Still Hating America.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Not to Paula Jones.

With a face like hers, she should be thankful anyone whipped his cock out at her.

She was no more assaulted by Clinton than I have been. She was a pawn. I assume you were joking when you brought her up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
No. I am not aware that Senator Clinton has committed impeachable offenses, at least since taking office.

I wasn't aware that President Clinton had done anything impeachable when he was nominated or elected to either of his two terms.

And if that doesn't bring Penske back, what will? Free boxed wine?

[Snidely Condescending]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Not to Paula Jones.

Right. Because his lying about getting a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky in 1997 had so much to do with defeating Paula's claims on summary judgment. Heck, it probably helped her get the $850,000 settlement -- if he hadn't lied about the blowjob, he probably would have told her to pound sand on appeal.

(Yes, yes, those questions were reasobably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, sure they were.)

Huh. I learned today that Ann Coulter wrote briefs for Paula Jones, and leaked the story of "the distinguishing characteristics" to the press in order to scuttle settlement talks between Bill and Paula. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Out of my wheelhouse. I'm not a serious porn guy. I love internet porn, and I'll watch a 5 minute clip like anyone else, but I'm not renting or buying a dvd of the stuff. Particularly the stuff with multiple dudes fucking women. Who wants to watch a guy screw a woman doggie style for 20 min, turn her around and jack off on her? I recognize the skill in executing a quality money shot, but I'm not paying to see that sort of thing.

See? That's my feeling about Coulter.

I realize the skill inherent in calling everyone who disagrees with you a "faggot" or "terrorist." But I'm not giving up time or money to see it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
See? That's my feeling about Coulter.

I realize the skill inherent in calling everyone who disagrees with you a "faggot" or "terrorist." But I'm not giving up time or money to see it.

I'm not paying to see any of them do anything. Politics is like child porn for the "logic" synaapses in your brain.

Maybe I'd pay to see Gladiator matches between pundits or politicians.

I honestly wouldn't feel anything if any of them died. I'm not kidding. They're so sub-human and embarrasssing I could probably watch Hillary or W get run over by heavy machinery and think "Nuts" like I'd just watched performance art or some stunt.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm not paying to see any of them do anything. Politics is like child porn for the "logic" synaapses in your brain.

Maybe I'd pay to see Gladiator matches between pundits or politicians.

I honestly wouldn't feel anything if any of them died. I'm not kidding. They're so sub-human and embarrasssing I could probably watch Hillary or W get run over by heavy machinery and think "Nuts" like I'd just watched performance art or some stunt.

Are you advocating having Our Commander In Chief run over by a steam roller? Because that sort of thing is not protected by freedom of speech, you know.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Are you advocating having Our Commander In Chief run over by a steam roller? Because that sort of thing is not protected by freedom of speech, you know.

i don't think he is advocating it, just saying he would just watch. He should be okay unless in a town with a good Samaritan law.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Whenever I complain about creeping Broderism, there should be an implied citation to this. Fan. tastic.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Whenever I complain about creeping Broderism, there should be an implied citation to this. Fan. tastic.

I have no opinion on whatever bipartisan initiative he's discussing, but as to this:

"You can't bipartisan the health care crisis. You can't bipartisan Iraq. You can't bipartisan energy."

Bull. Shit. You can't reach any resolution to those issues without some level of agreement across party lines. Period.

For example, the changes in Iraq policy are the direct result of a growing bipartisan --or broader - consensus against the Administration's old policies -- and the Administration's recognition of and reaction to that. If it were just the Dems (in Congress and across the country) who felt that way, this wouldn't be happening.

"There are solutions to these issues, and you have to be courageous enough and concerned enough to actually make the hard choices and advocate for the right ones."

Absolutely. But the rest just doesn't follow. You can't try to reach across party lines to do that?

"And maybe, if you're forceful enough, and savvy enough, you can get members of both parties to agree that your solution is the right one. But you don't start with bipartisanship, you end with it."

What does this mean? Don't compromise on substance to get agreement? Nice plan when you can do it.

But this sounds to me like the words of a man who puts politics above achievement, and has never been responsible for actually trying to govern or manage anything. No offense Ty.

S_A_M

[Adder]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I have no opinion on whatever bipartisan initiative he's discussing, but as to this:

"You can't bipartisan the health care crisis. You can't bipartisan Iraq. You can't bipartisan energy."

Bull. Shit. You can't reach any resolution to those issues without some level of agreement across party lines. Period.

For example, the changes in Iraq policy are the direct result of a growing bipartisan --or broader - consensus against the Administration's old policies -- and the Administration's recognition of and reaction to that. If it were just the Dems (in Congress and across the country) who felt that way, this wouldn't be happening.

"There are solutions to these issues, and you have to be courageous enough and concerned enough to actually make the hard choices and advocate for the right ones."

Absolutely. But the rest just doesn't follow. You can't try to reach across party lines to do that?

"And maybe, if you're forceful enough, and savvy enough, you can get members of both parties to agree that your solution is the right one. But you don't start with bipartisanship, you end with it."

What does this mean? Don't compromise on substance to get agreement? Nice plan when you can do it.

But this sounds to me like the words of a man who puts politics above achievement, and has never been responsible for actually trying to govern or manage anything. No offense Ty.

S_A_M

You apparently didn't get the memo. Politics is a winner take all sport, in which there is one clearly correct answer. Spanky said so.

[Spanky]

I've been catching flak for suggesting that "Scooter" Libby ought never to have been on trial at all. "Aha," say my critics, "we remember how outraged you were at Bill Clinton's 'perjury,' but now that the shoe is on the other foot, you're crying foul. Too bad!" (I've cleaned up some of the language.)

If we're going to have a hypocrisy contest, I'd be glad to put into evidence the thousands of liberals who sputtered with indignation at Clarence Thomas's supposed sexual harassment of Anita Hill and at former Sen. Bob Packwood's groping of an assortment of lobbyists and staffers, but then hotly denied that Bill Clinton's sexual predations were relevant to the public's business.



Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald arrives at a federal court house for the perjury trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, in Washington February 7, 2007. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES) That much having been said, I deny that the cases are comparable. Patrick Fitzgerald, transformed into Ahab by the post of independent counsel, seized upon inconsistent statements by Libby and other witnesses to bring a perjury action. Now that the verdict is in, many on the left are admitting that Libby wasn't the issue at all.

Howard Fineman of Newsweek analyzed it this way: "The ramifications of the stunning, vehement verdict in the Scooter Libby trial -- that he lied, repeatedly, big time -- aren't really about Scooter Libby at all. They are about how and why we went to war in Iraq, and about how Vice President Dick Cheney got us there." The New York Times announced editorially that while they didn't like Fitzgerald putting reporters in jail, "it was still a breath of fresh air to see someone in this administration, which specializes in secrecy, prevarication and evading blame, finally called to account."

Excuse me, but Libby is not being "called to account." Tony Blair is called to account in Parliament at Prime Minister's Question Time. Mr. Libby faces prison. And for what? Because a Kerry-supporting, proven liar called Joseph Wilson persuaded the press that the White House committed a crime in outing his CIA wife. Prosecutor Ahab Fitzgerald knew that this was not true; that Richard Armitage (an opponent of the Iraq War, by the way) was the leaker; and that the whole purpose of mentioning Valerie Plame was not to destroy her career or, God forbid, endanger her life, but rather to explain the otherwise mysterious decision by elements of this administration to send that guy on a sensitive mission to Niger.

We are told that the case reveals how "obsessed" the vice president's office was with the Wilson business. This is highly doubtful considering the range of matters the administration was then contending with. But suppose they were? The tacit assumption that there was something sinister about the vice president attempting to rebut a very damaging op-ed in one of the country's most influential newspapers is nonsensical.

This is a textbook case of the criminalization of policy differences. If Bush haters believe that the president "lied us into war," they are fully entitled to support a Democrat in 2008. But their blood lust will not be satisfied with that. Libby must be led away in handcuffs.

Libby was convicted of lying about how and when he learned that Valerie Plame was a CIA employee. Though trial watchers are suggesting that his memory lapses are not credible, we can certainly agree, can we not, that this datum was of less than intimate interest to Mr. Libby?

Much as one hates to go over this ground again, let's recall that President Clinton, by contrast, was testifying about matters that human beings simply do not tend to forget. Here is an excerpt from his deposition: "Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?" Answer: "No." Mr. Clinton further denied having encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to lie in a sworn statement (suborning perjury), and testified that he could not recall ever being alone with her.

Further, while there was no underlying offense in the Libby case, i.e., there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, there was an underlying offense in the Clinton case -- the sexual harassment of Paula Jones. Indeed, the former president paid Ms. Jones $850,000 to settle the case.

Lewis Libby was doing his best to serve the country and was sandbagged by an out of control prosecutor and a lynch mob press. This miscarriage will leave conservatives bitter. Don't be surprised if the worm turns again.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

D.C.'s gun ban overturned--Second Amendment is not limited to militias.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is a textbook case of the criminalization of policy differences.

There are a lot of other words around it, but this article boils down to this one patently false premise. Outside observers may be enjoying Libby's conviction for all kinds of political reasons, but that hardly means that Fitzgerald prosecuted for his obvious lies because he disagrees with administration policy.

That said, it does seem a bit absurd to me that Libby will go to jail, so, I am officially declaring that I will not criticize Bush for pardoning him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I have no opinion on whatever bipartisan initiative he's discussing, but as to this:

"You can't bipartisan the health care crisis. You can't bipartisan Iraq. You can't bipartisan energy."

Bull. Shit. You can't reach any resolution to those issues without some level of agreement across party lines. Period.

For example, the changes in Iraq policy are the direct result of a growing bipartisan --or broader - consensus against the Administration's old policies -- and the Administration's recognition of and reaction to that. If it were just the Dems (in Congress and across the country) who felt that way, this wouldn't be happening.

"There are solutions to these issues, and you have to be courageous enough and concerned enough to actually make the hard choices and advocate for the right ones."

Absolutely. But the rest just doesn't follow. You can't try to reach across party lines to do that?

"And maybe, if you're forceful enough, and savvy enough, you can get members of both parties to agree that your solution is the right one. But you don't start with bipartisanship, you end with it."

What does this mean? Don't compromise on substance to get agreement? Nice plan when you can do it.

Broder exalts bipartisanship as an end in itself, as this notion that if you can just shelve your party affiliations and come together as public officials, you can accomplish all sorts of good things. This sort of Civics 101, Schoolhouse Rock approach to goverrnment is all well and good as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far. This is because there are real differences behind a lot of these policy disputes -- differences of ideas, differences of self-interest. Broder's paeans to bipartisanship involve papering this over.

So, take health care. Since you've read that blog post, you know that Bob Dole was fundamentally opposed to passing health-care reform in the first Clinton Administration, so much so that he was prepared to vote against his own compromise legislation in order to keep anything from passing. Broder wrote a book about it. For political disputes like this, lip service to bipartisanship is worse than pointless -- it gives political cover to the Bob Doles of the world.

Ezra Klein is not suggesting that policy should only be done by votes on party lines. You end up there. But you don't get anywhere by starting with Broderism.

But this sounds to me like the words of a man who puts politics above achievement....

On that you're wrong, in that Ezra Klein is far more interested than most people in policy, and what makes for good policy, and far less interested than many in Left Blogosphere in politics per se. The path to achievement does not lie in Broderism.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
D.C.'s gun ban overturned--Second Amendment is not limited to militias.

I guess this is hardly a surprise given the near univerals inability to actually read any meaning into all of the words of the Second Amendment. But these two passages in the article seem inconsistent:

The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional


Even as the appeals court overturned the D.C. ban on most handgun ownership, Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."