The Democrats: Pros and Cons
 

HILLARY CLINTON

Pro: Known commodity; strong fundraiser.

Con: Polarizing; unlikely to woo those already opposed to her.


BARACK OBAMA

Pro: Articulate; resembles foxy actor Blair Underwood.

Con: L.A. Law was kind of overrated now that you think about it.


JOHN EDWARDS

Pro: Has strong appeal to working-class voters.

Con: As a resident of two Americas, he must raise twice as much money and spend twice as much time campaigning.


JOE BIDEN

Pro: Technically still running for president.

Con: Dude. Come on


DICK CHENEY
IN AN ELABORATE LATEX DISGUISE
THAT TAKES FIVE HOURS TO APPLY

Pro: Trojan horse, my friend. Trojan fucking horse.

Con: Ruse would be so exciting that he would surely drop dead of a massive stroke about a month before Iowa.


OPTIMUS PRIME

Pro: Size; power; ability to emit short-range optic blasts.

Con: Potential attack ad: "Sometimes Optimus Prime is a robot, other times a truck. Which is it, Mr. Prime? America deserves a leader that doesn't transform whenever it's convenient."


ALLEN IVERSON

Pro: Instant offense.

Con: Selfish with the ball; may have lost a step.


More at: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2007/4/18moe.html

The Republicans: Pros and Cons
 

RUDY GIULIANI

Pro: Unifying force after 9/11; articulate speaker.

Con: The whole "pro-choice, pro-gun-control, New Yorker, used to live with gay dudes, adultery" thing might hurt him with conservatives. A bit.


JOHN MCCAIN

Pro: Comforting resemblance to character actor Gavin MacLeod.

Con: Murray from The Mary Tyler Moore Show lacked leadership qualities and Captain Stubing from Love Boat got a little goofy whenever Charo was a guest star, leaving executive branch vulnerable to Charo impersonators who are actually Al Qaeda operatives.


MITT ROMNEY

Pro: Named after Mittens, the family cat, later shortening name to "Mitt." People love cats.

Con: Religious beliefs could create problems, as many Americans may not be ready to accept worshiper of ancient Egyptian god Ra.


ZOMBIE RONALD REAGAN

Pro: Probably the most Reaganesque candidate available; if stoked with the brains of the living, should operate in an acceptable fashion.

Con: Long-dead eyes lack that magic twinkle; inhuman groans negatively impact "Great Communicator" status.


NEWT GINGRICH

Pro: Well known.

Con: See above.


EDDIE VAN HALEN

Pro: I tell you what, he would bring the nations of the world together through ROCK! He'd be all deedly-deedly-deedly-DEE-DEE-DEE! on his guitar and the bosses of the other countries would be all, "Whoa! Let's stop fighting and start rocking!"

Con: Drunken wretched mess.


A WOMAN OF SOME SORT

Pro: Could win support of other women.

Con: Women are not allowed to join the Republican Party.


More at: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2007/5/2moe.html

discussion starter
 

Greetings,

In my request for the maximization of my bi-partisanal PoV, I am taking a seminar in "Alternative Political Realities" at the local university.

Our current general topic of discussion is based on the hypothetical universe in which the South staved off the North's war of aggression in the Civil War, ultimately fighting to a stalemate and perpetuating the existence of the CSA and USA as distinct and unrelatedly autonomous state actors, which dual existence, in the hypothetical universe continues to this day.

Now, more specifically, the discussion topic for this week's seminar is, assuming the hypothetical above, and the additional context of an uneasy but diplomatically polite co-existence between the two nations in question (sort of like an estranged version of our relationship with Mexico, without NAFTA), in the War on Terror, which side would the CSA weigh in on and to what consequence.

discuss amongst yourselves, in the spirit of bi-partisanship.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Under my Administration, restroom interrogations will be severely discouraged. Zero tolerance, bitch.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Nobody's perfect.

S_A_M

This is wild stuff. Skip to page 9, and read to about page 22.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

So the imperfect like to say.

Oh, if only I could bring myself to care.

When is he being impeached?

eta: Ty, you really should stop relying on gossip columns or other mean spirited nonsense for news.

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

• "I think the resignation of Mr. McNulty is another significant step and evidence that a department really cannot function with the continued leadership or lack of leadership of Attorney General Gonzales," [PA Republican Senator Arlen] Specter said.

Gossip column link.

you mean bush? what did he do in that whole story? or do you mean this comey guy? he quit ahead of being fired. for a man charged with protecting this country to act so weasly THE DAY of the Madrid bombings- well, I tell you it is shocking.

and the testimony is inconsistant wrt at least 1 thing. he says they renewed the program w/o the AG signature- then later he implies he was able to effect changes that made him happy.

and i thought Schumer's introduction was certainly very senatorial- what a fucking hack. how can you look at that pile of shit as someone you respect?

Come now. You think this is unusual. Why do you think Ashcroft is no longer with us?

For now, I'd be happy with just Gonzales. I wouldn't want to impeach Bush without getting rid of Cheney first.

You seem to have a lot of respect for Bush. You tell me?

I'm just sort of dumbfounded that someone appointed by the Bush administration has integrity.

ETA: I think that he goes into Hank's concerns under the Specter cross.

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

More gossip:

• Is the Noose Tightening on Gonzales?
  
  Tuesday, May. 15, 2007 By KAREN TUMULTY/WASHINGTON U.S.
  
  Now that the number-two official at the Justice Department has resigned, the question many in Washington are asking is: Will soon-to-be-former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty be DOJ's fall guy — or its worst nightmare?
  
  As is so often the case when someone gets the ax in Washington, the official explanation for McNulty's departure was personal. In his one-page letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the deputy AG wrote that he will be leaving in late summer because of the "financial realities" of trying to provide for college-age children on a government salary. McNulty, 49, has worked nearly half his life either on Capitol Hill or in the executive branch.
  
  But no one is taking that to be the real reason. Since McNulty's congressional testimony in February that the White House was involved in the firing of at least one of the nine U.S. attorneys who were forced to resign last year, the tension between his office and Gonzales's has divided and crippled the department. "There's a war going on between the DAG's office and the AG's office," says one senior Justice official."The thing that's 100% clear is that there's really no leadership. Both the DAG and the AG are so compromised, there's no one running the department. There's a lot of antagonism between those two groups. The DAG is throwing [Gonzales and his team] under the bus."

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

I dunno: page 6, Ty's link, above

And just for a chuckle: page 38-39, Ty's link, above.

Finally! Someone Will Be Held Responsible
 

Cheney on the Pelosi Plan:

• "Democrats have to be responsible for the consequences of the policy recommendations they make."

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...ter-video.html

La la

I like that all these Dems are so worried about Ashcroft now.

you think you can impeach for actions at a prior job? can you imagine the shit Clinton pulled on his paper route?

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

I had no idea that position even existed. I guess we know where Atticus went, now.

This is Great
 

He wins. Don't hate the playa . . .

S_A_M

I think that it's more shock that someone could be less concerned about the propriety of the unnamed program at issue than Ashcroft was.

So, the appointment of a special prosecutor for Whitewater was improper from the gecko*?

*A little** Not Bob humor.

**Fenwick would like to add that "very little" would be more accurate. I'm humoring the youngster because we're in trial tomorrow. Should be a blast -- my star witnesses are a recovering alcoholic store manager (a nice guy, actually) and a slacker bag boy who acts like he wouldn't know how to use a mop if his life depended on it. On the upside, the plaintiff slipped on Cool Whip, which just sounds silly, and the manager has been dry since he found Jesus, so I have some hope.

This is Great
 

2. I'd vote for him.

Let the eagle soar.

Krugman, from the NYT, on free trade:

• Nothing divides Democrats like international trade policy. That became clear last week, when the announcement of a deal on trade between Democratic leaders and the Bush administration caused many party activists to accuse the leadership of selling out. The furor subsided a bit as details about the deal emerged: the Democrats got significant concessions from the Bushies, while effectively giving a go-ahead to only two minor free trade agreements (Peru and Panama). But the Democrats remain sharply divided between those who believe that globalization is driving down the wages of many U.S. workers, and those who believe that making and honoring international trade agreements is an essential part of governing responsibly.
  
  What makes this divide so agonizing is that both sides are right.
  
  Fears that low-wage competition is driving down U.S. wages have a real basis in both theory and fact. When we import labor-intensive manufactured goods from the third world instead of making them here, the result is reduced demand for less-educated American workers, which leads in turn to lower wages for these workers. And no, cheap consumer goods at Wal-Mart aren’t adequate compensation.
  
  So imports from the third world, although they make the United States as a whole richer, make tens of millions of Americans poorer. How much poorer? In the mid-1990s a number of economists, myself included, crunched the numbers and concluded that the depressing effects of imports on the wages of less-educated Americans were modest, not more than a few percent. But that may have changed. We’re buying a lot more from third-world countries today than we did a dozen years ago, and the largest increases have come in imports from Mexico, where wages are only about 11 percent of the U.S. level, and China, where wages are only 3 percent of the U.S. level. Trade still isn’t the main source of rising economic inequality, but it’s a bigger factor than it was. So there is a dark side to globalization. The question, however, is what to do about it.
  
  Should we go back to old-fashioned protectionism? That would have ugly consequences.... [E]ven trade skeptics tend to shy away from a return to outright protectionism, and to look for softer measures, which mainly come down to trying to push up foreign wages. The key element of the new trade deal is its inclusion of “labor standards”: countries that sign free trade agreements with the United States will have to allow union organizing, while abolishing child and slave labor....
  
  Realistically, however, labor standards won’t do all that much for American workers. No matter how free third-world workers are to organize, they’re still going to be paid very little, and trade will continue to place pressure on U.S. wages.
  
  So what’s the answer?... [A]ll-out protectionism isn’t acceptable, and labor standards in trade agreements will help only a little.... Democrats [who] really want to help American workers... have to do it with a pro-labor policy that relies on better tools than trade policy. Universal health care, paid for by taxing the economy’s winners, would be a good place to start.

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

Mean spirited nonsense:

• "The American people deserve an attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of our country, whose honesty and capability are beyond question," Hagel, R-Neb., said in a statement. "Attorney General Gonzales can no longer meet this standard. He has failed this country. He has lost the moral authority to lead."

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

Give it up, Shifter. Gonzales is in that rareified air of Louisiana politicians now. Absent being found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, he's not going anywhere.

Kind of a leap to that last sentence . . .

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

Yesterday, it was Ashcroft. Today, it's Specter.

Suddenly, I have Republican heros.

why tax the wealthy. The canadian system provides universal health care, and it's all free.

Once again, I agree with Krugman.

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

Tony Snow, on the other hand, can suck it.

linky

• Asked about Comey's testimony, White House press secretary Tony Snow said he didn't know anything about the conversation at Ashcroft's bedside. But he defended the program.
  
  "Because he had an appendectomy, his brain didn't work?" Snow said of Ashcroft. "Jim Comey can talk about whatever reservations he may have had. But the fact is that there were strong protections in there, this program has saved lives and it's vital for national security and furthermore has been reformed in a bipartisan way."

You'd think Tony would be a bit more appreciative of the impact of hospitalization, what with his colon cancer and all.

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

Seriously, you're talking about stopping a program that had been ongoing for a period of years, not starting it. the admin thought it was important and providing a real benefit. then, when the AG goes down, all of a sudden his stand-in tells the admin, (for the apparent first time?) that he will not sign it. remember, someone must have signed for it initially.

I realize how tacky it sounds on paper, but are you telling me it is that unreasonable to go ask the real AG if he agrees?

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

That would be a good take if it were accurate.

Fact of it is that DOJ reviewed the program well before he got sick, and revealed its concerns to Ashcroft, who shared them. Then he got sick.

Often, I have major difficulty figuring out what the hell you're talking about, but usually I glean something.

Here, I'm totally lost.

When Do We Impeach Fredo?
 

They skipped over that part on Fox.

I see several possible interpretations. Let's vote on what makes the most sense:

a. Hank believes in taxing the poor. The rich should keep their money.

b. Canadian healthcare is to Hank as the Teachers Union is to Spanky.

c. When Hank fell off the table at that Windsor strip club, he was surprised at how little the operation cost.

d. Hank may have once been funny.

e. All of the above.

I vote "c".