Politics As Usual

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am sure that Slave has filmed himself with some obese cleaning lady from the Dominican Republic for free, but really, was it worth it Slave?

Dissent! Neither Paigow nor Shapeshifter is an obese Dominican.......although I suppose Slave's ouevre could include scenes besides those on the Deep Inside Slave anthology dvd he gave me for Xmas last year.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Not Me
You should pay me for posting here. This board would be nothing without me.

I invented this board.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Not Me
I never disputed that. My point always was that it wasn't with anyone worth doing it with. Remember? I am sure that Slave has filmed himself with some obese cleaning lady from the Dominican Republic for free, but really, was it worth it Slave? The cost of the penicillin alone probably made it not worth it.

Wrong again, Ms/Mr. I'm Constantly Wrong.

Having personally witnessed a few, but never been involved, I can say that these girls were definitely worth doing it with.

Now go back to having missionary sex with your John...er boyfriend...

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
You should pay me for posting here. This board would be nothing without me.

Hank, I hope that the silence here does not go unnoticed. We've got nothin' but love for ya, man!


Sincerely,
Gattigap
Trembling Hills Fund, Administrator

[Gattigap]

(Caption to Photo: Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., left, looks on as singer Pat Boone, right, gestures during a news conference on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 in Washington. Santorum discussed his support for the passage of the Marriage Amendment. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci))

As Wonkette has put it, "Yes, if I was going to have a press conference celebrating the joys of heterosexuality, this is exactly what I'd wear. Wearing a jacket that is gayest shade of orange known to man to a Federal Marriage Amendment press conference is like walking down 17th St. wearing nothing but leather chaps. Poor Senator Santorum can barely restrain himself."

[Gattigap]

Your next US Senator from the Great State of Illinois, Mike Ditka, has listened to the people, and is flexible in his platform -- you know, so long as it's ultra-ultra-ultra conservative.

DH: ...If you decide to run, what would be your platform?

DITKA: Well my platform would be what the people want. I hate to say that, that sounds so generic, but what do people want? You talk about banning smoking. Okay, why don't we ban abortion? Let's talk about things that are really important. You know you talk about, well, you think one thing can harm your health, the other one takes a life.

Come on here, you know you're talking to a guy that is ultra-ultra-ultra conservative. So you know people who don't like that, you won't like me one bit. But I think I'm about what the majority of this people in the country are. I believe this country was founded under God. I think people who say it wasn't are crazy. But that's their biz; you know, that's me.

What you see is what you're gonna get. You're not going to like all of it. But you're gonna like some of it, and maybe you'll like enough of it to say okay this guy is all right.

I wish to amend my earlier remarks re: the GOP convention. Forget DeLay and Ashcroft. Bump Schwartzenegger or McCain and put this guy up there. A man with this star power and finely honed position on the issues clearly is headed for great places.

(Hat trick!)

Gattigap

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Gattigap


(Caption to Photo: Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., left, looks on as singer Pat Boone, right, gestures during a news conference on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 in Washington. Santorum discussed his support for the passage of the Marriage Amendment. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci))

Pat has resorted to selling real estate?

[sgtclub]

Our item yesterday about the collapse of the Valerie Plame kerfuffle goaded blogger Josh Marshall into penning a response. Here's a key passage:

First (or rather last in Taranto's piece) is the answer to the question I asked yesterday. That was, if the decision to reveal Plame's identity creates no political or legal problems for the leakers, why don't they come forward?

The answer, Taranto says, is that doing so would expose them to further vilification from sites like TPM [Talking Points Memo, Marshall's blog].

I think that explanation speaks for itself.

If Marshall thinks our explanation "speaks for itself," why doesn't he quote it directly? His characterization of it strikes us as ludicrously tendentious, but in case there was any ambiguity in what we wrote, let's try stating the point in a different way: Even assuming the alleged leakers are innocent of any crime, their coming forward would not shield them from a vicious partisan attack from not only "sites like TPM" but also Joe Wilson, who has accused them of a felony, and all his erstwhile defenders in the press and the Democratic Party. Their silence does not mean they are guilty, as Marshall implies it does.

As it is, the spotlight is on Wilson, and he is fleeing it. CNN's Dave Ensor reported yesterday:

A reference in the recent Senate Intelligence Committee report to Ambassador Wilson and his wife has also created a flap in Washington. The report says that an unnamed CIA officer told the committee staff that the former ambassador's wife offered up his name to make a trip to the African nation of Niger for the CIA and to check out a report that Iraq might have been trying to buy raw uranium there. . . .

Wilson has declined to be interviewed on camera today, but told CNN he's outraged by the suggestion in the Senate report, which he said is false innuendo. "She did not propose me," he said. "Others at the CIA did so."

Joe Wilson, declining to appear on camera? That's like Homer Simpson turning down a cheeseburger.

Wilson's continued denial of the Plame trip link would seem to put him at odds with Marshall, who has not disputed the Senate Intelligence Committee's version of events. Way back in September, as we noted yesterday, Marshall published an interview with Wilson that included a version of this denial. If the Senate report is right, then Marshall got snookered by his source.

Under such circumstances, you'd think a journalist's main concern would be to nail down the facts. Instead, Marshall is continuing to flog unproven criminal allegations made by a source whose credibility is a matter of serious question.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Taranto is starting to embarrass himself:

Originally posted by Taranto
Our item yesterday about the collapse of the Valerie Plame kerfuffle goaded blogger Josh Marshall into penning a response. Here's a key passage:

First (or rather last in Taranto's piece) is the answer to the question I asked yesterday. That was, if the decision to reveal Plame's identity creates no political or legal problems for the leakers, why don't they come forward?

The answer, Taranto says, is that doing so would expose them to further vilification from sites like TPM [Talking Points Memo, Marshall's blog].

I think that explanation speaks for itself.

If Marshall thinks our explanation "speaks for itself," why doesn't he quote it directly? His characterization of it strikes us as ludicrously tendentious, but in case there was any ambiguity in what we wrote, let's try stating the point in a different way: Even assuming the alleged leakers are innocent of any crime, their coming forward would not shield them from a vicious partisan attack from not only "sites like TPM" but also Joe Wilson, who has accused them of a felony, and all his erstwhile defenders in the press and the Democratic Party. Their silence does not mean they are guilty, as Marshall implies it does.

Even Slave seems to agree with Marshall on this one, so I'll move on.

As it is, the spotlight is on Wilson, and he is fleeing it. CNN's Dave Ensor reported yesterday:

A reference in the recent Senate Intelligence Committee report to Ambassador Wilson and his wife has also created a flap in Washington. The report says that an unnamed CIA officer told the committee staff that the former ambassador's wife offered up his name to make a trip to the African nation of Niger for the CIA and to check out a report that Iraq might have been trying to buy raw uranium there. . . .

Wilson has declined to be interviewed on camera today, but told CNN he's outraged by the suggestion in the Senate report, which he said is false innuendo. "She did not propose me," he said. "Others at the CIA did so."

Joe Wilson, declining to appear on camera? That's like Homer Simpson turning down a cheeseburger.

So we shouldn't infer anything from the continued silence of the people who outed Valerie Plame, but we should draw conclusions from the fact that Wilson refused to be interview on camera. Got it.

Wilson's continued denial of the Plame trip link would seem to put him at odds with Marshall, who has not disputed the Senate Intelligence Committee's version of events. Way back in September, as we noted yesterday, Marshall published an interview with Wilson that included a version of this denial. If the Senate report is right, then Marshall got snookered by his source.

Under such circumstances, you'd think a journalist's main concern would be to nail down the facts. Instead, Marshall is continuing to flog unproven criminal allegations made by a source whose credibility is a matter of serious question.

As I posted yesterday, Senator Roberts acknowledges that the Committee could not agree on who suggested Wilson for the job, so it's not clear to me what Taranto means by "the Senate Intelligence Committee's version of events." If Wilson lied to Marshall in that interview, so be it, but the story is larger than Wilson. And none of this has anything to do with whether the people who outed Valerie Plame committed a crime.

I don't know Taranto, but this is hackery.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
[IMG] (Caption to Photo: Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., left, looks on as singer Pat Boone, right, gestures during a news conference on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 in Washington. Santorum discussed his support for the passage of the Marriage Amendment. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci))

As Wonkette has put it, "Yes, if I was going to have a press conference celebrating the joys of heterosexuality, this is exactly what I'd wear. Wearing a jacket that is gayest shade of orange known to man to a Federal Marriage Amendment press conference is like walking down 17th St. wearing nothing but leather chaps. Poor Senator Santorum can barely restrain himself."

Do she mean Pat should have gone dressed like this?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Do she mean Pat should have gone dressed like this?

It's pretty stunning that she made the allusion without the follow-through of the other picture. Talk about mailing it in.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Taranto is starting to embarrass himself:

As I posted yesterday, Senator Roberts acknowledges that the Committee could not agree on who suggested Wilson for the job, so it's not clear to me what Taranto means by "the Senate Intelligence Committee's version of events." If Wilson lied to Marshall in that interview, so be it, but the story is larger than Wilson. And none of this has anything to do with whether the people who outed Valerie Plame committed a crime.

I don't know Taranto, but this is hackery.

It is my understanding that there is a memo from Plume which contains the recommendation. That seems pretty damning to me, though I'm not really sure it has any relevance.

[Replaced_Texan]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...p/gay_marriage

48-50. Kerry and Edwards were the two missing senators. They needed 60 and couldn't even get half the Senate.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Your next US Senator from the Great State of Illinois, Mike Ditka,

DA BEARS!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It is my understanding that there is a memo from Plume which contains the recommendation. That seems pretty damning to me, though I'm not really sure it has any relevance.

That would suggest that (1) Wilson didn't know, and told the truth, or (2) Wilson lied. As you say, neither one has much to do with anything. It doesn't affect the legality of the leaking of Plame's name, and it doesn't change the fact that Wilson was right about the Niger angle and many others were wrong.

If there is such a memo, it's hard for me to understand why Senate Democrats wouldn't agree with the three Republicans who wrote separately to trash Wilson. Roberts seemed to acknowledge that there were disagreements about what happened.