Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Sorry to intrude, and I don't mean to be insulting, beacuse you probably know this already --

No intrusion at all. It's just that you guys are all confusing the real point of my questions. I'm less concerned with what the law "is," though the discussions on this board on the subject are pretty illuminating, than what the law should be.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Hastert refuses to bring legislation to the House floor extending deadline for 9/11 commission report:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Feb25.html

I wonder how hard Andy Card pushed on this. In other words, is the article's description accurate and Hastert is ignoring the WH (an indication that the WH has no juice on the Hill right now), or is it rather a tacit understanding between the WH and Hastert that this commission has to die before it can make its final push to a report? I'm guessing (b), but maybe that's because I'm cynical these days.

As a personal aside, it infuriates me that the party who has wrapped itself in the flag so much since 9/11 cannot stomach waiting two more months for a full inquiry of the causes of that national tragedy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
His statements pretty clearly identified him as a supporter of the amendment. Do you really think that he can drop it? Yesterday you touted Bush's ability to be a stand-up guy as a big part of his popularity in non-PB America. Wouldn't this undermine that view among the Christian right or whoever else has been pushing him to "codify this one way or another"?

At the very least I think it would make it a little more sticky when he tried to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper during the general election.

Amendment to the US Constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Bush doesn't have to do anything more- it will never get through. At some point he can express regret that it didn't get through, but he certainly need not do much else. He can't get 2/3 of the senate to do anything.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No reason to use the subjunctive. Four years ago, he said the states can do what they want to.

Of course, that was during his "no nation building" phase. Maybe this is part of his post-9/11 growth.

Good point. But you also see the fairly easy dodge on that charge: the great transformative power of watching those antidemocratic liberal judges hastening the demise of the American family unit.

But to back off the unequal rights amendment now would be a pretty clear reversal, with no real justification except having received a tepid public response when a roar of approval was expected.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I wonder how hard Andy Card pushed on this.

Matt Yglesias:

• Anyone who believes that [i.e., that the White House isn't behind this] might be interested in purchasing a bridge I recently required. How do you think that conversation went?
  
  Card: Dennis, you've simply got to extend this deadline, the country needs a full accounting of the facts in order to understand how to make America safer.
  
  Hastert: Sorry, Andy, I appreciate what you're saying, but extending the deadling might cause political damage to the president and I just can't allow that.
  
  Card: Never mind the politics, damnit, this is about the security of the country. The president doesn't care about his re-election, his only thought is for the good of the country.
  
  Hastert: How noble of him, but still, I insist that we cut things short, otherwise John Kerry and his band of hippies might take over.
  
  Card: We're going to fight you on this with everything in our arsenal. This administration is absolutely dedicated to finding the truth!

As a personal aside, it infuriates me that the party who has wrapped itself in the flag so much since 9/11 cannot stomach waiting two more months for a full inquiry of the causes of that national tragedy.

It's not just personal. When they so transparently appropriate 9/11 for partisan benefit, they undermine the war on terrorism, jeopardizing all of us. We should all be coming together on this stuff, but they make it impossible.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Good point. But you also see the fairly easy dodge on that charge: the great transformative power of watching those antidemocratic liberal judges hastening the demise of the American family unit.

That line is going to look a lot worse when California courts tell Gavin Newsome to cut it out.

Originally posted by Hank
Bush doesn't have to do anything more- it will never get through. At some point he can express regret that it didn't get through, but he certainly need not do much else. He can't get 2/3 of the senate to do anything.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
But to back off the unequal rights amendment now would be a pretty clear reversal, with no real justification except having received a tepid public response when a roar of approval was expected.

It doesn't work to get his religious-right base worked up if he doesn't push it. If Bush says nothing and expresses regret in a few months, he loses both ways -- with his base, for throwing them a pretty bare bone, and with independents and young voters, for doing something reactionary.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Amendment to the US Constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Bush doesn't have to do anything more- it will never get through. At some point he can express regret that it didn't get through, but he certainly need not do much else. He can't get 2/3 of the senate to do anything.

Thanks for the quote. I think there are some capitalized words in there that maybe shouldn't be capitalized though, Hank. Your spelling issues are really starting to bug me.

The point is not the passage of the amendment any more. The point is that every time there's another twist in the marriage litigation or every time some random county clerk in NM decides its time issue a few same-sex marriage certificates, paragraph 3 of the news story is going to point out that Bush supports a constitutional amendment. If it fails in the Senate that will be pointed out as well.

This was a move to buck up the base, but it seems that the larger effect is hardening the opposition and disillusioning some supporters. If the amendment fails I don't think it's a case where he can just withdraw from the field with honor and a few quotes about regret. I think this is a real catch-22. But of course we won't know until it plays out.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Thanks for the quote. I think there are some capitalized words in there that maybe shouldn't be capitalized though, Hank. Your spelling issues are really starting to bug me.

I just copied it from a webpage- its not my fault. Maybe the capitalized words are ones that had big script on the original, I don't know.

but if I'm bugging you, I will really try harder. I'm thinking of dropping this sock and coming back as a slicker, spell check-enabled, urbane guy. think Jack Manfred, but during daytime. Stay tuned!

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
That line is going to look a lot worse when California courts tell Gavin Newsome to cut it out.

Maybe, but the GOP is good at getting out the message that The Courts are like The Media, in that when they are right, it's accidental or because we finally got them dead to rights. Stopped clock being right twice a day, etc.

Also, when the California courts hold that the Mayor of SF is bound by state law (duh!), somehow Arnold will get the credit. Probably because of the "message" the "people of Kah-lee-for-nyah" sent to "Sah-crah-mayn-toh" with the recall vote.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Me

I just cannot fathom why a guy would want to stick his dick in a woman's asshole.

Because he can. Ever fuck the same person for a long time. It can get boring.

And lets not forget all the chicks who like it. 90% of the times I've done it, its been by request. Hell, at one point or another just about every male has put his finger in there... so, its just a logical progression...

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Me
Howard is incredibly unfunny. I do not understand his appeal, but then again, I am not an 18 year old construction worker living in Queens who spends his off hours in strip bars and thinks farting is funny and/or slave.

I noticed that he seems to have less of the top celebs coming on his E! show. I would guess if being on his show would help their careers, they would be on his show. So for some reason, they must feel it won't help their careers to be on his show.

I have heard that Howard is somewhat of a hermit, and I think it may be because he hates the low-lifes who are his fans. So he doesn't like going out in public where he will be confronted by them in person. That reminds him of who it is that listens to his show.

He used to live a fairly normal life off the air with his wife and kids. It is my understanding that she left him, not the other way around.

Lighten up. Howard works on many levels. Yes, scumbags think he's cool and worth emulating. And his show can really suck when he's off. But for the few minutes I may hear him per week, he's a pretty good diversion from the doldrums of the commute. Like him or hate him, he grabs you're ear when he's rolling.

Stern knows he's pleasing multiple divergent audiences. In a sense, he realizes a large part of his listeners are laughing at him, not with him, but he doesn't care. Either way, he gets paid, and we get some chuckles.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Lighten up. Howard works on many levels. Yes, scumbags think he's cool and worth emulating. And his show can really suck when he's off. But for the few minutes I may hear him per week, he's a pretty good diversion from the doldrums of the commute. Like him or hate him, he grabs you're ear when he's rolling.

Stern knows he's pleasing multiple divergent audiences. In a sense, he realizes a large part of his listeners are laughing at him, not with him, but he doesn't care. Either way, he gets paid, and we get some chuckles.

4 basic Howard bit-types:

1 hot girl on show- this part is tired and repetitive, and gets sicker as he gets older- this is when I'm embarassed to be a listener.

2 Howard on rant at staff- can be funny, but once I caught this on the TV show and he looked like my father in law yelling. He is getting too old for this part not to be getting bothersome.

3 Howard interviewing Celebrities- makes putting up with 1 and 2 worthwhile. The questions he asked are just so much better than anything else out there, Nancy Sinatra starting to admit he dad left her broke, Eric Roberts on what a bitch his sister is, find that anywehre else.

4 the news- very funny almost every day.

[Atticus Grinch]

I forgot to mention yesterday that I'm considerably amazed by the decision in Locke v. Davey. The only thing unsurprising about it was that Thomas voted with Scalia.

You would have thought, using mathematical principles, that Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors + Zelman v. Simmons-Harris = states required to include religious schools in state funded scholarship programs. I guess Rosenberger will be seen merely as a speech case.

I have mixed feelings about the result. I feel like Maureen Stapleton in Johnny Dangerously after one of her sons got the death penalty for the other: "Thrilled for Tommy; sad for Johnny."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Maybe, but the GOP is good at getting out the message that The Courts are like The Media, in that when they are right, it's accidental or because we finally got them dead to rights. Stopped clock being right twice a day, etc.

Also, when the California courts hold that the Mayor of SF is bound by state law (duh!), somehow Arnold will get the credit. Probably because of the "message" the "people of Kah-lee-for-nyah" sent to "Sah-crah-mayn-toh" with the recall vote.

Your tendency to liberally assume that the good people of the country will hear the conservative message and not what the left says is typically depressing. The honest people of this country often recognize the smell of manure (and not because so many of them in the Patch work in it all day). Polls show there isn't nearly enough support for an amendment. It is true that a vigourous minority that feels strongly can impose its preferences on a less-strong-minded minority, see, e.g., Prohibition, but it looks like they're not going to get 67 senators, let alone 2/3 of the House.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

I have mixed feelings about the result. I feel like Maureen Stapleton in Johnny Dangerously after one of her sons got the death penalty for the other: "Thrilled for Tommy; sad for Johnny."

"We got a lot in common."

"Like what?"

"Well, we're both swell lookers and neither one of us is Chinese."

"Well, I gotta hand it to you, you been doin' your homework."

_____

"My mother kicked me in the balls once, Johnny. Once."