I can't get pity sex even in the face of the extinction of mankind, how is seeking the company of women still a bad choice? Do you chafe in the company of women you find attractive but don't give you sex?

Not at all--it's your fantasy to have sex with women who have been lubed up by a celebrity. Don't get all huffy when you accidentally reveal too much.

With lust goes a sexual history.

It's kind of a shame a woman generous enough to share the virtue of her lust with you would have to treat a part of her history as taboo -- like that woman who drowned her kids for the sake of her new boyfriend -- to avoid you inferring she was "lubed up" by another man.

That taken co-worker who teases you by diddling her ear facing you -- is that not a safety-net ensuring your good day, or are you reaching for a screen to block your view?

Maybe she is just cleaning the wax out of her ears because she can't believe she heard you say something as creepy as comparing a second wife to "sloppy seconds".

Well, if she doesn't want to know why Stewart has the edge over Cheney after the collapse of civilization, she shouldn't ask.

I will leave the conclusions to you, the reader except to suggest that one get used to the new National Anthem; Wang Dang Sweet Poontang....

Why the low self esteem? It isn't like Mr High and Mighty Stewart can get them backstage passes once LA is overrun by fetid hordes of the undead. Surely if these women are as smart as you say they will be overcome by your lovable charm. Let Jon make do with the crumbs from your table.

So your self-esteem is tied to your romantic status?

It seems kind of counterintuitive to base the trust you have in yourself by the trust other people have in you. Then you're strapping down your own feelings and intuitions out of fidelity to the expectations of others -- who are probably also strapping down their feelings and intuitions if you are. It becomes a weird feedback-loop of repression and conformity -- republican voters! I kid.

But seriously, shouldn't you know yourself better than anyone else?

Not at all. My post apocalyptic fantasy does not revolve around pity sex. Even if it did I would probably assume that the "Not if you were the last man on Earth!" line was for dramatic effect and not a literal truth.

But hey, it's YOUR fantasy and, admittedly, there are worse ones to have.

Well look at you going from submitting "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang" as the national anthem to portraying yourself as too good for pity sex. Is that how it works: the more severe the woman, the sweeter her snatch? I hope you'll forgive me if I don't pass on any opportunities to verify that for myself.

I believe we have entered the traditional Mike/Zombie part of this thread. But maybe this time we'll avoid it by discussing something else. Any ideas? Anybody? Please... somebody....

Wait, why are you forcing yourself to participate in a conversation you don't want to participate in? Your first post here was to wedge yourself into conversation with a person you want everyone to think you don't even want to talk to. Why don't you simply play the role you want everyone to see you embodying?

Why would I want anybody to think I don't want to talk with Bill Mulligan?

Thank you for providing your denial I've given you any cause to shut down any dialogs between us.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at July 7, 2007 12:00 PM

...who is more likely to survive the zombie apocalypse--Dennis Kucinich, unarmed in his prius or Ted Nugent, his Hummer stocked with semi-automatics?

Well, when Ted's gas-sucking Hummer runs out of fuel in the flatlands of the Midwest, he's gonna start running low on ammo eventually. Besides, one of the interesting facts I've picked up from stories surrounding the DUI bust of Al Gore III is that while the Prius is speed-limited to 103 (in order to avoid draining the batteries too quickly), the Hummer H2 and H3 have a top speed of about 88 mph, so Dennis can run away faster... :)

Posted by: Micha at July 7, 2007 01:59 PM

"witches they were persecuted,
Wicca good and love the earth
and women power, and I'll be over here..."

I get the impression that you don't like witches (persons of witchiness). Any other creatures/supernatural entities that need discussing? Because this Mike-discussion (Mikscussion?) is probably the craziest of all Mike-discussions ever, and that's saying a lot.

I saw X3 again on TV last night. Still OK but somewhat disappointing. Saw that bit at the end I missed the first time. What an annoying way to get you to watch the credits. I could have lived without it.
Saw the classic 1968 Romeo and Juliet this afternoon. Still great. Good script.

Posted by: Bladestar at July 7, 2007 02:20 PM

"witches they were persecuted,
Wicca good and love the earth
and women power, and I'll be over here..."

Buffy, Season #6 "Once More with Feeling"
The song: "I've got a Theory/Bunnies/If We're Together" Track 2 on the CD
The sheepish look on Xander's face when Willow and Tara glared at him (for the first part of the verse) was great

"It could be witches, some evil witches...which is ridiculous because..."

Posted by: Bladestar at July 7, 2007 02:26 PM

Oh, and before I forget, I just got back from the theater...

STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND GO SEE TRANSFORMERS NOW!!!!

I was pleasantly surprised to see it was actually great rather than a crapfest with good special effects.

Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 7, 2007 07:11 PM

"First, Cheney is old and has heart condition, he is not fit to face zombies."

Micha, first time I read that, I did so more quickly than I should, and I thought you were saying our beloved vice president has a face LIKE a zombie. But, upon further reflection, I realized how silly that'd be. Most pre-blunt-force or missile-weapon zombies are much more animated facially, not to mention easier to reason with and generally understand.

As far as moving on to witches and those of the magick inclination, most of the pagans I know have enough bladed weapons to film the sequel to Braveheart and Highlander 5: Oh, Good God, Let The Series DIE! One even has a bat'telh hanging on his wall. And he's a bartender. House full of blades, free flowing booze--not as dangerous as you might think, as long as you don't get on his bad side. Then he'll just send you nasty e-mails and try to crash your server. So, go for witches with a modicum of caution, people.