Six Iraq Veterans Seek House Seats, Question War
Candidates Don't Fit the Typical Anti-War Image
By KIMBERLY HEFLING, AP
The movement to unseat sitting politicians has begun for the 2006 elections.
Posted by Judith at October 4, 2005 06:18 AM
That sounds like a pretty bad idea. Are they banking on the truth never coming out?
Posted by dj moonbat at October 4, 2005 06:19 AMso Bush has conceded to a "Press Conference" today. What he says is irrelevant due to the propensity to lie. What is relevant is the actions of the Media/Press. Are they really finally free of the 9/11 shackle that afforded Bush the luxury of lying through his teeth for 4 years and getting away with it, or will they return to their pre-Katrina soft ball questions and no follow-ups. If it is the former, then we'll have marked a major shift. I'm betting the Corporate Clamp will be in effect again. Hope I'm wrong.
Posted by T2 at October 4, 2005 06:20 AMNow I know who the Texas SCOTUS pick reminds me of, and really ties all of the shit up succinctly. Miers looks like Billie Whitelaw, the actress who played Damien's new Nanny in the movie, The Omen--which pretty much sums up the Bush Admin. In the movie, she arrives from the depths to care for Damien. W is increasingly looking childish and creepier (must be the alcohol intake). Don't mean to insult Billie, but Miers heavy mascara and chalky hard face renders the comparison amazingly! Didn't the late Pope John Paul II describe W as the anti-Christ? So that means all Bush devotees are Satanists?
Posted by Mal Feasance at October 4, 2005 06:24 AMIs the NYT giving away free kneepads and limiting those articles to subscribers? 'Cause it sounds pretty special . .
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 4, 2005 06:25 AMI wonder if Libby will give up Cheney for immunity?
Posted by Judith at October 4, 2005 06:29 AMToon O' The Day: Constitutional Philosophy
Posted by jjoats at October 4, 2005 06:33 AMAnn,
Yesterday you ripped me for suggesting that democrat leaders engage in personal attacks, while republican leaders avoid such speech. The usual suspects piled on for lack of any link to substantiate my opinion.
Here is the link:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006794
It’s easier to let Peggy Noonan supply the sources than to go back and pull the quotes one by one.
(This research stuff is hard work…..hard work)
good link, judith. why are they all democrats? i thought the GOP was the party of blood and guts. (plus Hackett (D, of course) is running for DeWine's senate seat).
here's the link in purple.
Posted by benjoya at October 4, 2005 07:27 AMMal - I wonder if Harriet has a dog?
Posted by iamcoyote at October 4, 2005 07:36 AMPeggy Noonan....real objective source. I don't see any petty comments about Bush's hair and nails, though. These sound like reasonable critcisms of the Republican machine. Of course they don't sound that way to Noonan because she's, well, biased. It's like O'Reilly saying he just doesn't see any prejudice in the lack of response to Katrina - he can't see it because he refuses to see it.
And btw, I never "ripped" you. I disagreed. Get a clue. Just because you infer something does not mean it was implied.
This is not a request for debate. It is a public response.
Posted by ann at October 4, 2005 07:47 AMI am just amazed that our politicians are expected to approve and vote for a nominee that they have absolutely NO information on, especially for the highest court of the land. This is f**king unbelievable.
Isn't there writings by Hamilton on cyronism and appointments? Let me ask you trolls, how would you have responded if Clinton named his Counsel to the Supreme Court? Never mind, I know the answer.
Posted by Judith at October 4, 2005 07:50 AMw.fest: It’s easier to let Peggy Noonan supply the sources than to go back and pull the quotes one by one.
Sure, and it would be easier for me to say that I agreed with everything Bill Clinton ever said, and you GOP stooges were just doody-heads. But that would hardly be the same thing as thinking.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 4, 2005 08:01 AMPeggy Noonan....real objective source.
Did she misquote anyone?
I don't see any petty comments about Bush's hair and nails, though.
Come on….
These sound like reasonable criticisms of the Republican machine.
If this is how you believe the leaders of your party should talk, there is no hope for you.
One of Bush’s campaign promises was to “change the tone” in Washington. He has stuck to this promise by never engaging in the low-brow rhetoric of liberals with no ideas other than the lust for power.
My mistake was thinking you had the intellectual honesty to admit the obvious, but apparently you would loose your credentials for that crime.
Is it my imagination, but isn't being slimed by west about losing intellectual honesty and cred like being called a worthless drug addict by Limbaugh?
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 4, 2005 08:15 AMB-B-But dj, GOP stooges are doody heads, aren't they? Or do they think not participating in low brow rhetoric includes calling reporters assholes and giving them the finger and telling senators "go fuck yourself" and outing CIA agents? Why do we always have to be the ones that do the actual thinking. It's hard work!
Posted by iamcoyote at October 4, 2005 08:16 AMIs it my imagination, but isn't being slimed by west about losing intellectual honesty and cred like being called a worthless drug addict by Limbaugh?
Heehee. Something like that. I'm hurt, truly I am. But he reminds me of the phrase, "there are none so blind that will not see." So many on the right, simply deny what the reality is by just refusing to see. It's all a matter of bias and perspective.
Posted by ann at October 4, 2005 08:22 AMiamcoyote, don't forget the "major league asshole" comment. Such high level discourse.
Posted by ann at October 4, 2005 08:28 AMPersonally I think the Democrats could take a play from the Republican playbook.
The way the Republicans imply, without needing to actually say it, that liberalism has civilized society on the verge of collapse is masterful. Why do you think it's so easy for someone like j.west to brand Democrats as "hate speechers"? A) The Republican leadership try not to be as straight forward and blunt as Clinton and Dean and B) they rely on the conservative right organizations to do it for them. See that's the advantage of having big money on your side. There'd be no "culture wars" if the extreem right wing didn't have piles of money to burn fanning the embers into a full on conflagration.
Playing j.west's little game is falling into the GOP's snare. Make "hate speech" an issue.
Just ignore him.
Posted by snark at October 4, 2005 08:30 AMThe funny thing is that some of the comments here about Miers being a women are met with "as long as she's a qualified woman."
And folks here say the same thing about minorities. Meaning, of course, that they have to be liberal.
What's interesting is that Miers is pro-gay rights from what I heard on the news last night. That's one of the reasons the GOP seems a little cool to her nomination. I wonder how folks here will rank that as far as her "being qualified" goes....
Posted by muckdog at October 4, 2005 08:35 AMThe funny thing is that some of the comments here about Miers being a women are met with "as long as she's a qualified woman."
Some examples you could cite perhaps?
Posted by snark at October 4, 2005 08:40 AMThe funny thing is that some of the comments here about Miers being a women are met with "as long as she's a qualified woman."
You're right, muck, that's fucking hilarious! Not true at all, but really, really funny--like an episode of The Family Guy or something.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 4, 2005 08:45 AMThe funny thing is that some of the comments here about Miers being a women are met with "as long as she's a qualified woman."
Funny, but I haven't read that on this site. can you point to some instances? Or is this jsut your feeling? Something you have inferred?
And folks here say the same thing about minorities. Meaning, of course, that they have to be liberal.
Um, nope. When we say "qualified" we mean capable of doing the job. "Qualified" doesn't just mean: thinks the President is doing a great job. "Qualified" doesn't mean: FOP (friend of the president.) "Qualified" means has worked in the industry, has an educational background that fits the work requirements, has stellar references. Roberts, for example, was always considered qualified. Although, I would argue that having only been a judge for two years did not qualify him for the Chief Justice position just yet, he could have used more work experience.
Now, if we're discussing where someone stands on the issues, well, that's a different matter than qualifications. You can merge the two in your head, but that's just not honest. Democrats and liberals, of course, want to be represented by someone who shares their views. Just as Republicans and conservatives want to be represented by someone who shares their views.
Posted by ann at October 4, 2005 08:53 AMThe judicial incompetence and political hatred that Ronnie Earle showed today demonstrates that Texans did not elect their best and brightest to the position of Travis County DA," DeLay spokesman Stuart Roy said. "Ronnie Earle may truly be the Elmer Fudd of politics."
Just some high level political discourse.
Posted by ann at October 4, 2005 09:41 AMMaybe she's part of the Skull and Bones crowd.
Nope, they still don't allow women.
Posted by Judith at October 4, 2005 09:52 AMgood observation....
Posted by headxray at October 4, 2005 10:05 AMMaybe she's part of the Skull and Bones crowd.
Nope, they still don't allow women.
Well, it's also doubtful that they have an SMU chapter.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 4, 2005 10:07 AMDoes it say where Miers ranked in her Law School class? They keep comparing her to Rehnquist, in that he was never a judge. Jeez, he was like #1 of his class at the Stanford Law School. Does this really equate? Aside from her being a political crony, is she that much of a scholar?
Posted by bbtb at October 4, 2005 10:47 AMAnn, I was quoting from you yesterday, in your comments back to jwest.
LOL.
Short memory, eh?
Posted by muckdog at October 4, 2005 10:51 AMmuckdog, I'm not sure j.west is going to like the competition. He usually likes to go it alone.
j.west, Are you still saving all that data for your future mission?
Posted by bbtb at October 4, 2005 10:57 AMAnn, I was quoting from you yesterday, in your comments back to jwest.
I believe you are mistaken, muck. Kindly point out where I said anything to the effect of your post.
Posted by ann at October 4, 2005 10:57 AMHere's good advice for an opposition party.
Posted by rlp at October 4, 2005 11:06 AMWhat ann wrote was that she expects all office holders to be qualified, regardless of their sex or race.
So muckdog are you going on record as being of the opinion that having professional qualifications for a job is not something to be desired by Republicans from their political appointees?
Posted by snark at October 4, 2005 11:16 AMInteresting comments from Cardinal Schoenborn regarding the theory of evolution.
Seems the Cardinal understands the distinction between the realm of science the realm of religion.
The concepts of methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are not lost on him. If one can critique scientists who dismiss the existance of God even though they can not prove God does not exist one surely understands that one also can not scientifically prove that God does exist and therefor God has no place in the science classroom.
A lot of IDers aren’t going to be happy about the Cardinal’s comments.
muckcat, interesting article. The Cardinal could not have made a more clear and concise point: there's religion and then there's science.
Do IDers care what Catholics say, though?
Posted by ann at October 4, 2005 01:15 PMDo IDers care what Catholics say, though?
According to the blog lettrist the Discovery Institute has a particularly kean interest in what Cardinal Schoenborn himself has to say for the Catholic Church.
Mark Ryland, a vice president of the institute, said in an interview that he had urged the cardinal to write the essay. Both Mr. Ryland and Cardinal Schönborn said that an essay in May in The Times about the compatibility of religion and evolutionary theory by Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, suggested to them that it was time to clarify the church's position on evolution.
The cardinal's essay was submitted to The Times by a Virginia public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts, which also represents the Discovery Institute.
This was of course the Op-ed in the Times from which Schoenborn is now trying to backtrack away from in the article I linked to.
So, Snark, are you going on the record as that as long as a candidate is qualified, it doesn't matter what their stance is on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, etc?
Posted by muckdog at October 4, 2005 03:14 PMSo, Snark, are you going on the record as that as long as a candidate is qualified, it doesn't matter what their stance is on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, etc?
Absolutely. In general I'd say that their position on individual issues has nothing to do with their being qualified or not.
I'll also go on record as saying that I would expect a conservative or liberal office holder charged with appointing those qualified candidates to take those positions into account accordingly.
Posted by snark at October 4, 2005 06:26 PM