Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What's particularly troubling to me is that the words "under God" were added after the original creation of the pledge, which suggest they are wholly unnecessary to the purpose of the pledge, which they are. Same with "In God we Trust" on coins.

Even more troubling, to me, is that the addition was made for the specific purpose of making particular Americans -- atheist Communists -- feel excluded.

I'm surprised, pleasantly, by the number of posters here who appear to agree with Newdow. I remember a very different tone when the 9th Circuit announced its decision; perhaps that was my local board.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ress&printer=1

[GOP to declassify Clarke's testimony to prove lied under oath]

They are retarded. Let this die a quiet death.

Will someone please tell Scott McClellan to stop using the term "revisionist history"? It's his answer to EVERYTHING. Get a new gig, dipshit.

I actually liked Ari. Seemed like a good guy.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Been gone a few days, so I assumed that the pledge case was discussed?

Yeah, a little.

That Hank was the only one inspired to respond, and even with something substantive instead of typically scatalogical, sent me into a posting funk from which I am only now emerging.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ress&printer=1

[GOP to declassify Clarke's testimony to prove lied under oath]

They are retarded. Let this die a quiet death.

The selective declassification of materials for political ends is really offensive.

Hey, if the White House can retroactively decide that Clarke wasn't speaking off the record when he gave a background briefing last year, why can't it do the same for the people who outed Valerie Plame? Would we save a lot of taxpayer dollars now being spent investigating this?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

I'm surprised, pleasantly, by the number of posters here who appear to agree with Newdow.

Well, let me clarify my thoughts. I don't think this is a 1A violation, at least as the case law sets it up. But it's one of those things, like a disparate impact on race claim, where the conduct smells bad, but the requirements of the law make it impossible to win.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Will someone please tell Scott McClellan to stop using the term "revisionist history"? It's his answer to EVERYTHING. Get a new gig, dipshit.

I actually liked Ari. Seemed like a good guy.

Seems that you're not alone in your assessment. Though liked by the press, McClellan is fatally handicapped by his inability to lie, which was an area in which Ari so clearly excelled.

On the morning of February 10, the Bush administration released payroll records from President Bush's National Guard stint 30 years before. The records were far from conclusive, and they fell short of Bush's earlier promise to release all documents pertaining to his service. Having been starved of information on the subject--and then teased with the promise of a full meal, only to be tossed a few scraps--the White House press corps was ravenous and baying for more.

It was not, in other words, a good day to be White House press secretary. But it's hard to imagine how the day could have gone much worse than it did for Scott McClellan, Bush's chief spokesman.

The first question was not terribly hostile: Was Bush's attendance score--56 points, with 50 as the requirement--considered good? McClellan replied with a nonanswer, declaring, "These documents clearly show that the president fulfilled his duties." The next questioner, John Roberts of CBS News, followed up by asking about missing months on the payroll records. McClellan again replied that "these records verify that he met the requirements necessary to fulfill his duties." Roberts shot back, "That wasn't my question, Scott." McClellan began to repeat his mantra for the third time, and Roberts interrupted: "Scott, that wasn't my question, and you know it wasn't my question." McClellan stammered, "These records--these records I'm holding here clearly document the president fulfilling his duties in the National Guard." Roberts again demanded, "I asked a simple question; how about a simple answer?" McClellan continued his rote dodges: "We have provided you these documents that show clearly that the president of the United States fulfilled his duties." On and on the torment went. Reporters badgered McClellan with questions like, "Is that a yes? Is that a yes?" and "You have not answered that question." In response, he repeated some version of the line "these documents show the president fulfilled his duties" a remarkable 24 times. Needless to say, this didn't put the issue to rest.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The selective declassification of materials for political ends is really offensive.

Hey, if the White House can retroactively decide that Clarke wasn't speaking off the record when he gave a background briefing last year, why can't it do the same for the people who outed Valerie Plame? Would we save a lot of taxpayer dollars now being spent investigating this?

Hey now, I'm sure Bush has absolutely no idea who leaked that information, and has no way to find out. There's no way he'd allow months and millions of taxpayer dollars to be spent on an investigantion if he could just pick up the phone and find out who called Novak.

The openness and integrity displayed by this administration is refreshing -- a breath of fresh air, really, compared to that cesspool that was Washington in the 1990s.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Hey now, I'm sure Bush has absolutely no idea who leaked that information, and has no way to find out. There's no way he'd allow months and millions of taxpayer dollars to be spent on an investigantion if he could just pick up the phone and find out who called Novak.

The openness and integrity displayed by this administration is refreshing -- a breath of fresh air, really, compared to that cesspool that was Washington in the 1990s.

S_A_M

Bush lied.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Yeah, a little.

That Hank was the only one inspired to respond, and even with something substantive instead of typically scatalogical, sent me into a posting funk from which I am only now emerging.

If it makes you feel any better, after reading your post I couldn't watch the clips of Newdow giving his post-argument interviews without imagining him taking a big bong rip beforehand. With Scalia.

To quote Danny DeVito in Get Shorty, "....that was a good party."

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The selective declassification of materials for political ends is really offensive.

I think Frist would have agreed, as of a few months ago:

"For a quarter-century there has been a consensus in the Senate that the committee's nonpartisan tradition must be carefully safeguarded. Nothing else is acceptable. Why? Because this committee deals with information that is unique, that is privileged information, because of the dangerous and sensitive nature of the subject matter for which the Intelligence Committee ... has unique oversight.

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=574556

[Gattigap]

David Ignatius has an interesting editorial in today's WaPo, raising the point that had Bush simply agreed that more could've been done, apologized to the families, and moved on, he could've defused Clarke's allegations altogether.

A wise president would have accepted the obvious truth of what Clarke said: that the White House didn't do all it could have before Sept. 11 to prevent that disaster. He would have apologized, as Clarke did, to the victims -- and moved on.

That kind of magnanimity could have defused Clarke's charges and showed that Bush can lead a divided country. But the White House instead smeared Clarke personally, ignored his substantive criticisms and, in the process, helped turn Sept. 11 into a political football. That's bad for the country and, I submit, bad for Bush politically.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Bush lied.

Careful now, Bilmore!

That is about the worst thing you can say about anyone, and I'm shocked that you'd pipe up with that comment just when I was speaking so highly of the administration.

I take it you don't agree with my high praise for them, but even if you think that Bush _just might_ be able to find out who leaked the Plame information, or that this administration has not been a model of openness and integrity for generations to come, I'd have expected you to show better judgment in your choice of words.

P.S. Clarke was out of the loop. Honest, he was!

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Gattigap
David Ignatius has an interesting editorial in today's WaPo, raising the point that had Bush simply agreed that more could've been done, apologized to the families, and moved on, he could've defused Clarke's allegations altogether.

I see that Mr. Ignatius and I think alike (refer to my post earlier this week) despite the fact that he is neither a hack nor particularly liberal.

The reponse may be:

"No Way! We did everything humanly possible, or everything that anyone could reasonably expect." (And we will defeat anyone who says otherwise.)

But even if the Bush administration believes that response, and even if it was the truth, I think that a response closer to what Ignatius suggests would be more seemly -- and perhaps more electorally effective. The latter is the only calculation at work now, and I wonder if some in the GOP have miscalculated.

S_A_M

[edited -- typos]

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Decreasing corporate taxes.

This is what I thought the Repubs were going to do all along until they decided to blow the uber rich. I wanted this to happen a long time ago. Someone explain to me the costs/benefits of this decrease and if it's a good or bad thing in the long run. Having limited knowledge of its supposed effects, I have to say that I am all for it and that my mind will not be changed.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Decreasing corporate taxes.

This is what I thought the Repubs were going to do all along until they decided to blow the uber rich. I wanted this to happen a long time ago. Someone explain to me the costs/benefits of this decrease and if it's a good or bad thing in the long run. Having limited knowledge of its supposed effects, I have to say that I am all for it and that my mind will not be changed.

Corporate taxes are a gigantic fiction. Corporations don't pay the tax, consumers or stockholders do, but it's hidden, which is why it's palatable. It adds the inefficiency of corporations taking steps to reduce taxes, rather than operate efficiently, which would maximize real shareholder wealth and consumer value, which could then be taxed at the appropriate level. Not to mention that its elimination would also eliminate tons of tax/accounting scandals/fraud that goes on. Of course, all high-fallutin tax lawyers would have to scramble to make up for the lost value of their tax shelters.