145 Comments

1. flenser:

This is the same DA who indicted Kay Baily Hutchinson on trumped-up charges. This won’t go anywhere in terms of a criminal case, but it serves it’s real purpose – political theater.

Sep 28, 2005 - 10:22 am 2. In Vino Veritas:

When I look at a list of today’s congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle

What a disingenuous comment. No one on the “other side of the aisle” has been indicted.

On the other hand (or, side of the aisle), one Republican leader has been indicted, another is under investigation by the SEC, another is the subject of an investigation for leaking national security materials for political purposes…

As Terry Moran just asked Scott McClellan, there is the stink of corruption about this administration.

Now, you may disagree politically with the other side, but to lump them in with corrupt politicians is extremely partisan.

Sep 28, 2005 - 10:27 am 3. TedM:

Roger said:

“When I look at a list of today’s congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle – DeLay, Hastert, Pelosi, Reid, etc. – I want to stick a finger down my throat. Third party anyone? [No, no. Not Ross Perot. Stop him!-ed.]”

This says it all.

OT

Some blogs have linked to this op ed by Fouad Ajami.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007326

Read it and pass it on. We always complain “Where are the Arab Moderates?” Here is one who is well known. His voice gets drowned out by CAIR and the rest. Let us give him a louder mike and try to give this op ed the circulation it needs.

Sep 28, 2005 - 10:33 am 4. flenser:

..another is the subject of an investigation for leaking national security materials for political purposes…

Time for some more fact checking. No Republican is the subject of an investigation for leaking national security materials.

Sep 28, 2005 - 10:35 am 5. Roger:

I don’t know what country you come from, Mr. ‘Veritas.’ But in my country an indictment is not the same as a conviction. I listed the four people I did together because I find them to be insufferable partisan hacks… just like you.

Sep 28, 2005 - 10:40 am 6. Colin:

On the bright side, we have David Dreier in there to replace DeLay (at least temporarily).

If you want a smart, well-spoken politician who is not some partisan hack, Roger, I think Dreier is a good choice. At least I know I’m happy with him (but being from California, maybe you know things about him which I don’t).

Sep 28, 2005 - 10:52 am 7. thibaud:

Sign me up. The Progressive Party. Main platform planks:

1) End gerrymandering and attack corruption, beginning with the $250 billion Louisiana Looters’ scheme.

2) Reduce the deficit. No new taxes or borrowing, only offsets, to pay for Katrina/Rita relief and reconstruction.

3) Help working families. Triple the tax breaks given for each child and support federal vouchers for every schoolchild.

4) Provide catastrophic medical insurance, administered by one party–the federal government– for every American, in conjunction with severe restrictions on payments for expensive, futile end-of-life prolongation treatments.

5) protect the borders and reform immigration.

6) support “safe legal and rare” abortion. Oppose the teaching of intelligent design in any science classroom, anywhere.

2008 is beginning to look like 1992.

Sep 28, 2005 - 11:00 am 8. ex-democrat:

there’s nothing more delicious than when a hack unwittingly gives the game away. consider, for example, the following example from the ironically-named ‘veritas’:

“As Terry Moran just asked Scott McClellan, there is the stink of corruption about this administration.”

heh.

Sep 28, 2005 - 11:16 am 9. ajf:

Roger,

Before worrying about Congress, how about cleaning up your own house. Like correcting the demonstrably false post re Al Waleed and Fox.

Every moment that post stays up without correction your credibility drips away.

Sep 28, 2005 - 11:22 am 10. Toby928:

“stink of corruption about this administration”

Tough talk about what appears to be the most ethical administration in modern history.

So, Vito, how many administration officials have been indicted? I count zero although there always is the possiblity that I missed one. Seems pretty good to me. I used to add that none had even left under a cloud but now we do have Brown, although his departure seems to be for incompetence rather than corruption.

Tob

Thibaud, I do like that Progressive Party platform. I think it would tend to split the Democrats more than the Republicans which would make 2008 more like 1994 than 1992. I suspect Rove!

Sep 28, 2005 - 11:24 am 11. In Vino Veritas:

Mr. Simon:

I am unabashedly liberal. You, on the other hand, attempt to play yourself off as bi-partisan. And yet, there are absolutely no posts on your blog where you have taken this President to task for anything. Not a one. The man is not King nor God; anyone but an “insufferable partisan hack” would have to take issue with at least one decision he has made.

Further, your king-worship has spread so that there are precious few posts where you have criticized Republican leadership for their corruption, this post being a case-in-point.

Have courage and stand up for your ideals. If you are a conservative (or neo-conservative or whatever), declare as much, and be done with it.

Sep 28, 2005 - 11:30 am 12. Pat Curley:

“As Terry Moran just asked Scott McClellan, there is the stink of corruption about this administration.”

Wow, that’s a heck of a question!

Toby928, I agree. Of course, we may be guilty of judging the Bush Administration by the standards of Clinton, who had seemingly half his cabinet under indictment or investigation.

Sep 28, 2005 - 11:31 am 13. ed:

Hmmm.

I’d join in the discussion, but I started looking at some of the nonsense being written by the liberals and, quite frankly, I’ve got better things to do.

Sep 28, 2005 - 11:36 am 14. thibaud:

Michael Barone http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007276 agrees that 2008 is starting to look more and more like 1992. That election’s middle class swing-voter “soccer moms” became “security moms” after 911 and helped put Bush over the top in 2004 (note that Bush’s largest %, and absolute number, vote increases from 2000 to 2004 came in the NYC tri-state metro area, including Manhattan).

However, these suburban swing voters may go Democratic in 2008 if real estate prices collapse in the NJ suburbs, south Florida, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Denver and other high-population “purple” swing voter areas. I think he’s right. Even if RE prices do not collapse, Bush’s irresponsibility with the deficit may cause foreign investors to dump enough Treasuries to send interest rates higher, which would signal to swing voters that, as in 1992, it’s time to Step Aside, Mr Bush.

Sep 28, 2005 - 11:50 am 15. TedM:

I second what Ed said.

These people should read the very short blog by Roger. The thrust of it is the poor quality of the leadership in BOTH parties.

As a first year law student would tell you, that is the issue.

Sep 28, 2005 - 11:51 am 16. ajf:

So thibaud, you don’t think Bush will be reelected in 2008. Brilliant!

Sep 28, 2005 - 11:56 am 17. In Vino Veritas:

how many administration officials have been indicted? I count zero although there always is the possiblity that I missed one.

A very real possiblity.

“Bush Official Arrested in Corruption Probe”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901859.html

Sep 28, 2005 - 11:58 am 18. Anthony (Los Angeles):

One thing to bear in mind about Delay’s indictment is the source: the prosecutor is known for political indictments and shakedowns of large corporations which, after the charges are dropped, make “donations” to charities he favors. Odd, that. There may be something to the charges, we don’t know. But don’t make the mistake of assuming the man bringing them is an angel, either.

Sep 28, 2005 - 12:01 pm 19. thibaud:

So here’s the Progressive Party electoral strategy for 2008:

a) DC-NYC NE CORRIDOR, FL, CALIFORNIA, WASHINGTON, OREGON: build inroads among suburban moderate middle-class women on both coasts (Barone’s “real estate moms”) by focusing on the distastefulness of both parties (the Republicans on abortion and creationism, the Dems on national security and taxes).

GOAL: cause the Dems to bleed voters and advertising $$$ in these states. Pick off enough Dems to win NY, NJ, NH, CT, MD and either WA or OR and enough Repubs to win FL. Total electoral college votes: ca. 95.

b) SOUTHWEST: push hard on anti-corruption and anti-gerrymandering, also immigration reform. Focus hard on real estate moms in Phoenix, Denver, Boulder, Vegas.

GOAL: victory in all the purple states (CO, AZ, NV, NM). Bleed the Repubs in gerrymandered, Delay-corrupt Texas. Total EC votes: ca 30.

c) NEW SOUTH (FL, NC, VA, GA): appeal to real estate moms, pro-choice Repubs and also military families. Peel off enough Repubs to win FL and at least two other southern states. Total EC votes: ca. 40.

Perfectly plausible that, if you win over the national security Dems and the pro-choice Repubs in NY and FL, you could get 165 votes. In a 3-way race, that gets you within striking distance of the White House. Any takers?

Sep 28, 2005 - 12:05 pm 20. Toby928:

Ah, thanks Vito. There IS one. So they are human after all. There goes my argument for perfection, Damn Bush, now its just bodycounts I guess.

To quote Ed, Hmmmmm. Who is this guy? Safavian? Googling.

Tob

Sep 28, 2005 - 12:11 pm 21. Toby928:

“Perfectly plausible that, if you win over the national security Dems and the pro-choice Repubs in NY and FL, you could get 165 votes. In a 3-way race, that gets you within striking distance of the White House. Any takers?”

Do I have to give odds or are you confident enough for even-money?

Tob

Sep 28, 2005 - 12:15 pm 22. Knucklehead:

Roger,

You must really be proving irksome to some folks. They keep dropping by and attacking your credibility and bonafeedies.

Keep up the good work!

Sep 28, 2005 - 12:31 pm 23. Knucklehead:

ajf,

Every moment that post stays up without correction your credibility drips away.

You popped a song to mind:

Slip sliding away, slip sliding away

You know the nearer your destination

The more you’re slip sliding away

I know a man, he came from my hometown

He wore his passion for his woman like a thorny crown

He said Delores, I live in fear

My love for you’s so overpowering

I’m afraid that I will disappear

Slip sliding away, slip sliding away

You know the nearer your destination

The more you’re slip sliding away

Sep 28, 2005 - 12:37 pm 24. Kevin P:

Roger:

I wouldn’t be shocked if Delay is guilty, I wouldn’t be shocked if he is innocent. The complexity of the campaign finance laws are so absurd that the opportunity to blur the lines so it could be possible that Delay is guilty and he will be found innocent. Delay will have a trial and the facts will be exposed.

As far as the clean Democratic party is concerned, what does Vito think about Chuck Schumer’s DNSC stealing Steel’s social security card for felony dirty tricks. This has been admitted to, the only question is whether or not Chucky had any idea about what his minions were doing for him.As far as the list of convictions from the last clean Democratic administration I prefer not to waste any more of Roger’s bandwidth then I already do. Moran’s attempt to link Bush’s administration to Delay is typical of the press’s agenda journalism. Does this mean that the stink from New Jersey should be linked to John Corzine.

Before you start a third party you have to decide which of the two parties you are going to eliminate. We have a two party system, this is not a parlimentary system, the power structure does not allow a functional 3 party system. The way the committee’s are laid out, the way chairmanships are doled out, all of it is based on a two party system. You say you are disgusted with both parties,a idea I have no problem with, but unless the new party eliminated one of the current parties you would have to link with one of the excisting parties to get anything done.

Whether they steal from the middle or from the far end of a party third parties tend to reward one of the current parties with power. instead of one opposition party that might be strong enough to contest with the victorious party you have two weaker parties and the one that got screwed by the third party won’t be interested in making nice.

Government power leads to corruption. A third party won’t change that. Third parties are usually tied to an individual,TR,Anderson,Perot etc, or single issues, the Dixiecrats. They will generate a surge of interest and they will die out. You have to decide which of the parties that you are going to eliminate and thus become one of the two parties we have always had.

Third parties can work on a State level but they do not work on a national level. Disgust with corruption in our government is nothing new and it has often generated third party boomlets. And they blow apart every time. Changing the direction of a party, a process that is hard and takes decades, has been done. Third parties are the magic bullet that sound so neat but don’t fire.

Kevin Peters

Sep 28, 2005 - 12:47 pm 25. chuck:

…the stink of corruption…

seems a bit strong. Sure doesn’t strike me that way, but then I am not part of the Alternate Reality crowd, nor have I forgotten the Clinton years. As to DeLay, I don’t know. Texas politics is pretty rough and the Texas Democrats were always right up there with Daley’s Chicago for probity and voting of the dead. That said, fund raising is always a good place to look when you want to make trouble for a politician. We already have the headlines, which is 80% of the intent and rouses the partisans such as our own humble vino veritas. Let’s see how the rest plays out.

Sep 28, 2005 - 12:59 pm 26. TedM:

Roger said:

When I look at a list of today’s congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle – DeLay, Hastert, Pelosi, Reid, etc. – I want to stick a finger down my throat.

Okay folks. Play King for a Day.

If you were in charge , who would you name as the new Republican leaders in the House and Senate?

Part 2.

Who would you name as the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate?

Sep 28, 2005 - 1:01 pm 27. Terrye:

The only thing a third party will accomplish is to give the White House to another Clinton. And there will be more pork and America will still be America and there will be pesty Christians and bothersome solical conservatives and silly liberals to deal with.

It will serve no positive purpose.

I am 53 and I have seen a lot of people come and go in politics. However, this nonsense of seeing the angry male do his moral outrage routine complaining about everything and anything he can think of and threatening to take his football and go home if the rest of us don’t kiss his butt is getting old.

So no, no third party for me… it is a dumbass idea.

Sep 28, 2005 - 1:01 pm 28. Terrye:

solical should read social.

I know I know…

Sep 28, 2005 - 1:06 pm 29. chuck:

TedM,

If you were in charge , who would you name as the new Republican leaders in the House and Senate?

I have been feeling a bizarre nostalgia for Newt Gingrich. I can’t explain it. I wouldn’t mind having Goldwater and Nunn back either. Among the current bunch, I can’t think of anyone who impresses me much. But then, I don’t pay that much attention either.

Sep 28, 2005 - 1:11 pm 30. markus:

Vino and ajf — nice to have some other liberals here raising some counterpoint.

Kevin P — my understanding is that running a credit check is fairly common opposition research. The question for the FBI to determine is whether or not it was obtained under false pretense. According to the Washington Post, “sources familiar with the episode said Steele’s credit report was obtained with the use of his Social Security number, which was found on a public court document.”

Schumer’s job as DSCC chair is to raise money and make some decisions on funding disbursement based on polling data, other considerations. Hard to see how he can get tagged with this.

Regarding third parties, I think what makes it is just the electoral college which makes it so impossible to get national third parties off the ground . But I do wonder about the House of Representatives. Certainly, there will always be one group with the power, one group without. But I don’t see what the permanent obstacle is to House members deciding to withdraw from present partiesto form some kind of “caucus group”, an embryonic party, if you wil. Perhaps devoted to a particular issue like deficit reduction, or a change in our Iraq policy. Such a caucus could bargain with the DeLays and Pelosis, offering to go so far as to switch parties in order to switch the majority control.

Sep 28, 2005 - 1:26 pm 31. Steven Mitchell:

TedM, the partisan in me likes Nancy Pelosi just fine where she is. She is the gift that keeps on giving to Republicans. The good American in me that wants a sane opposition thinks that a random pick of the house Democrats has about a 50/50 shot of being a vast improvement on Pelosi. My own representive, Bud Cramer (D), is a non-entity. Pelosi makes him look like a vast well of courage, principle, and intellect.

For Republicans, I am not sure.

Sep 28, 2005 - 1:30 pm 32. chuck:

markus,

“sources familiar with the episode said Steele’s credit report was obtained with the use of his Social Security number, which was found on a public court document.”

So, do you think it was legal or not?

Sep 28, 2005 - 1:30 pm 33. Terrye:

I think the whole thing with Delay is just partisan politcs, palin and simple.

And Demcorats are in no position to be self righteous here.

In fact if I had a dollar for every Democrat who had been indicted or investigated for something illegal or unethical I could pay off my mortgage.

And that is just the Louisiana Democrats.

I am not making excuses for anyone, but sometimes we tend to jump the gun with this stuff and a lot of time and energy and resources is invested for no real purpose.

I don’t think Frist did anything but sell stock, just like a lot of other people. I don’t think Delay broke any laws here either. This is Texas politcs.

But then again I also thought a lot of the stuff about Hillary Clinton’s commodity trades was exaggerated too.

This will not have as much impact as Democrats hope and Republicans fear..nobody has the attention span for a good scandal anymore.

But only time will tell for sure.

Sep 28, 2005 - 1:45 pm 34. TedM:

How about Lindsay Graham for Majority Leader in the Senate.

Gingrich is fine for the House. Except he doesnt sit there anymore.

I think Roger’s point is that it would be nice to have some statemen in charge,

Along the same vein, there is a letter writing campaign to my local paper, Florida Times Union, to have them drop Ann Coulter and Molly Ivins from their op ed page. If I have to explain why, then the point is lost on you.

Sep 28, 2005 - 1:51 pm 35. chuck:

TedM,

…to have them drop Ann Coulter and Molly Ivins from their op ed page. If I have to explain why, then the point is lost on you.

Please explain how such an unusual union of interests came about. Or is it just a case of two partisan groups balancing each other?

Sep 28, 2005 - 2:18 pm 36. Knucklehead:

Is there no civics instruction?!?!

it is just the electoral college which makes it so impossible to get national third parties off the ground.

The Electoral College applies ONLY to presidential elections. There is far more to functioning political parties than who they run for POTUS. Which, btw, explains why the many political parties that do exist rarely run a POTUS candidate anyone has ever heard of and why the “third party” candidates people have heard of typically toss together some ad-hoc party that disappears when the candidate does.

But I do wonder about the House of Representatives. Certainly, there will always be one group with the power, one group without. But I don’t see what the permanent obstacle is to House members deciding to withdraw from present partiesto form some kind of “caucus group”, an embryonic party, if you wil. Perhaps devoted to a particular issue like deficit reduction, or a change in our Iraq policy.

Go read Kevin P’s comment above. The HR and Senate rules have long been established by and for two parties. They aren’t interested in changing them to accomodate the whims of spontaneous parliamentarianism.

Such a caucus could bargain with the DeLays and Pelosis, offering to go so far as to switch parties in order to switch the majority control.

Ummm… sure. And the next time these caucus heroes need the resources of a party or to get something out a committee?

BTW, representatives and senator do no always vote along strict party lines. They have constituencies to consider, backs to scratch, favors to return, horses to trade and a whole host of other political realities that hinder or enhance majority control.

Sep 28, 2005 - 2:22 pm 37. JK Ribera:

Is In Vino Veritas above a low-rent political operative? If not, he thinks and writes like one.

Sep 28, 2005 - 2:25 pm 38. TedM:

The paper runs them both on Saturday as some sort of fair and balanced routine.

I consider them the evil twins. They are interchangeable and add nothing to the public discourse. They both use the same methods of slanted and selected quotes, character assassination, and never give the other side one iota of credit for having any credible ideas.Everything is black and white, no middle ground.

They feed red meat to the extremes. One of them thinks Bush never did anything right and the other that Bush never did anything wrong. That isn’t enlightening to anyone. And it shows how we have lowered public discourse to the lowest common denominator. See Andy Ferguson in the Weekly Standard this week for a better written and thought out piece on this.

Sep 28, 2005 - 2:27 pm 39. Knucklehead:

stink from New Jersey should be linked to John Corzine

There was a recent stink in NJ linked to Corzine.

And, BTW, the stink in NJ is linked to Staten Island. Well, that and the refinery along the turnpike. But, in case you haven’t noticed, it’s not a good idea to have all the refineries in hurricane alley.

Sep 28, 2005 - 2:28 pm 40. Kevin P:

marcus:

It would not suprise me that it is done all the time. And everytime it is done it is a felony. It is a felony to access someones credit report under false pretenses. And unless Steele was taking a loan from the the Democratic Party it was a felony to use his SS number to get to his credit report. You have to have permission. You must have some financial rational or employment rational to raid someone’s personal credit info.And of course if their is a criminal problem the courts and the police can do it with a warrant. For the party that is so concerned with the destruction of privacy and civil rights that supposedly occured with the Patriot Act I am suprised with your cavalier attitude about snooping around in someone’s private info. I know it is simple to do and that politicians oppo research teams will stop at nothing to dig up dirt but that does not change the fact that it is a felony.

Kevin Peters

Sep 28, 2005 - 2:35 pm 41. ajf:

Markus,

I don’t know how you could interpret my posts in this thread or any other as liberal. I’m certainly not on your side. In fact, I would support the mass extermination of most people on the left.

Hope that clears thing up.

Knucklehead,

Then I suppose you subscribe to the fake, but inaccurate school of reporting. Nice.

The simple fact is that Roger has posted a story which is reactionary and absolutely wrong on the facts. I have pointed to the source documents which prove that the story is false. And, Roger hasn’t bothered to correct his mistakes for some 20+ hours now. This from a guy who claims to be building a new, responsible and fair news service.

Would you not agree that posting false information and failing to correct it when confronted results in a loss of credibility? I’m just trying to get Roger to admit his mistake and correct it so he doesn’t end up looking like Rather, Dowd, or the rest of the MSM.

Facts count.

Sep 28, 2005 - 2:40 pm 42. Knucklehead:

Terrye,

So no, no third party for me… it is a dumbass idea.

I’m with you. Its a line and it’s sorta more or less right over there and it ain’t perfectly straight – get over it. Now pick a side and stand on it. No polygons.

Sep 28, 2005 - 2:44 pm 43. Knucklehead:

Then I suppose you subscribe to the fake, but inaccurate school of reporting. Nice.

Huh? Say what?

Roger put up an entry on his site. The commenters were quite quick to point out what they see as the flaws. I’m presuming but, it seems to me that Roger has no problem with his analysis or views on any matter being contradicted or otherwise disagreed with especially when well done. He put it up, he got smacked around it a bit, he left it to stand for anyone to see. I don’t have a problem with that, you do.

It isn’t anything remotely similar to “fake but accurate”. I don’t see anywhere, so far, where Roger is hiring some “independent” law firm to whitewash this for him or steadfastly insisting he is correct and those who disagree with him are partisan hacks. It all looks pretty up front to me.

Sep 28, 2005 - 2:54 pm 44. jill bryant:

I am so puzzled. Yes, I’m a hard-core liberal who was a big fan of the Clinton administration but…whenever anything negative came out about that administration, I would be upset. I want my political figures to be as ethical and morally responsible in government as anyone in politics can be. The whole Clinton sex thing – I didn’t get, don’t get. So irrelevant to anything that had to do with anyone except Hillary. I resented reading about it daily but figured the “liberal” press was playing to people’s salacious interests.

Now, here you all are saying Delay’s manipulation of the laws was no big deal, or, blaming Earle or, saying look what other politicians have done (I don’t remember EVER thinking it was okay if Clinton did/didn’t do something because Bush Sr. or RR or any other President had done it. I believe in the truth of two wrongs don’t make a right – we’re not multiplying negatives here.)

And Roger bi-partisan? That is extremely amusing but maybe a more popular claim these days. Even hardcore Bush supporters have to be appalled by some of the economic, environmental and global policies we’ve been working with for the past five years. That reminds me – I love Bush trying to tell us to *choke* work on conserving energy.

Whatever – Delay and Frist are in a completely different category than Reid and Pelosi (is that who you put) and, like them or leave them, irrelevant in this context.

Sep 28, 2005 - 3:04 pm 45. Syl:

Polygons? Somebody mentioned polygons?

Oooooh. Polygons are like chocolate! Can’t have enough but too many aren’t good for you…or for your machine if you ain’t got enough memory.

Polygons are the magic ingredient in 3D graphics! When I hear the word ‘polygon’ my 9,287-polygon ears twitch with excitement!

::back to my cave::

Sep 28, 2005 - 3:12 pm 46. Syl:

Oh, sheesh. Sorry about that nonsense. I thought I was in an old thread and was just being silly.

::embarrassed::

Sep 28, 2005 - 3:13 pm 47. Steven Mitchell:

“Now, here you all are saying Delay’s manipulation of the laws was no big deal…”

And here you are doing the predictable smear tactic of pretending that something alleged by people with an axe to grind is a fact. Then you combine it with the predictable smear tactic of mischaracterizing the conversation. I’m sure you know this already, but I’ll spell it out for you just in case:

1. Delay did something wrong and a fair jury convicts. Lock ‘em up.

2. Delay did nothing wrong, and even an Austin hand-picked jury won’t convict. You come on here and give an unconditional apology.

3. Something weasally happens in the middle (e.g. hung jury, case gets dropped), we call it even.

Fair?

Sep 28, 2005 - 3:14 pm 48. Bostonian:

Roger,

Reader ajf seems to be wanting something from you.

If you feel inclined, you could fix this by adding an update to the Saudi prince/Fox story noting that the prince has actually owned the same percentage of shares for years but is now trading them for voting shares, rather than the non-voting shares that he used to own.

I’m sure that will correct the smear on the fine prince and soothe the savages of the right side of the blogosphere.

****

Ajf, you could do us a favor by 1) calming down and not pretending this is giant scandal, and 2) being more polite to our host in the future.

Sep 28, 2005 - 3:33 pm 49. Bostonian:

Syl, that was great!

Sep 28, 2005 - 3:34 pm 50. Patrick Tyson:

This thread is, dare I write, a smile. Generally I don’t speculate so far out, but what the hell. I’m bored.

The main thing that has happened on the 2008 election front is that the Bills (that would be Frist and Owens for those of you who don’t follow this stuff three years out) have seriously undermined whatever chance they had of being the Republican nominee.

Other than that, the odds of it being Cheney v. Clinton in 2008 have shortened somewhat during the past six months. This is because the Bush legacy is more in doubt and potential obstacles to Hillary’s ultimate goal still aren’t materializing.

McCain and Giuliani are the only public figures I can think of who might make a decent showing running as independents/third-party standard-bearers and I doubt either will go that route should he come up short in the nominating process.

Sep 28, 2005 - 3:45 pm 51. JenLArt:

Roger, I know you have a visceral dislike of Delay–Too Texan and “common man” for you?

Beats me.

I’ve been very happy with both Delay and Hastert myself.

As for Pelosi and Reid, they’re Dhimmicrats–whaddya expect?

They’re interchangeable parts and could be replaced with almost any other Dems.

Good luck with that 3rd party (John McCain, anyone?)

This Delay “indictment” is just another DNC-driven political witch hunt. But as Rush Limbaugh would say (another Conservative whom the Dhimms are trying to tar and feather), “It’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.” not whether that person whom they’re scapegoating is actually guilty.

And the Donks are after Bill Frist, too.

*Sigh*

If Delay, Limbaugh and Frist were (Democrat) Liberals, I’d think they were guilty of what they were charged with in a heartbeat.

One party’s the party of corruption, graft and dirty tricks, the other isn’t.

America’s still recovering from the “most ethical administration in history” who wrote the book on the Politics of Personal Destruction, which is what this is.

Sep 28, 2005 - 4:02 pm 52. Kevin P:

Jill:

The reason I brought up democratic corruption was not to excuse Delay, it was to respond to the post that claimed that Roger was wrong to lump those pure democrats in with those nasty republicans. Pelosi was just reprimanded by the ethics committee a year or two ago after finance questions. Hilary’s L.A. fundraiser was tagged with indictments. I stated that Delay could be guilty, I am waiting for the facts to come out as Roger is.

What this affair points out is the stupidity of the campaign finance laws. They are so convoluted that Delay may be found not guilty and still be in violation of the spirit laws. The McCain bill was supposed to bring down election spending and all we got was record spending. And the spending was seperated from the parties and allowed them to avoid responsibility from the political mudslinging that the 527’s passed out. Scrap the laws, make the parties display who is giving them money and who they work for and let the voters decide if they think their representitives are tools of monied interests. The money can’t be stopped and the laws as they are now just mask who is paying for what. The laws have not taken away the incumbents advantages, they made them stronger. As long as voters let 30 second T.V. ads influence their vote the spending won’t stop and there is no federal law that will stop it.The laws are naive wishful thinking.

Kevin Peters

Sep 28, 2005 - 4:23 pm 53. richard mcenroe:

Let us forget the Louisiana Democrats under indictment for stealing disaster funds.

Let us forget the entire Democratic leadership of East St. Louis, convicted of election fraud and still under indictment for running a prostitution ring out of party headquarters and conspiracy to murder witnesses.

Let us forget the last New Jersey senatorial race.

The stink comes from the Administration.

Yup.

Sep 28, 2005 - 4:43 pm 54. ajf:

Bostonian:

Ajf, you could do us a favor by 1) calming down and not pretending this is giant scandal, and 2) being more polite to our host in the future.

Where have I been anything other than calm in my comments?

Where have I been impolite to our host?

I’m sure that will correct the smear on the fine prince and soothe the savages of the right side of the blogosphere.

Requesting a factual correction and criticizing lazy blogging are hardly equivalent to any affection for the Al Waleed.

Somehow I doubt you would have the courage to call me a savage to my face.

Sep 28, 2005 - 5:38 pm 55. larry:

I have no idea if this is true….

This disclaimer at the start of the post is more than adequate for me, ajf. Keep your powder dry for something important, eh?

Sep 28, 2005 - 6:29 pm 56. Terrye:

Jill:

Maybe I am just old fashioned but I believe in that innocent until proven guilty thing, even for Republicans.

I left the Democratic Party because they can not be a minority party with a sense of public demcorum.

They just have to drag everybody down with them.

When I was a kid the Republicans were the minority and while I was not a fan of the party they did seem to value the country above winning.

Too bad Barry Goldwater is not around to give lessons to today’s Democrats on how to be a minority party without being spiteful, hypociritical and mean spirited.

I know they blew it with me.

So spare me the lectures.

Sep 28, 2005 - 6:30 pm 57. Sally-O:

Whatever the outcome, DeLay’s statement today makes it clear that he has no intention of going down without a very bitter no-holds barred fight.

I suspect that the DA has picked up a Texas rattlesnake here.

The fact the DA recently pitched his case at a Democratic fundraiser is an amazing breech of prosecutorial ethics.

The fact that he previously indicted Kay Baily Hutchinson and saw the case thrown out on the first day of trial because he actually REFUSED to present any evidence at the very least casts an enormous cloud of doubt over his motives now.

If Delay is guilty, he couldn’t have wished for a less credible adversary.

Sep 28, 2005 - 6:58 pm 58. flenser:

I doubt very much that this will ever go to trial. It was not intended to. All it needs to do is force DeLay to step down as Majority Leader. For the Democrats, political mission accomplshed.

A year from now the charges will be dropped, and this fact will get buried in page B12.

Sep 28, 2005 - 7:11 pm 59. Charlie (Colorado):

What a disingenuous comment. No one on the “other side of the aisle” has been indicted.

I was sort of astonished by this statement, until I realized he meant “today”.

Of course, if someone had been indicted on the Democrat side, their rules wouldn’t have required them to stand down, unlike the Republicans.

Sep 28, 2005 - 7:14 pm 60. Charlie (Colorado):

I am unabashedly liberal. You, on the other hand, attempt to play yourself off as bi-partisan. And yet, there are absolutely no posts on your blog where you have taken this President to task for anything. Not a one. The man is not King nor God; anyone but an “insufferable partisan hack” would have to take issue with at least one decision he has made.

Either you’re an idiot, you’re more interested in making talking points than in what you’re saying, or you’re suffering from Korsakoff’s Syndrome and should lay off the sauce.

(One hint: “intelligent design”.)

Sep 28, 2005 - 7:16 pm 61. Charlie (Colorado):

Before worrying about Congress, how about cleaning up your own house. Like correcting the demonstrably false post re Al Waleed and Fox.

Every moment that post stays up without correction your credibility drips away.

Um, AFJ, would that not be the one that starts with “I’ve no idea if this is true…”?

Which demonstrable falsehood would you be suggesting? That the article Roger linked didn’t say al Waleed had bought 5.46 pct of Fox? (But it did. It was sort of a mis-statement, but that’s what the article said.) It’s certainly true that Waleed changed his position in a way that resulted in haivng 5.46 percent of a certain class of stock hhe hadn’t had up to then.

Or do you mean that he did know whether it was true or not and didn’t suspect it was?

To put it more succinctly, AJF: you’re being a dick.

Sep 28, 2005 - 7:25 pm 62. klrfz1:

ajf

“Somehow I doubt you would have the courage to call me a savage to my face.”

Why don’t you post your home address and see?

Sep 28, 2005 - 7:27 pm 63. thibaud:

Returning to the topic at hand– Roger’s observation:

When I look at a list of today’s congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle – DeLay, Hastert, Pelosi, Reid, etc. – I want to stick a finger down my throat. Third party anyone?

Amen. Speaking of corruption, let’s not forget that the current bipartisan crop of losers has colluded to impose politburo-style elections in which more than 90% of the nation’s congressional districts are uncompetitive. The game’s easy enough to spot: we’ll enable your party’s extremists if you’ll enable ours. Anyone to the right of Pelosi and left of Delay can piss off. Fonda and Falwell, unite! You have nothing to lose… certainly not elections in a gerrymandered America.

Third party, Roger? Sign me up.

Sep 28, 2005 - 7:29 pm 64. Charlie (Colorado):

Thibaud, I’m guessing you think that gerrymandering is a recent invention? And that political power hasn’t changed hands since it was invented?

Sep 28, 2005 - 7:35 pm 65. Terrye:

Charlie:

Roger also did not agree with Bush on issues like same sex marriage and the whole Terri Schiavo business.

And while I will not speak for Roger I kind of get the impression he thinks Bush is going wobbly on Iran.

As for this bunch of people I am not too pleased either. I don’t think Frist is unethical or anything, but he is not exactly charismatic.

And Pelosi is painful to watch and Reid, well I am disiappointed in Reid. I did not expect such a hack.

It is the atmosphere in Washington right now. People think it started with Clinton, but I think it started with Jim Wright, the Democratic Speaker of the House who was forced to step down years ago.

I think a third party would make it even worse.

Might as well make it four parties or five, there will always be divisions.

Sep 28, 2005 - 7:51 pm 66. ajf:

Pajamas Media: No idea if this is true, but…

I have to admit, pretty catchy.

Sep 28, 2005 - 8:01 pm 67. Captain Hate:

“I am so puzzled. Yes, I’m a hard-core liberal who was a big fan of the Clinton administration”

The second sentence explains the first.

Sep 28, 2005 - 8:38 pm 68. thibaud:

Charlie,

Thibaud, I’m guessing you think that gerrymandering is a recent invention? And that political power hasn’t changed hands since it was invented?

I’m surprised that someone as scrupulously rational as you would stoop to guessing. Then again, it’s more likely that you’re certain that I know about Elbridge Gerry and when he lived, but are just affecting an arch stance to divert attention from the fact that the republic has never in its history had a period in which >90% of its congressional districts were noncompetitive.

I don’t understand why criticism of the two parties engenders such resistance here– after all, Roger stated clearly that both parties’ leaders in his opinion stink, and stink more or less equally– but I suppose it’s the same kind of reflexive partisanship that provokes Paul Mirengoff of Powerline to sneer at Glenn Reynolds’ and others’ Porkbusters initiative http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011798.php

Mirengoff: I confess to being amused by the internet pork-busters campaign. … some of the pork-busters seem to feel that they are trying to save the House and Senate Republicans from themselves. I suspect it’s more accurate to say that pork-busting presents the scenario most likely to lead to the Republicans losing control of Congress.

See, it’s really all about power, isn’t it? Never mind Republicans’ commitment to fiscal responsibility or shrinking the federal government.

As Sen. Jon Cornyn’s aide explained to me over the phone today when I called to complain about the Louisiana Looters and Bush’s desire to spend whatever it takes to show off his “compassion,” the Repubs got burned so badly in 1995-96 that many abandoned fiscal responsibility altogether. Now it’s clear that Bush/Rove’s long-term strategy for Republican dominance means eliminating Republican principles concerning small government and fiscal responsibility. That, along with the gerrymandering collusion with Pelosi and Co., is evidence of moral bankruptcy.

Sep 28, 2005 - 8:46 pm 69. Terrye:

thibaud, there are not as many people like you as you think.

That is not an insult.

Sep 28, 2005 - 9:03 pm 70. thibaud:

Terrye,

You’re mistaken. Polls show repeatedly that about 45% of the population is politically moderate– far higher than either conservative (34%) or liberal (21%). The gap is huge, and it’s not shrinking. No one can win the White House without capturing the center. This is why both parties are so desperate to trade congressional districts in their gerrymandering scheme: without gerrymandering, purple politics would rule in every suburban district in the country– ie, the vast majority of districts.

That moderates hold the key to presidential elections is made clear by the habitual beeline to the center made by each party’s nominee as soon as he no longer has to appeal to the extremists who dominate the parties’ nominating process.

It is obvious that no Republican primary candidate who’s pro-choice can win the nomination, but any nominee who’s serious about actually outlawing abortion, ie, who’s not merely posturing, will never win the election. Reagan wasn’t at all serious about opposing abortion, or gay rights or even affirmative action for that matter. And we now see with W that he doesn’t even stand for limited government or fiscal sanity.

As to the other side, the charade has to do with national security. No candidate can win the nomination who doesn’t sneer at Bush’s military interventions and spout lots of meaningless goo about the UN and those French and German “allies” who view us as the #1 threat to their interests in the world. And yet no such candidate can win the election. So we get more posturing and nonsense.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to move the two parties back toward the center? For ex., if the anti-abortion folks really speak for the majority, then let’s put it to a vote. Knock down Roe and throw it back to the states. I doubt that more than a handful (UT, OK, LA, maybe AL, MS, TN) would outlaw abortion, and it wouldn’t make any real difference.

Likewise, I would dearly like to see the opposition party speak some sense about national security, but it won’t happen so long as they, like the party in power, are dominated by extremists.

Perhaps it’s correct that the new party would have to replace one of the major parties. If so, then obviously that would have to be the current Democratic Party. I have no problem with that. But a new Progressive Party with a Giuliani or a McCain at its head would easily trounce a Republican Party with Allen or Romney or their ilk on the ticket. Even Fred Barnes recognizes that the Republicans’ dominance is coming to an end: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/133mmdsn.asp

Sep 28, 2005 - 9:22 pm 71. Dishman:

Markus wrote:

my understanding is that running a credit check is fairly common opposition research.

That’s really disgusting, and, IIUC, illegal. “Everybody else is doing it” is not a valid excuse.

Sep 28, 2005 - 10:08 pm 72. thibaud:

It’s not “running a credit check.” That’s what lenders and retailers who offer financing do.

It’s using social security numbers to gather data, which is a felony, acc to law professor Hugh Hewitt, who has some good advice for the young unfortunates: http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/09/18-week/index.php#a000277

Sep 28, 2005 - 10:32 pm 73. Kevin P:

Thibaud:

I was a yellow dog Democrat and today I am a registered Independent who has been voting Republican the last few election cycles. A third party won’t work until one of the parties has a crushing defeat, a 65-25 or 70-35 split. And at that point the third party will really become the new second party. The system is built for two parties and it doesn’t offer any power to a minority third party. The disgust with politics that many of us share is not new.You can go back 3o, 50, 70, and 100 years and read the same complaints The herculean effort to start a viable replacement party would require more work then taking over one of the excisting parties. Look at the way the reagan conservatives took over the Republican Party or the current fight between the Soros Democrats and the “moderate” Democratic wing.

I am not saying that everyone should give up and just accept the crap that comes out of Washington from both parties. But the ugly truth is that third parties don’t work. Study history. They have all failed, miserably. Even if you are able to field a incredible candidate and win the Presidency the odds that you would be able to field enough Senate and House candidates to support the new prez and the new president would be nothing more then a veto machine that gets nothing done. If you base your third party on fiscal responsibility then the Democrats would take over power. If you take the moderate Dems who want a more aggressive defense policy you help the Republicans consolidate power. The rules in D.C are set up as winner take all, they are not proportional. And the odds of the party that is hurt by the third party working with the third party to complete their own demise is slim and none. So the goals of the third party will not be accomplished and the enthusiasm peters out. There are lots of party’s out there today other then the Dem’s and the Republican’s.But they are single issue or narrowly based and accomplish nothing. And if Roger and you could start a revolution and create a takeover of one of the excisting parties or create a new party that would replace one of the excisting two I would have no problem voting for them. But I think both you and Roger are going to find it almost impossible. Study the Anderson and the Perot gambits and find out what an uphill battle you are facing. If Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t do it, and during his time there was massive corruption and low public opinion of D.C. Politics, I do not think it can be done.

Kevin Peters

Sep 28, 2005 - 11:00 pm 74. Kevin P:

65-35,70-30

Sep 28, 2005 - 11:02 pm 75. JenLArt:

Speaking of gerrymandering, part of this partisan witch hunt against Delay is Dhimmicrat payback because he spearheaded the redistricting of Texas Congressional districts.

The Democrats had gerrymandered our districts since Reconstruction and Delay was the overseer on putting an end to those halycon days for the Donkeys–you see, those pesky Census rolls revealed that what were once blue districts were now GOP red ones, so it had to be done and 2 trips out of state hiding on the part of Dem state legislators wasn’t going to change it.

Delay is going to come out of this a winner and the Dems will have yet more self-inflicted wounds for being STUCK ON STUPID.

Sep 28, 2005 - 11:21 pm 76. thibaud:

Jen – do you live in a competitive congressional district?

Kevin,

Fine points, but third parties do of course arise, major parties disappear (voted for a Whig lately?) and political realignments also occur. What’s missing from your analysis is the impact of major demographic shifts and political or economic crises, both of which shock the system and cause one of the dominant parties to fade away.

No crystal ball here but I think it’s safe to say that there are two such potential asteroids on the horizon now, one demographic, the other financial: the influence of hispanics, who are already 14% of the population nationally and will soon be 25%, and the potential collapse of the dollar and with it, a huge spike in interest and mortgage rates here.

I mention these two because neither party even bothers to pay any attention to them. Hispanics are the key swing vote group for 2008 and will only increase in importance. They are at the center of many domestic and international flashpoints, including, of course, immigration policy but also national security (not just border but also a potential blow-up in Mexico), economic competitiveness, education, etc. Their numbers are growing rapidly in the most influential states, Texas and California, as well as in the key swing states for 2008, where they may well hold the key to the election: Colorado (9 EC votes and increasing), Arizona (10 votes IIRC), NV and NM (5 each).

As to the dollar’s collapse, it’s pretty obvious that at some point asian central bankers will diversify their holdings and dump a large amount of Treasuries. It’s not obvious that they and we can manage this sell-off without spooking the markets and causing a steep decline in Treasury prices ie a huge spike in rates. Just because Rubin et al managed the Asian COntagion does not mean our smart minds in Wash DC can manage the next global shock, which will almost certainly have to do with the revaluation of the dollar (soaring oil prices are merely the other side of the coin–expect both to happen).

The two gerrymandering parties are more interested in federal pork, abortion, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, abortion, creationism, and abortion than these two key issues. Again, I believe that a purple party could gain traction in the fast-growing southwestern states, as well as Texas, Florida, NY and even California, by making a conscious effort to get out in front of both these potentially realigning issues before hispanics become a plurality of voters in those states and 25% overall and before economic catastrophe hits.

Sep 29, 2005 - 12:18 am 77. JenLArt:

thibaud, actually I do, and it’s nice to have it redistricted to reflect the real population again.

Texas stopped being a blue state back when Bill Clements became Governor–thank God.

And it’s no picnic seeing your state’s Dem legislators run off to the surrounding states on our dime so that they can avoid an honest vote on the redistricting.

Ah, but they finally had to face the music and they lost, as they knew they would.

Re: Hispanics–the GOP has a lot more to offer Hispanics than the DNC and we’re getting more of their vote all the time.

Hispanics tend to prefer Conservative values: God, family, tradition, military service, hard work, etc.

(They don’t want gay marriage, were for Terry Schiavo being allowed to live, are mainly Catholic, etc.–all the stuff you say the political parties shouldn’t be fooling with.)

Latino Americans who have assimilated into American society think of themselves differently than as “Mexicans” loyal to Mexico.

And which administration has appointed Mel Martinez, Alfredo Gonzales and other Latino-Americans to top positions? All the Clinton Admin has to speak for it was Henry Cisneros (later indicted and convicted).

As for the dollar’s collapse, I’d look for the Euro to collapse long before our dollar.

Our economy’s doing pretty well, even with Katrina and Rita.

And the entire EU is having lots of problems, especially the “most prosperous” countries France and Germany.

Check out Drudge: GE, one of our largest companies, is going to invest $100 million in one of China’s banks. Would they do so with a currency about to collapse? Hardly.

Sep 29, 2005 - 2:49 am 78. Cap'n Billy:

TedM,

In your September 28, 2005 01:51 PM post you expressed a desire to get rid of two columnists. I would prefer to keep them both and let the reader decide who is the most credible. You later explain that Coulter never has had a discouraging word to say about Bush, but I guess that was before this column was published.

I recall when my local newspaper printed the Maureen Dowd column that made her name an adverb I wrote a letter to the editor pointing this out for the readers to see although I didn’t advocate removing her column, as many others did. When the letter was published, though, her duplicity was plain to see by all who read my letter, and I don’t remember seeing her column in that paper since.

Sep 29, 2005 - 7:41 am 79. RogerA:

Gee–did the folks here not have their morning coffee (or drug d’jour)? We seem a bit testy and are parsing words more finely than usual–In the words of Rodney King: cant we all just get along?

Syl: what is that polygon thingee?

Sep 29, 2005 - 7:52 am 80. Charlie (Colorado):

I’m surprised that someone as scrupulously rational as you would stoop to guessing. Then again, it’s more likely that you’re certain that I know about Elbridge Gerry and when he lived, but are just affecting an arch stance to divert attention from the fact that the republic has never in its history had a period in which >90% of its congressional districts were noncompetitive.

Thibaud, you’re absolutely right: that was a rhetorical device, which I adopted to avoid saying “Thibaud, I ain’t buying it, not when we had a century of elections dominated by the machines of Tammany, Daley, and the guy in Kansas City I can never remember the name of, not to mention the utter domination of the South by the Democrats for a hundred years. I think this is ahistorical claptrap.”

Sorry if by trying to be diplomatic and avoid simply calling you a fool, I somehow offended you.

Sep 29, 2005 - 7:54 am 81. thibaud:

Jen – I don’t know how long you’ve been frequenting Roger’s Place, but you should be aware that what most of us like about the site are its eminent civility and preference for the kind of reasoned and polite argument that’s noticeably absent from your screeds about “Dhimmicrats”.

Let’s review: Roger stated that he finds both parties’ leaders disgusting, to which I responded by pointing out the obvious, incontestable fact that both parties– both, two, each party, D and R, get it?– have been guilty of notorious gerrymandering. To which your response is a mix of cartoonish name-calling and a ridiculously one-sided rant justifying one party’s gerrymandering disgrace by referring to the other party’s gerrymandering disgrace.

Are you a troll? If not, could you at least make an honest effort to analyze the situation dispassionately and intelligently? Your type of thinking, if it can be called that, is the heart of the problem.

Sep 29, 2005 - 7:57 am 82. Charlie (Colorado):

JenL: You forgot Federico Peña, who so distinguished himself by developing a multibillion dollar airport that overran its budget by 100 percent, its schedule by 50 percent, and having a $100 million luggage handling system that was so flawed it was finally taken out of service, was rewarded by being made Secretary of Transportation.

No biggy, but one hates to miss a chance to revile Peña.

Sep 29, 2005 - 8:05 am 83. TedM:

cap’n billy,

I have read some of your posts in the past and am generally in agreement with you.

My point about Coulter and Ivins is somewhat expressed by Thibaud in the post above,

“Jen – I don’t know how long you’ve been frequenting Roger’s Place, but you should be aware that what most of us like about the site are its eminent civility and preference for the kind of reasoned and polite argument that’s noticeably absent from your screeds about “Dhimmicrats”. ”

The key words are “eminent civility” and “reasoned and polite argument”. I take issue with Ivins and Coulter and Dowd and others because they are anything but that.

Our entire society is subject to incivility and impolite incendiary argument. It grew in recent years with the “crossfire” mentality of the media. On almost any “news” show we watch there is the paid liar on one side attacking the paid liar on the other side. And you know the yelling and cross talking we see is not conducive to reasonable debate. We all know the familiar faces on these shows.

I am not taking political sides here. It is the whole atmosphere that has made our national life one

world of Crossfire and Chris Matthews. Congress is infected and everyone deplores it. Roger’s point about the congressional leadership is just identifying one of the symptons.

Most of the regulars here, you too, appreciate the tone of the comments. And we all know of the other sites where the loonies of the left and right make the most infantile, inflamatory statements. It seems to me that the Coulters and Ivins and Dowds just feed them. They need each other. I don’t thinkl that we, the American public do.

I am sorry this is what looks like the end of this thread. It is a subject which needs a lot of discussion.

Sep 29, 2005 - 8:37 am 84. JenLArt:

thibaud, no. I’m not a troll.

And living in Texas, I don’t regard the redistricting of the state to reflect its shift to the GOP as “notorious gerrymandering” at all, but that it was legally, soberly and carefully done to reflect the politics of the state, based on the 2000 Census.

As for the Dem gerrymandering which they did in Texas from the 1860’s until the 1980’s, well, if the shoe fits, wear it.

I apologize for calling the Party of the Left “Dhimmicrats,” although they’ve more often than not taken the same side as our jihadi terrorist enemies.

(Would this make them–and us– Dhimmis should the Islamists succeed in overtaking this country and running it by sharia? Indeed it would.)

To cite a couple of examples, this past weekend’s anti-war protests were in effect pro-Islamist war rallies.

The only one they’re against waging war is the United States.

Likewise, George Galloway openly takes the side of the Islamists and he was embraced by the Left (including many Dems) here, too.

Yes, Roger’s site is wonderful for its civil, informed and witty discourse, but I have no problem openly advocating my own Conservative, pro-GOP views and why should I?

I wasn’t aware that only *certain* political viewpoints were allowed here–when did Roger’s site turn into DailyKos or DU Underground?

Sep 29, 2005 - 8:38 am 85. Cap'n Billy:

Same here, TedM at September 29, 2005 08:37 AM. I hope my post was not interpreted as the incivility you describe, although I confess I have exhibited such traits on the occasions when I have been unable to suffer fools gladly. I would gladly sacrifice Coulter if I could get rid of Ivins, Dowd and a myriad of others in the bargain, but I fear we are going to have put up with all of them for the rest of our somewhat limited life spans (I think I recall that you are about as ancient as I am).

All best,

Sep 29, 2005 - 8:54 am 86. Kevin P:

Thibaud:

I agree that if there is a depression the chance of one of the major parties collapsing is very good. Or if we have a series of 9-11 attacks. And these scenario’s are not out of the realm of possibilities with both parties spending money like a meth head uses his drug of choice. But until a catastrophe happens I don’t see a third party coming.

In regrds to the tone of debate I agree it is awful. But this is not new. Go back to the Hamilton-Jefferson squables at the start of our history. Both of these men were giants and I don’t see anyone in today’s political world who can fill their shoes. But Jefferson ran a P.R. campaign calling Hamilton a royalist and Monica Lewinski has a historical precedence in the exposing of Hamilton’s mistress. Jefferson’s cronies even tried to tar Washington with the royalist tag. And Hamilton gave as good as he got. There was also brilliant writing and idea’s to go along with the smear tactics but I think we do ourselves a disservice in painting a picture of politics of the past being free of the disgusting crap that makes us all sick. I would take Hamilton, Jefferson, and Washington over anyone we have today but if Jefferson had the modern media to use against Hamilton I do not think it would look very disimilar to what we see today. They were brilliant but they were pols along with being brilliant and they were not shy about getting down and dirty.

Kevin Peters

Sep 29, 2005 - 9:01 am 87. thibaud:

Jen,

A note on manners: if you must be one-sided, then I’d suggest you forgo invective and overt partisan cheerleading and replace with them with shallow and repetitive sarcasm of the sort displayed above by Charlie C.

It’s not worth responding to, but at least it doesn’t foul the air.

best,

t

Sep 29, 2005 - 9:08 am 88. RogerA:

I probably should put this comment on the asking for advice thread below; and apologize because it is OT.

I have been on this particular site for over two years, and one of the things that has impressed me is the relative ability of the “regulars” of this site to develop what appears to be an operational code of conduct. Our esteemed host is therefore not involved in the “policing” business that characterize some other sites. We apparently tend to police our own behavior with generally good results and the results are a fairly high level of discourse.

Just my .02

Sep 29, 2005 - 9:13 am 89. thibaud:

Kevin – the essence of the national problem is not IMO “the tone of the debate”; when I argued for civility I was speaking only about Roger’s Place. I have no problem with rough politics directed at any candidate or officeholder.

The problem, which is massive and unprecedented in our history, is that on a national scale (unlike the Dixiecratic solid South, or Tammany or wherever) we now have nearly an entire legislative branch that is the product of noncompetitive elections.

This is the direct result of gerrymandering by both parties. It will not do to tell that majority of voters who have no respect for the extremists who dominate the two parties that it’s no biggie, because both parties do it and anyway the wheel turns every 10 (or 20, or 30) years or so.

It is frankly absurd, and intolerable in a democracy, that we are now stuck with a bipartisan political class that insists on the right to select the voters instead of voters selecting the legislators.

Sep 29, 2005 - 9:16 am 90. TedM:

Well put Thibaud. I like the way in which you phrased that. “It is frankly absurd, and intolerable in a democracy, that we are now stuck with a bipartisan political class that insists on the right to select the voters instead of voters selecting the legislators. ”

I come from the NY NJ area in which the governors and representatives have been switched from party to party over the years. . Safe seats sometimes become unsafe. When I retired to NE Florida I entered a world where I live in a district in which the Republican runs unopposed. Of course, on the other side of town, the Democrat ( a despicable one) also runs unopposed. When I get disgusted as you are, I fall back on the genius of our founders. They made sure that we had Two Senators from each state and an electoral college based on the combined Senate and House numbers. The little mentioned Reserve Clause in the Constitution was another one of their safeguards, along with the Federal Courts. I know that you are intelligent and I am not telling you anything which you don”t already know. I mention it, because it is my life preserver.

I will now say something which is controvertial and I usually only say it to close friends. Democracy becomes mob rule and is dangerous. Our system prevents pure democracy from taking control. And the difference between the two parties boils down to a long time fight to either move towards further democracy or to hold the line at the representative republican form of government we have. Gerrymandering, proportional representation and elimination of the Electoral College are all moves to get to “one man, one vote”. The founders understood how that was undesirable and crafted a nation built on a document which would prevent that. Gerrymandering has existed for a long time, but has become as obscene as the shape of district maps. At least in the old days, they tried to make the districts look halfway representative. And now they have no shame in drawing districts which look like strands of spaghetti.

Sep 29, 2005 - 9:43 am 91. Bostonian:

ajf, by “savages on the right side of the blogosphere,” I was referring to us regulars here at Roger’s, whom you apparently feared Roger was unfairly whipping up into a frenzy.

And no, you were not polite to Roger.

Sep 29, 2005 - 9:56 am 92. Steven Mitchell:

“It is frankly absurd, and intolerable in a democracy, that we are now stuck with a bipartisan political class that insists on the right to select the voters instead of voters selecting the legislators.”

Agreed. Now having endured over 40 years of such nonsense dominated by Democrats (and over a 100 years in the south), I am unwilling to sign off on some supposedly neutral method (retired judge panel picking, for example) of resolving it that is really a way for the Democrats to move the goal posts again. Especially since I don’t trust them not to go back to gerrymandering the moment they gain power. Which is to say that I’ll have to be convinced very carefully on any proposed solution.

Plus, you know you are opening a huge can of worms on the racial front. There is *no* fair and clean solution that will not lead (in the short term) to less minority representation.

100 times bitten, at least twice shy.

Sep 29, 2005 - 10:03 am 93. Buddy Larsen:

(Lazy me, re-using this letter, but it has a fact which belongs here, too.)

It’s very hard to overlook how Mr. DeLay’s allowed his ethical outline to blur to the point that even the scrupulously fair and dirty-politics-hating WSJ editors have gone neutral on this case.

However, it would be good for folks to recall that the notorious “Memogate” (or “RatherGate”) scandal evolved via this same Travis County Democratic Party’s revival of an old dead-ended CBS investigation of impropriety in the president’s military service.

“Procuring” the evidence (the famed files), the reader will recall, is what revived that story, which, by its conspiracy to defraud the American public in order to bring down a sitting–wartime–president, should’ve ended the Kerry campaign as well as Dan Rather’s career, and did in fact greatly lower global opinion of the integrity of our nation.

It’s fairly common knowledge around here (Austin) that the impetus for the affair was provided by a small well-known band of DC/Austin players who were infuriated over the Swiftboat vets entry into the campaign, and determined to “get even” (using up-to-date office equipment, too, har har har!).

Anyhow, my point is, Mr. DeLay’s torment flows from a group whose most recent national foray includes loading up a big, big cannon, aiming it very, very high, lighting the fuse, and blowing themselves completely out of the water.

And then, like Wile E. Coyote, crashing to earth, brushing their inexplicably uninjured selves off and going right back to work, trying to stop that accursed Road Runner.

Sep 29, 2005 - 10:07 am 94. flenser:

Buddy Larsen!!

Where the hell have you been? Your mother and I were worried sick about you!

Glad to see you are still with us. Drop me a line sometime.

Sep 29, 2005 - 10:10 am 95. flenser:

Thibaud

You are making some allegations here without much to back them up. Texas used to be gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats. While that has been undone, there is no sign that it has been

Sep 29, 2005 - 10:15 am 96. Bostonian:

How does Ohio handle districting? They seem to end up with hotly contested races, which I consider a good thing.

Sep 29, 2005 - 10:18 am 97. Buddy Larsen:

So THAT’s where she’s been, running around Manhattan with Flenser, hittin’ the Speakeasies, doin’ the Charleston! Naw, I had to quit writing so much, when the sheriff dropped by and held me off at gunpoint while the county mental-health carted off my computer and gave me a sponge-bath. Do-gooders. Blah.

Sep 29, 2005 - 10:23 am 98. thibaud:

Steven,

you know you are opening a huge can of worms on the racial front. There is *no* fair and clean solution that will not lead (in the short term) to less minority representation

As I’ve said again and again, the two parties collude in a corrupt bargain, one side of which you allude to: pack conservative whites into gerrymandered safe Republican districts, and pack african-americans into gerrymandered safe Democratic districts.

The result is uncontested clowns like Delay dominating the former and Maxine Waters dominating the latter, with sccordingly more power given to extreme platforms. No pro-choice candidate can win the Republican presidential nomination. No pro-war candidate can win the Democratic nomination. If you’re an anti-abortion zealot, or a Cindy Sheehan or Cynthia McKinney groupie, then this state of affairs suits you just fine. But for most Americans, it’s a tragedy.

Sep 29, 2005 - 10:33 am 99. Buddy Larsen:

Flenser’s right. DeLay’s notorious effort was nothing more than a repair of some of the district distortion accumulated under a century-long one-party rule. Not even the most partisan Texan will argue that in any way but the vaudeville.

Sep 29, 2005 - 10:35 am 100. Buddy Larsen:

Well, gerrymandering is for dead-certain a way of pleasing everybody. The districts are always drawn toward homogeneity, and most voters would have it no other way. The proof of that is in the volume-level of complaint whenever the lines aren’t settled by acclamation. The alternative is a grid-overlay of the political map. One can easily imagine some mighty hairy primaries.

Sep 29, 2005 - 10:40 am 101. flenser:

“The result is uncontested clowns like Delay .”

Is this an example of your civil and mature discourse?

FYI, Delay does not have a uncontested or “safe” seat. This phony indictment is an attempt to tip enough people away from him to get him defeated next time.

Sep 29, 2005 - 10:48 am 102. Buddy Larsen:

The problem with those ’safe seats’ is, the voters like ‘em that way. To say the voters are ‘wrong’ about wanting to have a petit-dynastic congressperson is to challenge something rather fundamental to the system.

Sep 29, 2005 - 10:54 am 103. Patrick Tyson:

Redistricting in Iowa:

http://www.centrists.org/pages/2004/07/7_buck_trust.html

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:01 am 104. Buddy Larsen:

Look at ‘term-limits’. The idea of curing corruption fizzed out of the electorate like balloon-air when faced with the certainty of regularly trading the tried n’ true for a whole new getting-to-know-you. A cure worse than the affliction, many folks concluded.

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:03 am 105. thibaud:

flenser,

Thibaud, you are making some allegations here without much to back them up

Here you go (slow day here, perhaps you’ll return the favor for me some slow day of your own): http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe

Taken from the attached .pdf file on the Texas Secretary of State Elections Commission website, below please find the winning Congressional candidate’s % of the vote for each Texas district in 2004:

Texas – races for US Representative…:

#1: winner (Gohmert) had 61% of vote

#2: winner had 56% of vote (runner-up had 42%)

#3: 86% of vote

#4: 68% of vote

#5: 64% of vote

#6: 66% of vote

#7: 64% of vote

#8: 69% of vote

#9: 72% of vote (Al Green, Dem., won this seat. Perhaps it’s his groovy voice?)

#10: 79% of vote

#11: 77% of vote

#12: 72% of vote

#13: 92% of vote

#14: 100% of vote

#15: 58% of vote

#16: 68% of vote

#17: 52% of vote this was the only competitive House race in Texas in 2004

#18: 89% of vote

#19: 51% of vote

#20: 65% of vote

#21: 61% of vote

#22: 55% of vote

#23: 69% of vote

#24: 63% of vote

#25: 68% of vote

#26: 66% of vote

#27: 63% of vote

#28: 59% of vote

#29: 94% of vote

#30: 93% of vote

#31: 65% of vote

#32: 54% of vote

TOTALS (32 House races):

–winner received >70% of the vote, ie no contest: 10 (31% of total)

– winner received from 54% to 70% of vote, ie a landslide: 20 (63% of total)

– winner received >50% but less than 54% of the vote, ie competitive race: 2 (6% of the total).

94% of races were not competitive. Nearly one-third of all House races in Texas were complete blowouts, including 6 (out of 32) races in which the winner received >85% of the vote.

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:13 am 106. thibaud:

Perhaps when you have your own slow day, flenser, you’ll tally up winning vote %s in the 1979 Vse-Soyuzniye Gosudarstvenniy Komitet elections across the USSR so we can compare the results with the 2004 House races in Texas.

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:17 am 107. Charlie (Colorado):

A note on manners: if you must be one-sided, then I’d suggest you forgo invective and overt partisan cheerleading and replace with them with shallow and repetitive sarcasm of the sort displayed above by Charlie C.

Which is to say “I don’t actually know the history, can’t remember what Tammany Hall was, really do think gerrymandering is something that’s only become a problem in the last couple of years, and can’t actually be bothered to look anything up in order to try to support my prejudices so I’ll just claim I’m above the debate.”

A hint, Thibaud: everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to have their opinions taken seriously; that has to be earned.

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:24 am 108. TedM:

Time out guys.

Truce. truce. truce.

Remember, we are the good guys.

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:30 am 109. Buddy Larsen:

Accusing Texas of having political machinery is enough to make my neighbor LBJ roll over in his grave! But seriously, re the USSR comparison, even our 85% races are open, insofar as since the sixties, outright lynching of opposing candidates has become a bit outre.

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:40 am 110. flenser:

thibaud

That shows a great deal of work and initative on your part. But it sidesteps the issue. You are conflating gerrymandering and high rates of incumbent reelection.

Gerrymandering is drawing political boundaries so as to benefit one party over another. There is no evidence that this is happening in Texas. The number of Republican House seats appears to be exactly what it “should” be, given that two thirds of the voters seem to be Republicans.

Complaining about high rates of incumbency is an old pastime. People have been doing it for at least the past twenty years. It has nothing to do with gerrymadering however. Your statistics do nothing to show that the incumbency reelection rates would be any different if the House seats used a different map.

One possible solution to this is term limits. The GOP used to embrace the idea, but it is politically stupid for them to do so unless the Democrats do so as well. Which ain’t going to happen.

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:42 am 111. thibaud:

Charlie, I like your posts generally, but on this thread you really should read, and perhaps read yet again, what I took pains to point out to you and you alone. Re-post (last time) for you– note bold– I wrote:

“The problem, which is massive and unprecedented in our history, is … on a national scale (unlike the Dixiecratic solid South, or Tammany….”

Again, the breadth of today’s gerrymandering is unprecedented. It now affects hundreds of legislative congressional districts at the federal, not local or state, level of government.

And it applies equally to both parties across all regions. I highly doubt that we’ve ever seen bipartisan collusion on anything like the scale of today’s corrupt bipartisan deal under which they trade gerrymandered solidly conservative white, hence safely far-right Republican, districts for solidly african-american, hence safely left-wing Democratic, districts. (I invite you to do some research on the demographics and the ideological backgrounds of the House victors in those “no contest” Texan districts whose victory margins I posted above.)

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:44 am 112. thibaud:

flenser,

You are conflating gerrymandering and high rates of incumbent reelection.

With all due respect, you really don’t grasp what’s going on.

First, several of these districts (such as redistricted and heavily gerrymandered District 32) pit two incumbents against each other. Frost and Sessions were both incumbents; Frost was a respected, very powerful long-term Hill Democrat (who btw supported Bush and the Iraq War). He never had a chance in the re-districted, Republican-gerrymandered 32nd. Frost was himself a master of gerrymandering, so no tears here, but I would very much like to have a real contest.

Second, you’ve got cause and effect reversed. You’re ignoring the fact that the exceptionally high rate of today’s level of incumbency is in large measure due to the grand gerrymandering bargain of white solidly-Repub suburbs in exchange for black solidly-Dem inner city gerrymandered districts.

How large a measure? I’ll leave that to you to research. Your turn to crunch some numbers.

t

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:51 am 113. Charlie (Colorado):

The problem, which is massive and unprecedented in our history, is that on a national scale (unlike the Dixiecratic solid South, or Tammany or wherever) we now have nearly an entire legislative branch that is the product of noncompetitive elections.

Thibaud, you keep saying that. Do you have evidence? I don’t doubt that there’s a lot of gerrymandering, but you’re making the specific claim that gerrymandering and other factors have combined so that fewer Congressional seats are competetive than ever before, and I’m not buying that, not given some historical facts, like the preponderance of machines (Prendergast, wasn’t that KC?), the way that the House tends to change hands only two or three times a century, and the number of places I’ve lived in 40 years where there wasn’t even a nominee from the Other Party in an election.

Oh, and as far as your list goes, showing that races in 2004 in one state weren’t competetive isn’t enough to demonstrate your historical point. As Jan pointed out, the Texas races came directly after a redistricting that eliminated a massive gerrymander from the other side (this is Lyndon Johnson’s home state, after all); thus, in fact, your list of the 2004 elections is evidence against the notion that gerrymandering is leading to unbreakable safe seats for everyone. (Ask Martin Frost about his “safe seat”.)

Sep 29, 2005 - 11:54 am 114. ed:

Hmmmm.

I think people are rather irritable today because this indictment really does look like a political hit job, which is really going to escalate things to a whole new level. If county prosecutors can affect national politics by leveling grand jury indictments, it’s now going to be open season on national political figures.

Frankly I’d be very surprised if there was anything to these indictments as the money was never comingled. Even the indictment only mentioned the transferring of money, which leads me to believe that both Delay’s descriptions and the indictment are accurately describing the same scenario.

Texas corporation donations are sent to the national party and placed in a restricted bank account. Private donation “hard” money is taken from a completely different account and transferred to individual candidates without ever going through Delay or the other two defendants.

The charge is conspiracy, but in order for there to be a conspiracy there actually has to be something illegal involved, and I frankly don’t see how this transferring of money could possibly be illegal.

All things considered it’s very likely that all political parties engage in this practice so the very next step should be for a Republican prosecutor to indict Pelosi and Reid for the exact same “crime”. Which would be amusing only for the vast amount of outrage it would generate in the MSM.

But this escalation is definitely a bad idea on the part of the Democrats. It’s going to make a very partisan political environment not just partisan, but criminal. Frankly if Ronnie Earle ends up not having a case, he should be brought before the bar of justice and either disbarred for life or imprisoned. These sorts of tactics, arresting political opponents for show trials, is a regular happening in third world nations, not America. But if it’s to become a fixture in America, then let’s do with it gusto and put all of Congress in jail.

Might reduce the deficit if nothing else.

Sep 29, 2005 - 12:01 pm 115. flenser:

thibaud

If your theory is correct, then we should see an increasingly left-wing Democratic party and an increasingly right-wing Republican party.

While the Democrats seem to have gone insane, the GOP has not moved to the right. Sadly, in my own view, but there you go. Todays Republican party is further to the left than at any point since before Reagan.

Your theory just does not hold up.

Sep 29, 2005 - 12:01 pm 116. Charlie (Colorado):

Again, the breadth of today’s gerrymandering is unprecedented. It now affects hundreds of legislative congressional districts at the federal, not local or state, level of government.

Prove it. Repeated assertion is not proof. Showing that there were a lot of one-sided elections is not proof.

To prove it, you have to show that all the terms of a conjunct hold:

(1) that there are noticeably fewer seats that are effectively uncontested or uncontestable than ever before;

(2) that these uncontested seats are uncontested because the districts were redrawn to be “safe”;

(3) that the degree to which this redrawing is specific to creating safe seats is greater than it has ever been before.

The most you’ve offered so far is that Texas had lots of one-sided elections in 2004.

I’ll grant that this is a necessary condition to prove your assertion for the state of Texas, but it fails to be sufficient: you neither show the districts were redrawn specifically and unreasonably to be safe (in fact, if I recall correctly a court challenge found the opposite), nor do you show that it’s historically unusual for elections in Texas to be this one-sided (and you’re unlikely to be able to.)

On the other hand, as was pointed out above, the redrawing has led to districts in which the proportion of votes for Republicans in each district are reasonably similar to the overall proportion of Republican votes in the state as a whole.

This isn’t an issue of which side is winning: it’s an issue of whether your logic and historical assertions can stand up to critical examination.

So far they don’t.

Sep 29, 2005 - 12:13 pm 117. flenser:

Thibaud

I actually understand what

Sep 29, 2005 - 12:29 pm 118. Steven Mitchell:

I’m not proving anything either, but I will state that my reading of a lot of political history does suggest that gerrymandering has led to some change in the number of “safe” seats. Whether it is slight or substantial, I can’t say.

The biggest issue with any analysis is the small amount of data (yes, even after 200+ years). After all, you can’t just ignore the effects of, for example, slavery, disintergration of the Whigs, Civil War and reconstructions, party realignments, corruption issues, and even voting right changes.

The tendency of *any* seat, gerrymandered or not, is to be “safe”. Among other reasons, most anyone capable of being elected once is capable of pulling it off again. This is not like NFL parity, where the salary cap forces team shifting every season.

Sep 29, 2005 - 12:38 pm 119. PeterUK:

Whilst i know nothing of the byzantine world of American party financing,I do know that a constant narrative has been running through left wing comments for sveral months now.This is “When is DeLay going back to Texas to serve his sentance?”

This may be coincidental but seems extremely fotuitous.

BTW Ronnie Earle? Sounds like a character out of Pulp Fiction!

Sep 29, 2005 - 12:46 pm 120. Terrye:

thibaud:

At the end of the American Civil War there were nine Republicans in Texas.

Now that is gerrymandering.

I consider myself a moderate too but I don’t think Terri Schiavo should have been starved to death. Waht is more given a choice between funding medicaid for poor children and embryonic stem cell research I go with the kids.

I could care less about same sex marriage but if a referencum votes it down, that shoud be the law, that is a consensus it is not right wing.

While I think women should have the option of abortion in some circumstances I damn well better be told if my 14 year old is going to get an abortion. That is not a privacy issue, it is a family health issue.

So even moderates do not always agree.

The Republicans did in Texas what someone needs to do in Louisiana, they made it possible for Republicans to win and they did.

I think a third party would be the same as the parties already there. It is not the two party system that is creating the situation, it is us.

People could always vote for the other guy.

I do think the money makes it difficult for new people to get involved in the system but I fail to understand how introducing another party would do anything other than complicate things.

I tend to agree with Charlie here, and he is no partisan.

Sep 29, 2005 - 12:47 pm 121. Charlie (Colorado):

Dr Sanity’s comments on the Democrat’s sense of entitlement seem like they might apply.

Sep 29, 2005 - 12:48 pm 122. Bostonian:

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Democrats are generally safe from being turned out by Republicans. That’s got nothing to do with districting.

Republicans barely bother to run here. (Once in a while, we get some quixotic Independent.)

It seems unhealthy.

Sep 29, 2005 - 12:51 pm 123. Terrye:

Peter:

The Democrats have decided that if they can not win on merit they will just knock off the opposition and win by default.

I am no big fan of Delay, but I think this is pure politics.

And it just might come back and bite the party of the people in the arse.

Sep 29, 2005 - 12:51 pm 124. TedM:

From Instapundit:

Here’s your man Thib.

Could Giuliani be the Perot of this decade? If he wanted to be, I think he could. (Heck, if the two parties continue their spiral of mutual destruction, he might even get elected as an independent.)

posted at 04:12 PM by Glenn Reynolds

Sep 29, 2005 - 2:03 pm 125. Buddy Larsen:

Terrye, your 12:47 has about 5 stand-alone quoteables that Will Rodgers coulda said. Is it the water? All that alkalinity in the soda rivers of y’all’s Oklahomy? (oops, sorry, “sody” rivers)

Sep 29, 2005 - 2:03 pm 126. Buddy Larsen:

As if Giuliani didn’t already look good before Katrina!

Sep 29, 2005 - 2:05 pm 127. flenser:

There is no gerrymandering in the US Senate seats. And yet the incumbents virtually always win there also. And the atmosphere in the Senate is more poisoned than in the House.

Sep 29, 2005 - 4:00 pm 128. PeterUK:

The last paragraph would seem a good idea http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011822.php Subpeona Ronnie Earles phone records.

Sep 29, 2005 - 5:18 pm 129. Kevin P:

Roger:

Rudy has an excellent chance to win in ‘08. If Bush gets his second SCOTUS pick abortion will be thrown back to the states and won’t be a Presidential issue. I think only two or three states would try to ban it outright and that vote will be a state issue. There is true love for Rudy even among the more conservative wing and the fear of Hillary would help them accept Rudy’s more liberal social idea’s. Just look at the response to Rudy at the last convention, which is more conservative then the party as a whole.

Plus, as much as Rudy may want to be Prez, he knows the lay of the land and he knows that third party attempts fail and whoever leads them is finished in Party politics. Look at Buchanon and Anderson. Of course his health is an issue but the idea that it would be impossible for Rudy to take the Republican nomination is not a given.

Finally, for a real third party to spring up the rules of the Congress would have to be changed to allow multiple parties to actually do anything in congress. And if a proportional multi-party sytem is implemented then it won’t just be one more party, it would be 3 to 6 parties. Look at how small parties, representing 2 to 3 per cent of the population, can be powerbrokers in a multi-party system. And these tend to be rabid, single issue parties on the extreme edges of the political sphere. So the hope of a centrist third party is foiled.

Sep 29, 2005 - 5:37 pm 130. richard mcenroe:

Step 1: Delay’s indictment quashed faster than Hutchinson’s

Step 2: Delay comes back to Majority Speaker job. Pissed off.

Is this a brilliant Democratic strategy or what?

Sep 29, 2005 - 5:43 pm 131. Steven Mitchell:

Richard, the strategy is about standard. I was thinking today about that old cliche, “even a stopped clock is right twice a day.” To bat zero, like the Dems are doing lately, you have to be not only clueless, but moving.

Sep 29, 2005 - 6:25 pm 132. thibaud:

TedM,

I check in to Patrick Ruffini’s site from time to time (his electoral maps are superb) and noticed the Republican online poll showing Giuliani in the lead. It means next to zip, IMHO. Online polls tend to exaggerate the influence of certain groups that are addicted to the blogosphere, notably the Kossacks on the far left and the libertarians on the right.

A Republican online poll is likely to overstate the influence of libertarian-moderate types like Glenn Reynolds, Eugene Volokh, Dan Drezner, Charles Johnson et al. As the only pro-choice candidate who does not oppose gay marriage or support creationism/ID in science classes, Giuliani is their guy, but it’s precisely these stands that will make it well-nigh impossible for Rudy to win any primaries anywhere outside the northeast. Maybe he could win Florida or Illinois, but it’s extremely unlikely that he would survive the bruising that the Dobsons and Robertsons and Reeds and their ilk would administer.

Not to mention the negative campaigning, to put it mildly, of his Christian right opponents, who will surely pull an Atwater or two concerning Rudy’s interesting choice of roommates after his marriage broke up, also his ex-wife’s desire to express herself (find herself?) by appearing in a Broadway production of “The Vagina Monologues”….

The main question is whether Rudy’s willing to don sackcloth and crawl to Canossa to beg foregiveness from the party divines who make or break Republican presidential contenders. I suppose a cheap and cynical way to do so would be to urge equal time for creationism in the public schools–that is, for the southern baptist not the Ratzinger version, mind you. In a way I suppose that’s actually a good test of how badly Rudy wants the presidency: how much are you willing to abase yourself?

Sep 29, 2005 - 7:26 pm 133. thibaud:

I would sooner bet on Texas’s two parties forswearing gerrymandering than bet that Giuliani would win the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. The party’s fundies are uncompromising; Giuliani sucks up to no one, not Al-Waleed, not Dobson.

Sep 29, 2005 - 7:30 pm 134. TedM:

Agree with you 100% thibaud. Guiliani’s personality will not allow him to kowtow.

And the religious right, you mention, will block him. That is why I stopped considering myself a republican in the late 1980’s. I was interested in being associated with a political idea, not a religion. On the other hand, I cannot consider myself a democrat since on many levels they do not represent my thinking. I used to be what was called a Rockefeller Republican. There is no room for us in the party now and the Dems are totally lost to the transnational, multicultural unrealistic left. So i have become an orphan, along with a lot of other old codgers. Roger appears to be an orphan too, except he lost his home with the Dems. I think there are lots of us lost sheep. But, I am now committed to the Republicans on national security issues. The Democrats are so hopelessly lost there that I fear for the future of the western world if they regain power. Thus, I overlook my disagreements with the Republicans over many issues.

It is a very long long longshot, but Rudy would be an interesting third party candidate. He would need financing from another Perot type. Maybe even Perot himself. With the right running mate, it is conceivable that he could get 20 to 30% of the popular vote. But, then what?

If he takes a shot at the Republican nomination, your scenario makes sense. The primary system will defeat him even if he would be the strongest candidate in the general election.

C’est la vie.

Sep 29, 2005 - 7:54 pm 135. Kevin P:

Thibaud:

Trying to predict the 2008 candidates this far out is by definition a hit and miss proposition. Whether the fundies on both sides will have full control of their parties is impossible to predict.

The problem the “fundies” on the right have is low name recognition. And yes, McCain and Rudy would have to make gestures to the base. I did not read it directly but I heard that McCain made some vague gesture towards creationism in certain situations and I doubt that he has any inclination towards that policy but he is already starting to make his run, McCain could also make huge strides by breaking any fillibuster on the next SCOTUS pick and he is already sending out murcky signals that he might just do it. All candidates, both parties, run the primaries towards their base and the general election towards the middle. Would Rudy get Robertson’s endorsement in the primaries? Probably not. His pull is fading because of his stupid assasination statement and he would endorse Marcus against Hillary in the general.

Would I bet my house on a Rudy nomination? No. But if it looks like Hillary will win the Democratic primary the far right will swallow anyone to beat her. Arnold got a lot of support in the California recall from people who would norm ally balk at his social views. Why? Because not all conservatives are suicidal and they wanted to win California. There are so many possibilties that could happen in the next couple years that all our predictions are mostly hot air. But to decree that Rudy is dead already is a bit premature. Rudy is a sharp pol. If he was going to start a third party he would not be doing so much ground work for the Republican Party right now. Why help build up the party if you are planning to bolt from it.

Kevin Peters

Sep 29, 2005 - 8:13 pm 136. Luther McLeod:

National defense. Internal and external. That is my focus. All else is transitory. Am I alone? Probably.

Without a secure Country, all else is contingent.

Sep 29, 2005 - 8:17 pm 137. Kevin P:

Luther:

That is my only non-negotiable. My social idea’s are radically different then our host but if it was between Roger and a isolationist Republican like Buchanon I would pull Roger’s lever.All the other issues can be changed or modified later but Los Angeles or Tel Aviv are hard to replace, well at least until the radiation fades away after a few generations.

Kevin Peters

Sep 29, 2005 - 8:44 pm 138. thibaud:

TedM,

You’re far from alone. Certainly about one-quarter of registered Dems are sufficiently appalled by their leadership, along with Kos’n'Cindy’n'Cynthia, to consider talking a walk. Bush increased his vote total by about 100,000 in Manhattan from 2000 to 2004, and it’s likely that most of these were national security Dems like Roger and myself. I believe that nationally we totaled somewhere between 1-1.5 million last November.

Unfortunately that’s not much of a solution. There’s no room in the Party of Christ for anyone not enamored of religion. I myself was thinking of checking out the Texas Republican Party, perhaps going to a meeting and getting to know some folks in my adopted town, until I read that DeLay’s party now begins its convocations with a prayer session. This is Lincoln’s party? Surely the Almighty has his own purposes; the nation doesn’t need Tom DeLay or Dick Cheney to interpret them.

Today’s Republican Party is more like a cynical pseudo-cult than anything else. Hardcore pork-barrel legislative politics and corporate capitalism covered over with a symbolist politics of greasy fundamentalism whose main effect is to waste huge amounts of everyone’s attention and time on pointless stunts like l’affaire Schiavo. Somehow, were one of their teenage daughters to become pregnant, I seriously doubt that many of this party’s leadership would not furnish the troubled girl with the number of a discreet, experienced abortionist.

Luther,

Security is indeed the linchpin for a sensible party platform.

1) National security

2) security of access to catastrophic medical insurance, regardless of one’s employer

3) security of pensions

4) national economic security via fiscal responsibility

The Dems are clueless on #1, the Repubs are clueless on #4, and neither party’s gazillionaires give a flying hoot about #2 or #3. Who cares about a million corporate retirees screwed out of their pensions and health care when there’s money to be made at Global Crossing or HCA or Goldman Sachs?

Sep 30, 2005 - 4:33 am 139. thibaud:

Kevin,

I did not read it directly but I heard that McCain made some vague gesture towards creationism in certain situations and I doubt that he has any inclination towards that policy but he is already starting to make his run

If it hasn’t happened yet, it will of course happen soon. Support for creationism is a logical outcome of our national politics of crap posturing on “moral” non-issues, and will become de rigeur among not only Republicans but also Democrats in the next election. I’d not be surprised to see Edwards and Hillary and Obama presenting their support for creationism/ID as a principled stand for social equality against the closet racism of the darwinists (hat tip: Steven Pinker http://slate.msn.com/?id=2072079&entry=2072402 http://www.math.tohoku.ac.jp/~kuroki/Pinker/.

The right hates science for its irreligiosity, the left hates science for its refusal to genuflect before blank slate and other theories of social malleability and equality. Why not replace the politics of division with a national unity crusade against Darwin?

Sep 30, 2005 - 4:55 am 140. thibaud:

If we’re successful in drawing down most of the troops from Iraq by early 2008, then we should by all means unite the nation against that bete noire of both the Christian right and the feminist multi-culti left: Harvard academics. Replace Osama in the public mind with Larry Summers. Drain the swamp. Put warning labels on not just biology books but also economics and history texts.

Sep 30, 2005 - 5:07 am 141. Steven Mitchell:

In the ID topic, when I pointed out that thibaud had been rather rude to the religious, he claimed:

“For that matter, I don’t recall trashing Christians of any sort.”

No, I doubt you do recall it. You seem to have a problem understanding what “trashing” would entail. Plus, you are totally clueless about the religous, and social conservatives (many of whom are yellow dog Democrats) in particular. Just from the latter part of this thread:

“I suppose a cheap and cynical way to do so would be to urge equal time for creationism in the public schools–that is, for the southern baptist not the Ratzinger version”

Teach metaphysics as part of philosophy, so that people like you will not have an excuse to escape high school without some clue about what people believe, instead of what your fevered imagination supplies, and science will be perfectly safe. But you don’t want that, because that would mean showing some respect to religion.

“There’s no room in the Party of Christ for anyone not enamored of religion.”

Yeah, that’s why Guiliani is a libertarian now. Not. That’s why this Republican, social conservative, southern Baptist considers him my first pick right now. Unlike some of his supporters, it occurs to Guiliani not to trash his potential voters. Keep it up, and you might eventually talk me out of supporting Guiliani, despite his best efforts.

“Today’s Republican Party is more like a cynical pseudo-cult than anything else.”

It’s called a coalition, big tent, whatever you want to call it. There is no possible governing coalition in America that will not have some fring elements in it. (Hint, political moderates is a wide open term that includes some people with pretty crazy ideas, many of them involving Rockwell.)

“The right hates science for its irreligiosity”

No, the religious dislike some scienctism true believers for their smug self-righteousness, intolerance, and hypocrisy. Especially when they ignorantly and indiscriminately project their own failings onto the religious while screaming about how ignorant the religious are.

Do you want me to google old posts for you?

PS. I noticed this a long time ago, but was willing to let it slide until you started lecturing other people about civility. I suppose a better Christian would turn the other cheek, but I never claimed to be infallible.

Sep 30, 2005 - 8:25 am 142. thibaud:

…self-righteousness, intolerance, and hypocrisy. Especially when they ignorantly and indiscriminately project their own failings onto the religious while screaming about how ignorant the religious are

Are you trying to make yourself look ridiculous, or do you actually believe these fevered visions?

Do you seriously expect deference from those who disagree with your singular views, even when these include insisting– uniquely of all the nation’s major religious denominations– on injecting your own particular understanding of God into science instruction in the secular public schools?

We fought this battle in 1925, and again and again thirty or so years ago, and the courts’ stand was unequivocal. What entitles you to not only wage this crusade but also cry for yourselves that you’re somehow being persecuted? Neither the Catholics nor the jews nor the mainline protestant denominations insist that the public schools degrade science instruction with religious notions. Every major religious community in this nation, including the Catholic Church whose schools I attended for 12 years, recognizes that, as Krauthammer put it, to mix faith and science is to do harm to both faith and science.

And these are private religious schools! What on earth is wrong with you people that makes you think that, of all this nation’s dozens of religious denominations, you alone are entitled to inject your particular interpretation of God and nature into the secular public schools? Why can’t you show enough decency and self-respect to take your beliefs into your own schools, as the Catholics and jews do?

And do please quit whining about your hurt feelings. Yours is not the state religion. Criticism of it is not lese majeste.

Sep 30, 2005 - 9:51 am 143. Steven Mitchell:

Thibaud, I don’t care what you do as a matter of policy or persuasion. Knock yourself out. I even enjoy honest, strong expression of opinion from people that I disagree with. I find most of your posts colorful, even when they irritate me.

If you act like an uncivil smart ass AND then call out other people for the same behavior, I’ll call ‘em like I see ‘em. If you don’t like it, either be civil, or quit stretching your arm out its socket patting yourself on your back for you own civility. (Me, I don’t make any strong claim to civility.)

Or not, since obviously I have no control over you–nor would want it, despite your claims. Meanwhile, in this free country of ours, I’ll strangely enough feel free to call a spade a spade.

“Why can’t you show enough decency and self-respect to take your beliefs into your own schools, as the Catholics and jews do? ”

I’m thrilled to hear that you will be supporting vouchers or some other such way to enable smaller, relatively unorganized religious people (as well as poor people everywhere, regardless of religion or lack thereof) to abandon the travesty that is the public schools, in the same way that Catholics have been forced to do through top-down means. Especially since said people pay a great deal of taxes for those public schools, and get less and less actual education out of them.

“And do please quit whining about your hurt feelings. Yours is not the state religion. Criticism of it is not lese majeste”.

In order to criticize it in a way that would hurt my feelings, you would first have to know something about it beyond the superficial.

Why can’t you show enough decency and self respect to just admit that you dislike anything greater than a patina of religion having any say in how people live their public lives? Does that mischaracterize your position a bit? Not anywhere near as much as you do mine and others. I share a lot of your political aims. I don’t like religion in science class (or pretty much anywhere in school, short of studied as part of philosophy). Read that last sentence again, since you seem to have missed all the other ways I’ve said exactly the same thing many times. Would you like me to clarify even futher?

If you really think that other people learning what a Baptist or Pentacostal believes will inevitably lead down a slippery slope to a theocracy, just say so. You’ll look like an idiot, but at least you’ll be honest. Or you can draw the line somewhere “moderate” short of that, but then will have to put up with religious allies from time to time.

I wish you luck in putting together this third party.

Sep 30, 2005 - 11:01 am 144. Knucklehead:

This Richard Earle apparently has some very creative ideas about indictments and the proper use of a DA’s time. Stuff like Dismissals for Dollars and The Big Buy. Fascinating.

Sep 30, 2005 - 1:39 pm 145. PeterUK:

Knuck,

According to this,there was no need for a convoluted donation,it wouls have been legal to donate direct.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011832.php

Sep 30, 2005 - 4:01 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: