A major presidential candidate scrambles to catch up with her followers.
So gratifying. Bravo, Senator!
HRC did a good thing supporting Dodd on this bill. I think we can give'em immumity if they testify and disclose against the bush govt. Also net neutrality should be in there before give them immunity.
Posted by BKK at October 24, 2007 12:47 PMI'm glad Senators Clinton & Obama have, after several days of careful consideration and consultation with their top policy advisors, decided to follow Senator Dodd's LEAD on this important matter.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 24, 2007 12:52 PMis this the same Hillary Clinton that said she couldn't promise the troops would be out of Iraq by the 2012 elections? Does "begin to bring our troops home" indicate that we will begin an orderly and definite withdrawal? An end date to bring them all home would be a little more specific....say by a year from now. Start the withdrawal consequent with the approval of the funding request...i.e. the funds are to fund the withdrawal. Clearly Bush won't do this. So Hillary is now on record...no more money for Bush's War without implementing a withdrawal plan. Good for her...I think.
Posted by T2 at October 24, 2007 12:54 PMA major presidential candidate scrambles to catch up with her followers.
I'm glad Senators Clinton & Obama have, after several days of careful consideration and consultation with their top policy advisors, decided to follow Senator Dodd's LEAD on this important matter.
You guys make me laugh. I have this vision of all the candidates standing on a podium frantically trying to respond to every issue before the others have a chance, the whole spectacle devolving into a mess of shouting and absurd one-up-manship and you guys lapping it up.
Posted by snark at October 24, 2007 01:11 PMBrothers and sisters, I have seen the light!
Posted by TIKI AL at October 24, 2007 01:14 PMsnark,
Your vision is current reality. I can assure you I'm not lapping it up.
Regards,
I see where Mitt the Mormon mixed up Obama and Osama...anyone who can't make the difference between a sitting United States Senator and the world's most famous terrorist isn't qualified to run for president.
Posted by T2 at October 24, 2007 02:19 PMYeah, T2, and this isn't the first time he's done this. Mitt's creepy.
Also I see that Colbert is in double digits in polling as a third party candidate, making a killing from young voters. As Chris Bowers writes, the GOP has completely lost the youth vote.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at October 24, 2007 02:34 PMyeah snark, it was JUST illegal wiretapping and the subversion of the Constituiton....nothing to see here, move along
Posted by gay veteran at October 24, 2007 02:34 PMANOTHER supplemental? I thought that Bushco was adding the 2008 Iraq occupation "needs" into the Defense Dept budget this year?
Are they just spending so much that they can't even keep up with their "plans" of three months ago? Sheesh. Sure wish someone cared about wasting this money.
Didja see that the Congressional Budget Office today estimated that the cost of Bush's War(s) through 2017 will be $2.4 trillion? Seems very low to me, given that with the new "supplemental" the direct costs will be $800 billion. Add the nuclear attack on Iran into that and that's some real money, hoo-boy. Thank God it'll essentially be play money by that point in time!
And I'll bet CBO didn't really factor in the 50% disability (i.e the actual casualty) rate that we can expect for veterans of the Bush Wars, based on our long term experience with the Gulf War vets.
Lucky we have no needs for public funds other than insane militarism, or this spending could really cramp our style!
Now back to our regular Bushco in Wartime programming......the children of the family values Dreck Academy play our beloved "Stars and Stripes Forever" on turntable and kazoo! Brings tears to your eyes, the lovable Repub tykes!
Posted by euzoius at October 24, 2007 02:35 PM"This follows yesterday's vow to oppose Bush's new $196 billion Iraq war funding request."
Hillary Clinton: "I voted for the war before I voted to not fund the war."
Posted by Bagley at October 24, 2007 04:25 PMIf she's being sincere, its a day late and a dollar short. If she's being insincere, its just par for the course.
The majority of the citizenry has opposed this perpetual state of war for awhile now, yet in 2008, the electorate will not have any chance of electing a President that will end it. In fact, we will likely have our pick between a Democrat and a Republican that will not rule out escalating the current conflict further into Iran.
Posted by Tampa Student at October 24, 2007 05:51 PMgay veteran,
Which is why I'm glad she didn't make a knee-jerk reaction to a piece of legislation she hadn't read yet.
Posted by snark at October 24, 2007 05:55 PMYou guys make me laugh.
not laughing here.
Don't really care - if you want to laugh OR "snark" go knock yourself out. Was making a point about the culture of timidity topped with a dash of blandness among the Democratic insiders, personified by the current "front runners" and their consultant ghouls.
I have this vision of all the candidates standing on a podium frantically trying to respond to every issue before the others have a chance...
what cRaP. This FISA bill wasn't a garden variety issue and Obama and Clinton (& Biden too), both currently serving in the Senate could have come out unambiguously against this bill last week. But they didn't. And their recent statements on the matter were (Biden excepted) parsing and cluttered.
If they had more backbone or substance they wouldn't be in the situation they're in now, of having to "respond" to Dodd's plan to filibuster this bill if necessary. They would have been happily ignoring the issue.
These guys are running for President of the United States. Is it asking too much for them to LEAD?
Is it asking too much for them to LEAD?
Like I said, some of you wouldn't be happy unless they were all shoving each other out of the way to be the first to the microphone.
Like I said, some of you wouldn't be happy unless they were all shoving each other out of the way to be the first to the microphone.
No. You are wrong.
And too clever - NOT.
If you think retroactive immunity for the telecoms is groovy that's fine. Actually I have no idea what your position on the issue is. Your main purpose here seems to be to try to take us down a notch with your mocking yet punchless "snarking." Maybe you think we should just shut up and be happy with what we have. But if we did that you would have to find some other place to go snark.
In fact you remind me of the @ssholes in congress & the punditry who won't take impeachment seriously yet seem quite pleased with themselves.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 24, 2007 06:37 PMthe whole spectacle devolving into a mess of shouting and absurd one-up-manship
Why I stopped watching the cable news shout-fests.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 24, 2007 06:42 PMIf you think retroactive immunity for the telecoms is groovy that's fine.
I do not. I think it's very un-groovy.
Actually I have no idea what your position on the issue is.
See above.
Your main purpose here seems to be to try to take us down a notch with your mocking yet punchless "snarking."
You express your opinion your way. I express mine my way. It's a great country...er...internet isn't it?
Maybe you think we should just shut up and be happy with what we have.
I've never told anyone here, with the exception of scout, to shut up. Why is it that when someone disagrees with the mainstream around here its interpreted as wanting people to shut up?
But if we did that you would have to find some other place to go snark.
Yes, please continue with your whining.
In fact you remind me of the @ssholes in congress & the punditry who won't take impeachment seriously yet seem quite pleased with themselves.
Impeachment would fail. That's why they don't take it seriously. But I'm not so serious that I can't bring myself to type the word assholes without having to bl@anch.
Posted by snark at October 24, 2007 06:54 PMsnark is a rank fool. His analogy of pols shoving each other on the way to the microphone bears no resemblance to reality.
This isn't a case where Hillary came out against the FISA bill 15 minutes after Dodd did and got blamed for not being first. She waited for DAYS to see what the political ramifications would be: Would Dodd get savaged for his "unserious" views? Would the beltway CW be that only a terrorist appeaser oppose the FISA bill? Would the Democratic base ignore the insider baseball of intelligence oversight?
When it became apparent that (a) Dodd has paid no political price for his stance and (b) it is foolish for the frontrunner to be on the wrong side of an issue that is a deal-breaker for some Democrats and independents, Hillary jumped on board.
BTW, only a moron and a coward would insist that impeachment would fail before it is tried. Democrats have a majority in the House. There is no reason that impeachment should fail. Now, conviction in the Senate? I agree that that is very unlikely. But so what? If you believe that Bush and Cheney are guilty of impeachable offenses, you hold hearings, you make your argument, and you vote your conscience.
But more importantly, I have no respect -- truly, I have utter contempt and disdain -- for those who believe that Bush and Cheney have committed offenses which warrant their removal from office and yet are unwilling to support that remedy out fear of being disagreed with. Out of fear of suffering personal, political consequenses. If I was a Senator I would be proud to vote to impeach Bush and Cheney even if the vote was 99-1 against. That so many Democratic Senators feel otherwise speaks volumes about their commitment to the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
Posted by space at October 24, 2007 07:44 PMYes, please continue with your whining.
I'm not here to whine. I'm glad to know you too think retroactive immunity is un-groovy.
I'm glad you are bold enough to type @$$holes without bl@nching. I just don't like to say FUCK YOU as a response.
But good on you for being so blunt.
Why is it that when someone disagrees with the mainstream around here its interpreted as wanting people to shut up?
It's a reasonable interpretation. I wasn't saying THAT you wanted to shut people up. I was suggesting that MIGHT be your motivation for ridiculing other commenters here such as myself, which you still do by characterizing my comments as WHINING. You said it as a clever quip but it pretty much pisses me off. You might as well tell someone to shut up as to call what they say "whining."
But glad to hear that I WAS WRONG about your motivation for writing what you write.
So your disagreement is??? I don't want to put words in your mouth...
You agree retroactive telecom immunity in the pending FISA bill is a bad thing... (RIGHT?) but you're making fun of "the mainstream around here" for pointing out the Johnny-Come-Lately Me-Too quality of the pronouncements on this issue from the front runners and how this might reflect a general lack of character and lack of political courage on their part.
Well I think it's worth pointing out. It's difficult to respond since I don't really know what your opinion on the issue is, except for the bit of information you just offered up.
You guys make me laugh.
I'm all for humor but where's the humor here? Wanting more substance out of the presidential candidates who are currently in the Senate isn't the same as wanting "shouting and absurd one-up-manship." One does not follow from the other. And why would you laugh? If this FISA bill passes the joke will be on all of us.
Impeachment would fail. That's why they don't take it seriously.
Depends what you mean by "fail." There are enough votes in the House to ratify articles of impeachment and force the Senate to hold the trial. Conviction would be much more difficult with the supermajority requirement. We can disagree on whether that would be good strategy etc. And if "they" don't take it seriously, well maybe they need to.
But at least tonight we have given you something to laugh at, some evening entertainment.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 24, 2007 08:00 PMsnark is a rank fool.
OK...space?
His analogy of pols shoving each other on the way to the microphone bears no resemblance to reality.
That was my point. Perhaps you should take it up with Pvt. Keepout who DOES seem to think it's reality.
This isn't a case where Hillary came out against the FISA bill 15 minutes after Dodd did and got blamed for not being first. She waited for DAYS to see what the political ramifications would be:
DAYS! Oh my! How could she. Perhaps she waited to consult with her colleagues and to actually familiarize herself with the specifics of the 'compromise' that came out of the Intell Committee?
BTW, only a moron and a coward would insist that impeachment would fail before it is tried. Democrats have a majority in the House. There is no reason that impeachment should fail. Now, conviction in the Senate? I agree that that is very unlikely.
OK, let's quibble over 'impeachment' and 'conviction'. I think we all know the difference. I'm a citizen just as much as you and personally, I'd rather have Congress try and get things done then waste time on an impeachment trial that isn't going to succeed in removing a president who's gonna be gone in 14 months anyway. If that makes me a moron or a coward so be it.
But more importantly, I have no respect -- truly, I have utter contempt and disdain -- for those who believe that Bush and Cheney have committed offenses which warrant their removal from office and yet are unwilling to support that remedy out fear of being disagreed with.
I love it. An understanding that Bush won't be removed via impeachment = a fear of being disagreed with. As I said. I'd prefer Congress work on things that are actually going to succeed. As should be clear from my comments I have no fear of being disagreed with. If that earns me your disdain I revel in it. See, no fear.
That so many Democratic Senators feel otherwise speaks volumes about their commitment to the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
Another keyboard patriot! Calling others committment into question and calling people silly names. Please, can I be as good and deserving American as you? Please? Oh pretty please?
Posted by snark at October 24, 2007 08:14 PMBut good on you for being so blunt.
You're the one who brought profanity into it. It just seems dumb to me to type @sshole when everyone knows you're saying asshole? Seems just like the kind of false modesty you would fault Clinton etal for.
I wasn't saying THAT you wanted to shut people up. I was suggesting that MIGHT be your motivation for ridiculing other commenters here such as myself, which you still do by characterizing my comments as WHINING.
And I didn't say THAT you said I wanted to shut you up. I asked why it is INTERPRETED as wanting people to shut up. Which is pretty much how you INTERPRETED it if you thought it MIGHT be my motivation. Are we gonna debate the meaning of IS after this?
But glad to hear that I WAS WRONG about your motivation for writing what you write.
My only motivation for writing what I write here is to express my opinion.
You agree retroactive telecom immunity in the pending FISA bill is a bad thing... (RIGHT?)
Yes, it's a bad thing.
...but you're making fun of "the mainstream around here" for pointing out the Johnny-Come-Lately Me-Too quality of the pronouncements on this issue from the front runners and how this might reflect a general lack of character and lack of political courage on their part.
I'm not making fun of anyone. I didn't call anyone a fool a moron or a coward. I'm disagreeing. I disagree wholeheartedly that Hillary Clinton taking "days" to make substantive comments on such an important bill somehow shows a lack of character or political courage. In my view, it shows a desire to review the details of the situation and respond accordingly. I think what Dodd did is great. Do I fault Hillary Clinton for responding in the manner she did? No. Taking time to reflect on important issues is something I value.
I'm all for humor but where's the humor here?
I thought I was the one who took myself to seriously? Here's the humor;
Wanting more substance out of the presidential candidates who are currently in the Senate isn't the same as wanting "shouting and absurd one-up-manship."
I'm glad Senators Clinton & Obama have, after several days of careful consideration and consultation with their top policy advisors, decided to follow Senator Dodd's LEAD on this important matter.
No sarcasm in there? Just seriousness? You got some substance from CLinton and what's your response? Snark. (something I can appreciate but which you seem to have a problem with) Your comment shows a real appreciation for careful consideration. Ya know, the substance you're so looking for from a presidential candidate.
But at least tonight we have given you something to laugh at, some evening entertainment.
Yes, I apologize. I know how seriously you all take yourselves. Forgive me. I'm clearly an inferior American.
Posted by snark at October 24, 2007 08:45 PM
I'd rather have Congress try and get things done then waste time on an impeachment trial that isn't going to succeed in removing a president who's gonna be gone in 14 months anyway.
We disagree on whether it's a waste of time.
I think an impeachment trial IS getting something done, REGARDLESS of whether the president is actually removed. Furthermore it's not about just getting stuff done, it's about keeping BUSH-Cheney from getting their stuff done. Make them play defense.
I'd prefer Congress work on things that are actually going to succeed.
And if there aren't enough votes in the Senate for conviction of these goons, then maybe there ALSO aren't enough votes to pass decent, veto-proof legislation ANYWAY. I don't think it's either/or... What legislation won't they have time for. They are not just there to provide legislation for the president to sign. They are supposed to be part of the system of CHECKS AND BALANCES. Their oversight responsibility IS just as important. The fact that they have shirked this responsibility is not un-related to all the other problems now needing legislative solutions blaah blah blah nevermind I know whatever I say you'll just come back and insult me without addressing the points. NEVERMIND.
Another keyboard patriot! Calling others committment into question and calling people silly names.
I think YOU just called SPACE a silly name. Hurling the insults instead of defending the honorable Senators. No. you just change the subject by ridiculing SPACE instead of defending those honorable Democratic senators who apparently have decided there's nothing to be gained from exercising their oversight responsibility.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 24, 2007 08:53 PM"As I said. I'd prefer Congress work on things that are actually going to succeed."
Yes. The Democratic Congress is on a 'roll' of progress lately. Such as writing a bill to make warrantless wiretapping legal, making in-roads towards the invasion and attempted overthrow of another sovereign nation (the second such invasion in 5 years), and funnelling even more U.S. tax dollars that haven't yet been collected to support corporate welfare for war profiteers operating on contracts related to our illegal occupation of Iraq.
That is today's Democratic Party. They're quite expert in doing whatever it is they set out to accomplish. It just so happens that their agenda has jack shit to do with the wishes of their party's voter base (much less the will of the majority of the broader electorate).
Posted by Tampa Student at October 24, 2007 08:55 PMYes, I apologize. I know how seriously you all take yourselves. Forgive me. I'm clearly an inferior American.
No. I didn't say that. Maybe I'm just too STUPID to understand your form of snark. But yeah I'll "whine" a bit more and say why is people (LIKE YOU, for instance) respond to arguments by accusing the other person of "taking themselves seriously." Again, another put down. Well, fuck that shit.
Yeah I DO think Hillary-Barack deserve some snark. But that's just my opinion.
Posted by at October 24, 2007 09:07 PMDAYS! Oh my! How could she. Perhaps she waited to consult with her colleagues and to actually familiarize herself with the specifics of the 'compromise' that came out of the Intell Committee?
Perhaps if the issue was actually, you know, complicated I could forgive Hillary for taking days to wrap her mind around it. But it isn't. She's just a risk-averse, finger-in-the-air opportunist.
I'd rather have Congress try and get things done then waste time on an impeachment trial that isn't going to succeed in removing a president who's gonna be gone in 14 months anyway.
You know, Republicans weren't going to convict Nixon before the impeachment hearings began. Good thing Democrats didn't bother to line up 67 votes in the Senate before they bothered to investigate Tricky Dick.
Repeating over and over that impeachment would be futile doesn't make it so. It just makes you look like a moron and a coward.
If that makes me a moron or a coward so be it.
Well, at least we agree on something.
And feel free to remind me of all the great things that Democrats will be accomplishing in the next 14 months while they aren't distracted by actually enforcing the Rule of Law.
Another keyboard patriot! Calling others committment into question and calling people silly names
Granting retroactive immunity to blatant lawbreakers without the slightest investigqation calls into question one's commitment to enforcing the Rule of Law. Only in your twisted mind is that "calling people silly names".
Please, can I be as good and deserving American as you? Please? Oh pretty please?
No.
Posted by space at October 24, 2007 09:09 PMThey are supposed to be part of the system of CHECKS AND BALANCES. Their oversight responsibility IS just as important. The fact that they have shirked this responsibility is not un-related to all the other problems now needing legislative solutions blaah blah blah nevermind I know whatever I say you'll just come back and insult me without addressing the points. NEVERMIND.
How have I insulted you? By saying you were whining? Cry me a river. I have addressed your points.
I think YOU just called SPACE a silly name.
I called space a 'keyboard patriot' because he/she basically questioned not only my commitment to the Constitution but the commitment of the majority of Senators in Congress. If you can think of a more appropriate way to describe such nonsense let me know.
Hurling the insults instead of defending the honorable Senators.
Again, responding to someone who questions my commitment to the country because I don't think pursuing impeachment is the best course of action by calling them a keyboard patriot is 'hurling the insults? Get some perspective pal. And I did defend the Senators. The American people want their concerns addressed. A failed impeachment is not going to address those concerns.
No. you just change the subject by ridiculing SPACE instead of defending those honorable Democratic senators who apparently have decided there's nothing to be gained from exercising their oversight responsibility.
A failed impeachment of Bush is not going to undo the damage that his presidency has done to the Constitution. Getting more progressive democrats in Congress and a Democrat in the White House is the only way the checks and balances are going to be restored. It's going to require legislation to rein in the unitary executive and Bush is going to veto any attempts to do that until he's gone.
Posted by snark at October 24, 2007 09:18 PMBut yeah I'll "whine" a bit more and say why is people (LIKE YOU, for instance) respond to arguments by accusing the other person of "taking themselves seriously." Again, another put down. Well, fuck that shit.
Ummmm.
I'm all for humor but where's the humor here? -Trainwreck.
If you can't find any place for humor I think it's reasonable to comment that you are taking yourself seriously. That, and your comment about the assholes...excuse me...@ssholes in Congress and the punditry not taking impeachment seriously, brought serious, or lack there of, as a concept into the conversation. I did not. See, if you'd take some time to formulate your thoughts before commenting you'd be better off. Just like Hillary Clinton.
Yeah I DO think Hillary-Barack deserve some snark. But that's just my opinion.
So why fault me for mine?
Posted by snark at October 24, 2007 09:31 PMGranting retroactive immunity to blatant lawbreakers without the slightest investigqation calls into question one's commitment to enforcing the Rule of Law.
Has the House or Senate voted to do such a thing? No.
Only in your twisted mind is that "calling people silly names".
See, there's an "and" between "calling other people's commitment into question" AND "calling people silly names. I didn't write "calling people's commitment into question BY calling people silly names. AND. Two seperate clauses. It was the fool, moron, coward part that was the silly names. Again, justs points up the fact that there's virtue in taking your time to fully understand something before shooting your mouth off about it. You could learn something from Hillary Clinton too.
And I think maybe trainwreck would like to have a word with you about 'hurling insults'.
Posted by snark at October 24, 2007 09:40 PMHis analogy of pols shoving each other on the way to the microphone bears no resemblance to reality.
That was my point. Perhaps you should take it up with Pvt. Keepout who DOES seem to think it's reality.
snark @ 08:14 PM
My use of the word "followers" was not to describe Clinton's competitors for the Democratic presidential nomination. It meant us; citizens shocked and outraged by last week's breaking news that Rockefeller's Intelligence Committee produced such a despicably craven capitulation to money, power and primitive, brutal mentality.
Clinton & Obama took almost a week to arrive at their convictions.
We required much less time. We already had convictions.
A failed impeachment of Bush is not going to undo the damage that his presidency has done to the Constitution.
I think by "failed impeachment" you mean NO Conviction...
I think even a failed impeachment would go some way toward undoing the damage. But you're right of course it will ultimately require greater numbers Democrats, and with more progressive beliefs in congress.
I think even a failed impeachment may serve as a deterrent to a would-be future unitarian executive, especially with a better Senate in place.
Even a failed impeachment would undo the damage of the Clinton impeachment where impeachment has perversely come to be considered unserious.
And like I said above, impeachment proceedings would cause Bush & company to play defense, maybe slow the rate of NEW damage they might inflict in the waning months.
I have addressed your points
Well how about my point about oversight responsibility vs. legislative achievements?
I didn't call you an @sshole, or even an asshole. I was wrong to say "you remind me of..." I should have been more precise and said, "Your tactics of ridicule & belittling of the seriousness of those who bring up impeachment while side-stepping the issues raised REMINDED ME of the tactics of said assh*les of the congress & punditry. I'm sorry.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 24, 2007 10:28 PMJust to put a different light on things, and why I think some people have criticized Clinton and to a lesser extent Obama, the issue isn't the bill getting to the floor.
Actually, it makes no sense to even talk about the bill getting to the floor. Why the hell would you want a POS bill to get to the floor in the first place, just so you can filibuster it? That makes no sense.
The point of Dodd's HOLD that Reid apparently has said he won't honor (although I still haven't seen anything definitive on that point) and subsequent filibuster threat, is to stop the telecons from getting immunity in the first place. If you know that a bill with that provision is going to get blocked, you either don't put forward the bill, or you change it and remove the offending parts, or you change the mind of the blockers. The latter doesn't seem likely which leaves two equally acceptable outcomes.
The more people that support the filibuster threat the better, and crap like "in it's present form" is irrelevent at best, and demonstrates a lack of clarity on the purpose of the filibuster threat.
Posted by Duckman GR at October 24, 2007 10:52 PMTrainwreck,
I don't believe I ever said you called ME an asshole.
As to oversite. I'm all for it. Never said I wasn't. What I said was impeachment isn't the way to achieve it. Bush is going to styme almost any attempt by Congress to do it while he's in office. And I don't see how Clinton waiting "days" to say she would support a filibuster does anything to weaken Congressional oversight.
And excuse me for making light of the "serious" comments by the people who take things seriously even though they take offense at being called serious. Are we all just here to be patted on the back by each other over or righteous outrage? Grow a spine like you think the Democrats need.
Posted by snark at October 25, 2007 04:30 AMDuckman,
I appreciate your comment (yikes! Sounds like Bush.) I also haven't seen anything from Reid that says he won't support a filibuster. Glenn Greenwald's rant not withstanding. Not quite sure how Dodd's hold keeps the telecons from getting immunity "in the first place" anymore than a filibuster or a defeat of the bill on the floor would though. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your phrasing.
But I just don't see how Clinton taking her time to elaborate a position on a bill that is still in committee generates such outrage. Fine, take exception to her language. She's always very careful with her language. The way her evet statement is parsed I can't say that I blame her. But this gets back to my original comment. It's as if unless they are all tripping over each other to be first and loudest itzla not good enough.
Posted by snark at October 25, 2007 04:53 AMBut I just don't see how Clinton taking her time to elaborate a position on a bill that is still in committee generates such outrage.
It reminds me of the interview between Donna Brazille and Deborah Tannen that eriposte linked to last week where they were discussing why they thought "elite, educated women" hadn't made up their minds on a candidate yet. The disdain they conveyed for those dang women who took the time to get information about the issues was palpable. Clearly, they liked the "working class women's" ability to jump to a decision and stick with it no matter what new information came out much better than thoughtful, albeit delayed, decisions of the uppity elites. Don't know if it's a gender thing, or just a need for instant gratification here, but obviously, a lot of bloggers and their commenters are under the impression that just because they have the time to read and understand all the issues by lunchtime, politicians must also know all there is to know about each specific bit of legislation floating about and should shout their positions by tea-time to assuage the outrage of the masses. In a way, it's a good thing that our reps are being constantly pushed in the right direction, but sheesh, the apoplexy following a delay in announcements has gotten to the point of "last one in is a rotton egg" mentality. I'm glad Dodd announced his intentions early, so he has time to get others on board. And he deserves kudos for sticking his neck out. That doesn't mean the others should be derided for not jumping immediately on the bandwagon. Really, do we want the Dems to act like the GOP candidates in the last "debate" where they supposedly tried to out-conservative each other with every question. It is silly, as snark said, the thought of the Dems jostling to be the first to say "No, I'm gonna filibuster," "No, I am," just to make a bunch of blog commenters happy.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 25, 2007 05:43 AMJeez---can we all just get along?
Posted by gtash at October 25, 2007 06:21 AMI think we are now seeing the reason why the Democrats have been loathe to fight Bush on war funding. He is taking money from Education and Healthcare programs to fund the war. Bush thinks the treasury belongs to him to spend as he wishes and he will take it from any program that aids the people until congress blinks. So the Democrats were trying to keep Bush from taking the money from our domestic programs. When you have no empathy for the suffering of our own countrymen its easy to do what you want. The Democrats care -- if that caring makes them look weak then I applaud them for it.
God Bless Hillary.
Posted by s hall at October 25, 2007 10:57 AMtrain wreck -- I disagree with you about a failed impeachment. I think if we impeach Bush but fail to get him out of office he would become stronger. Look at Larry Craig--he refused to leave and there he sits in the US Senate. If we were going to impeach this president the entire congress would have to concur but even in that senario I wonder if he wouldn't just label it a political impeachment and refuse to leave.
Posted by s hall at October 25, 2007 11:13 AMI think if we impeach Bush but fail to get him out of office he would become stronger. Look at Larry Craig--he refused to leave and there he sits in the US Senate.
I disagree with the Larry Craig analogy:
Craig is still in the Senate because his Republican colleagues, who initially were ready to dump him, fear him dishing the dirt. Craig has been subpoenaed in the Randy "Duke" Cunningham bribery investigation. Were he to testify he could implicate some (many?) other Republicans in Congress.
It is much more difficult to compel Craig's testimony in the Cunningham investigation while he is still serving in the Senate. Others in his party would prefer he didn't testify THAT'S WHY HE'S STILL A SENATOR AND NOT AN EX-SENATOR.
I wonder if he wouldn't just label it a political impeachment and refuse to leave.
If, hypothetically, Bush were to be convicted in a Senate trial (following impeachment by the House of Reps.), I don't see how Bush could just "refuse to leave" unless he declared martial law.
I don't think Bush would become stronger if impeached but not convicted. That's the crux of our differences of opinion. I think more Bush-dirt would be exposed to a larger swathe of the American public. It would hurt Republicans. I think it would be different than what happened with Bill Clinton - given the magnitude of Bush's crimes...
I also think impeachment -even without conviction is needed for the long term health of the institution (i.e. the government), at least if you believe in checks and balances and don't believe in the Unitary Executive (i.e. dictatorship). It's important to deter future would-be George Bushes.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 25, 2007 01:32 PMI think I DID grow a spine. That's why I said what I said. But you will always use insults and mocking in your discourse, it seems. Like you said it's a free country and your free to do that. And I'm free to say I don't like it.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 25, 2007 01:39 PMprevious post in reference to this:
Are we all just here to be patted on the back by each other over or righteous outrage? Grow a spine like you think the Democrats need.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 25, 2007 01:43 PMI think I DID grow a spine. That's why I said what I said. But you will always use insults and mocking in your discourse, it seems.
Still got your panties in a wad eh?
Again, I wasn't the one to introduce the "spineless" analogy into the conversation.
If they had more backbone or substance they wouldn't be in the situation they're in now, of having to "respond" to Dodd's plan to filibuster this bill if necessary. They would have been happily ignoring the issue. -Trainwreck
I'll disregard that your first and second sentences really make no sense together and seem to be in contradiction. It seems, however, that making 'backbone' references is ok for you but not for me. Why am I not surprised.
Posted by snark at October 25, 2007 02:01 PMSnark, the problem for me is that there really shouldn't be a whole lot to think about here.
The details are irrelevent at this point, the policy is pretty plain. No retro immunity. She should just say, Yeah, no retro immunity, and work on the details later.
Posted by Duckman GR at October 25, 2007 10:43 PMYou abusive son of a bitch. I bet it makes you feel real good! No I don't have a thick skin and certainly would not be able to be a politician. But you say I should measure up to the standards of the politicians as far as being insulted. Well you win pal. Not with logic as you make false comparisons and sidestep valid objections to your arguements. You take statements out of context and you like to say "I never said..." when you often implied and no I'm not gonna pick through the thread to throw more shit back. I think I will go slit my wrists now. Goodbye
Posted by TrainWrecked at October 26, 2007 12:46 AMDuckman,
That's fine but 'retroactive immunity'is such a broad generality that tu can mean any number of things without knowing the specifics. Specifics which Clinton did not know at the time. I just don't see a cause for all the bother.
Posted by snark at October 26, 2007 05:29 AMI'm the abusive one?
I've been likened to an asshole. I've been called a rank fool, a moron and a coward. I've had my commitment to the country questioned. I've been chastized for using humor in a serious matter and then been chastized for calling people serious. I am told that things I say here to other commenters are insults and belittlement when the people telling me that have said all the same things and worse about people like Hillary Clinton.
But I'm an abusive son of a bitch?
I hate to beat a dead horse but…
You take statements out of context and you like to say "I never said..." when you often implied and no I'm not gonna pick through the thread to throw more shit back.
I’ll go through the thread then.
The first instance where I said “I never said…” is about telling people to shut up.
You wrote;
Maybe you think we should just shut up and be happy with what we have.
To which I responded;
I've never told anyone here, with the exception of scout, to shut up.
I had posted three comments prior to that. None of which can remotely be construed as implying that I want people to shut up. People posted comments critical of the response time of politicians to issues/events and I made a response comment in jest. If you think that means I want people to shut up than I’m at a loss. I come here to engage in a dialogue. Why would I tell people, other than scout of course, to shut up? Hence my query to you, “Are we all just here to pat each other on the back?”
Let’s continue.
I said;
I'm not making fun of anyone.
Although it’s not a “never” statement I’ll include this one.
While I do use snark and humor in my responses to people I don’t “make fun of people”. I don’t call people stupid, moron or fool. I may make fun of the things that people write here but I do not ridicule people. I point out contradictory things that people write because I think it goes a long way to exposing hypocrisy. Which one finds ample display of around the blogosphere. As an example, you asked me directly “where’s the humor here?” Then when I made a reference to you being “serious” you complained about that too! You don’t like my snark directed at you but you yourself admitted that your original comment involved snark directed at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But I thought it was a serious topic? Hypocrisy. And sloppy thinking. Something, as I’ve said before, people like Hillary Clinton avoid by making careful consideration before responding. You don’t like that. I do.
What’s next?
You wrote;
I didn't call you an @sshole, or even an asshole.
To which I said;
I don't believe I ever said you called ME an asshole.
This is demonstrably true. I never did say you called me an asshole. But did I imply that I thought you called me an asshole? Well I think if you look at your comments it’s pretty clear that YOUR implication was that you consider me to be an asshole.
You wrote;
In fact you remind me of the @ssholes in congress & the punditry who won't take impeachment seriously yet seem quite pleased with themselves.
It’s clear that the thing that makes the assholes in Congress and the punditry assholes is their lack of seriousness about impeachment and their being quite pleased with themselves. So if those things are what makes me remind you of them then it would seem to me that YOUR implication is that you think I’m an asshole. Is that logical enough for you?
So you said you didn’t called me an asshole but you clearly implied that you thought I was an asshole. More hypocrisy?
Oh, I forgot. We're talking about me. Because I’m the abusive one.
I sure hope you didn't really go slit your wrists over something so trivial as a blog comment exchange.
Posted by snark at October 26, 2007 07:07 AM