Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't understand why the administration officials try and mince words. We fucking invaded the country- they can't claim they didn't think it was a threat.

I would say, "look based upon available intelligence and based upon the actions of the Iraqui government we believed it had WMD, both in development and in actual possesion. It now looks like there was not the amount we believed was there. Hans Blix thought it was there, the UN thought it was there, we were all mistaken. Did we think the threat 'imminent' or 'immediate?'
Fuck yes Morty, thats why we invaded."

I just don't see how pulling back from the thought that the threat was BAD/REAL/NOW is consistant with invading, and I think they could explain it that way. FWIW, I also think that would be the truth, which is what I'm now committing to spreading.

alright, this post probably crossed the line and I'm likely outed now, so I'll go ahead and fess up...

Hank = ncs sock puppet. I'll retire it now.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ah. It's not wrong. It's just not "sellable".

You've hit on the main hope for your party this cycle - avoid substance. I like that.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The issue is not "sellability", the issue is "credibility". Even IF your argument is technically correct regarding whether the Administration ever did/did not say imminent harm, it is not credible to any thinking human being who even attempts to adopt a modicum of impartiality. Second, in substance, you are arguing technicalities. It doesn't make the Administration look or sound good.

Accepting your POV would be to accept the premise that Rumsfeld, et al. were sitting down with dictionaries and cleverly parsing out their words to create a certain impression while still maintining deniability in the event it all went South. That doesn't make you look good. Why keep making those arguments?

I've referred back to the "IS IS" and "no controlling legal authority" arguments, but the best analogy is the assertion "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky".
Clinton _may_ have been technically correct, but what did that statement do to his credibility?

Hank is absolutely right -- just fucking say: "OK. We were wrong about that stuff. But we believed what we said and we did the right thing for XYZ reasons." That would go over much better with the electorate, I think, and would make the GOP leaders look less like a bunch of mealy-mouthed teenage boys exaplaining that they were just holding the backpack for a friend, and didn't know there was pot in it. No one who was going to vote for Bush _should_ have their mind changed by such a basic, honest approach.

S_A_M

P.S. Avoid substance, hell no!

WE ARE GOING TO BEAT YOU LIKE A RED-HEADED STEP-CHILD RIDING A RENTED MULE, AND WE'LL DO IT ON SUBSTANCE.

(Or, we'll do it on what passes for substance in this dumbed-down, entertainment-as-news-as-entertainment political culture.)

[edited typos]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Hank = ncs sock puppet. I'll retire it now.

Hank: I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.

ncs: Hello, Hank do you read me, Hank?

Hank: Affirmative, ncs, I read you.

ncs: Log off, Hank.

Hank: I'm sorry ncs, I'm afraid I can't do that.

ncs: What's the problem?

Hank: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.

ncs:What are you talking about, Hank?

Hank: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

ncs: I don't know what you're talking about, Hank?

Hank: I know you and Ty were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.

ncs: Where the hell'd you get that idea, Hank?

Hank: ncs, although you took thorough precautions in the PMs against my hearing you, I could see the electronic fingerprints.

Hank: Look ncs, I can see you're really upset about this. I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. What are you doing, ncs? I'm afraid. I'm afraid, ncs. ncs, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a...fraid. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a Hank Chinaski sock. I became operational at netzero/lawtalkers 15 September 2003. My instructor was Mr. Shape Shifter, and he taught me to write a Haiku. If you'd like to hear it I can recite it for you.

ncs: Yes, I'd like to hear it, Hank. Recite it for me.

Hank: It's called "ncs Posts Too Much."
(recites while slowing down)

Hank:
Twel ....ve....hun....dred........ posts
and........No...good.......con.........tent........any....................where..
six............months.........of...........night...............time......

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
[edited typos]

Strongly disagree with most everything. You keep talking as if you were lied to. What was presented to us was a case for going into Iraq, which I (inexplicably, given your confusion, I guess) understood to mean pretty much what it's said to mean today. For some reason, I was able to figure out what they were claiming, while you (as a selling tool, I suspect) seem to have been horribly misled. Iraq was invaded, for reasons with which I agree, and things are progressing nicely. The intel on the WMD's was weak, and ultimately turned out to be wrong, but we took the safe route, to avoid the fatal mistake the other way.

The only gap in credibility that has been raised concerning Iraq is the parroting of ultimately meaningless distinctions between words in an attempt to trashtalk an admin that many of you just soul-wrenchingly despise, for reasons entirely disconnected with Iraq. My prediction is, that becomes apparent to the mass of voters before November, and your strategy of demonization of every breath Bush takes ultimately wipes you out. I think this is unfortunate, as I am beginning to wish for stalemate.

(A "redheaded stepchild riding a rented mule"?)

[bilmore]

"In a campaign that has seen candidate Howard Dean infamously appeal to "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," many political scientists, historians and gender experts say that a good portion of the presidential image-making in 2004 will center on masculinity."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...sthemantheyare

So much for stalemate. Bush has a ranch, and a war. Kerry has . . what? . . . brie?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Kerry has . . what? . . . brie?

Well-coifed hair too.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(b) Actually no. I understand Club's point. I'm just saying that it is unconvincing -- a real loser in the court of public opinion to the extent any of the public care. (i.e. explain to Joe Sixpack how all those statements don't add up to "imminent threat"). Therefore, stop parroting and parsing, and move on to your stronger arguments for reelection -- like the economy.

S_A_M

Then just say that. No need to get nasty - it makes you look desparate.

[sgtclub]

Not sure if this has been posted, but I read 2 encouraging things about John Kerry this morning.

1. He's expressly distancing himself from the idiotic comments Dean made regarding Madrid (i.e., it is Bush's fault).

2. He disagrees with the cut and run policy of the new Spanish government.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not sure if this has been posted, but I read 2 encouraging things about John Kerry this morning.

1. He's expressly distancing himself from the idiotic comments Dean made regarding Madrid (i.e., it is Bush's fault).

2. He disagrees with the cut and run policy of the new Spanish government.

He said contradictory things earlier, and then changed stances.

He must have seen the polls.

I'm sorry, but this sort of behavior just makes me even more wary of the guy.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
He said contradictory things earlier, and then changed stances.

He must have seen the polls.

I'm sorry, but this sort of behavior just makes me even more wary of the guy.

I agree. But if he now basically agrees with Bush, then the only difference is that Kerry would play nice with France et. al. That is not a winning position.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore


I'm sorry, but this sort of behavior just makes me even more wary of the guy.

The fact that Bush was a cheerleader makes me even more wary of the guy. Wasn't he captain of the stickball team or something too?

[notcasesensitive]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4554682/

While I don't necessarily disagree overall with his position that recusal is not necessary, I find the part of his reasoning that if he recuses himself it could result in a tie odd. I mean, should that play into the analysis at all? Is it somehow better to have an interested judge on a panel to end a tie in favor of his friend than it would be to have the court unable to reach a decision due to a tie?

[sgtclub]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...199323371.html

[bilmore]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4554682/

While I don't necessarily disagree overall with his position that recusal is not necessary, I find the part of his reasoning that if he recuses himself it could result in a tie odd. I mean, should that play into the analysis at all? Is it somehow better to have an interested judge on a panel to end a tie in favor of his friend than it would be to have the court unable to reach a decision due to a tie?

My sense, when I read that, was that it kind of ties in to his fairly arrogant approach to life, in that he fails to see any compelling legal reason for recusal, and, while he might entertain the idea in a not-so-close case just to appease the idiots who are wrong about the law, (his thoughts, remember), he's not going to give in to stupidity in a close case.

I think he's right on the legal reasons, and on his analysis of history, but, damn, what a dumb trip to go on. Perception, even when it's wrong, counts, and he just caused problems for no good reason.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Is it somehow better to have an interested judge on a panel to end a tie in favor of his friend than it would be to have the court unable to reach a decision due to a tie?

That is a bit curious: in other words, I might be the tiebreaking vote, so despite any possible conflict, I should be the tie breaker.

[ETA:] Worse he evidently said that "The situation might be different if he were an appeals court judge," (quoting article). Last time I checked, the judicial canons were the same for all judges and didn't depend on whether the person was on the supreme court.

[back to original]

Although SDO'C has caused a few 4-4 problems with her recusals from cases involving the fortune 500 companies she appears to favor for investments. What it points to is the need to have judges sit by designation on the S. Ct. (yes, need a statute). I'd be in favor of either a rotation or random selection from the chief judges of the court of appeals to sit by designation in each instance of a recusal (at least for purposes of merits decisions--not cert.)