Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Friday Political Thread: Keep Your Nuts
Convincing Quote of the Week
"Libertarians are getting ready for the mainstream, and mainstream
America may finally be ready for them."
-
Time magazine
The Week in Brief
- John McCain's economic team ended
the recession. Just in time!
- The Bill of Rights got pared down to a
manageable nine.
- Jesse Jackson went nuts.
- Bob Barr started polling in the high
single digits... or did he?
- Jesse Ventura pondered a
comeback.
Below the Fold
- Chris Hedges
frets about the implications of FISA reform on the press.
- Nate Silver notices
that Obama has been compared to everyone who's run for
president since the 1940s.
- The Onion
picks Obama's running mate.
- Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild
calls Obama an "elitist." Seriously, kids.
- Time tries
to grok the Libertarians.
- Surprise! Mark Penn's
rotten to the core.
I've taken a request for this week's Politics 'n' Prog. Thanks
to Jon Rowe for recommending "The Pinnacle."
SATURDAY UPDATE: This is awful news:
Tony Snow has died.
Tony Snow, a conservative writer and commentator who cheerfully sparred with reporters in the White House briefing room during a stint as President Bush's press secretary, has died of colon cancer, Fox News reported Saturday. Snow was 53 years old.
Shikha Dalmia's 2007 interview with Snow is here.
SATURDAY UPDATE II: Daniel Larison ruminates on one of my electoral obsessions.
Except for Indiana, which is a natural target for an Illinois candidate, most of the “map-expanding” moves that Obama is making right now make little sense. I know that the Montana, North Dakota and Alaska polls show a very close race, and at least one has shown Obama leading in Montana, but there are structural reasons that these states almost never vote Democratic in the presidential race, just as there are structural reasons why “the Casey belt” states are more likely to vote that way. Many of the latter would be reverting to previous voting patterns, while the newly targeted states will have to break with long-established patterns. Put another way, if these states even voted for Bob Dole, odds are they will still end up voting for
Dole Mk II
McCain. I just don't think Larison understands these states. Not until 2000 were Montana and North Dakota out of bounds for Democrats. In 1988, Michael Dukakis only lost Montana by 6 points and North Dakota by 13. In the two Clinton races, with Perot pulling independent voters, the Democrats won Montana once and lost North Dakota by smallish margins. Clinton's Kentucky and Tennessee wins (to use two states Larison says Obama should play for) were not overwhelming: In 1996, Clinton beat the pathetic Dole in Kentucky by 13,000 votes out of about 1.4 million. For a number of oddball demographic and cultural reasons, western whites like Obama more than Appalachian whites like him. Those same whites are represented right now, in Montana, by two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor, and in North Dakota by two Democratic senators and a Democratic congressman. I don't think Obama is shadowboxing by playing in the plains and west.
|7.12.08 @ 12:49AM|#
Is it just me or has the ENTIRE US Political system gone totally
MAD? From Dictator Bush to his sidekick mini-me "McBush" its just
goten totally out of control!
JT
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
|7.12.08 @ 1:31AM|#
Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, people like you are the reason
The Daily Show exists.
That shit was funny.
|7.12.08 @ 1:49AM|#
Mr. Weigel, does the acceptance of the greatness of Kansas mean
that a Devin Townsend Politics n' Prog is forthcoming?
Also, I liked the Chris Hedges article.
|7.12.08 @ 1:53AM|#
The Bill of Rights got pared down to a manageable
nine.
Laughed out loud at this bad puppy.
Guy Montag|7.12.08 @ 7:07AM|#
John McCain's economic team ended the recession. Just in
time!
Just exactly when did this 'recession' start? Is it being measured
by mentions of the word "recession" in media or is there some
actual economic measurement going on?
George Stephanopoulos|7.12.08 @ 7:20AM|#
godspeed tony.
*blackberry entry*
"go to gwu med ctr asap. get the works."
Guy Montag|7.12.08 @ 7:30AM|#
Has reason done anything on this political chatter
about a national speed limit being imposed again?
Are they going to revive the name Emergency Highway Energy
Conservation Act or is there a snappier title for this
one?
It is bad enough that the Leftists keep trying to revive bad
policies from the Carter administration, now they are borrowing
from the worst of Nixon too.
Roger Maltz|7.12.08 @ 8:15AM|#
Jesse....Jesse.......Jesse. Ponder a comeback only after you utterly disassociate yourself with the Alex Jones truther crowd. Also, the stupid fu-manchu moustache won't go over well.
|7.12.08 @ 9:00AM|#
Yeah, Ventura actually tends to speak a lot of sense until he
gets into the conspiracy shit.
That Time article wasn't too bad.
NP|7.12.08 @ 9:27AM|#
Damn, I do remember Snow saying he'll live with his cancer for
the rest of his life, but he also sounded like his treatment was
holding it in check. Really a witty guy, and I'm sure he would've
been a fun drinking buddy.
RIP.
|7.12.08 @ 9:32AM|#
For a republican fanboy, Tony Snow was an all right guy. I would like to have smoked a joint with him. I think he'd have smoked one with me. In private, on a boat, outside of US waters, shades drawn ...
|7.12.08 @ 9:52AM|#
Tony was a "paid liar" but everyone defends (or at least keeps
silent) about something he'd probably rather not sometime in his
life, and Tony seemed to be fairly decent and witty. He's got a
family and it's terrible when just about anybody dies* (Hitler
excluded of course).
The news snippet I heard about the national speed limit (which this
leftists btw thinks is a horrible idea) had noted "Leftist" John
Warner R-VA floating the idea.
jtuf|7.12.08 @ 10:08AM|#
The Time's article was OK, but it would have been better if the reporter did a bit more research on the party platform. Is the typical Nevada LP member against electricity and Wal-Mart like the example in the article? Where is the anti-WTO progressive wing of the party? I thought the anti-WTO Libertarians objected because WTO takes to long to open up global trade, not out of any anti-trade beliefs. Is the LP bound together by a belief that "modernity just means having our daily lives ruled by mechanisms that have grown so complex that they are beyound comprehension or control"? The reporter obviously has not read any of Bailey's articles.
jtuf|7.12.08 @ 10:14AM|#
Guy Montag | July 12, 2008, 7:07am | #
John McCain's economic team ended the recession. Just in time!
Just exactly when did this 'recession' start? Is it being measured by mentions of the word "recession" in media or is there some actual economic measurement going on?
I think the guys who used to report on the GM food "catastrophe"
are now covering the economy.
SIV|7.12.08 @ 10:29AM|#
The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two
consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is
a significant decline in economic activity spread across the
economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real
GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and
wholesale-retail sales.
The NBER usually declares a recession has started anywhere from six
to 18 months after its start, according to its Web site.
Would you like to bet whether or not we are now in a
recession?
|7.12.08 @ 10:35AM|#
MNG, Either John Warner is a big government lefty, probably, or he is setting up the Democrats for yet another negative issue for the election. I'm not buying the media buzz, ruse? about huge Democratic gains in November. How does a congress with a 9% favorable rating increase the leadership party's majorities?
|7.12.08 @ 10:42AM|#
Time has pronounced libertarians as respectable and
upstanding folks?
Shit. It's going to take years to recover from that setback.
|7.12.08 @ 11:08AM|#
Roscoe is an asshole. He has no class. And one shouldn't speak
ill of the dead ala Gore Vidal.
Nice clip from Kansas. I bet Tony Snow, the musician, would
appreciate such talent.
RIP.
The Bearded Hobbit|7.12.08 @ 11:16AM|#
I only marginally understand this "oil speculation" that's
supposedly driving up petro prices but it seems like it's causing
my lefty friends to froth at the mouth. Anyone want to 'splain this
to me and perhaps make an argument as to whether or not* it needs
regulation?
* I'm guessing "not"
Hobbit
|7.12.08 @ 11:22AM|#
An acquaintance of mine (who apparently relies on that yammering
imbecile Glenn Beck for the majority of his "ideas" on anything)
has been rambling on about bringing back the fifty-five mph speed
limit; "but just for those big trucks."
He didn't really like it much when I told him he wanted the
government to force everybody else to change what *they* do, so he
won't have to change what *he* does.
He whines about the price of gas, but he would rather drive around
in circles (in his pickup truck) waiting for a parking space than
walk a block.
********
"55mph- It's not a good idea, it's just the law."
[I have the technology]
jtuf|7.12.08 @ 11:27AM|#
How does a congress with a 9% favorable rating increase the
leadership party's majorities?
By convincing voters that Republicans are the majority party in
congress. Republicans could do better if they run a clean sweep
campaign. That would remind voters that the Demecrats are the
incumbents in most districts and appeal to disgruntled
free-market/limited government Republicans. Many Republicans might
support a newbie's challenging a Democrat even though they won't
help a Republican incumbent who sold out. Come to think of it, the
Libertarians can have the greatest impact by focusing on districts
with Republican incumbents who voted to expand government.
|7.12.08 @ 11:28AM|#
Hobbit- haven't you heard? Everything should be regulated by the government. It's the only way to be certain everyone will be equally happy and prosperous.
No Name Guy|7.12.08 @ 11:45AM|#
Nothing on the Newsweek poll? Obama has gone down from a 15 point lead in June to a dead heat. I'd like to think FISA is killing him.
Travis|7.12.08 @ 11:51AM|#
"Obama has gone down from a 15 point lead in June to a dead
heat. I'd like to think FISA is killing him."
Let's hope it's not Jesse Jackson's comments.
|7.12.08 @ 11:54AM|#
The Dems can make big gains in Congress because the President
has been a Republican for so long. It does not matter, both
politically (people tend to think of the President as the
embodiment of our federal government [shit most don't know who
their congressman or woman is]) and in this case to some degree
actually (the Dems don't have a veto-proof majority in either house
and thus can't change much).
This worked for the GOP under Clinton.
|7.12.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Let's hope it's not Jesse Jackson's comments.
Doubt it's that.
Incidentally, I just saw Wall-E. Thought it was a
tremendous film. I even cried at one point, but only a little
bit.
|7.12.08 @ 11:55AM|#
left out "that the Dems are the majority party in Congress" at the end of the 1st paragraph
Neu Mejican|7.12.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Regarding FISA:
What is it in the bill that people don't like?
Is it just the telecom immunity?
The law puts additional restrictions on FISA searches compared to
the 1978 law.
It even has this provision:
''(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth
amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
And it makes it explicit that the president can't use "war powers"
as a work-around for the provisions of the law.
Now, of course, I have a problem with the secret court that the
1978 law set up, but seen in light of the status quo, this
amendment seems to strengthen limitations on the executive, not
loosen them.
So sure, a repeal of FISA 1978 would be preferred, but how is this
law a move in the wrong direction?
Travis|7.12.08 @ 11:56AM|#
I was sad when I read that Tony Snow had died. Then I read the
Reason interview with him & I remembered what an eloquently
spoken asshole he was.
RIP.
Roscoe|7.12.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Why all the tears here over Bush's asshole, aka Tony Snow?
Of course Snow could be personally charming; that's why he was
hired by Bush to lie.
If I thought Snow had a conscience, I might care to a degree, but
there's not much evidence for that.
|7.12.08 @ 11:58AM|#
The Dems can make big gains in Congress
Incidentally, this Congress' approval ratings are pretty low, too.
|7.12.08 @ 11:59AM|#
Obama and FISA
Lanny Davis:
But the benefit is that he has reminded voters that as
president he would be more committed to the "solutions" business
than to yield to the pressure to prove his ideological purity to
his party's base.
This is an example of "Putting some lipstick on this pig." As
Julian points out, if Obama's new "position" on this issue was
meritorious it would invite a direct to the point defense from the
likes of Davis.
What Obama's doing here, of course, is political positioning for
image. The problem is that in doing so, he's increasing the
political inertia for the Bush administration's FISA plans.
I tend to trust that as president, Obama would flip back again on
FISA and maybe even gut the thing.... but, btw, not nearly as much
as I trust that would use the presidency to lead a head-on attack
against economic liberty and thus prosperity.
|7.12.08 @ 12:01PM|#
If I thought Snow had a conscience, I might care to a degree, but there's not much evidence for that.
If I thought you were a combination psychological expert/Snow biographer I might believe that you're not just an asshole.
Roscoe|7.12.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Art-P.O.G., I await the reading of Tony Snow's deathbed repudiation of Bush, and his sincere apology for his blood-soaked lies.
jtuf|7.12.08 @ 12:06PM|#
I only marginally understand this "oil speculation" that's
supposedly driving up petro prices but it seems like it's causing
my lefty friends to froth at the mouth. Anyone want to 'splain this
to me and perhaps make an argument as to whether or not* it needs
regulation?
Speculators actually smooth out price fluctuations by buying and
selling based on their predictions about future prices. It's like
stocking up on canned tomatoes during a sale or relying on cans
alreading in your pantry when the price is higher than average.
Stocking up during a sale makes the excess inventory run out
sooner, which brings the short term price back up to the long term
price. Using cans already in your pantry (or even selling them to a
friend) during a price jump makes the store inventory stay on the
shelf longer, which brings the short term price back down to the
long term price.
People who blame speculators confuse the short term price trends
and long term price trends. All speculators do is smooth out short
term trends to bring them closer to long term trends. When
environmentalists ban off shore drilling, they cut supply, which
increases the long term price of oil. Speculators understand this
and buy oil when they think the long term price will go up. This
makes the price increase start sooner and continue more gradually
towards the new long term price. If there was no speculation, a ban
on drilling would not affect the oil price much until current wells
ran dry, but when that eventually happens the price jump would be
so quick no one would have time to adjust with fuel saving measures
or extra exploration. It is easy to blame speculators, because they
are not as cute as dolphins, but speculators actually do more to
encourage sustainable resource planning than any environmental goup
out there.
No Name Guy|7.12.08 @ 12:08PM|#
At least Tony Snow knew what the Cuban Missile Crisis was,
unlike the current idiot occupying his post.
Cancer is a tough way to go. Wouldn't wish it on anybody.
R.I.P.
Travis|7.12.08 @ 12:09PM|#
"Doubt it's that."
Art-P.O.G. I doubt it's that to.
Jesse Jackson won't go away though the man's vanity makes him
indestructible. He will be descredited for a while then he will go
broker some hostage release deal & the media will love him
again.
No Name Guy|7.12.08 @ 12:10PM|#
Travis-
Much like the media dragged out Bill "Book of Virtues" Bennett
after a few months despite his $10 million gambling binge.
|7.12.08 @ 12:13PM|#
he will go broker some hostage release deal & the media will love him again.
I've always wondered how Jesse Jackson has been so good at that. Does he go in with Steven Seagal or something?
|7.12.08 @ 12:14PM|#
How does a congress with a 9% favorable rating increase the
leadership party's majorities?
You mean, why do the Democrats continue to hold a 10-15% point lead
in generic Congressional surveys?
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong2008.htm
Probably because most people understand what "opposition" and
"obstruction" mean.
|7.12.08 @ 12:15PM|#
NNG,
Now Bill Bennett's a guy who should be beaten with a sack of angry
cats. For multiple reasons.
|7.12.08 @ 12:17PM|#
The 15% lead in the Newsweek poll was an outlier. Nobody else
was showing a lead that large.
This new poll is much closer to the median, maybe a bit low.
Travis|7.12.08 @ 12:18PM|#
"I've always wondered how Jesse Jackson has been so good at
that. Does he go in with Steven Seagal or something?"
Vanity makes the bullets bounce off.
|7.12.08 @ 12:19PM|#
Does anyone else remember when Jesse Jackson got Milosevic to "pray" with him? That old communist looked like he was swallowing cod liver oil. Awesome humiliating picture. I swear, the CIA runs the best scams overseas with "dissident" American politicians.
No Name Guy|7.12.08 @ 12:19PM|#
The L.A. Times poll in June showed a 12-point lead, around the same time as Newsweek.
|7.12.08 @ 12:22PM|#
You mean, why do the Democrats continue to hold a 10-15% point lead in generic Congressional surveys?
Because Democrats and Republicans both suck, but the Democrats
suck less on average?
Of course, it was a rhetorical question.
The Bearded Hobbit|7.12.08 @ 12:24PM|#
jtuf,
Thanks for the explanation. I sort-of know how commodities
speculation works, just didn't understand how oil was
different.
Mostly I think there is a lot of "oh noes, teh Capitalists are
making a profit!" at work.
Hobbit
|7.12.08 @ 12:28PM|#
The L.A. Times poll in June showed a 12-point lead, around
the same time as Newsweek.
Oh, yeah, the LA Times. The LA Times poll is a joke, which always
overestimates the Democrats' performance. It's probably still in
the double-digits.
None of the real polls had a lead anywhere near that. Outfits like
Rasmussen, Zogby, Gallup, WSJ, NBC etc. never showed a lead like
that, and have had Obama increasing his lead very slightly over
that time frame.
Art-POG,
Why?
1. The country has been edging slowly towards a Democratic majority
since the end of the Reagan/Bush years, with only a hiccup after
9/11.
2. This is a "change" election, because people are so unhappy with
the performance of the government over the past several years, and
the Democratic Congress has been so ineffective at pushing back
against the administration that they don't catch any blame for that
performance.
No Name Guy|7.12.08 @ 12:29PM|#
"1. The country has been edging slowly towards a Democratic
majority since the end of the Reagan/Bush years, with only a hiccup
after 9/11."
Uh, 1994?
No Name Guy|7.12.08 @ 12:33PM|#
I guess you're right about those polls.
Still, the Democrats should be up by double digits given
the state of the country and the fact the Republican nominee is
prehistoric and a terrible speaker tied to one of the worst
Presidents we've ever had.
But its close anyway. I don't get it.
|7.12.08 @ 12:54PM|#
NNG,
Yup, 1994. 1994 was the lowest-turnout election in American
history. Even though Republican turnout rose somewhat, Democratic
turnout cratered, as Democrats disappointed by Clinton's failure to
advance a Democratic agenda stayed home. Said Democrats were a
large enough cohort to make the election a Republican rout.
Have you ever heard of the book "The Coming Democratic Majority?"
The authors' thesis is that realignments don't happen the way they
used to, flipping from one party to the other in one or two
biannual elections. Modern realignments happen in two stages: a
de-alignment in which the ruling party loses its majority (think
1968, or 1992) followed several years later by a realignment in
which one of the parties regains a majority (think 1980, or
2006-2008). Remember the "50-50 Nation" stories in 2000-2001? The
Republicans thought they were going to be able to foster a
realignment after 9/11 to break the tie in the de-aligned
electorate, but it didn't work out that way.
Also, while McCain is an objectively awful campaigner, and there is
mucho dissatisfaction with the Republicans (as the Congressional
ballot and Presidential approval ratings show), John McCain has a
longstanding, very solid image as someone who is 1) honorable and
2) willing to buck his party. Although they stumbled into it, the
GOP managed to pick the one candidate who gives them a chance, at
least on paper.
Orange Line Special|7.12.08 @ 1:25PM|#
1. Are you an embarrassment to your future president? Visit ObamaTest.com to find
out whether you're qualified to be one of his subjects.
2. Oddly enough, Reason hasn't discussed Obama's shocking
language comments. Of course, if they had, they would have been
as disingenuous as he's since been so perhaps it's for the
best.
3. Contemporize, man! Here's a 2005 version of a classic
anti-prog song.
Les|7.12.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Neu Mejican,
I think Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman does a good job of
explaining why the new FISA law is so horrible.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/07/al-qaeda-on-speed-dial.html
No Name Guy|7.12.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Does "Orange Line Special" really think taking the Metrorail is the mark of an elitist?
|7.12.08 @ 2:07PM|#
How did McCain vote on the FISA reform? I guess one could argue
he consistently had a shitty position and so deserves no
flak?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGUxZDA1YWJkMjQyZGNjYTI1OWExY2JmNzhmODczY2E=
No Name Guy|7.12.08 @ 2:20PM|#
I think The Corner is one of the most unintentionally funny sites on the web.
|7.12.08 @ 3:06PM|#
No Name Guy
It's like an alternate universe over there. So amazing I always
wonder: do they really believe most of the stuff they hold out on,
or are they paid hacks? The former possibility is for some reason
the most disturbing...It disgusts me, yet often I cannot look
away...
Orange Line Special|7.12.08 @ 3:10PM|#
Libertarians, celebrate! Reason's policies would give even more
power to people like
this.
Key points:
1. Watch the videos.
2. The person with the head is a public official who also is/was
collaborating with the MexicanGovernment.
3. Due to corruption, the local MSM doesn't accurately describe
what's on the videos.
Up with "libertarianism"!
Guy Montag|7.12.08 @ 3:18PM|#
How does a congress with a 9% favorable rating increase the
leadership party's majorities?
One seat at a time.
BTW, I checked out the Paulaholic gathering on Capitol Hill today
(had no idea beforehand they were having one). Might have a couple
of pictures up later.
I appreciate Dr. Paul a lot more than I do his rabid fans.
Guy Montag|7.12.08 @ 3:40PM|#
JA,
MNG, Either John Warner is a big government lefty, probably, or
he is setting up the Democrats for yet another negative issue for
the election.
LOL! One of the Queen Leftoids made a comment upthread that Sen.
warner is immune from Leftoididness because he has an R behind his
name?
JFC! The first round of 55 MPH came from Leftoid leaning Richard
Nixon in 1973 for crying out loud! Just like I mentioned
earlier.
Partisans are a puzzle.
No Name Guy|7.12.08 @ 3:56PM|#
MNG-
I think its groupthink combined with a closed system that gives and
endless loop of feedback (i.e., notice they don't have a comments
section).
I really, really hate blogs that don't have a comments section, or
one so closed its rendered useless (LGF comes to mind).
No Name Guy|7.12.08 @ 4:02PM|#
If anyone wants to see a conservative blog thats much more intelligent than The Corner with none if its hackishness, check out Daniel Larison at Eunomia.
robc|7.12.08 @ 4:15PM|#
The country has been edging slowly towards a Democratic
majority since the end of the Reagan/Bush years
Considering this country was majority democrat for all of 1954-1994
(using the House as a proxy for the nation - it isnt exact, but
close enough), how can it start edging towards a democrat majority
circa 1988-1992?
Of course, the US House isnt a perfect measure. Despite being a
majority democrat state, KY has had 4/6 or 5/6 GOP house members
for the last decade+.
My point, how can it start edging towards something it never
stopped being?
No Name Guy|7.12.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Moreover, how can you have a realigning election without a landslide by the Presidential candidate? The Democratic nominee is far, FAR fro m landslide territory.
|7.12.08 @ 4:58PM|#
One of the 94 congress's first acts was to abolish the federal speed limet. That alone guaranteed they'd stay on top in the next cycle. The young fools who don't remember 55 will get what they deserve for their ignorant lust for "change".
Neu Mejican|7.12.08 @ 5:30PM|#
Les,
Marty Lederman does a good job of explaining why the new FISA
law is so horrible.
Thanks for the link.
I'll read up some more.
I hadn't gotten through all 114 pages of the bill yet. I may have
missed an important detail that Lederman will find. It seems on a
quick review that I missed provisions making data mining style
searches easier.
The problem with Data Mining from a mathematical perspective:
http://bactra.org/weblog/581.html
Another link on the bill's problems that I haven't read in detail
yet.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_06/013956.php
Neu Mejican|7.12.08 @ 5:31PM|#
Seems this should have been the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfNATuw1DRs
|7.12.08 @ 6:15PM|#
Democratic Congress has been so ineffective at pushing back
against the administration that they don't catch any blame for that
performance.
I would say the Democrats would catch quite a bit of blame for not
standing up to Bush like they promised, in particular their
shameful lack of performance on Iraq and FISA and other civil
liberties, but that is counterbalanced by the fact that statists
(whether sporting an R or a D) being ineffective is generally a
good thing.
Had the Democrats actually succeeded at fucking things up as much
as promised, and people saw the consequences, control of Congress
might be in play.
|7.12.08 @ 7:13PM|#
MNG,
How did McCain vote on the FISA reform? He didn't. He
skipped the debate and vote. However, he came vocally for the whole
packing, and each of its particulars, including telecom
immunity.
robc,
Congress was majority-Democrat, even through most of the Reagan
years, but mainly on the strength of lifers keeping their seats. In
presidential elections and in open-seat Congressional elections,
the Republicans clearly had an edge from 1980-the mid-90s.
As for the relatively-small margin by which Obama leads McCain, it
would certainly be unusual to have a realignment in which the
president underperforms his party in Congress; but there's no law
that says the presidential contest has to lead the way and Congress
follow.
|7.12.08 @ 7:15PM|#
I didn't realize that offering language classes in schools was
so controversial, Wacko.
Perhaps Reason, and the entire rest of the universe, doesn't care
about Obama's statement that immigrants should learn English and
Americans should learn Spanish, because most people think that's a
pretty obvious statement.
Chill. De nada.
|7.12.08 @ 7:17PM|#
It's kind of funny seeing a guy who can't even weld impugn
someone else's manhood.
Srsly, what kind of pansy-assed upbringing did you have, Guy? Are
you from one of those suburbs where the high school has a polo
team, or what?
Elemenope|7.12.08 @ 7:19PM|#
Jesse Jackson won't go away though the man's vanity makes
him indestructible. He will be descredited for a while then he will
go broker some hostage release deal & the media will love him
again.
As, I imagine, will the hostages.
What is it in the bill that people don't like?
Is it just the telecom immunity?
That's about 95% of it, for me anyway. Something about
extrajudicial absolution really fucking rankles me. If someone
allegedly did wrong, there shouldn't be a blanket pass for them
*before* all the facts are revealed in a due process
proceeding.
|7.12.08 @ 7:23PM|#
The warrantless interception of calls to and from other
countries is a problem, too, but at least that's a reasonably close
call.
Did you know that the Customs Service randomly opens X number of
FedEx packages from overseas?
|7.12.08 @ 7:34PM|#
I'm surprised Hit & Run hasn't had a thread about this
bizarre statement from Obama:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-national-servicejul03,0,5754842.story?track=rss
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to
achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said
Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force
that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
|7.12.08 @ 7:43PM|#
Time magazine has never grokked libertarianism and never will. I
have a yellowed letter from that mag somewhere here in my archives
to prove it.
Besides, libertarians are like wild persimmons before frost. They
will pucker potential voters' lips.
After frost--my metaphor for the Kierkegaardian Leap to
anarchism--they will finally become palatable.
If you've read this far, you will understand why I label Barr a
styptic pencil.
Hi, joe!
Ruthless
|7.12.08 @ 8:38PM|#
"LOL! One of the Queen Leftoids made a comment upthread that
Sen. warner is immune from Leftoididness because he has an R behind
his name?
JFC! The first round of 55 MPH came from Leftoid leaning Richard
Nixon in 1973 for crying out loud! "
Sigh. Guy, you stupid fuck.
Nixon was the pre-dominate RIGHTEST for his day. He was to the
right of most viable political alternatives of course. John Watner
is to the right of the mainstream of today's elected officials as
well. Just because someone is to the "left" of you (that would find
Tojo in comfortable company) does not make him or her a
"leftist."
"I think its groupthink combined with a closed system that gives
and endless loop of feedback (i.e., notice they don't have a
comments section)." I've always thought that is fishy myself...
Orange Line Special|7.12.08 @ 8:40PM|#
joe says: Perhaps Reason, and the entire rest of the
universe, doesn't care about Obama's statement that immigrants
should learn English and Americans should learn French, because
most people think that's a pretty obvious statement.
Oops! It looks like I changed one word in joe's comment, and that
word helps reveal what BHO was getting at: Americans should
AssimilateToImmigrants, not the other way around.
Now, those who only read Reason have no idea what this is about
since - for some wacky reason or other - they haven't covered his
remarks. So, for the background click
here.
However, the top story of the day remains these videos
of the loons that Reason would give even more power to. Expect to
see those on cable TV next week.
|7.12.08 @ 8:41PM|#
I wonder why credit can't be given to someone who, I accept has some awful motivations and policy stances, in circumstances in which they do obvious good? I mean Jesse Jackson and his hostage liberations. I oppose him on a lot, but hey, when he does that shit it's GREAT. Good for him. People think that it is vanity? Man, he could do a lot easier things to stoke that...
No Name Guy|7.12.08 @ 9:59PM|#
Seriously, why does that idiot name himself after a
Metroline?
Does he really think the "globalist elitists" he hates take the
fucking metrorail to get to work!?
Guy Montag|7.12.08 @ 10:18PM|#
"We've got to have a civilian national security force that's
just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Shall their uniforms have brown shirts or black?
|7.12.08 @ 11:54PM|#
Nixon was the pre-dominate RIGHTEST for his day.
The guy who slapped price controls on stuff and took us off the
gold standard was the most right-wing politician out there?
More than AuH2O?
Seriously?
Guy Montag|7.13.08 @ 12:01AM|#
prolefeed,
Don't forget all those crazy "social" programs, forced bussing and
the all volunteer military (I like that last one).
But perhaps you were not wanting to pile on whomever you were
quoting.
SIV|7.13.08 @ 12:08AM|#
$500 fiat proto-ameros says we're in a recession.
Anyone wanna bet against me?
Lot of cigar kindling there.....
|7.13.08 @ 2:10AM|#
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
I sure hope he's talking about growing the intelligence community. But even if he is that's $ + WTF?
Elemenope|7.13.08 @ 7:25AM|#
I sure hope he's talking about growing the intelligence
community.
I sure hope so, because at this point our intelligence community
would do better if they just wondered around like:
"Hallo, can you tell me ver tha Naval Base is, in A-la-meeda? Ver
looking for the nuclear wessels. Nu-cle-ar wessels."
|7.13.08 @ 9:10AM|#
prole-compared to Humphrey or LBJ, yes. Left and right are of
course relative terms (to the "left" of, etc).
One way to easily measure this is to take a look at the SCOTUS
appointments. Nixon's were to the left of Reagan or W's, but to the
right of Dems appointments.
|7.13.08 @ 9:23AM|#
Americans should AssimilateToImmigrants, not the other way
around.
What part of "Immigrants should learn English" is eluding you,
Wack-job?
Does anybody have any idea what changing "Spanish" to "French" was
supposed to accomplish?
Elemenope|7.13.08 @ 9:24AM|#
FWIW, when I first saw that scene, I was seven and did not yet
understand that the cop was incredulous because Chekov had a
Russian accent and it was the *Cold War*. So, I figured he was
either an idiot or a jerk, and that was why the scene was funny.
This was the first data point in a long line that formed my opinion
of police officers generally.
Star Trek IV: radical anarchist propaganda for little boys.
|7.13.08 @ 9:47AM|#
SOFA dead.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201915.html?hpid=topnews
But the Iraqis really, really want us to occupy their country.
VM|7.13.08 @ 9:56AM|#
Elem -
like when the navy guys were questioning Chekov - "that's the
stupidest thing I've ever heard"
joe -
actually, the Iraqis broke off talks because they're tired from
throwing so many flowers at their new occupiers...
and hoarse from cheering. and from playing cheerleader games in
prison.
Elemenope|7.13.08 @ 10:02AM|#
like when the navy guys were questioning Chekov
"He's a Ruskie."
[pause, glare] "That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard--Of
*course* he's a Ruskie!, but he's like a retard or somthin'!"
|7.13.08 @ 10:52AM|#
That was a great scene and good flick.
What I hated from the Star Trek flicks was cloaking devices.
Nemesis and the Undiscovered Country could have been good if not
for that lame plot device.
I'm not so much against the idea of a cloaking device but they
shouldn't be able to fire while cloaked. That's the rules.
|7.13.08 @ 11:18AM|#
It's probably for the best, VM.
There have been so many cases of diabetic comas caused by all the
candy thrown at our troops, they've had to open a new wing at
Walter Reed.
|7.13.08 @ 11:25AM|#
SOFA dead.
Flow my tears.
Clearly, this was politically necessary for Al-Maliki. And, hey, we
want Iraq to be up to speed. One of the most important things we're
doing right now, I think, is training transition teams.
Full disclosure: I also need to watch the Star Trek movies again.
It's been too long.
VM|7.13.08 @ 12:40PM|#
... and thus tying this back to HFCS.
Perchance the old Server Squirrels became Blackwell employees?
Elemenope|7.13.08 @ 1:02PM|#
I'm not so much against the idea of a cloaking device but
they shouldn't be able to fire while cloaked. That's the
rules.
That was kind of the point in TUC. They broke the rules; it was a
super weapon. In the very obvious allegory, the bird of prey was
the equivalent of a perfectly silent nuclear submarine, a la
Hunt for Red October (but instead of stupid
magnetohydrodynamic drives, it's stupid cloaking devices). I
thought it was a fine breaking of the rules, because it was an
essential plot point.
On the other hand, in Nemesis it was simply gratuitous. "Hey, let's
make the baddest warship ever. And then, let's make it invisible.
And then, let's make be able to kill shit while invisible." Fucking
A, they should have never had a chance against such a thing; making
it invisible just makes it more ridiculously imbalanced and their
ensuing victory more ludicrous. Though they did get the assist from
the warbirds, which I thought was a cute moment.
Syd|7.13.08 @ 1:03PM|#
joe | July 13, 2008, 9:23am | #
Americans should AssimilateToImmigrants, not the other way
around.
What part of "Immigrants should learn English" is eluding you,
Wack-job?
Does anybody have any idea what changing "Spanish" to "French" was
supposed to accomplish?
It means that the proposal is that people should learn a second
language, any second language, rather than simply have one, which
leads to a parochial point of view. I had to learn some French when
I was a kid, and some German in college. Among other things, it led
me to realize that American culture is a small fraction of world
culture, and I shouldn't limit myself to it.
|7.13.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Flow my tears
ON second thought, I think I layered this one too much. I was
making a reference to a quote in Southland Tales (again,
I'm sorry), which was in turn referencing the Philip K. Dick Novel
Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said. I was evoking the
sarcasm of a character in a movie while incidentally making
multiple sci-fi references.
Lonewacko, as far as I can tell, is not a real person but an entity
twice removed from flesh and blood by the anonymity of cyberspace
and a personality not at all independent of his home page. In this
sense, he is like a character in a movie, and not a particularly
well-written one.
No Name Guy|7.13.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Daniel Larison has been predicting the imminent collapse of
Obama for awhile now, of course hes not going to believe he can
carry ND or MT.
Larison really believes this will be a close race with a possible
McCain win, and that Obama is a weak candidate. He may be
right.
|7.13.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Well, NNG, I went to see the Oracle at Delphi and she said something a little different.
|7.13.08 @ 2:54PM|#
A lefty / left-lib: Nixon was the pre-dominate RIGHTEST for
his day.
Me: The guy who slapped price controls on stuff and took us off the
gold standard was the most right-wing politician out there?
More than AuH2O?
Seriously?
Guy Montag | July 13, 2008, 12:01am | #
prolefeed,
Don't forget all those crazy "social" programs, forced bussing and
the all volunteer military (I like that last one).
But perhaps you were not wanting to pile on whomever you were
quoting.
No point kicking a man when he's down.
I didn't consider support for temporary enslavement in the military
to be a right-wing position. Maybe it was back then. Sure isn't now
-- the Congresspeople making noises about reinstating the draft
mainly live in far-left districts that were hotbeds of opposition
to the Vietnam War, and are predominantly black -- people who you
would think would be vehemently opposed to enslavement, no matter
how temporary.
Irony abounds.
|7.13.08 @ 2:59PM|#
There have been so many cases of diabetic comas caused by
all the candy thrown at our troops, they've had to open a new wing
at Walter Reed.
We have a thread-winner!
Orange Line Special|7.13.08 @ 3:01PM|#
joe inquires: Does anybody have any idea what changing
"Spanish" to "French" was supposed to accomplish?
Because if he had singled out French as the language to learn
it wouldn't have made any sense. J'aime la langue
francaise, but there's no reason to single it out. Likewise, if we
didn't have millions of UnassimiliatedSpanishSpeakers in the U.S.,
singling out Spanish would make no sense. The only reason he
singled out Spanish is because of those millions of
UnassimiliatedSpanishSpeakers in the U.S. Therefore, BHO wants
AmericansToAssimilateToImmigrants.
Sit down with a pad and paper and try and figure it out if all that
eludes you.
For the background click
here.
However, the top story of the day remains these videos
of the loons that Reason would give even more power to. Expect to
see those on cable TV next week.
|7.13.08 @ 3:06PM|#
prolefeed
I'll say this again and perhaps you'd like to sound out the words
slowly so you get it this time.
The terms "right" and "left" are inherently relative terms (e.g.,
so and so is to the left of x). Nixon was the right wing candidate
of his day. I'd love to see your argument that he was to the "left"
of his major opposition (LBJ, Hubert Humphreys).
Many of the "left wing" programs Nixon supportered were more
conservative versions of what the previous administration (LBJ) or
his opponents had put forward or wanted (for example his
desegregation programs mentioned upthread).
And this is to ignore much of what Nixon focused on, such as law
and order, being tough on communists, putting "strict
constructionists" on the bench who would check or roll back the
Warren Court's rulings, sticking it to hippies, etc., all of which
are still good right wing positions.
|7.13.08 @ 3:07PM|#
prole-compared to Humphrey or LBJ, yes. Left and right are
of course relative terms (to the "left" of, etc).
One way to easily measure this is to take a look at the SCOTUS
appointments. Nixon's were to the left of Reagan or W's, but to the
right of Dems appointments.
MNG -- granted, Nixon was to the right of LBJ, but to label Nixon
the "pre-eminent rightest of his day", you'd have to compare him to
far-right Republican politicians. And Nixon was one of the last of
that vanishing breed -- a liberal Republican (by which I mean a
"modern liberal", not a "classical liberal".)
|7.13.08 @ 3:12PM|#
MNG -- if you were to rephrase it as "Nixon was somewhat right of center compared to other politicians of both parties of his day", then we'd be in complete agreement. I was just taking exception to phrasing that implied that Nixon was a far-right politician compared to the politicians of his time, which just ain't so.
|7.13.08 @ 3:33PM|#
"Don't forget all those crazy "social" programs, forced bussing
and the all volunteer military (I like that last one)."
Yeah Nixon the champion of forced busing...
Guy, are you retarded?
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=3098
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943391,00.html
|7.13.08 @ 3:37PM|#
Nixon was hardly a liberal Republican. His defining position
throughout his various incarnations was strident anti-Communism. A
close second would have been law and order. Later opposition to the
more strident forms of desegregation were up there too.
By "pre-eminent" I meant that he was the highest ranking right wing
politician of his day.
Franklin Harris|7.13.08 @ 3:51PM|#
On the other hand, in Nemesis it was simply gratuitous. "Hey, let's make the baddest warship ever. And then, let's make it invisible. And then, let's make be able to kill shit while invisible." Fucking A, they should have never had a chance against such a thing; making it invisible just makes it more ridiculously imbalanced and their ensuing victory more ludicrous. Though they did get the assist from the warbirds, which I thought was a cute moment.
Never mind that the most ridiculous of the many ridiculous plot
points in Nemesis is that the death ray doomsday device is clearly
directional; it fires in a straight line, not out in all
directions. So, what do the idiots on the Enterprise do? They back
away slowly, always remaining in the death ray's line of fire,
rather than, oh I don't know, thrusting either up or down to get
out of the line of fire.
Of course, the entire scene is just a lame remake of the "Genesis
countdown" sequence in "Wrath of Khan," except that the Khan
sequence made sense because the Genesis device exploded in all
directions, meaning the only way to get away was to put
distance between you and it.
|7.13.08 @ 4:15PM|#
people who you would think would be vehemently opposed to enslavement, no matter how temporary.
The draft ain't pretty, but it's not slavery, either. But don't listen to me, I was dumb determined enough to volunteer.
Elemenope|7.13.08 @ 4:25PM|#
The draft ain't pretty, but it's not slavery, either. But
don't listen to me, I was dumb determined enough to
volunteer.
It all depends on your definitions, I suppose. As far as it being
in any way analogous to what we call slavery in America, then
obviously no. As far as it being *involuntary servitude* (albeit
paid and of a limited duration), it very clearly is.
It always bothered me that the draft passed 13th Amendment muster.
Just on the basis of language (I'm not quite sure how I feel about
a draft, though my gut says I'm against it.)
As far as lefties being for the draft, it was a very obvious (and
transparent) attempt to end the Iraq War, as they figured (probably
rightly) that if sons of privilege started dropping in droves over
there, captains of industry and suchlike would bring pressure to
bear to end the thing ASAP. It was *not* meant to be an endorsement
of the Draft per se nor a suggestion it be seriously
employed for longer than it would take to make the point.
I'm also not crazy about politicians making points using other
peoples' lives, so there's that, too.
|7.13.08 @ 4:30PM|#
I'm also not crazy about politicians making points using other peoples' lives, so there's that, too.
Yeah, I'm with you on that.
No Name Guy|7.13.08 @ 6:07PM|#
Nixon was a moderate Republican, but well within the
conservative mainstream. Jim Jeffords he wasn't.
However, had he not had to resign in disgrace partisan Republicans
now screaming about how liberal he is would still idolize him.
No Name Guy|7.13.08 @ 6:19PM|#
If you don't believe me, consider the conservative apotheosis of Ronald Reagan despite the fact he governed as a moderate--up to and including massive tax hikes.
Kolohe|7.13.08 @ 8:46PM|#
Seriously, why does that idiot name himself after a
Metroline?
Does he really think the "globalist elitists" he hates take the
fucking metrorail to get to work!?
I grew up 3/4 mile from the Ballston Metro. From it's inception in
the seventies to at least the mid 90's (and still mostly to this
day), the upper middle class (and white) are overrepresented as
patrons of the Metrorail, - unlike say, the NYC subway. Yes, it's
not the people running the country (and the world) that take the
metrorail. But the people responsible for the day to day operations
do. so in his own moronic way, he's sorta right.
|7.13.08 @ 9:35PM|#
prolefeed,
I didn't consider support for temporary enslavement in the
military to be a right-wing position. Maybe it was back then. Sure
isn't now -- the Congresspeople making noises about reinstating the
draft mainly live in far-left districts that were hotbeds of
opposition to the Vietnam War, and are predominantly black --
people who you would think would be vehemently opposed to
enslavement, no matter how temporary.
That's because it's a stunt. On top of everything else, people like
Chollie Rangel understand quite well how people like Dick Cheney
managed to dodge the draft when it was in place.
It was a Modest Proposal.
SIV|7.13.08 @ 10:41PM|#
The draft is a left wing idea. "shared sacrifice" for the State.
Hits all their buttons,ostensibly egalitarian,compulsory etc.
Why do you think it is always Dems pushing "Universal National
Service" schemes?
Three tiers, the children of privilege will do their service
backpack touring the third world, the urban poor will do theirs as
community activists and political organization in the cities. Fundy
rednecks go die in Darfur.
FDR introduced the first peacetime draft.
We can thank Jimmy Carter and the Dem congress for the existence of
draft registration and a selective service system.
Liberal Democrat Lefty Progressives are the only constituencey for
conscription. Even the military doesn't want it.
|7.13.08 @ 11:51PM|#
Not until 2000 were Montana and North Dakota out of bounds
for Democrats.
Politically, the Peace Garden State is the worst of all possible
worlds: socially conservative (it went for George W twice), and
fiscally liberal (one of our senators is neo-New Dealer Byron
Dorgan). Oh, and the weather sucks big-time...
Kolohe|7.14.08 @ 1:42AM|#
It was a Modest Proposal.
Rangel is certainly engaging in some politcal theater, but I
believe that he honestly believes that a draft is a good idea. He
wants it for two reasons
1) the notion that a common shared experience creates civic vitue
(and the possibility that such an experience is a necessary
condition for such virtue to exist)
2) the notion that the poor and african americans in particular are
disportionally impacted by the current war(s) under current
recruiting policies.
(1) is not entirely without merit, although I definitely do not
believe in the necessary condition part, and that overall the costs
outweigh the bennefits.
(2) however is entirely incorrect. and is getting more so, as
African american recruitment has plumented over the past five
years.
|7.14.08 @ 2:25AM|#
Kolohe,
Demographics do seem pretty proportionate. Also, it seems
African-Americans are more likely to join the support branches (for
MOS training often enough) than the infantry. Black people are
definitely not overrepresented in combat arms.*
*Full Disclosure: Being black and non-combat arms, I contributed to
this condition.
|7.14.08 @ 8:01AM|#
Kolohe,
Getting people to think about shared sacrifice was certainly
Rangel's point, but not even the "lefty progressives" that SIV
likes to think are chomping at the bit for a draft actually voted
for it. It never made it out of committee, because it was never a
serious proposal.
Even the military doesn't want it. Thank goodness, because
"the military doesn't want it" is the only argument you ever hear
against the draft from the political right. As opposed to from the
center and left, who argue against it on individual rights
terms.
Kolohe|7.14.08 @ 8:55AM|#
Googling around to see who has and has not supported the draft
(incidently, it seems Chuck Hagel has proposed bringing back the
draft in much the the language as Rangel) three main sites kept on
coming up, all editorializing more or less against the draft in
their coverage. And with their objection based on individual
rights. The sites were:
Talkleft
Newsmax
Worldnetdaily.
Now, the politcal leaning of the first is pretty obvious. But,
inarguably, the latter two are firmly ensconced on the right
So it is not a left vs right issue. it is a (political
hackery/quixotic quest)* vs individual rights issue.
*like i said, i still maintain both Rangel and Hagel really believe
in the draft. But they can indulge in the luxury of voting for
their idealism without compromise or consequence because they know
it will never pass.
SIV|7.14.08 @ 9:25AM|#
As opposed to from the center and left, who argue against it
on individual rights terms.
Can you type that with a straight face joe?
Yeah, the center and left are all about individual rights. And
libertarians and the Right are collectivists. In fucking bizarro
world.
Can't wait for you guys to start the "whisper campaign" to try to
get young voters out. Every election cycle there is the buzz about
a Republican draft and Democrats legalizing MJ and forgiving all
student loans.
|7.14.08 @ 10:24AM|#
Yup. Having actually read what such sources have to say, instead
of assuming what they're arguments just gotta be based on my own
ideological theory of everything, I can type that in complete
confidence.
Did you see what Kolohe did there, SIV? Looked up what, for
example, TalkLeft actually published, rather that assuming what
they musta published? Can you grasp how that's different from
pulling positions out of your ass based on "blah blah collectivists
blah blah progressives?"
You should try that some time.
|7.14.08 @ 10:26AM|#
SIV on politics:
See, liberals drive like this: dee dee dee dee dee dee dee.
But, see, conservatives drive like this: doo doo doo doo doo
doo.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245