LawTalkers - Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=630)

There was a debate????

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Yes, I know. (Though it's hard to see the smile when the response is delivered while staring at the table.)

My point, though, is that this is about all they have to show for their efforts at bipartisanship. The administration and the GOP Congress have been packing it to the opposition for 4 years now, and throughout most of this period they've made no bones about the fact that they've done this shit because they can.

The campaign-induced amnesia I'm seeing ifrom the conservatives here is something to behold.

To be fair, it's really only bilmore, and he's been kinda surly lately. I expect him next to be telling us that Reagan cut federal spending.

There was a debate????

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Had it fallen after the election, I can't even imagine the outrage.

Can't win for trying, huh?

You're imagining that, were the vote later, the Dems would've been screaming for the chance before the election to vote on authorizing Bush to use force?

Hahahahahahaha.

Remember, bilmore, the Fall of 2002 was the Fall of Smoking Guns as Mushroom Clouds. Dems were scrambling to avoid being Chamblissed.

If you think that the timing of the vote was purely coincidental, or that the politics would've played out similarly had the vote been in, say, December, then Atticus is right -- the switch on your back is set to "Suspend Disbelief."

That's fine as far as that goes, but it's good to know so that we can to calibrate our posts accordingly.

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
She's the one who taught the Baguettes how to cut class and smoke behind the school.

Don't joke. She looks a lot like the elder Bagguette's new gf.

Well, an older version.

There was a debate????

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Remember, bilmore, the Fall of 2002 was the Fall of Smoking Guns as Mushroom Clouds. Dems were scrambling to avoid being Chamblissed.

Concede. I was disremembering this.

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
the elder Bagguette's new gf.

So, no military service for this kid?

There was a debate????

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
The administration and the GOP Congress have been packing it to the opposition for 4 years now, and throughout most of this period they've made no bones about the fact that they've done this shit because they can.

A quick, sort of off-topic observation:

Ya'all had better be working hard for your legislative races. Partisan or not, one thing I do not want to see is a filibuster-proof majority, and it's starting to look like that's a possibility.

There was a debate????

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sorry, I'm having trouble following this. Are you saying that even if a bill is approved by a wide margin, say 73%, that unless there was give and take it is not bipartisan? You've been listening to JFK too long - your arugments are tortured.

Yes, I am. But it's more complicated than that. Maybe it's an issue that is more regional than partisan -- e.g., ethanol subsidies, or something to do with acid rain. If the legislation is sponsored by folks on both sides of the aisle, and reflects input from members of both parties, then it's bipartisan, whether it gets 55% or 75% of the votes.

OTOH, take a situation where one party draws up the bill, excluding the other side, and rams it through, refusing (e.g.) to allow alternatives to be considered. Maybe it'll get a number of votes from the other party, from legislators who don't like the choice presented to them but are willing to vote for the bill because they still think it's better than nothing, for whatever reason. If you start with half the Republicans, and half the Dems end up going along as well, that doesn't make things bipartisan. The word really refers to the whole process, not to the count of the final vote.

There was a debate????

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Partisan or not, one thing I do not want to see is a filibuster-proof majority, and it's starting to look like that's a possibility.

You should work on that on your end, too. Isn't your party all about personal responsibility?

WTF is going on here?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...rtner=homepage

Start with some here assuming the White House divulged Plame's status and identitiy to a reporter so as to protect the Republican side of things. Then, a Republican U.S. Attorney who is God's gift to Illinoi, is appointed to investigate things.

So, how do we get reporters from the NYT, Time Magazine, NBC and the Washington Post being threatened or held in contempt for failing to divulge sources? First of all, I'm all in favor of taking out Novak and shooting him. But isn't it strange that a bunch of reporters from leftist rags are the ones who are stonewalling the court? A conspiracy theorist might guess that the secret lies barely beyond the shallow walls that define their principles. And, if those shallow walls should crumble in the face of time at Club-Fed (please, please, please Lord let them serve in Marion until they speak), who exactly would we expect reporters from NYT, Time Magazine and the WaPo to be protecting?

I'm half expecting to see James Carville behind that curtain. How is it that leftist rags are protecting sources that harmed leftist causes? Y'all might think its a clever Rovian trick. But I'm beginning to detect the faint smell of the Democratic party being protected here. Anyone got any garlic?

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So, no military service for this kid?

You mean she's a GUY?

(Oh, well. Don't ask, don't tell, I guess.)

WTF is going on here?

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...rtner=homepage

Start with some here assuming the White House divulged Plame's status and identitiy to a reporter so as to protect the Republican side of things. Then, a Republican U.S. Attorney who is God's gift to Illinoi, is appointed to investigate things.

So, how do we get reporters from the NYT, Time Magazine, NBC and the Washington Post being threatened or held in contempt for failing to divulge sources? First of all, I'm all in favor of taking out Novak and shooting him. But isn't it strange that a bunch of reporters from leftist rags are the ones who are stonewalling the court? A conspiracy theorist might guess that the secret lies barely beyond the shallow walls that define their principles. And, if those shallow walls should crumble in the face of time at Club-Fed (please, please, please Lord let them serve in Marion until they speak), who exactly would we expect reporters from NYT, Time Magazine and the WaPo to be protecting?

I'm half expecting to see James Carville behind that curtain. How is it that leftist rags are protecting sources that harmed leftist causes? Y'all might think its a clever Rovian trick. But I'm beginning to detect the faint smell of the Democratic party being protected here. Anyone got any garlic?

You've been drinking the Liberal Media Kool-Ade for too long. Reporters believe in protecting their sources.

WTF is going on here?

Quote:

Anything's possible, including that these other reporters don't wish to give up Novak's source because burning sources is anathema to the success of journalism generally -- in the long run, it drains the swamp of potential sources.

But club and I have already yelled at each other and bored the board over this topic, so I'll drop it there.

WTF is going on here?

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You've been drinking the Liberal Media Kool-Ade for too long. Reporters believe in protecting their sources.

Of course they do. How is it that its not the Washington Times or the Chicago Tribune, or Fox News that is being protected. How in the world is it that the inquiry ends at the bastions of liberalism in the media. The decrepit halls of hypocricy. How is it? How Ty how?

WTF is going on here?

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Anything's possible, including that these other reporters don't wish to give up Novak's source because burning sources is anathema to the success of journalism generally -- in the long run, it drains the swamp of potential sources.

But club and I have already yelled at each other and bored the board over this topic, so I'll drop it there.

Ty brings up this point too. But we know what Novak did. Is he being threatened? Was he set up? I'm not asking why they are protecting their sources. I disagree that they should, but I understand that they think they have some constitutional protection here.

My question is more, how did we get from hanging Novak to executing search warrants on the NYT and the WaPo? Is this where the trail goes cold? Well, I'll leave it there too, as I'm sure y'all see what I'm saying here. Nothing to do with protecting the sources. All to do with where the trail seems to have ended.

Coming soon to an election near you.

In TAPPED today, Sam Rosenfeld predicts that Republicans are up to their '02 tricks again, this time abandoning bipartisan intelligence reform in favor of a process and bill designed to advance GOP fortunes in the election:

Quote:

MORE TROUBLE WITH H.R. 10. Matt's very right to predict that intelligence reform will go the way of most major legislation in the last few years, following to a tee the time-tested GOP formula: a horrible House bill and a decent Senate bill brought together in conference to produce more or less the same horrible House version, with the entire process politicized to the hilt. Not only can we count on that, we can also confidently expect the White House and House leadership to do everything it can to maximize the political advantage that can be extracted from the process in the next few weeks.
Today The Hill offers further evidence for the rumor I mentioned last week: that the Republicans might arrange an election-eve vote on a conference bill as a way to box the Dems into opposing the legislation, just like they did two years ago on the Homeland Security bill. You should read the whole piece, but here's the gist:

House Republicans appear to have switched tactics from cooperation to confrontation with Democrats on intelligence reform, in a move that Democrats say reminds them of the GOP’s pre-election strategy in 2002.
The change in tone, and perhaps in substance, comes a week after the GOP made bipartisan overtures and Republicans on the House Select Committee on Intelligence accepted several Democratic amendments to their reform bill.

The tactic may mean House Republicans want to dare Democrats to vote against the legislation, just as they did so effectively with their bill creating the Homeland Security Department in 2002.

Capitol Hill sources said House and Senate leaders might direct staff to draft a bill and then take the extraordinary step of reconvening Congress on Nov. 1, the eve of the election, to vote on the legislation.

“That this is exactly what [White House adviser Karl] Rove and [Bush-Cheney campaign manager Ken] Mehlman want. They want to replay the homeland-security fight of 2002,” said a Democratic aide, speaking on background.

In the past two days the House leadership has held two press conferences to vigorously promote its intelligence bill, and Democrats were not included in either. Instead, we heard ethics committee darling Tom DeLay and others offer some helpful advice to their colleagues across the aisle:

...At a second news conference in as many days that included no Democrats, House Republicans sternly challenged senators or other critics to explain why a single item in their bill should be changed.
"Democrats . . . are trying to rip out the provisions that would make Americans safe," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said.

The Dems should have seen this coming the moment Dennis Hastert and company unveiled their intelligence reform bill two weeks ago. And, to be fair, they probably did -- there's just not much they're able to do about this process. But if Senate Republican conferees capitulate to the House leadership yet again on a conference bill, what's their excuse? What's the point of going through weeks of serious, grueling, constructive bipartisan negotiation and compromise, only to throw it all away in the end?

Nauseating. No. Shame.