No, they couldn't be sued. If they were on the board of directors, then they would have a fiduciary responsibility to the other shareholders, so then they could be sued if they did not take an obvious opportunity to maximize shareholder value. But AFAIK the Bancrofts are mostly not on the board, so they are free to sell or not sell as they see fit. It's their property.
The editorial section is not conservative "almost to the point of lunacy." They actually are crazy. A couple of months ago Bret Stephens opined that the US should state publicly that if there is a nuclear terrorist attack on our soil, we would destroy Mecca and Medina. Just this week they ran a piece by Ted F-ing Nugent raging against the dirty hippies of the Summer of Love.
That said, the news sections of the paper really are excellent, as others have already noted. It's probably the best US paper; IMO only the LA Times is in the same league, and that paper has slipped some since the merger with the Tribune.
It's unfortunate, but I think it's inevitable that Murdoch will eventually destroy the news sections -- except for the business news section, of course, since if the reporting in that part of the paper is not good no one will buy it. Still, this certainly represents an opportunity for FT to expand their US presence, and other US news organizations should benefit from the talented reporters who are going to become available once the resignations start.
This is a bit hysterical, isn't it? I mean, first of all, Ron Paul's not getting the Republican nomination. But let's say he did, and he won. He's a freaking libertarian; I don't think he's going to be setting up a dictatorship. So the Congress could override his vetoes, if needed, to fund some sort of safety net, if it desired. And if it didn't, and the federal government were dramatically scaled back (and now we've gone really far down the path of things that are not going to happen), then I think it's safe to say that the states would step in and fund at least some barebones social welfare system.
Nice. You were probably big on the "domino theory" too.
We, like most Americans, want the war to end in a way that doesn't cause the Middle East to erupt, provide Iran with access to more oil money, endangers Israel or creates a terrorist run pseudo-state from which Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah or other Islamic terror organizations can operate from with impunity.
I believe this is the GWB position. The problem is, such a way does not exist, short of continuing the slow-motion disaster currently in place. And even keeping our troops there indefinitely still might not stop the civil war from getting worse. Personally, I am not convinced that our troops are helping much at all; while they undoubtedly are quelling some terrorist and insurgent activity, their very presence is a recruitment ad for extremists. It may be a wash.
Edwards and Obama are so busy kissing ass to the ultra-far left that they have never bothered to think of an answer. Hillary has. That's why she's winning.
Right. Her short answer is that she'll end the war in 2009. Her long answer is that she'll keep, I don't know, 40 or 50 thousand US troops there. Some of us over here in our "little corner" don't think that qualifies as ending the war.
I am no fan of McCain's, and certainly some of his pandering, such as cozying up to Jerry Falwell, is egregious. However, I'm not too sure this one qualifies. As McCain says, "... we couldn't pass the legislation." And that's really what I see going on here. If you're trying to pass something and you don't have the votes, you can either hold to your principles and lose, or you can "sell out" and make some compromise that will bring some of your opposition over to your side.
Now you can argue, justifiably, that maybe Mike Pence is not the first guy you should try to make a deal with on immigration policy, but if you want to pass something, you're going to have to make a deal somewhere, and most likely that deal is going to make the legislation worse.
Now personally I would prefer that McCain use the platform of his presidential campaign to argue forcefully that immigration reform with a path to citizenship for current illegal aliens is good for America and also the right and humane thing to do. But the politics of such an argument are not good, so this is a) still not likely to work and b) guaranteed to cost McCain votes in Republican primaries, even in Iowa and New Hampshire, which have relatively small immigrant populations.
I would also note that characterizing a waffle on immigration as pandering to "ultra-conservatives" is fairly misleading; while Tancredo and his ilk may be the worst, illegal immigrants are regarded with suspicion and demonized by large swathes of the US population from across the political spectrum. I know I have had conversations with people who are otherwise fairly liberal but seem to have an irrational hatred of immigrants.
Since this is clearly intended to somehow damage Senator Obama, it has to be one of the most inept comments of all time. It is off-topic, for starters, but beyond that it ignores the fact that almost no one who reads this site, who would take the time to read about Arellano's case, would come to the conclusion that Obama should call for her deportation. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Moreover, how many "MODERATE DEMOCRATS" would favor the government violating church sanctuary? How many "MODERATE DEMOCRATS" have heard of Elvira Arellano?
Yeah, I know, but he'd be so great. Anyway, another likely option would be running for Boswell's seat if he should retire. I'd actually love to see Boswell face a primary, but that seems unlikely, especially in Iowa where elections are apparently for life.
Oh yeah, in Iowa, I think Harkin is safe if he runs. If he retires, hopefully Vilsack will drop the quixotic presidential campaign and run for Senate, which he would win easily against either King or Latham. I agree that Latham would be a stronger candidate than King, who would be lucky to get 25% of the vote in eastern Iowa; he is way too crazy to win statewide.
If neither Harkin or Vilsack runs, it would be great to see Ed Fallon make a run; I think he could win a matchup with King and really would have a chance to be the next Paul Wellstone.
I am all for Landrieu losing, since I still assume a net gain for Dems even if she goes, and she is really, really a horrible senator -- easily the worst Democrat in the Senate. (Yes, I think she is worse than Joe Lieberman.) I'm pretty sure she's toast, and I'm not sad about it.
I know there are some who will argue that she is better than her Republican replacement, which is true in terms of votes, but neglects the damage to the Democratic brand that comes from having a senator like her who wears the "D" but casts vote after vote at the behest of the oil industry, votes for the war, incompetently trades votes to get aid for New Orleans that never comes, etc.
And of course in the Constitution the number mentioned is "not more than one per thirty thousand." Even with advances in communications, it's difficult to see how a person now could effectively represent twenty times as many people as those 200 years ago did.
On the other side of the coin, the logistics of a legislative body with 10,000 members would be a bit daunting, to say the least. Still, I think the case could easily be made that doubling the number of reps would make the body more representative and responsive to the views of constituents.
Do I have evidence? Are you actually serious? The man was impeached and convicted of such by a Democratic Congress! Even if you think the charges were "trumped up," as you seem to, it's clear that in any case there is ample evidence to support such charges. I happen to believe that in the case of corruption of public officials, most of the time where there's smoke, there's fire. YMMV.
However, if anyone here is engaging in fact-free discourse, it is certainly you. What evidence have you offered that Hastings was in fact innocent?