December 24, 2005
Bush at 50% approval.
The Rasmussen poll has Bush at a 50% approval rating, up 6 points since last Sunday. (Via Instapundit.) Well, I guess Americans approve of spying on the enemy a lot more than some folks seem to have figured. Or maybe it's just holiday mellowness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
57 comments:
The approval jump is a direct result of the spying stories. People are happy that the President is doing what he can to protect us from massive death due to terrorists' attacks. The public is displaying a wealth of common sense on this.
This is a losing issue in more ways than one for the Democrats and the MSM.
Like you said earlier, Ann, I think it's just the act of communicating directly to the public that has boosted him. I think a lot of people consider it a significant part of the job of the President (not just Bush, but any President) to communicate his thinking to them. As long as he's doing that, his job approval goes up, to some extent independent of the particular policy choices at issue.
Aesschylus: This is what is now breaking on the spy story:
"In 1972 the Supreme Court required the president to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on domestic groups but specifically declined to apply this requirement to snooping on foreign agents. Four appeals courts have since upheld presidential authority for such warrantless searches".
The Democrats and the MSM are toast.
Aeschylus: "As far as approval poles go, maybe W doesn't go by them but evidently other right wingers follow them like the soaps."
(Cue the jokes about "approval poles"...)
As if the lefties weren't constantly talking about the polls when Bush was down!
One of the problems with the kind of technologies of surveillance that we're talking about here, is that the products are often used for economic reasons (giving U.S. companies a competitive advantage over their overseas rivals). Using this information to weed out terrorists is just "the poster child" of a much more complicated issue. Even as an "independent" (I'm from Vermont) I have no problem with the terrorism angle. But when the results of U.S. wiretaps and other surveillance start showing up in Halliburton and other companies' boardrooms, we might want to think about whether a little more oversight is needed concerning who is receiving the information, and what they are doing with it. What a person admits to, is usually only a small fraction of what they are doing.
I don't know the law. I don't from polls. But conservative, Dow Jones owned Barrons is saying we should consider impeachment.
Here's an extended quote since the source is behind a subscription wall.
Barron's calls for an investigation into the Bush administration's use of domestic surveillance as a possible impeachable offense
"AS THE YEAR WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, we picked up our New York Times and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of powers . . .
Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another terrorist attack. But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn't last four years . . .
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.
When Bush wasn't talking, it appeared he didn't have faith in his own war plan. How could he expect the public to believe in it if he didn't?
He's capitalizing, finally, on the mistakes of the opposition. The Dems' Vietnam-era strategy is backfiring because then Vietnam was not a direct threat to us; obviously the current enemy is.
As if the lefties weren't constantly talking about the polls when Bush was down!
At 50% +/- a few points I wouldn't say he was up. Is this bounce for real? Is it poll fatigue? The holidays? Regression to the mean? Elections in Iraq? Time and distance from Katrina? Lower gas prices? A few speeches? The calm before the storm?
Is it sustainable if the news from Iraq sours? If the wiretapping scandal hits large? If heating prices skyrocket this winter? If the housing market slumps? When Rove is indicted?
I am betting though that George can identify with Jim:
Well, I’ve been down so goddamn long
That it looks like up to me
Well, I’ve been down so very damn long
That it looks like up to me
Yeah, why don’t one you people
Come on and set me free
I said, warden, warden, warden
Won’t you break your lock and key
I said, warden, warden, warden
Won’t you break your lock and key
Yeah, come along here, mister
Come on and let the poor boy be
Baby, baby, baby,
Won’t you get down on your knees
Baby, baby, baby,
Won’t you get down on your knees
Come on little darling,
Come on and give your love to me, oh yeah
Well, I’ve been down so goddamn long
That it looks like up to me
Well, I’ve been down so very damn long
That it looks like up to me
Yeah, why don’t one you people
Come on, oh come on, come on and set me free
Quxxo:
You prove my point. Like other MSM, Barrons is too lazy or too stupid to learn that the Supreme Court and Federal appeals courts have ruled it is constitutional 5 different times.
Ann, If you actually think this six point difference means anything real, then you are dimmer than the tiny lights on my tree.
Wishful thinking, undoubtedly.
But hey, wish for whatever you want for Christmas. You can even wish we had an intelligent president who knew what he was doing! I sure wish we did.
I have done business around the world for 30 years. Numerous governments--the French, the Egyptians, the Chinese, etc.--listen to my phone calls and read my faxes and emails at times. It is a fact of life in the global marketplace.
I wonder why I seldom read stories in the American press about the corporate espionage activities of foreign governments. For example, the French have spied on U.S. executives to help French companies.
Quxxo, is that Barron editorial from their editorial board or from an individual columnist? It sounds out of character for Barron's and I don't have a way to access the original editorial.
What, no cookies?
According to the comments at The Big Picture,
The Op/Ed was ... written ... by THOMAS G. DONLAN, who is the conservative editor of the Opinions page.
...
Posted by: Bruce Sherman | Dec 24, 2005 10:17:39 AM
Other than that, I really don't know.
"wiretapping scandal"
I really don't think this is the way most people are seeing it. I think the Bush opponents have misread the politics here. Most people wanted the government to do more to avert terrorist attacks after 9/11, to find better ways to identify plots in advance. Bush took that very seriously. And we haven't had another terrorist attack. I think people are very grateful for that. And that doesn't mean people don't value their rights. They are just assessing their rights in context, and the context is that we know there is a extremely vicious enemy trying to kill us, inside at home. Old ideas about "domestic spying" do not fit the new situation in which the enemy working within our borders, planning its attacks.
"Dimmer than the tiny lights on my Christmas tree"?
What an opportunistic little swipe. Maybe you should get some bigger, brighter lights.
Ho Ho Ho
Between Thankgiving and Christmas, from like first grade forward, I would blow off the whole month under a delusional holiday euphoria. (Only to suffer later when grades for the marking period appeared, causing spankings all around...all around my bum that is).
Since polls exist as snapshots in time, and of people, they are kind of meaningless. Bush is benefiting from a number of factors, including better communication and the general holiday atmosphere. Closer attention might be paid by people after the holidays, when boredom and bills and the piper come calling.
Ricardo you say:One of the problems with the kind of technologies of surveillance that we're talking about here, is that the products are often used for economic reasons (giving U.S. companies a competitive advantage over their overseas rivals).
Please give an example, and since you mentioned Halliburton, please tell me exactly what information Halliburton received and how it might be helpful to them.
If anything, Eschelon and other systems have been used to prevent foreign companies and governments from using bribes to corrupt the business process, and it would be hard to prove that we are also stealing technology or other proprietary information.
wiretapping scandal....I really don't think this is the way most people are seeing it.
To be honest, I don't visit here to find out how most people see this. I come here to learn more about what a Constitutional Law Professor thinks about this.
Was this legal or not? Is Glenn Greenwald's argument correct or not? Virtually no serious Bush defenders claim any longer that the Administration's warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens was authorized by FISA. To the contrary, FISA expressly prohibited such surveillance. Thus, to defend George Bush they must literally claim that the President has the right during "wartime" to violate Congressional statutes which relate to national security. and The Supreme Court already rejected the Bush legal defenses
And if this wasn't legal, does it fall into the realm of high crime and misdemeanor?
Your core-competency, your value-add is in using your education to describe these facts to the people, not in providing your beliefs on what the people are thinking.
Finally, I have to say, as a Jew, as a Computer Scientist and Engineer, as a civil libertarian, I find this statement of yours Old ideas about "domestic spying" do not fit the new situation in which the enemy working within our borders, planning its attacks truly scary and not at all justified by the facts or the evidence you present.
Good Kwanzaa to you, my dear.
The American people have a good degree of common sense. The Iraq elections went off reasonably well and violence around the country is down. Overall economic news has been very good. These NSA and radiation monitoring stories are perceived one way by the media elites and quite the reverse by main street. Listening to AQ phones making international calls into the US seems reasonable. The same with rad monitoring in major cities. Last time I looked the EPA didn't need a warrant to take downstream or downwind samples of water or air pollution. Clearly radiological contamination is orders of magnitude more important. The reasonable man says, "I don't have a dirty bomb in my basement, go ahead and monitor.
I'm surprised I guess that this is news to people. I live in the DC area and folks know that there are radiation monitors on the incoming highways, within the metro system, etc. I think most folks would not have it any other way after 9/11. To find out that we have vehicle mounted gamma rad detectors making drive by's of locations of interest on a regular basis seems within my level of civil liberties threshold of pain, considering the alternative. The detectors after all could only detect what should not be there under any circumstances.
As someone said earlier in the week: For the President not to have employed radiation monitoring, given the potential downside risk, would seem to be an impeachable dereliction of duty, not the reverse. Let the Dems try to make an issue on this and they'll get eaten alive. I bet that not a single potential Dem Pres candidate in 08 comes out saying that they would stop the NSA or Rad monitoring.
Polls don't matter much, but if Bush got a little bump, it may mean that the MSM will take the Poll story off the front page for a few weeks and that is a good thing.
Imagine, sung by Liel, 40 Arabic and 40 Jewish Children, and a very special world leader
Greetings to you on this Solstice.
Ann, help the President increase his approval ratings. Use your blog to urge the President to take an action that only the President can take, releasing the innocent Uighurs we have held captive at Gitmo for over four years, nine months past acknowledging their innocence.
the judge who is hearing their case issued an extraordinary decision.
In it, the judge reached two conclusions. The first is that the detention of Qassim and al-Hakim is illegal:
"The detention of these petitioners has by now become indefinite. This indefinite imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay is unlawful."
The second is that there is nothing he can do about it
...
The reason Judge Robertson is unwilling to order their release into this country, even in the sort of 'bubble' he describes (essentially, a legal fiction designed to let them remain in the country until such time as we find a better place for them without deeming them to have 'entered', for e.g. immigration purposes), is that he is unwilling to trespass on the rights of the Executive. The Executive branch obviously does not need to worry about this: their actions cannot, logically, impinge on their own prerogatives. They could order Qassim and al-Hakim released tomorrow.
Ann, this is an issue that goes directly to both the President's approval ratings as well as to your expertise and education as a Constitutional Law Professor.
Ann, be the first Constitutional Law Professor Blogger to use her blog to appeal to the President for release of these two men.
Yes, I was and am upset about those technologies too, although I suspect that Ann would say that Bill was just being prescient and reiterate that Old ideas about "domestic spying" do not fit the new situation in which the enemy working within our borders, planning its attacks.
Anyway, the link to the complete Barron's editorial calling for impeachment of the Imperial Chimp is here.
Enjoy. Feel free to print it out and share it with your friends at your Christmas dinner.
quxxo,
Your link suggests that we will find a Barrons editorial arguing for impeachment of the President. It is not. Rather we find an op-ed by Thomas G. Donlan, Barrons' editorial page editor.
I have no idea what Donlan's politics are and neither do you. Moreover, you claim that Barrons' is a conservative organ, but you offer no evidence. Even if that were the case, Mr. Donlan's opinions do not speak for Barrons anymore than David Brooks' speak for the New York Times.
And precisely why should we care what Donlan thinks other than he apparently agrees with you? That's not a credential.
One more thing--take the chimp crap to Daily Kos where it belongs.
By all means, impeach George Bush. Then you would get Dick Cheney as President. A Cheney presidency would make Bush look like a limp-wristed liberal.
Quxxo: As I have written about on the blog and talked about in the podcast, I deliberately avoid writing about some constitutional law questions here, specifically, complicated issues I haven't studied in depth. I can't write about FISA, for one thing, other than, as I already have, to say that it is difficult and that the President has war powers that Congress can't take away by statute. From what I can tell of the President's interception of phone calls from suspected enemies outside the country, I tend to think it's constitutional. Your impression that constitutional experts just know the answers is wrong. We know how to think about the issues and argue about them. When we spout the answers confidently at the beginning of a controversy, that's when you should suspect us of just doing politics.
Thank you for your response Ann, especially tonight. Truly (I really am being sincere here), I am not asking you for the "answer". I truly think the public would be served (and you would add more value to your blog) if you just pointed out what you felt the issues were, and how one might go about arguing them.
As an example, if your first inclination is that what George Bush is doing is constitutional, then what is your first inclination as to where Glenn Greenwald has gone offtrack?
May your celebration of the Klingon Reunification be honorable and full of blood.
Oh, and I really do urge you to look at the Uighur issue and use your blog to encourage the President to release the two. This really is something that only the President can do, and itwould be a win-win for everyone, the President, the individuals, and the country.
(Martin Sheen and Gina Davis would have corrected this situation long before now!)
Aeschylus: The 4th amendment question is easier than the separation of powers one. I think the argument that in the context the search is not unreasonable is quite strong. There is no requirement that all searches be pursuant to a warrant, only that there be probable cause for warrants. There are many situations in which no warrant is required, and this ought to fit. The main separation of powers problem has to do with the scope of FISA and the grant of power to fight the war on terrorism versus the President's own powers (if there is a conflict). As I've said before, I think Congress ought to put up or shut up here. The rest is politics. If they really think the President has gone beyond the statutory grant, let them make an explicit statute saying so. They won't, of course. I'd like to see them pass a statute making the power explicit. If they won't act, the President should keep doing what he has analyzed as the correct response under the law and the circumstances. You may not agree with his legal analysis, but it is his and part of his role is to interpret the laws as he takes actions. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution and is bound by it, and no court has told him otherwise.
Aeschylus,
I find you tedious, but here goes.
"old dad is pretty emphatic in telling others where things belong and what requires evidence."
quxxo qualifies as an "other." The rhetorical use of evidence has been taught in grammar schools for hundreds of years. I assume you attended one and understand this point.
You're a very patient person, Ann. A lot of us appreciate that very, very much.
Aeschylus: "Unreasonable" necessarily refers to the circumstances. And you seem to be in denial about the reality that not all searches require a warrant. Really, read some case law and get some education before just spouting off.
Aeschylus: I took the trouble to write answers for you, but you're obviously not interested in reasonable discussion. You've wasted my time. You've been in bad faith. You are a troll. Expect your future efforts to be deleted, that is, you will be wasting your time.
Aeschylus,
I'm not a lawyer, but I sleep with one (my wife), so that must give me tremendous insights on the subject of warrants and searches. Let me try from a layman's perspective.
1. probable cause is required for obtaining a warrant
2. Not all reasonable searches require warrants. examples:
a. police do not require a warrant to search a person who they take into custody for weapons, and drugs, etc. The weapons reason should be obvious. absent a search, lives may be at risk. The drugs example is similar, it prevents the introduction of drugs into the controlled detention environment.
b. TSA does not require a warrant to screen and search airline passengers. Numerous courts have determined that the "good" of public safety outweighs the privacy right of an individual in the exercise of a voluntary decision (to fly) on their part.
c. EPA does not need a warrant to sample water, air and even noise pollution in the interest of safeguarding the public.
d. (a military example here) Commanders can conduct "health and welfare" inspections (w/o warrants) and search physically and with drug dogs, the barracks areas of their units as long as the search is uniform and not focused on specific persons of interest.
I could go on.... The point is, that government performs reasonable warrantless searches all the time within the context of law and the constitution.
PS: Aeschylus, Quxxo, Old dad, etal. with regard to the Baron's Op Ed, recently there was a UCLA Poli Sci study that attempted to look at media bias. The results were that there are quantifiable left leaning trends in the MSM, but in this context, the WSJ (owner of Baron's) was found to have the most liberal news pages even though the editorials were much more Conservative. I don;t know if this impacts the specific op-ed.
And my point is that there are lots of cases where the government can conduct a reasonable and legal search without probable cause (and without a warrant) in the interest of public safety and welfare.
So, which old troll is the new troll, "Aeschylus"?
The Rasmussen Robo-polls have been the most accurate reflection of public sentiment and during the 2004 election had a much better record in predicting both percentage and outcome in the Presidential election compared to the MSM's polls.
The President will continue to be unpopular with the 'Chimpy McBu$hHitler' crowd, and not only unpopular but worthy of all sorts of scorn, contempt, and the rest.
That many media outlets choose to align themselves with the 'Chimpy' brigade is sad. That academia births these dolts is unsurprising given their continued (decades long) hostility towards values, enterprise, patriotism and peace through strength.
So far the majority of people (outside of the largest urban centers anyway) know that we are in for a decades long conflict with an evil foe with many faces and many factions but one goal, our destruction (President Ahmedinejad may look sort of like Jamie Farr, but he talks like Hitler)
Surveilling folks within our borders (citizens or not) who have knowingly, or even unwittingly, contacted operatives within Al Qaeda or a related organization, is not only reasonable, but to do otherwise is suicidal.
All this talk of excesses and Big Brother-ism has usually stemmed from false reports like the little red book incident.
I hope this debate continues all the way till election time. Nothing would be better for Republicans (outside of a few places where Kool-Aid flows like tapwater)
And prominent law Prof. Cass Sunstein (who from now on will probably be accused of being a neo-con) voices guarded support for the administration's position.
Re: Barron's
Most publications focus on their audience/readership. New York City is liberal, and the New York Times is liberal.
Barron's staff writes for business executives. Most executives are pragmatists, not left-wing or right-wing political idealists.
In addition, a significant percentage of business executives are libertarian. In the words of Cato Institute, they believe in "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets and Peace."
For a libertarian businessperson, the surveillance issue is a step away from "individual liberty and limited government."
An interesting exercise is to look at the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune on the same day. Both are owned by the New York Times. The Times serves a New York City audience. The Herald Tribune serves an international audience (many of them world-class American business executives). The two publications often package the same day's news in a very different way.
Aeschylus = Its_Me_Its_Me_Its_Ernest_T
I think the actual legality or illegality of the program is somewhat beside the point. Politically this issue is big loser for the Dems. Bush knows this, hence his speech: "You're damn right I ordered the Code Red". If it turns out some rules were broken, Bush can say "We were trying to catch terrorists and neglected to file some paperwork. So sorry". I really don't see how this rings W down unless he's been having the NSA tape John Kerry's phone calls to Howard Dean.
I think it is so wonderful and nonpartisan of Ann Althouse to crow about a poll showing an improvement in Bush's numbers. It is so thrilling to see someone like her who is able to transcend petty day-to-day politics in such a totally convincing fashion.
Nobody else on the entire Internet cheerleads for Bush in such a delightfully nonpartisan way.
Wow, Ann, you have a stalker!
gj,
No matter what "constitution scholars" say about this business, the public will view the lack of warrants as a technicality. Hence the polls. I think Mickey Kaus said that if the Dems keep pushing this, Bush will hit 60%. For their own good they should shut up.
I just waded through some 200 comments on volokh.com about whether or not this NSA program violates FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), esp. given AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force). In the end though, after all that, by innumerable lawyers arguing about it, it comes down to the fact that this NSA program has been going on at least since 1967, that most of the presidents since then have claimed the power to do so, that this is arguably not domestic, but foreign, surveilance, and that, as of yet, and there is no indication that any cognizable harm has been done by it.
A better case can be made that President Bush would be impeachable if he forbade the NSA from engaging in this type of surveilance.
We are at war. Most of the people understand this. The courts understand this. And there is absolutely no chance that the courts will ultimately keep the President and his administration from continuing this surveilance. If he doesn't win on AUMF, he wins on Article II War Powers. But as one of the commenters pointed out, the courts are going to aviod addressing the later (as it is essentially a Separation of Powers problem), which means giving him the win on the former.
Seriously, Bruce Hayden,thank you for the concise "executive summary" of the comments at the Volokh site. I really didn't feel like wading through them. Your overview was helpful to me.
Let me add a link to the DOJ letter to Congress, etc.
The letter essentially says that we are at war, terrorists killed thousands here on 9/11, that this is important in keeping that from happening again, that it is the President's duty to continue this program, and that it is backed by the AUMF and Article II.
Against this, there was a lot of hair splitting, trying to explain why FISA was being violated. And, indeed, even a claim that the loss of civil liberties supposedly caused by this program was more important than meeting this threat.
In short, a losing argument for the Democrats. The more they try to make the case that this program is illegal, the more the President's approval ratings are going to climb. I see very little compassion on the part of most Americans for anyone in the U.S. who is communicating over seas with Al Qaeda. Trying to protect these people just makes the Democrats look weak on National Defense.
Everything is an impeachable offense if Congress is in the mood to impeach.
However, impeaching a leader for trying to defend the country is suicide (and more than just political suicide). The Greeks committed this error several times. One would hope we still have memory of history's lessons.
The media elites keep lowering expectations for Bush by constantly publishing negative news. Bush's ratings were bound to go up.
The spy case is a loser for democrats. Its fun to be a crtic, but if Dems force the public to actually make a CHOICE, i.e. decide! between someone who will use warrantless searches to defend the country and one who will not, the public will go with the former - its human nature. This is why the NY Times did not publish the story a year ago. I would have locked Bush in for the election.
Now people know whay there hasn't been another attack... and it hasn't been Al Qaeda's lack of trying.... its stuff like warrantelss wire taps.
But it is often not good strategically that this sort of thing be clarified.
The problem is that if it is clarified, then it can be more easily exploited by our enemies.
Let us take the hypothetical that our government announced that it wouldn't record any conversation between someone in this country and someone outside without a warrant.
So, Osama on the Afganistan / Pakistan border wants to talk with Musab in Iraq. Obviously he can't call direct, since he knows that the NSA, et al. have been trying to track him down for years. So, he calls a friend in the U.S., who uses three-way calling to connect him with Musab in Iraq. Each week, a different friend, not going back to the first until any U.S. wire tap warrents would have expired.
If this were a criminal justice problem, then clarification would be to our best interests. But this is war, and a little strategic fuzziness is to our best interests in keeping our enemies off balance.
I understand any investigation into Bush Administration use of the National Security Agency might extend into the Norad Santa Tracking system....something about Rudolf's nose and radiation detectors. Sheesh ya just never know.....
NORAD
What do 450 Law Professors know that Law Professor Althouse does not?
Please stop copying long excerpts! Just post short quotes and links. I've deleted two comments for this reason. Have some respect for the rights of the writers.
Well, I posted an excerpt along with a post to the original. I am guessing that Steve Chapman would be okay with that excerption that calls attention to his complete essay describing our reckless executive.
Here's four paragraphs of fifteen that convey the flavor. I encourage you Ann to read the whole thing.
President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't think he should be constrained by their intentions.
...
But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What's good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors.
Even people who should be on Bush's side are getting queasy. David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, says in his efforts to enlarge executive authority, Bush "has gone too far."
...
What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can't be bothered to earn it.
Ann, I have great respect for the rights of authors, as well for the public's right to fair use.
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. -— Thomas Jefferson
At times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power.
I've come to the conclusion that whenever an author says something is apparent, clear or obvious there is a better than even chance that it's not. Bush may well have gone too far and it looks like we need to have this discussion, but Chapman assigns a motive to Cheney and Bush that is not supported by the body of his editorial.
Right, right goatwhacker – I suspect much more malicious motives.
Can you elaborate?
Sorry goober, bad guess, I rarely listen to Limbaugh. As for the pseudo-PhD lingo, sorry again, it's just the way I talk.
Anyway, I read through your response again and still can't tell what you feel Bush and Cheney's motives are.
How do you feel the wiretaps would aid U.S. oil interests?
The fatal flaw of federalism that is apparent from an examination of American history is that it requires the continued sale of the threat of external boogiemen to prevent the gastric juices of pluralism from digesting its own flesh.
There you go with that "apparent" stuff again. Your imagery about gastric juices has gone over my head, I guess I'm too plain-spoken. I hope you had a nice Christmas, goober.
After the Pajamas Media debacle, I noticed whenever there was a weightier topic offered on Althouse, that the anti-Althouse trolls would come out in force.
Much, much more than the ones there previously.
This makes reading many potentially serious, and engaging threads on this blog, a (dare I say it) quagmire.
Ann, you have to do something about it.
It's not enough to erase certain blog comments, because:
A- You'll spend half your time doing so, and I know it rubs your "free speech" ethics the wrong way
B- You only do some, and not all of the truly trolly ones, which promotes a double standard
Maybe it's time...
I dunno, that you took took this blog to a medium which has registered nicks, and not a troll free-for-all that Blogspot is fast becoming.
The Anchoress did it, and she had far less trolls than you do now.
Cheers,
Victoria
Post a Comment