Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Dammit! Looks like a preemptive strike!

Rush Delivery of those 500 cases of beer to the White House!

S_A_M

We certainly pick our leaders on some questionable bases, don't we?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
I just wonder if the outcry would be similar if they were looking at past treatments of toenail fungus.

No, but that isn't a good analogy because toenail fungus isn't as personal as an abortion. A better analogy would be treatment of an STD.

However, do keep in mind that partial birth abortion is performed at a time in the pregnancy when it is obvious to everyone the woman is pregnant. Post-abortion, it is obvious to everyone that the woman is not pregnant. So it isn't that easy to hide. I guess the woman can tell people that she miscarried if she doesn't want anyone to know about the abortion.

Originally posted by bilmore
(Oh, and the impeachment argument is kind of thin - testing the challengers' main assertion technically isn't impeachment.)

Agreed. That is not impeachment of a witness. It is the ability to make the entire case in support of the law - that there are alternative procedures that can be used.

Do people realize that? There are alternative procedures that can be used. Banning partial birth abortion doesn't mean that the woman cannot get an abortion.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me

However, do keep in mind that partial birth abortion is performed at a time in the pregnancy when it is obvious to everyone the woman is pregnant. Post-abortion, it is obvious to everyone that the woman is not pregnant. So it isn't that easy to hide. I guess the woman can tell people that she miscarried if she doesn't want anyone to know about the abortion.

So are you saying that because it's obvious that a person is no longer pregnant, that person has no privacy interests whatsover regarding medical treatment associated with that claim?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So are you saying that because it's obvious that a person is no longer pregnant, that person has no privacy interests whatsover regarding medical treatment associated with that claim?

yes there is no constitutional right to privacy once you choose to get pregnant.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
yes there is no constitutional right to privacy once you choose to get pregnant.

And I didn't even posit a constitutional right! Privacy interest. Statutory recognition. It is possible.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So are you saying that because it's obvious that a person is no longer pregnant, that person has no privacy interests whatsover regarding medical treatment associated with that claim?

No. I am saying that, given the more personal nature of an abortion, the toenail fungus analogy was not the greatest and that a better analogy would be treatment of an STD. However, even that analogy is not perfect since you can hide an STD and at the point a partial birth abortion would be used you cannot hide a pregnancy followed by no pregnancy.

That is all I was saying. I am very pro-medical privacy even for toenail fungus treatment. I just think that you can remove sufficient identifying information from the medical record and can maintain a person's privacy. It is done all the time in the medical literature without the patient's consent and without a court order. I know that fringey said that she could identify her friend X from the medical journal but my question to her was, but could you identify 'em from that article with the knowledge beforehand that the article was about 'em? Makes a difference.

You know, just because the DOJ gets the records doesn't mean that the information will be made public.

[Alex_de_Large]

FROM CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY'S CRAIG CRAWFORD: "Drudge item on Kerry intern issue is something Chris Lehane (Cark press secy) has shopped around for a long time -- it was one reason the Gore vetters in 2000 shied away from Kerry as a running mate choice -- their conclusion that it wasn't bad enough to disqualify him, except for the fact that they couldn't risk it as they were trying so hard to distance themselves from Clinton's personal failings (note: Lehane worked for Gore at the time --
and briefly advised Kerry during this campaign). The Kerry camp has long expected to deal with this, and have assured party leaders they can handle it"...

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
We certainly pick our leaders on some questionable bases, don't we?

Yeah, I guess so.

[Atticus Grinch]

Ex-officer: Bush file's details caused concern {USA Today (!)}

As Texas Gov. George W. Bush prepared to run for president in the late 1990s, top-ranking Texas National Guard officers and Bush advisers discussed ways to limit the release of potentially embarrassing details from Bush's military records, a former senior officer of the Texas Guard said Wednesday.

[Atticus Grinch]

Powell Scolds Hill Staffer At Hearing

Apparently, Powell is the Bilmore Baggins of the House Int'l Relations Committee.

"Mr. Brown, let's not go there," Powell retorted. "Let's not go there in this hearing. If you want to have a political fight on this matter, that is very controversial, and I think is being dealt with by the White House, fine. But let's not go there."

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
FROM CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY'S CRAIG CRAWFORD: "Drudge item on Kerry intern issue is something Chris Lehane (Cark press secy) has shopped around for a long time -- it was one reason the Gore vetters in 2000 shied away from Kerry as a running mate choice -- their conclusion that it wasn't bad enough to disqualify him, except for the fact that they couldn't risk it as they were trying so hard to distance themselves from Clinton's personal failings (note: Lehane worked for Gore at the time --
and briefly advised Kerry during this campaign). The Kerry camp has long expected to deal with this, and have assured party leaders they can handle it"...

The only time I'd ever heard the name Chris Lehane before was after the Iowa caucuses when I was watching Chris Matthews grill Lehane on whether he'd been fired from the Kerry campaign and whether that was his real motive for saying [whatever negative thing he was talking about, not an affair].

Not that this makes it any more or less likely that this stuff is true, it just was funny to see the guy squirm. He reminded me of that total weirdo Sam guy from the Apprentice.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Ex-officer: Bush file's details caused concern {USA Today (!)}

Although for completeness, you might want to note that:

A second former Texas Guard official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, was told by a participant that commanders and Bush advisers were particularly worried about mentions in the records of arrests of Bush before he joined the National Guard in 1968, the second official said

Which suggests the deleted information, if any, relates not to his ocnduct as a guardsman, but before, which either is public because arrest records are, or is not, because they are deleted, in which case why should they be maintained in another document when legally they have been destroyed.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
The only time I'd ever heard the name Chris Lehane before was after the Iowa caucuses when I was watching Chris Matthews grill Lehane on whether he'd been fired from the Kerry campaign and whether that was his real motive for saying [whatever negative thing he was talking about, not an affair].

Not that this makes it any more or less likely that this stuff is true, it just was funny to see the guy squirm. He reminded me of that total weirdo Sam guy from the Apprentice.

I saw that and the guy looked incredibly smarmy to me. Who would hire him in the first place? Oh yea, Kerry and Clark.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Ex-officer: Bush file's details caused concern {USA Today (!)}

I think this is a good move.

The Iraqi museum . . . uh, I mean the AWOL thing sort of clunked out, huh? So, slide on in to the "we don't know if Bush committed heinous crimes before he was in the NG because these records that reflect something which the NG apparently didn't see as an impediment to entry to an elite program at the time are crossed out, so, ya' know, I have no idea what he did, but it might have been real bad, ya' know? I don't know, but I'm just sayin . . . "

It's effective, and lets you keep those fourth grade detention slips in your pocket until November.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Although for completeness, you might want to note that:

And you might want to note:

Bush acknowledged in biographies published in 1999 that he was arrested twice before he enlisted in the Air National Guard: once for stealing a wreath and another time for rowdiness at a Yale-Princeton football game.

I just don't see any of this as influencing the election. Those who hate Bush hated him before this and those who vote Repub for tax/economics/military aren't going to be influenced.

It's the swing voters that will matter in this election and I see them as more focused on the economy. If the job market doesn't improve or something bad happens with the economy, that will be a problem for Bush.