cam wrote:Rumours I hear:
1) Cheney denies entry to his office, as being "above the law"
2) Cheney to "retire" citing health ; Thompson to take over VP.
Anything in these?
Cam
2) has been rumored for six-and-a-half years in various permutations. Let's give this one up already, shall we?
1) has surprisingly taken on a life of its own. I thought it was too esoteric, but the story has stuck. In a nutshell, Cheney refuses to comply with an executive order requiring all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight requirements. His reasoning is that because one of the VPs duties is to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, it is therefore not fully a part of the exectuive branch. Another distinction made is that the VP's office is part of the President's personal staff, rather than part of the executive branch. I'm not exactly sure why this is such an important difference, but I suspect this administration wasn't the first to conjure that one up.
So much for those civics classes. Put it in the dustbin next to Pluto's planetary status.
Mister Tee wrote:Speaking of big lies, criddic...I suppose Edwards is a "phony" because he has money and hasn't taken a vow of poverty, but still wants to help out those less fortunate. God, yes, what an indefensible position -- in retrospect, I realize Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt and JFK all must have been big phonies (I'll bet JFK even had an expensive haircut once!). When did it become accepted wisdom that the only proper behavior for rich people was pushing for tax cuts that benefit them? Liberal media, indeed.
Does anyone else get the feeling from this concerted assault on Edwards from the right-wing media -- even while we're told by the mainstream his campaign is flagging -- that he's the one they all truly fear?
Count me as one who finds Edwards comes off as a major phony. I don't exactly know why. It's nothing he says or does, exactly. But it's his demeanor. He turned me off ever since his wholly uninspiring speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. Since then, my feelings have been up and down for him. Ocassionally that famed Edwards "charisma" will shine through and I'll warm up to him (which is a lot more than I can say for the allegedly "magnetic" Obama), but more often not. He comes across as a typical, rote-sounding politician-droid, like many of them.
(I think his wife is great, though. Obama's wife, too. Illness aside, I'd love to see those two run.)
And - oy - to be fair to the right-wing media, Edwards isn't helping himself one jot by continuously answering these stupid charges about the haircut. Had he said "I've answered this once. I'm not wasting my breath going over it again. Can we talk about things that actually matter, please? Like the issues?" he'd have gone a long way towards winning my respect.
So, there may be a million reasons why I don't care for Edwards. But I can assure you on the souls of my entire family, one reason I may think Edwards is a phony is NOT for the phenomenally stupid reason that he made a speech on poverty and took money for it. When I was in grade school, I volunteered two hours a week of my time to assist special-ed children in gym. Because of that, I found the use of the words "retard" and "retarded" as a perjorative was extremely distasteful to me as I was growing up. Even I would slip up on a rare ocassion, since at the time these were very popular words to casually throw around. But that would be for very extreme cases. So trust me that when I say anyone who thinks this issue about Edward's speeches merits serious consideration in any way is seriously, drastically, alarmingly, appallingly RETARDED, it is not something I'm saying lightly. It is perhaps the stupidest thing I've ever heard - not ONE of the stupidest; THE stupidest - and it has now become my standard for judging whether a person is of average intelligence or a dolt, depending on how seriously he takes this joke of an "issue". As if every single marketable politician and public figure DOESN'T get paid ridiculous sums of money to make speeches across the country, and for twice the amount Edwards got paid. As if major Ive League universities don't set aside a portion of their budget to pay for these events. (And how much does Ann Coulter get paid for her speeches?) Oh, I'll grant there is a humorous irony in being paid for making a speech about poverty. It's not worth more than 90 seconds of anyone's time as an anecdote. If this were a Republican we were talking about, we'd all have a brief giggle. But if I learned that Democratic blogs and talking heads took this up as a rallying point to bring a Republican down, I would be astonished at the mental deterioration that they were suddenly afflicted with.
So, here's an idea. I realize I just spent some time addressing it, and I guess it's only fair that Criddic present the other side for balance, and explain why mental retardation is a viable platform to run on ("Sonic, many people have stated these concerns. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't make them retarded." And maybe he'll throw in an aside about his cousin's voting record.) But after that? Let's not talk about it. At all. Because the issue is Ann Coulter's vileness, not Edward's speeches. Coulter tried mightily to deflect her statements by bringing up Edward's speeches. I'm afraid that's going to happen here as well, and the argument over Edwards is going to leave Coulter in the dust. Nothing wrong with talking about Edwards or his speeches or the money he collected for making them, other than the stupidity of the premise. The problem is, if we use Coulter's abominable behavior as a springboard to talk about Edwards, we're then equating the two. No. THE TWO ISSUES DO NOT DESERVE TO BE SPOKEN OF TOGETHER AS IF THEY WERE EQUIVALENT TO EACH OTHER. It overvalues one issue and undervalues the other. Please please please, don't fall for this diversionary tactic.
On this board and with others I've talked to, John Edwards is the one name that they most universally support. He's smart, successful and has the charm and charisma no candidate has had since JFK. The Republicans fear that. At least with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the right wing have things they can push that will make them seem less attractive, but there's not much they can say that's bad against John Edwards. Edwards is that one unique candidate that even republicans could support.
I know a couple who are reliably repulican voters. They aren't afraid to pick a republican. When Hillary's name's brought up, they turn their noses. If I mention Edwards, they confess that if he had been the top of the ticket in 2004, they would have voted for him instead of Bush.
I will agree 100% with Tee that should he be the candidate selected, he might just win (look at those poll numbers we often see for proof).
Using Criddic's favorite RCP for information:
Giuliana/Clinton - Clinton up 2.4%
Giuliana/Obama - Obama up 1.2%
Giuliana/Edwards - Edwards up 2.4%
Thompson/Clinton - Clinton up 6.2%
Thompson/Obama - Obama up 9.7%
McCain/Clinton - Clinton up 3.5%
McCain/Obama - Obama up 6.0%
McCain/Edwards - Edwards up 8.4%
Romney/Clinton - Clinton up 11.7%
Romney/Obama - Obama up 16.6%
Romney/Edwards - Edwards up 22.2%
I so hope the Pubes nominate Romney. A landslide would be great.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Damien wrote:ANd as for her death wish on John Edwards, she claimed she was just aping Bill Maher because according to Coulter, he said he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. My recollection is that Maher said no such thing. What he did say was that if Cheney had been killed before the War on the Iraqi People, thousands of people who are now dead would still be alive.
You're right, Damien. One of the most galling things about this whole affair is that she's using as justification a complete mischaracterization of what Maher said -- one twisted into being by John Gibson on FoxNoise, and of course amplified by the usual suspects -- and no one (well, few) are correcting her. Even sadder: Joe Scarborough (who has moments of honesty mixed in with his right-wing-ness) was on the Maher panel that night and explicitly rebutted the Gibson distortion on the day it was being spread, but now he's fallen in line, saying Bill's remark at least semi-justifies Coulter's remark.
This all reinforces my feeling about the right wing's chief m.o. these days: Hitler had the big lie -- tell one so monstrously false, some will believe it because they can't imagine you'd make up something so ridiculous; the current crowd has VOLUME of lies -- tell so many, people will absorb some because they can't believe you'd be so rampantly dishonest.
Speaking of big lies, criddic...I suppose Edwards is a "phony" because he has money and hasn't taken a vow of poverty, but still wants to help out those less fortunate. God, yes, what an indefensible position -- in retrospect, I realize Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt and JFK all must have been big phonies (I'll bet JFK even had an expensive haircut once!). When did it become accepted wisdom that the only proper behavior for rich people was pushing for tax cuts that benefit them? Liberal media, indeed.
Does anyone else get the feeling from this concerted assault on Edwards from the right-wing media -- even while we're told by the mainstream his campaign is flagging -- that he's the one they all truly fear?
criddic3 wrote:At least President Bush doesn't pretend to be something he's not, in my opinion.
Well, he pretends to be human, so there's that.
What I would give to see her go up against someone of a piercing intellect, wit and eloquence -- say, Gore Vidal.
Oh my gosh, yes, Damien! That would be awesome! Vidal would wipe the floor with her. I'd love to see what Addison DeWitt could do to that thing Ann Coulter if he were, ya know, real.
I love how she doesn't think the word "faggot" is derogatory to gays. It's just a "school-yard taunt", y'all -- it's all good! Nanny-nanny boo-boo!
Edited By flipp525 on 1183039483
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
*Actually, I added that. But can you prove it didn't happen?
I'm sure a good reporter would be able to find out if it had, but it would be funny in any event.
No need to argue the fact that certain rights should be given to detainees, but we also have to keep in mind that many (i'll refrain from overgeneralizing here) of these people are thugs and murderers caught on the battlefield and should not be granted access to our civilian courts. If that is one of the requirements of the 50 students, I would politely tell them to ask their teacher(s) (who obviously "suggested" a letter) to explain what it means to be an enemy combatant.
__
I'll weigh in on the Edwards/Coulter thing by simply reiterating that I do not like Ann Coulter precisely because she doesn't know there are limits in civilized debating. I don't like John Edwards much anymore, either, but attacking his family verbally isn't called for. In 2004, I thought Edwards was the more articulate half of the Democratic ticket (I wouldn't have voted for him, but he might have been better than Kerry at the time). Now he has revealed himself to be a complete phony. At least President Bush doesn't pretend to be something he's not, in my opinion.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
What bothers me most about this harridan is that the mainstream media still give her forums to spout her puerile bile. After she attacked the 9/11 Widows, everyone in television should have said, "Ratings be damned. This vile thing will not be allowed even near our studios." But there she was on Good Morning, America the other day wishing that John Edwards had been assassinated.
Like members of the lunatic fringe used to be in more civil times, she should be relegated to public access stations and sad little AM radio staions with 50 watts of power.
Chris Mattherws showed himself once again for all his "hardball" bluster to be a total wuss in not pushing a challenge on this odious creature, laying down as she pulled her usual "I AM The Victim" crap, sneering that the warm and wonderful ELizabeth Edwards was trying to prevent her freedom of speech.
And as for her death wish on John Edwards, she claimed she was just aping Bill Maher because according to Coulter, he said he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. My recollection is that Maher said no such thing. What he did say was that if Cheney had been killed before the War on the Iraqi People, thousands of people who are now dead would still be alive.
Another thing about Coulter -- and it shows how bereft of incisive thought the right wing is -- is that her attacks are on the level of 4th grade playground slurs -- such as making fun of Barak Obama's name. What I would give to see her go up against someone of a piercing intellect, wit and eloquence -- say, Gore Vidal.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
I really didn't think I'd be defending that remark on this board. In fact, I'm a little surprised that I'm having this conversation with anyone other than criddic. It was hyperbolic, in-the-moment, and extreme to a fault but...jeez. Did you see the level of venom on this board in the five minutes after Crash won two years ago? Let's just move on, Sonic.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
Re: flipp's remark, maybe this is an extreme overreaction, but I've always felt it's risky to say such things over the internet. That's what was behind my initial reaction.
Plus, when such a sentiment is out there, it's the proverbial open barn door. Whatever Coulter has said in the past, I wouldn't like to see similar statements deemed acceptable here.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President [if, indeed, he IS the vice-president] Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrant-free eavesdropping program.
Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, were the Justice Department and the National Security Council.
The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal disputes within the administration over the legality of the program.
"Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection," Leahy said in his cover letters for the subpoenas. "There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this committee."
Echoing its response to previous congressional subpoenas to former administration officials Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, the White House gave no indication that it would comply.
"We're aware of the committee's action and will respond appropriately," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
"It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."
The showdown between the White House and Congress could land in federal court.
Leahy's committee and its counterpart in the House have issued the subpoenas as part of a sweeping look at how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The probe, in its sixth month, began with an investigation into whether administration officials ordered the firings of eight federal prosecutors, for political reasons.
But with senators of both parties already concerned about the constitutionality of the administration's efforts to root out terrorism suspects in the United States, the committee shifted to the broader question of Gonzales' stewardship of Justice and, in particular, his willingness to permit the wiretapping program.
Piquing the committee's interest was vivid testimony last month by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey about the extent of the White House's effort to override the Justice Department's objections to the program in 2004. (Full Story)
Comey told the Judiciary Committee that Gonzales, then-White House counsel, tried to get Attorney General John Ashcroft to reverse course and recertify the program. At the time, Ashcroft lay in intensive care, recovering form gall bladder surgery.
Ashcroft refused, as did Comey, to whom Ashcroft had temporarily shifted the power of his office during his illness.
The White House recertified the program unilaterally. Ashcroft, Comey, FBI Director Robert Mueller and their staffs prepared to resign. Bush ultimately relented and made changes to the classified program that the Justice officials had demanded, and the agency eventually recertified it.
The fight was one of the most bitter disputes of the Bush presidency and questions remain over whether the program tramples people's civil rights. The administration says the program is crucial to preventing more terrorist attacks.
I can't say I don't understand flipp's response. I avoided Hardball yesterday -- even risked missing the opening moments of Countdown -- because I find the very sight of Coulter makes me physically furious. I haven't watched her on purpose for almost a decade; life's too short to let her aggravate me.
Sonic's point is obviously valid as well. It reminds me of my father's questioning a harangue I was delivering on Agnew back in 1970. He asked why, if I demanded tolerance, I couldn't be more tolerant of Spiro. My glib reply was, I could be tolerant of anything except intolerance.
But it's a tough issue to decide. Do you brush people like Coulter off, mindful of the two old injunctions ("Never argue with an idiot; people might not notice the difference" and "Don't mud-wrestle with a pig; you'll get filthy, and the pig'll enjoy it")? It doesn't seemed to have worked: Coulter's been spewing her venom ten years or more, and she gets ever more high-profile platforms from which to declaim, no matter that she's expressed thoughts (like yesterday's wish for Edward to be killed by a terrorist) that, if they concerned a GOP president, would merit a visit from the FBI (to say nothing of her continued promulgation of falsehoods: just last night she repeated the oft-debunked bin Laden/Saddam connection).
We believe in the free exchange of ideas, etc., but 1) as Elizabeth Edwards eloquently asked, what place does personally-aimed venom have in this? (especially since it's only tolerated against Democrats -- no one making sick jokes about Laura Bush's fatal car accident would be making Good Morning America appearances) and 2) Is there any limit? Coulter has "joked" about the killing of liberal Supreme Court justices, people at the NY Times, and, of course, as many Arabs as possible. Sorry to skirt Godwin's Law, but at what point do we say she's Goebbels, who, we have seen, can have consequences that go well beyond speech?
