Politics As Usual

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Remember how we Republicans joke around that we are not the party that reads daily polls to find out what positions we should take? Well, just on the off-chance that you or someone else here didn't get it, its supposed to pose a complete contrast between our solid law-abiding moral stance as a party and the shifty murky lie-when-you-can-get-away-with-it and there-is-no-such-thing-as-morality stance of the Clinton era.

In other words, Clinton did whatever the polls said to do, and that ain't us. See where I'm going now? If the polls told Clinton to eliminate the war on drugs entirely, he would at least have raised the idea. Instead, he didn't touch it with a ten foot stick. Nor has any other mainstream party leader.

Funny, but the facts just don't bear you out. Clinton boldly moved to eliminate discrimination against gays in the military. Was that a popular stance at the time? No. Of course, it was the right stance (as opposed to the right-wing stance), but it sure wasn't popular.

Your argument about the war on drugs is based on the fluff in your head. Clinton didn't reduce the country's commitment to the war on drugs, even as voters in various states called for such a reduction.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by the Spartan
To my sensibilities if the Clintons, or either of them, had the criminal record that actually reflected the criminal acts that they have committed and/or aided and abetted, there would be at least two more residents in maximum security federal prisons. Or at least a state one.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Discussion: Penske is an insane paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorist.

Now, let's discuss how the CIA, the Mafia, and Standard Oil shot JFK.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So why ask the question.

Depends who you ask it of. When asked of W in the initial context in which some (not all) asked it, it was a legitimate question -- not because his past drug use should be a disqualifier, but because as governor of Texas he pushed legislation to increase penalties massively for the same conduct that he had committed.

(Anyone remember the cartoon - "How do you plead?" "Youthful indiscretion, your honor.")

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Funny, but the facts just don't bear you out. Clinton boldly moved to eliminate discrimination against gays in the military. Was that a popular stance at the time? No. Of course, it was the right stance (as opposed to the right-wing stance), but it sure wasn't popular.

Wasn't popular? Most people could care less what happens in the military, its not their kids who join these days. Asking them about don't ask - don't tell is like asking them their opinion on who the next alderman should be for Quebec City's 4th ward.

And I don't recall seeing any strong sentiment one way or another, except for that from gay people and the military itself. But from your quote, I'd guess you'd back the Democrat in Quebec City's 4th ward.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

Your argument about the war on drugs is based on the fluff in your head. Clinton didn't reduce the country's commitment to the war on drugs, even as voters in various states called for such a reduction.

Just more California arrogance. The voters in various (read: a few... Alaska, Ohio, Hawii, California?) states generally voted to decriminalize pot for medical use or, in some cases recreational use. You know, the kind of stuff that only states enforce anyway. The Republican party would have a collective heart attack if Bush admitted Coke use and called for decriminalization. So would an extremely significant part of the Democratic party.

You are not showing yourself as credible if you think the majority of people in America are in favor of allowing people to put needles in their arms or to import coke by the ton... or to snort coke. Not a single significant leader in even the Democratic party has come close.

Which is to say, if you think California's support for medical marijuana use indicates any kind of consensus support for something even close to what I'm talking about, you should probably see a brain surgeon to have the two parts of your brain reconnected.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Slave, it appears you were too optimistic when you proposed that Congress's in camera review of evidence of the Iraqi prison abuse would be enough to prompt appropriate investigation:

Remember when the existence of large-scale abuse at American-run detention centers in Iraq was revealed and the Republicans quickly promised to get to the bottom of things and figure out how far up the chain the responsibility went? Well, we can forget about that -- the House decided not to investigate at all, the Senate has called off its inquiry, and the military's self-investigations have been delayed and delayed.

Matt Yglesias

[Tyrone Slothrop]

From England we learn that

Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves.

In that publication — Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.'

On 14 December Blair repeated the claim in a statement issued by Downing Street in response to the arrest of Saddam Hussein and posted on the Labour party website that: 'The remains of 400,000 human beings [have] already [been] found in mass graves.'

From the Observer, via Kevin Drum

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
From England we learn that



From the Observer, via Kevin Drum

Someone's found a new favorite blogger, now that Josh is in disfavor.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Someone's found a new favorite blogger, now that Josh is in disfavor.

(1) Josh is not in disfavor. You can tell he's doing something right from the number of tendentious and pointless posts by right-wing bloggers aimed at his stuff.

(2) I've posted from Drum's blog for a long time. He formerly used the name Calpundit. Drum has broader interests than Marshall, and is more likely to post a range of news stories and to offer a few comments on them. Marshall posts on a narrower range on topics, and does more to pursue stuff that's not in the major papers.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(1) Josh is not in disfavor. You can tell he's doing something right from the number of tendentious and pointless posts by right-wing bloggers aimed at his stuff.

He is being attacked because he has been the loudest rumor purveyor in the business.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
(1) Josh is not in disfavor. You can tell he's doing something right from the number of tendentious and pointless posts by right-wing bloggers aimed at his stuff.

Like this one?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
He is being attacked because he has been the loudest rumor purveyor in the business.

He is being attacked because the unwritten rule of blogdom (actually, either Yglesias or DeLong had a nice post about this recently) is that you should only acknowledge other bloggers with at least as many page hits as you have, so as to increase your profile but not to help your rivals. Marshall scores right up there, so every is gunning for him instead of more-obscure blogs.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Wasn't popular? Most people could care less what happens in the military, its not their kids who join these days. Asking them about don't ask - don't tell is like asking them their opinion on who the next alderman should be for Quebec City's 4th ward.

And I don't recall seeing any strong sentiment one way or another, except for that from gay people and the military itself. But from your quote, I'd guess you'd back the Democrat in Quebec City's 4th ward.

You must have been asleep throughout 1993, if you don't remember the intesity with which Clinton was attacked for proposing that gays should be entitled to serve in the military. "Don't ask don't tell" was a compromise -- a shitty one -- with the Repubs.

But I'm not surprised that you conveniently forget anything that doesn't fit in with your postulate -- that Dems govern by looking at the polls every five minutes, while Repubs govern from some place of pure goodness and principal.

After all, that postulate explains why Bush is against steel tariffs. I mean for them. I mean against them.

And why he's against nation-building. I mean for it. I mean...

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Just more California arrogance. The voters in various (read: a few... Alaska, Ohio, Hawii, California?) states generally voted to decriminalize pot for medical use or, in some cases recreational use. You know, the kind of stuff that only states enforce anyway.

Please explain how "a few .... Alaska, Ohio, Hawaii, California" [plus the states you left out] does not mean "various"? My California arrogance fails me when I try to speak English to the right wing.

And are you joking about the comment that "only the states enforce" marijuana laws? If not, you are .... well, as ignorant as I would expect someone who is once again advancing the "this party good, that party bad" view of the world. A number of Californians could have used that information to defend against, you know, the federal crimes they were charged with.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You are not showing yourself as credible if you think the majority of people in America are in favor of allowing people to put needles in their arms or to import coke by the ton... or to snort coke. Not a single significant leader in even the Democratic party has come close.

God, the more I look at your post the dumber it gets. I didn't say anything remotely like the above. I said voters in various states called for a reduction of the war on drugs.

This is like talking to a translation computer in the years before they got the software right. I say, the money and resources devoted to the war on drugs are absurdly disproportionate. Hello says, Sidd wants to hook preschoolers on heroin.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Please explain how "a few .... Alaska, Ohio, Hawaii, California" [plus the states you left out] does not mean "various"? My California arrogance fails me when I try to speak English to the right wing.

Don't blame the libertarian wing. We are on the same side on this issue.