• They have many very visible nuts.  William Kristol, David Frum, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Oliver North, Karl Rove, Tom Delay, James Inhofe, Rick Santorum, Rudy Giuliani...

    The difference is, their nuts are treated with great respect for being such Serious People.

  • Don't look now, but you are part of the netroots.

    Why smear an entire community as being nuts?  And what makes you so sane and us so crazy?

  • comment on a post 'Netroots' should be ashamed of themselves over 6 years ago

    What is at stake in the 'Netroots'. Mr Moulitsas is your grandstanding attempt to gain further entry into the mainstream. With all it's fame and fortune at the expense of electing a Democratic president.

    Do you have any basis for making this charge?  Perhaps Markos said what he did because he actually believes it?

    Stop shooting yourself, Democrats, and the causes of the left by being petulent whiny bastards. The Right doesn't do this and The Right wins. The left does this and the left loses. It really isn't that hard.....don't shit where you eat.

    The Right aren't whiny?  They never stop their crying.  They were pearl clutching and gnashing teeth over Clark's comment, over the Move On ad, over Kerry's joke, over Obama's public finance decision etc ad (true) nauseum.

    What the right doesn't do is cave on its (pathetic) core principles and try to sell off such a cave in as a "compromise" to its base.

  • comment on a post Chris Bowers on Bill Richardson over 6 years ago

    I always detest the "that's hypothetical" dodge from candidates on just about any issue.  True, some questions use ludicrous hypotheticals to try and gotcha candidates, but this isn't one such thing.

    It should be easy enough to say

    "given the current conditions, if I were president, I believe on the order of X troops would be sufficient to protect the (embassy/green zone/Iraqi govt/oil resources/whole country)"

    while leaving room for changing that plan if the circumstances change when and if that person became president.

    The candidates should at least specify why they might leave any troops (what they want protected), and what their criteria for total troop withdrawal would be.

    So, it's fair to not want to be nailed to a specific number and have that bashed over your head all campaign by the moronic media, but they can certainly give us a better understanding of their thinking and what metrics they would use to make that decision on Jan 21, 2009.

  • on a comment on Romney Facts over 6 years ago

    I'm in on the Giuliani googlebomb for that reason.

  • TPM has it that Young added this earmark after the conference bill was approved by Congress but before the President signed it.

    He actually went outside the constitution to add something illegally into law.

    Surprisingly that isn't a crime per se, but if that is confirmed, he should be tossed from the House for it.  

  • comment on a post Forcing Bush's Hand on Recess Appointments over 6 years ago


    It really is only tradition that keeps the president from doing a recess nomination for breaks shorter than 10 days.  In the 4th branch administration, I would be shocked if they didn't consider the Senate lunch break a long enough "recess" to constitutionally make recess appointments.

    So I'd call this a win for Reid, for the moment, assuming that not too many odious people actually get confirmed to the jobs.  

    I think it was in Bush's interest to avoid any high profile recess appointments.  They're really unpopular, and the higher the job, the more flack a president gets for doing it.  Besides, his nominees will have more legitimacy for their wingnut views if they are senate confirmed.  We never stop hearing about how Petraeus was confirmed unanimously and we will again when he delivers his unsurprising "magnificent progress" report in September.

  • Remember, the officially given reason for replacing Cummins with Griffin was to prime Griffin for the federal bench.

    (never mind the obvious ulterior motive to have a key loyalist ready to indict Hillary or someone close to her in time to sway the general election)

    Griffin, a Rove hatchet man, as a lifelong federal judge.  Ready to be appointed to the Supreme Court by the next Republican president.

    So yeah, thank Leahy and Conyers for that horrible result being averted.

  • No, I don't think it would be silly.

    It would be highly symbolic, and let's see if Miers or Bolten resists the arrest.

    Or better, if the Secret Service intervenes, which would make Bush's refusal to comply with the law crystal clear to the nation.

    Attempting to out-gun the Executive branch is ultimately futile.  Even if every Capitol Hill cop goes to arrest a WH figure, the Secret Service can easily put out an intimidating display of force, or just scoot the person away quickly before the Capitol Hill police even arrive.

  • I think Congress should exhaust the statuatory powers by passing a citation motion onto the DoJ and awaiting the inevitable refusal to prosecute by AGAG.  Then, an inherent contempt proceeding would be dramatic and likely to garner support.

    No gunfights or whatnot, just the Sergeant-At-Arms making a symbolic arrest of whomever, and let us see if the Secret Service intervenes - because such a move would play like the Kent massacre, or the firehoses turned on civil rights marchers - the kind of dramatic move which electrifies the nation against the president.

  • Yes, they can impeach tomorrow.  Great, now try and get 67 senators to vote to convict.

    That's what they're waiting for, momentum to do such a thing.  Certainly there are grounds to question this approach, but it's not so incomprehensible as you're portraying it.  It's just prudent, likely far too prudent, but there it is.

  • Actually, I think inherent contempt predates the statuatory contempt proceedings whereby the DoJ prosecutes upon a citation from a chamber of Congress.

    It dates back to British parliament actually, and my understanding is that it was originally the only way Congress enforced subpoenas until this century.

  • Not sure, but then if they go this way, it should be done in the House to avoid the spectacle and mockery of having Dick Cheney presiding over it.

  • I will be watching whatever footage I can online.

    I enjoyed what I was able to glean of last year's show.  Looking like this one will be a success too, just on the announced speakers.

  • The Speaker of the House is a San Fransisco liberal.

    Maybe the American people are not so scared of people aligned with what fox news calls "the far left" as much as you fear.

    If anything, previous attempts to scare people with pictures of Markos Moulitas were just wasted advertising dollars by the Republicans.  Most people don't know who DailyKos is, and it's hard to scare them with association to a group they don't even know exists.

    Besides, they will try to paint her that way no matter how hard she runs right.  


Advertise Blogads