Politics: A new beginning

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
which is more supportive of the Palistianian movement, kissing Arafat, or wearing his head towel as a scarf?

I am pretty sure that wearing 'fat's* do-rag as a scarf is pro-Israeli. But I could be wrong.


*That's what all his friends call him.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."

It's not illegal? Let the hacker wars begin. I'd say the GOP is going to lose the arms race on that one.

These sound, not like pure government "official" business, but party business. Should government computer systems be used for purely party business? I know you can't use government computers for fundraising or campaigning purposes, but can you use them as a tool of a party plotting party strategy?

You're painting yourself into a corner by making this point, unless you're going to say with a straight face that the minority's legislative agenda and steps for enacting it are "party strategy," but the majority's legislative agenda is "policy" (i.e., why are Cheney's energy task force documents protected?).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Explain to me again why I'm not allowed to call this a lie?

I think, because it has more to do with prediction than factual statement.

I'm still trying to figure out how Bush's spending policies relate to "factual statement". 60% growth in education spending, 30% rise in fed employment, almost 30% extra spent in Interior - all since he started - maybe he's got a plan to raise prices in the WH cafeteria to make up for it.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
I've never understood why people think that line appeals to anyone other than CEOs. Once Rove is successful in limiting the franchise to business executives, Edwards is doomed, but until then they might want to work on finding something better. People don't like lawyers, but they like their lawyer, and Edwards is running to be their guy.

Let's see - because Joe Sixpack was laid off due to cutbacks that resulted from the company going bankrupt after losing a big law suit?

Regardless of whether or not this is true, it is a growing sentiment among Americans.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It's toward the end of the article. It appears to be conceded that it is criminal if the memos in question constitute "official business", and one particular Republican staff (who is in risk of going to the big house) was pushing the idea pretty hard that the memos were "political" rather than "official business".

I thought this got some mention around here last week. There was an article in teh WaPo on judicial appointments (or was it the Times?), and how politicized they had become. I thought it discussed the contents of some leaked/stolen/misappropriated/inadvertently disclosed strategy memos. But this is hardly Watergate-level stuff.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
These sound, not like pure government "official" business, but party business. Should government computer systems be used for purely party business? I know you can't use government computers for fundraising or campaigning purposes, but can you use them as a tool of a party plotting party strategy?

OK, let's think about how this approach would apply if you do it even handedly. The strategy being plotted is strategy to oppose judicial nominees. Do you apply the same rule to the strategy to approve judicial nominees? So is there some non-official business material in the government's possession that I can get, without any redaction, through an FOIA? Like why the Republican's chose to nominate an hispanic, and who said what in the selection process?

Take another point. Can we go to the White House and say, look, what you were doing in planning the campaign to support the war in the US is political, not governmental, so its not official business. So, no harm if we access it?

I can see why Senator Hatch is pissed.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
(i.e., why are Cheney's energy task force documents protected?).

Well, one reason is that Congress exempted itself from FOIA, did it not?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Some of what Senators do is political. I don't think we need to pretend that the operation of the legislative branch involves no politics, that being its raison d'etre.

Aren't you begging the question, then, as to why you can't use your Senate computer to generate fund-raising letters? I understand that there is politics in everything, but we've apparently made some arbitrary choices as to what's "political", and this strikes me as being outside of the "official" line.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You're painting yourself into a corner by making this point, unless you're going to say with a straight face that the minority's legislative agenda and steps for enacting it are "party strategy," but the majority's legislative agenda is "policy" (i.e., why are Cheney's energy task force documents protected?).

Good point. But, we do seem to have drawn a line (see Fundraising Letters from Gore, supra), and I'm just wondering where we draw it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think, because it has more to do with prediction than factual statement.

It's math. Assuming we stick to base 10, the numbers are not going to add up differently.

Your point, presumably, is that we could have such a fantabulous economic explosion that we'll have hundreds of billions of dollars of additional tax receipts? If you believe Bush believes that, you are at risk of criminal liability for what you are smoking.

I'm still trying to figure out how Bush's spending policies relate to "factual statement". 60% growth in education spending, 30% rise in fed employment, almost 30% extra spent in Interior - all since he started - maybe he's got a plan to raise prices in the WH cafeteria to make up for it.

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
-- Dick Cheney

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Let's see - because Joe Sixpack was laid off due to cutbacks that resulted from the company going bankrupt after losing a big law suit?

Regardless of whether or not this is true, it is a growing sentiment among Americans.

Four average Americans care strongly about this, up from three last week?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

So: Bush's own publicly stated policies along with AMT reform that everyone knows is inevitable will increase the deficit to $500 billion by 2009, yet he claims these policies will reduce the deficit to $240 billion. Every single budget analyst in the White House knows this perfectly well. President Bush knows this perfectly well.

As for the AMT, why not repeal the regular tax code, and replace it with the AMT, with some adjustment for rates. It's a hell of a lot easier (it's a PITA only because you've already calculated your taxes under the complex system, and then have to back out a bunch of numbers), and according to one WSJ I read a year ago or so, actually cheaper.

But let's put aside the economics: are you saying repeal of the AMT is a partisan issue for which Bush should be held responsible? While admittedly it was adopted to prevent the rich from paying no taxes, at this point it's as much a Democratic issue as an R issue. The folks getting drawn into its net are hardly the wealthy--it's the folks in the Blue states with high taxes and high deductions.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Aren't you begging the question, then, as to why you can't use your Senate computer to generate fund-raising letters? I understand that there is politics in everything, but we've apparently made some arbitrary choices as to what's "political", and this strikes me as being outside of the "official" line.

I can't be begging a question that hadn't been posed. If the "politics" in question refers to strategy re upcoming votes, e.g. on judicial nominees, I can't see why that's not official. Greedy put it well. Advising and consenting on judges is what Senators do.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Let's see - because Joe Sixpack was laid off due to cutbacks that resulted from the company going bankrupt after losing a big law suit?

Regardless of whether or not this is true, it is a growing sentiment among Americans.

I agree, and the anti-plaintiffs' bar lobby has gotten pretty well organized, at least here in the Great State, which has traditionally been very generous in handing out jury awards.

It's a pretty close split though. The amendment in Texas to limit jury awards passed very narrowly, and the trial lawyers didnt' do a very good job of pointing out to the electorate that it was an amendment for ALL civil trials, not just med-mal trials.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
linky

I didn't read the article because it was long and supported your position and not mine, but I did want to say that I just think it is sooooo cute how you make your links say "Linky." Too cute!!!