I know "presstitutes" sounds cute and puns are all the rage, but the standard term is "media whore". Somehow, it sounds more pungent to me.
Posted by buck turgidson at September 29, 2005 08:14 AMRonnie Earle for the next supreme court justice seat!
Posted by bbtb at September 29, 2005 08:28 AMJOHN ROBERTS IS CHIEF JUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by hobo at September 29, 2005 08:39 AMToon of the Day: GO TO JAIL
Posted by jjoats at September 29, 2005 08:47 AMeriposte,
A bit of constructive criticism might be helpful in your quest to defeat the conservative hoards.
Liberals seem to have a problem setting strategic goals and using appropriate tactical operations to achieve these ends. Instead of moving from point to point in a coordinated manner, you tend to resemble a mob looking for the closest target regardless of whether or not it helps reach the ultimate result.
Case in point – Trying to portray Ronnie Earle as less than a rabid partisan.
Right now, you have Tom DeLay in a good position for your cause. Never mind that the charges are baseless and will be thrown out as they were with Kay Bailey Hutchinson. The media loves this kind of thing and will “hammer” him without any help from you. But if you want the focus to change, just keep trying to defend Earle as some independent corruption fighter.
Texas state politics in the recent past has been solely dominated by democrats. There were liberal democrats and conservative democrats. Ronnie prosecuted conservatives who went against the Ann Richards wing of the party. These people are still alive and know how to do interviews.
A better tactic would be to follow the Howard Dean “yes, I’m a liberal” line followed by some screed on how he dedicated his life to fighting corrupt conservatives – whether they call themselves republicans or democrats – for the good of the state.
If the case continues to be made that he is some bipartisan public servant, the focus (and credibility) of the story will shift as the facts come out. You have to admit, whenever it seems a situation arises that democrats have an advantage, somehow you screw it up and finish looking like fools.
j.west, Regardless, DeLay is toast in the next election. It couldn't happen to nicer person.
Your ability to defend corruption in government astounds me! I would think that the stink of Abramhoff is enough to bother even you.
Besides, we don't need a "strategic goals" or a "cooridinated manner" the administration and their cronies are imploding from within. It's not hard to connect the dots.
The Repukes are finally having to look at themselves in the mirror!
j west, you're the last troll that should be harping on credibility, facts, and foolishness.
You're a loser on 2 and a winner on 1. In that order.
Posted by idiosynchronic at September 29, 2005 09:23 AMWhile Earle is an elected Democrat, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, a March 17* editorial in the Houston Chronicle commended his work: "During his long tenure, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has prosecuted many more Democratic officials than Republicans. The record does not support allegations that Earle is prone to partisan witch hunts." This assertion supports Earle's own claim about his record; a March 6 article in the El Paso Times reported: "Earle says local prosecution is fundamental and points out that 11 of the 15 politicians he has prosecuted over the years were Democrats."
Please, jwest, defend your assertion that Ronnie Earle is a "rabid partisan."
Posted by ann at September 29, 2005 09:44 AMann, He's trying to justify it by saying that Earle was Ann Richards hired gun...for anyone that got in her way. Now, it's partisan politics.
Unfortunate troll. Doesn't have an argument.
Tom DeLay is a crook?
Posted by tempus at September 29, 2005 10:02 AMbbtb,
It's time to join the "reality based community".
I wasn't defending DeLay in my post, simply trying to point out how liberals typically fuck up 2 person parades. If you think that DeLay is toast in the next election, you're not thinking with your head.
On the subject of government corruption, I will be right by your side to pull those guilty out of their buildings and perp-walk them to prison.
The problem with the DeLay/Earle thing is that it seems to me to be an abuse of power. Using his limited powers as a district attorney, Earle has indicted DeLay on a weak charge for political purposes. Whether you agree with this or not is not the point.
What would happen if the republicans (with full control of the government) started doing the same thing? Please, don't come back with Clinton and "its only a blowjob" defense.
The abuse of political office is a bad thing no matter who does it. I sometimes think that the blind rage of liberals keeps them from looking at the big picture.
Posted by j.west at September 29, 2005 10:08 AMSlightly off topic, but they are reviewing movies over at Power Line. Anything to DeLay the obvious I guess.
Posted by tempus at September 29, 2005 10:12 AMAn interesting diary on kos:
Tom Delay will plea 'nolo contendere'
it seems to me to be an abuse of power . . . Whether you agree with this or not is not the point.
you must have a great record in court.
Posted by benjoya at September 29, 2005 10:17 AMWhat really needs to happen here is for the common man to figure out what is good for him.
My goal is to see the day where we ban the Republicans on the grounds they are harmful to the people.
Democrats are bad enough as a corporate party, and then we could have a truly progressive party as the real opposition.
Dems and Progressives, no Republicans allowed.
Posted by Jim at September 29, 2005 10:18 AMbenjoya,
Not being a lawyer, it may take me a little time to refine my point so that all understand it.
If every two-bit county prosecutor in the country were to follow the same path as Earle and indict politicians who they perceive violated one of the arcane campaign finance laws, who would be left?
And if we allow a free for all to happen with congressional investigations etc., who will be on the loosing end - democrats or republicans?
Posted by j.west at September 29, 2005 10:28 AMj.west, Ronnie Earle's, "an abuse of power"?
Coming from the conservative, christian fundamentalist, corporate, petroleum, military, media, anti-environment coalition?
LOL Please say your kidding me!!
If every two-bit county prosecutor in the country were to follow the same path as Earle and indict politicians who they perceive violated one of the arcane campaign finance laws, who would be left?
Who cares who's left if we just get the corrupt politicos out? The law that DeLay and TRPAC violated is not one I would consider arcane, by any stretch of the imagination. The law states that corporate contributions can only be used for administrative purposes: copies, phone bill, accountant, etc. Corporations already own the political system, let's not make it easier for them to get their guys in office.
JWest, you are attempting to avoid the matter of DeLay's ethical lapses by saying the system, as you perceive it, is wrong. That is so lame. You may not like the law or agree with it but that's neither here nor there: it is the law.
Posted by ann at September 29, 2005 10:51 AMA note to j. west,
Travis County, Texas is the county that Austin is in. Austin is the state capital. Therefore, Travis county, the "corporate headquarters" of the state of Texas, is the proper venue for the filing of papers regarding irregularities in state elections, which is what this case is all about. The Travis County D.A. is acting correctly within his jurisdiction, there is nothing two bit about it.
Posted by rlp at September 29, 2005 10:59 AMBesides, the Grand Jury indicted DeLay, not Earle.
j.west, your case for a man who has been publicly admonished 3 times by the House Ethics Committee and then had the same Ethics panel dismantled, is putting your character in question. Similiar to DeLay. DeLay had his own party members taken out, so to speak, Hefley, Hulshoff and LaTourette, just to protect himself.
He's a disgrace and anyone who tries to attack Earle for doing his job is a loser!!
ann, rlp,
You both want to argue the minutia of this indictment, but that is not what I’m trying get across with my posts.
If DeLay is guilty of something, fine, burn him at the stake. The point I would like you to address is should this be the template of political discourse in the country? When the same tactics are used against democrats, will you defend them also?
My original post pointed out how liberals usually overplay their hand. If an indictment from a man like Earle is the standard of how democrats would like the country to run, I hope you can live with the results.
The same thing happened with the response to Hurricane Katrina. A liberal whine rose throughout the country saying "forget the state and locals, the federal government should take over". Now that Bush has said OK, we will change the laws and handle it, the liberals are reconsidering their knee jerk position.
Would it be asking too much for you folks to think a problem or position through farther than the end of your nose before you go marching naked through the streets?
Posted by j.west at September 29, 2005 11:27 AMJwest, does the name Dan Rostenkowski mean anything to you?
Posted by ann at September 29, 2005 11:31 AMann,
Criminals like Rostenkowski and Wright were indicted with overwhelming evidence - so much so that they plea bargined rather than go to trial.
When Earle indicted Kay Bailey Hutchinson, it was thrown out the first day in court. He is just over the top and lacks credibility.
Posted by j.west at September 29, 2005 11:43 AMWhen the same tactics are used against democrats, will you defend them also?
If an indictment from a man like Earle is the standard of how democrats would like the country to run, I hope you can live with the results.
I will support any prosecutor who will work to get corruption out of politics. If no one is left standing at the end, the people are better off knowing who has been leading them.
Let me give you an example: I have lived in Chicago from the beginning of Daley's tenure as mayor. He has done many positive things for the city (at least the white part of the city, not as much in the black or latino neighborhoods.) However, I also used to work for the city, and I saw firsthand much of the corruption in the hiring scandals. I do not support Mayor Daley blindly because he is a Dem, and I am working to make sure that those who need to know what sort of corruption exists, so that it can be addressed and stopped. Get it? It's not about party loyalty it's about cleaning up goverment. Because we can have the government we deserve if we fight to make it fair and just and clean.
Posted by ann at September 29, 2005 11:45 AMIn agreement, ann!
Posted by bbtb at September 29, 2005 11:50 AMso much so that they plea bargined rather than go to trial
I heard rumors that DeLay is planning to plea bargain on this one. Guess that tells you something. But we'll just have to wait & see....
Posted by at September 29, 2005 11:51 AMann,
You sound like a truly honest and caring individual. I don't know if you rise to the level of compassionate conservative, but a damn good person just the same.
I'll make a deal with you. If DeLay is found guilty, I will send a signed letter to the judge in the case urging the maximum possible penalty and provide it for publication here.
If, on the other hand, the charges are thrown out just as Senator Hutchinson's, you write a letter to the editor of Austin's newspaper touting your liberal credentials and urging the citizens to oust this crazed prosecutor.
OK?
Posted by j.west at September 29, 2005 11:55 AMJ. West, your memory on Kay Bailey Hutchison is a bit revisionist:
She was acquitted in February 1994, when Earle declined to proceed with the case. The jury selection had gone badly for Earle. Jurors were exposed to news media which was pressured, according to former Fort Worth Star-Telegram capitol reporter Joe Cutberth, to slant coverage in Hutchison's favor. Her own press secretary Dave Beckwith (former Dan Quayle spokesman), and Republican consultant Karl Rove (former Hutchison campaign manager and later top handler to George W. Bush) were heavily quoted spinning the tale of a politically motivated prosecutor. Finally, presiding judge John Onion refused to make a pretrial ruling on whether he would allow the incriminating tapes into evidence. Stripped of the certainty of using key evidence, the prosecution dropped the charges in the hope of starting over later before a less restrictive judge. Judge Onion outmaneuvered Earle, however. He swore in a jury and immediately ordered them to acquit Hutchison. She then proclaimed the forced verdict proof of her innocence.
Posted by at September 29, 2005 12:01 PMI'll make a deal with you. If DeLay is found guilty, I will send a signed letter to the judge in the case urging the maximum possible penalty and provide it for publication here.
Oh, jwest, the way you go on! And on, and on and on.....YAWN. You always promise to stand up for impeachment, demand resignations, promise to send letters, etc. I don't give a rat's ass what you do, but I know you will never do any of these things. You've promised before and even when the facts have proven you incorrect....nothing. As if your opinion or demands would matter anyway.
Earle is not a crazed prosector. Just because you don't like the laws and you don't like that he's gone after four Republicans does not mean he's crazed.
Posted by ann at September 29, 2005 12:08 PMWhy do you all keep arguing with this idiot? He keeps changing his point, or pretending the point he made isn't the point he was trying to make. He's consistantly wrong about everything (busses anyone?) and never, ever acknowledges when he's wrong. Like all the wingnuts, he's following the talking point of making the story about Earle, and it's not. The story is about Delay and his criminal behaviour. The grand jury decided there's enough evidence for an indictment, so Delay was indicted. The question isn't "is Earle a partisan hack?" it's "is there enough evidence to convict Delay?" By continuing to argue about Earle, you're allowing the troll to define the argument.
jwest, if you don't want to argue about the indictment, but would rather spend post after post pretending to be misunderstood, go elsewhere.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 29, 2005 12:10 PMDamn, this Earle is one unlucky guy.
He has a bulletproof case, but the jury selection goes bad, the press is forced somehow to spin in Hutchinson's favor, her press secretary and that bastard Rove both take her side and then the judge (who was probably bought and paid for by the republican party) screws Earle in the end.
If he gets the same bad breaks on this case, I'm going to start thinking that Diebold is involved.
Posted by j.west at September 29, 2005 12:13 PMA point of history on Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Back in the day, when lil' Georgie was running for office (but losing) "Kay Bailey" was a TV news personality in Texas who followed hot on lil' Georgie's trail to report on his campaign. She would sign off her reports saying, "this is Kay Bailey reporting." I'm tellin' ya, the girl knows how to work the media like the media whore she is. Same clown, different circus. (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at September 29, 2005 12:21 PMcoyote,
You prove my point everytime you post.
While you're stuck on playing checkers, we are playing three dimensional chess. You think with the same effectiveness as Shrum while being bent over by Rove everytime.
I know you would like to stick with narrowly defined topics without exploring the wider questions raised by your knee jerk positions, but if blogs arn't an exercise in thinking, what good are they? You seem to have lived a life surrounded by others with your views, so it's uncomfortable to hear other positions. Get over it.
Pick a topic, think it through (for once in your life) and bring it on.
Posted by j.west at September 29, 2005 12:33 PMagree with coyote and ann about west..maybe he needs directions for removing his head from his ass?
Posted by headxray at September 29, 2005 12:43 PMAs usual, troll makes assumptions, all of which are wrong, proves he's a fool.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 29, 2005 12:59 PMJ. West. I thought "bring it on" was copyright G.W. Bush. You might be brought to trial, and sentenced to having your dick cut off. Just out of curiosity, why do you post on WC? Surely it must be apparent that the majority of WC participants do not think highly of you or your opinions. Are you in to flagellation by any chance?
Posted by tempus at September 29, 2005 01:05 PMIamcoyote, I agree w/ you re: JWest. He keeps trying idiotic stuff just to see if anybody will be dumb enough to buy it. Apparently, KBH must have been the only case he ever tried according to him. If a prosecutor has ever lost a case, then he's not a good prosecutor. Hell, even Vincent Bugliosi has lost cases.
Posted by Ga6thDem at September 29, 2005 01:24 PMtempus,
It is much more interesting to me to engage with people who hold different views than my own.
At the very least, some of my posts will make the people on this thread think instead of relying on "Bush sucks" rants.
Politics is like rape in that it's all about the power. Those with power exert it over those without. It's not self flagellation on this end, more like a sadistic voyerism. Bend over, bitch.
Posted by j.west at September 29, 2005 01:31 PMPolitics is like rape in that it's all about the power. Those with power exert it over those without. It's not self flagellation on this end, more like a sadistic voyerism. Bend over, bitch.
That attitude will get you 10-20 years, and a very hairy bunkmate. Enjoy.
Posted by tempus at September 29, 2005 01:38 PMIt is much more interesting to me to engage with people who hold different views than my own.
Oh... were it that there was but a single person in the Bush administration who held such sentiments we might not be involved in the clusterfuck in Iraq.
Posted by muckcat at September 29, 2005 01:46 PMbu$h sucks turdblossom
Posted by bbtb at September 29, 2005 01:48 PMmuckcat,
Do I sense a feeling from you that GW Bush is not a visionary of epic proportion?
You can level with me. If you have trouble understanding the brilliance of our president, just ask.
Posted by j.west at September 29, 2005 01:56 PM...and now the typical outrageous statement made to get more reaction. I think they're being paid by the number of responses, rather than their word count.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 29, 2005 01:57 PMAt the very least, some of my posts will make the people on this thread think instead of relying on "Bush sucks" rants.
Oh, please. Was there a single "Bush sucks" rant on this thread or any other today, for that matter.
Posted by ann at September 29, 2005 01:58 PMann,
Since I'm not being paid by the word, I use the "Bush sucks" analogy for generic rants based on mindless hate rather than genuine differences in policy.
You may insert "Rove sucks"/"DeLay sucks"/etc. where appropriate.
Posted by j.west at September 29, 2005 02:05 PMYou can level with me. If you have trouble understanding the brilliance of our president, just ask.
Do you realize that Bush flat-lined on his last three EEG's at Bethesda? His brilliance? Mr. Two and Two is 4 3/8?" Mr. "I have just been informed that Iraq is not a part of the United States, and therefore cannot vote for me."?
Posted by tempus at September 29, 2005 02:22 PMtempus,
You must be mistaken. I was speaking of GW Bush, President of the United States. Yale educated, Harvard MBA, fighter pilot who had better grades and a higher IQ than either Gore or Kerry.
If there was a "Bush" as dumb as you say, and he still won the presidency twice, what does that say about the challenger?
Posted by j.west at September 29, 2005 02:28 PMJ. West:
Are you sure you want to cite the president's education and service records? I have a pet amoeba with more insight, compassion and integrity. And it is dead.
"fighter pilot???" You may be an idiot about people and politics, but you're a comic genius!
Posted by iamcoyote at September 29, 2005 02:46 PMSince I'm not being paid by the word, I use the "Bush sucks" analogy for generic rants based on mindless hate rather than genuine differences in policy.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean that comments posted on here are based on "mindless hate." Like I've said before, I don't hate Bush because I don't know him. But I do disagree with virtually all of his policies. I think most everyone here would agree with that.
Remember, just because you infer something doesn't mean it was implied.
Posted by ann at September 29, 2005 02:57 PMYou must be mistaken. I was speaking of GW Bush, President of the United States. Yale educated, Harvard MBA, fighter pilot who had better grades and a higher IQ than either Gore or Kerry.
He got into Yale and Harvard because of his last name. He was probably graded according to his last name as well. He was not a fighter pilot, he was a Texas Air Guard flyboy who didn't finish his tour of duty....probably because of his last name.
Did you even see the debates? If you seriously think Bush is intelligent, you are definitely lost. You can have all the credentials in the world and still be clueless. I've met many CPAs and MBAs who are simply not smart.
Posted by ann at September 29, 2005 03:00 PMit's obvious west gets his rocks off trying to stir up shit and is nothing more than a raving egomaniac...
Posted by h at September 29, 2005 03:06 PMj.west did this same thing last week on the open thread. He was happy when it got over 100 posts.
My 9 year old speaks more eloquently than bu$h!
Posted by bbtb at September 29, 2005 03:39 PMFolks,
Are some of you implying that our greatest educational institutions would not only accept an unqualified student, but falsify years of grades based on a last name?
What would this say about the other graduates?
Also, why do you find it hard to admit that Bush is far more intelligent than Gore or Kerry? Isn't it obvious by the agendas that have been passed?
Posted by j.west at September 29, 2005 04:59 PMDon't forget Poland!
Posted by bushblowsturdblossom at September 29, 2005 05:26 PMThat j.west uses talking points is clear from his spelling of Kay's name.
That s/he has been trained in knocking threads off topic is clear.
In the end, it's fun to read, though.
Thanks
I have a pet amoeba with more insight, compassion and integrity. And it is dead.
Ahhh haha haha, good one.
Are some of you implying that our greatest educational institutions would not only accept an unqualified student, but falsify years of grades based on a last name?
Clearly no one falsified Bush's grades....he was a C student. But to assume that students are not given preference in college admissions based on who they are is naive.
Posted by ann at September 30, 2005 06:00 AM