२१ ऑगस्ट, २००७
Lowest ever approval rating for Congress.
18%, matching the historic low of 1992, when there was a big scandal involving check cashing. Why so low, in the absence of a scandal? I think people have gotten more judgmental, and the politicians themselves have been teaching us to be super-critical. The very members of Congress who got into office by stoking dissatisfaction now face observation by the people who see no reason to be patient and sympathetic. It doesn't necessarily mean we're all walking around feeling exceedingly pissed off at the government. It could just be that if anyone ever asks if we approve, we're going to say no. Why should we approve? And what's with all the approval-seeking anyway?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१६३ टिप्पण्या:
In my view, there are very few people in Congress who put the country's welfare above their own political fortunes. For me, it's that simple.
{Cynicism alert}
Looks like in this poll both Rs and Ds nearly equally dislike congress (although clearly for different reasons): 21 vs 17. Its always worthwhile to remember that while the public dislikes (the institution) congress, they love their specific representive. If that recollection is true, given gerrymandering and the relatively few seats genuinely in play in any election, this poll is worthless as to its impact. We'll have pretty much the same miscreants back in 2009 doing the same things.
Perhaps this phenomena is nothing more than the notion that people feel more intellectual or "with it" by claiming disapproval, rather than approval. After all, in this Age of the Tatoo, how cool is it to say you approve of Congress?
There's just so much to be critical of... from Don Young to Jack Murtha, no honest, informed person can be satisfied.
And yes they have taught us to be critical, to their own detriment.
(Quarterly SteveR bad grammer and spelling disclaimer)
It doesn't necessarily mean we're all walking around feeling exceedingly pissed off at the government.
But most of us are. I blame the Democrats! Some mess they've gotten us in.
Congress, Doyle, not the White House. Bush has a better approval numbers than Congress.
I think that part of it is that the Democrats rode into power in Congress on a platform of cleaning things up. Instead, earmarks are at an all time high, and all they have managed to do is investigate every little thing that the Administration has done in the last 6 1/2 years in office.
It is the fact that the Democrats are just as dirty as the Republicans when it comes to Congressional corruption. Instead of Tom DeLay running the pork department, it is now the old hands back in charge, the same group of theives thrown out by Gingrich's revolution twelve years earlier.
I don't buy the argument that Congressional approval ratings can be compared with Presidential approval ratings.
Nobody votes for more than one congressman. Almost by definition, the congressmen in other States are in competition with the congressman in my own State. I hate the Alaskan 'Bridge to Nowhere', as well as everyone in every State except Alaska. So it stands to reason that I'm going to dislike Congress if for no other reason than 49/50ths of it doesn't represent me.
Not to say that Congressional approval ratings don't mean anything. But they should be compared to themselves, not to Presidential approval ratings.
Another interesting pair of metrics might be the percentage of people who approve of their own Congressmen, as well as the ratio of that number to the overall approval rating. That ratio cuold tell us something about how fractured a nation we are psychologically.
Bush has a better approval numbers than Congress.
That must mean people like him and are going to elect more Republicans going forward!
Oh come on. If congress has such low approvals why do we re-elect 90%+ each election. Americans may dislike congress but they relect in numbers that do NOT reflect approval ratings.
congressional elections are local. This poll is national. Why don't you all "get it"?
The only national poll that matters is presidential. Geeze.
Why so low, in the absence of a scandal
....hmm... yes, but in the presence of horrifically poor performance on both sides. I think it has become just TOO blantantly obvious that, as Mike said, Congress puts political ambitions first.
The Democrats' mantra: "we're going to clean up the corruption!" probably did cripple them from the start. It created an expectation they had no intention of fulfilling.
Look, I'm not at all proud of Congress. Yes, it unfortunately still has a lot of Repubs in it, but the Dems have been totally spineless and undermined by the "Blue Dog" caucus.
But the country that we live in and the policies our government has in place are overwhelmingly the product of George W. Bush and his Republican henchmen.
That the slim Democratic majority hasn't been able (or in some cases sufficiently willing) to reverse course in 8 months is not surprising.
So before you get all giddy about apples-to-oranges polls, remember that more people want Bush impeached than ever wanted Clinton impeached.
Oh, there's no doubt Bush will be revered for years to come, I mean, how could a President, after 7 years in office, lugging around a 30% approval rating...not?
And of course, when anyone discusses "Congress," we ALL know the low approval ratings must ONLY relate to Democrats holding office...because there are NO Republicans, and there are no localized "constituencies" or that the Democrats hold a massive 1-2 vote "majority." (Depending on what Lieberman calls himself these days.)
*Then again, most here appear to forget that the Republicans held the majority for 12 years...and just look at where that's gotten us.
Duh.
The only national poll that matters is presidential. Geeze.
Then Hillary supporters have got to be wetting their pants. She is the only candidate of either party who consistently has higher negatives than positives.
Even if she lowers her negative approval (currently 49% negative vs. 47% positive), no candidate has ever won the Presidency with a negative approval rating in the 40's. She has massive work to do.
Ergo, if the only national poll that matters is presidential approval, Hillary is pretty much toast.
If congress has such low approvals why do we re-elect 90%+ each election?
Because Congress has rigged the system with safe districts.
Luckyoldson,
Truman.
How a "Democratic" majority of 1-2 votes possibly "clean up" Congress or, for that matter, get anything of substance pushed through...after only 8 months?
A single swing vote stops anything in its tracks...and most here already know that.
This is nothing more than another bullshit argument, used to distract the public, and defend an inept President, Vice-President and entire administration.
This discussion is mute until we have the 2008 elections and one party has a defining majority.
b,
The Truman comparison would hold water if Bush possessed Truman's intelligence, fortitude, character or honesty.
Run all of the corruption charges ever leveled at Truman by us.
*WMD, Katrina, Torture, Wiretapping, Gonzales, U.S. Attorney firings, Libby, Plame, Brownie, Meirs,
S.S. debacle, fired generals, etc.
Worst ever...period.
Mike,
You got that right on the nose.
Mute. :-)
Luckyoldson,
If you're so certain that W will be despised for years to come, then read about Lincoln. Even though public approval polls were not taken during Lincoln's tenure, He would have easily had a lower approval rating than the current Pres.
Are you like the babyboomers who rate John F Kennedy as one of the top 3 President's of all time, but then can't name even one thing of import that he accomplished during his administration?
B: DFTT
And what's with all the approval-seeking anyway?
Right on! Stick with it and you too may be banned from mandatory departmental consciousness-raising meetings, because consciousness-raising immune.
This discussion is mute until we have the 2008 elections and one party has a defining majority.
I would be delighted if this type of discussion would be muted until 2008 but unfortunately it ain't gonna happen.
Luckyoldson,
If you are ranking the Truman vs Bush admin by corruption and intelligence -
do you even read history books?
If I have to start on scandals from the Truman admin because you aren't actually aware, then this conversation is a bigger waste of time than I thought
No wonder the do-nothing Dems in Congress have such glassy-eyed supporters . . .
b,
Hillary transformed her approval ratings from 36 percent to 65 as Senator of New York.
Oh, and there's this: "Recent polls by Gallup and Fox News show Clinton with a net positive approval rating."
*Note: FOX NEWS...
Is S.S. "Social Security"? Are the old, sick, and lame not getting their checks the last seven years? It is amazing to me that anyone could blame Bush for whatever the Social Security debacle is. And Katrina. Yeah, Bush really messed up when he caused that huge hurricane.
The fact that the rage-filled haters can't determine remedial causation is very troubling.
Gonzales, U.S. Attorney firings, Libby, Plame, Brownie, fired generals. These are routine political events presented as scandals.
Luckyoldson,
Better give us a reference that others can look up (a URL for example)for your quote on Hillary's new "net approval"
As I was showing earlier, she needs to get her negative below 40% to even have a chance to be possible become President.
B: I am sure the term "Prendergast Machine" isnt on many people's radar these days.
b,
Abe Lincoln...George W. Bush?
Nope.
Agreed. This discussion is mute.
That's the funniest thing I have seen in weeks. This coming from the guy who calls everyone idiots and accuses them of not completing high school.
Hilarious.
As far as Hillary's approval rating, I know it has gone way up with me at least. She has come across as serious, rational, enformed, and strong, in stark contrast to the rest of the Democratic Presidential candidates.
The Democrats need Hillary to save them from their own worst impulses.
seven,
Yeah, Bush has done a "heck of a job."
What a hoot...and at this stage of the game.
Nobody votes for more than one congressman.
Last I looked, I get to vote for two Senators and one Representative, all of whom are Congresscritters. I don't get to vote for all of them in the same election cycle, but two out of three cycles I'm voting for at least two Congresscritters.
Don't know about the rest of you, but it's not that I love my Congresscritters. I voted for them because I didn't DISlike them as much as their opponents. Put someone up on the other side who I dislike less than the incumbent, and I'll vote for them.
Look, I'm not at all proud of Congress. Yes, it unfortunately still has a lot of Repubs in it, but the Dems have been totally spineless and undermined by the "Blue Dog" caucus.
Yeah, curse those spineless bastards, wanting to get re-elected!
seven,
Any kind of rational solution to the "Congress" situation is "mute" until the next elections.
(Sure, we can discuss, but to no avail.)
YOU and others can blather on and bitch and whine about whatever...but it means absolutely nada until one party has real "control."
And yes, I stand by my assertion that YOU are an idiot.
Roger,
If the people posting here were certain in their bones that the Dems will walk away with the Presidency and Congress in 2008, then why do they always sound so worried and angry?
Because they know in their bones:
1) that the Republicans have every chance of keeping the White House;
2) that the Republicans might just regain one or both chambers of Congress;
3) that the "surge" might actually work and Iraq may turn out to be winnnable after all;
4) there is still the possibility that Bush will eventually - and horror of horrors, even possibly in their lifetime - be viewed as a very good to great, visionary President.
Wow! I have no words.
there is still the possibility that Bush will eventually - and horror of horrors, even possibly in their lifetime - be viewed as a very good to great, visionary President.
That's not a horrible image as much as it is a hilarious image.
b asks: "why do they always sound so worried and angry?"
Who's worried or angry?
Duh.
One cause for worry, b, is that any electorate stupid enough to elect George W. Bush twice (or once, depending) is liable to elect just about anybody.
That said, I really do think people have come to their senses by now.
It must suck to always be the smartest person in the room, Doyle. Unless, of course, your pal Lucky is there. In which case, your best option to remain mute.
Run all of the corruption charges ever leveled at Truman by us.
*WMD, Katrina, Torture, Wiretapping, Gonzales, U.S. Attorney firings, Libby, Plame, Brownie, Meirs,
S.S. debacle, fired generals, etc.
Oh boy where does one begin? Well considering half of what you list hardly qualify as corruption, I’ll nevertheless take up the challenge.
Lets see you had the IRS bribes and tax-fixing scandal. Then you had the massive drawdown of the US military which of course showed that was a bad idea when he decided to send US troops to Korea with inadequate supplies so much so, we were refitting Shermans from monuments and salvage depots. That sounds familiar. I guess you go to war with the army you have and not the one you want even back then.
Then let’s see, he sacks MacArthur, because Truman didn’t like his plan to attack Chinese supply routes. Firing a capable and popular general because he didn’t like his strategy and they say history doesn’t repeat. So 2 years later and 30,000 (that’s thirty THOUSAND) KIA, a cease-fire was signed and we still have what, 25 – 30,000 troops stationed there to this day.
Then don’t forget his attempt to take over the steel industry because of labor disputes over wages. Truman tried to use his Commander in Chief status to say he could not have any interruptions in production due to the war but the US Supreme Court disagreed. Imagine a president trying to use that old canard about being commander-in-chief as an excuse to overstep his authority.
And then if you’re one of those who think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
war-crimes, that was Truman’s call too.
Truman ended at 22% approval. Congress was calling for his impeachment then too. His own party turned its back on him for re-election. So there you have it. It’s all on the record so check it out before calling me delusional.
It must suck to always be the smartest person in the room, Doyle.
Actually I kinda like it. That's why I come here.
Doyle,
Even though I obviously am a Bush supporter, I do agree completely with you on the stupidity of the American electorate.
I do not believe, however, that it ever comes to it's senses. Only lapses into good judgment.
Now I am curious - and serious - this is not a trick question:
Were you Kerry supporter?
Do you now believe that a Kerry Administration would have been a good thing?
What do you think the country would look like today under a President Kerry?
Actually I kinda like it. That's why I come here.
Touche.
Doyle -- You most certainly aren't the smartest person today. Lucky is here. Best not to speak.
18%, matching the historic low of 1992, when there was a big scandal involving check cashing.
Oh, that big scandal!
Who would have pinpointed 1992 as the last worst Congress?
Even if I told you 1992, who would have remembered check cashing?
Ten years from now, few will know or care that 2007 was such a bad year for Congress.
B-
Unfortunately we'll never know what a Kerry presidency would have involved, but I'm sure it would have been an improvement on the fundamentally criminal enterprise that is the Bush administration.
Doyle -- Why haven't you figured out a way to arrest Bush for all his crimes?
Seven -
I lack the authority.
Ann:
What forces have operated on people and politicians to make them more judgmental and critical?
Doyle said...
"Look, I'm not at all proud of Congress. Yes, it unfortunately still has a lot of Repubs in it, but the Dems have been totally spineless and undermined by the "Blue Dog" caucus."
This "dog ate my homework" stuff's really getting old.
"That the slim Democratic majority hasn't been able (or in some cases sufficiently willing) to reverse course in 8 months is not surprising."
Nor is the fact that they've barely tried. Your point would have more valence if they'd milled a whole bunch of reform legislation through the House, including lots of earmark-free appropriations bills, and it was all stuck in the Senate logjam. But that isn't the case.
"So before you get all giddy about apples-to-oranges polls, remember that more people want Bush impeached than ever wanted Clinton impeached."
If that's so, then there's an obvious solution: Congress can bolster its opinion ratings by impeaching Bush! Come to think of it, why haven't they impeached Bush and cut off funds for the war (or at least tried)?
"One cause for worry, b, is that any electorate stupid enough to elect George W. Bush twice (or once, depending) is liable to elect just about anybody."
Apparently not, as Al Gore and John Kerry will tell you. Seems that stupid electorate's a mite pickier than you suggest.
I think the explanation for the low ratings is fairly simple:
Republicans disapprove because it's a Democratic-controlled Congress.
Democrats disapprove because the Democrats have failed so miserably to stop the war, rein in Bush, or even stop passing bad terror-induced legislation like the massive expansion of presidential authority found in the recent FISA revisions.
OK, here’s the problem:
con•gress (kŏng'grĭs) n.
1. A formal assembly of representatives, as of various nations, to discuss problems.
2. The national legislative body of a nation, especially a republic.
3.a. The national legislative body of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
3.b. The two-year session of this legislature between elections of the House of Representatives.
4.a. The act of coming together or meeting.
4.b. A single meeting, as of a political party or other group.
5. Sexual intercourse.
So, there are just going to be those times we're screwed. But, is there a better way?
One cause for worry, b, is that any electorate stupid enough to elect George W. Bush twice (or once, depending) is liable to elect just about anybody.
And there you have the liberal/left mindset in a nutshell ladies and gentlemen. The American people are moronic idiots incapable of electing a qualified President or Congress much less smart enough to do more mundane things like save for their own retirement.
So it doesn’t really take a village but rather the intelligence of elitists like Doyle who will show the rest of the hoi polloi what is really in our best interests.
Doyle don’t you find the irony that a self-described liberal would take such a low opinion of his fellow citizen? Or perhaps that mask was slipping just a bit?
"Yes, it unfortunately still has a lot of Repubs in it.."
Ah, yes, the One Party To Rule Them All...And In The Darkness Bind Them strategy of government. Historically, always a winner.
"Apparently not, as Al Gore and John Kerry will tell you. Seems that stupid electorate's a mite pickier than you suggest."
BUT THOSE ELECTIONS WERE STOLEN!!!1
Remember the Golden Rule of politics: The electorate is stupid until they elect your preferred candidate.
Seriously, I urge the Democrats in congress to press forward with the impeachment of President Bush, to de-fund the Iraq war completely, and to continue to call the electorate stupid. Great strategies all, especially with the coming Presidential election.
"Why so low, in the absence of a scandal?"
One word is the answer, bloggers.
The internets has changed the game. Media used to only bring up the big scandals, left alone the little petty corruption that went on constantly.
I doubt that this Congress is any worse, or any better than the Congress elected in '86, or '66, or '46, but more people know more of what each representative is up to.
A solution crazy enough to solve the 'I hate Congress, but love my representative' phenomenon is simple. Change the voting process so that you vote for your neighboring districts' representative, rather than your own.
That'd be a fun little experiment in reform.
What Verso said.
The only national poll that matters is presidential
Actually, HD, the Presidential approval poll is the one poll that doesn't matter at all. Bush isn't running for office again. Whether his approval rating is 1% or 100%, he's still your President and there's basically nothing you can do about it.
Low approval ratings for Congress do matter, because they're all up for reelection. Even though people only vote for two Senators and one Representative, they expect those three people to get results. That's why the Republicans lost Congress, even though the specific Congressmen who were defeated were, for the most part, not guilty of any particular wrongdoing.
Unfortunately for our more left of center commenters here, the democratic congress isnt stupid enough to do impeachment--They are smarter than some of our commenters and know they would be punished severely in the next election cycle.
They are smarter than some of our commenters
i'm going to remain moot on that.
Hoosier,
So there you have it. It’s all on the record so check it out before calling me delusional.
Don't forget that the US government routinely ran warrantless wiretaps on American citizens back then.
Oh, and don't forget losing China to the Communists -- that happened entirely on Truman's watch, too.
Democrats disapprove because the Democrats have failed so miserably to stop the war, rein in Bush, or even stop passing bad terror-induced legislation like the massive expansion of presidential authority found in the recent FISA revisions.
Do you even know what the FISA amendment did? How long it will be in effect? And how it has affected NSA operations?
The big reason that we don't see much turnover in Congress is that the House is heavily gerrymandered for incumbant protection. There just aren't a lot of competitive districts any more, and a lot of those switched sides in the last election. And the Senate isn't much better - most of those who have served for an extended period of time in the Senate come from states that have strong majorities of registered voters of the party of the long serving Senators.
It is probably no surprise that corruption in Congress seems to go with longevity there, with the most corrupt being those with the safest seats.
I would suggest that the solution might be to go to state wide elections for the House. That would likely reduce the problem somewhat, since few states have anywhere near the party balance that many Congressional districts do now.
I do my part. I vote against my CongressCritters each election. Not that it does much good, but I feel better.
*WMD, Katrina, Torture, Wiretapping, Gonzales, U.S. Attorney firings, Libby, Plame, Brownie, Meirs,
S.S. debacle, fired generals, etc.
This too is exceedingly humorous. Despite all the smoke and posturing, none of these is a real scandal. None of them show venality. Indeed, what is interesting here is how clean the Bush Administration has been, compared to pretty much every other one in my lifetime. You end up with Doyle calling it a criminal endeaver based primarily on wishful thinking instead of actual facts.
Of the above "scandals", the only one that could possibly be considered criminal was Libby, and he was not convicted of "outing" Plame because, of course, he didn't. He was convicted of lying in a he says/she says case before a jury that likely voted 90% for Kerry in 2004. Plame wasn't outed by the Administration, but by Armitage at State in a turf war between that department and the CIA.
Other than that, you have nothing. No scandals. Zip. Zero. Nada.
Of the above "scandals", the only one that could possibly be considered criminal was Libby
Oh come on, Bruce. Why stop at a felony conviction in your defense of the Bush administration?
Remember, it was a partisan show trial with no underlying crime.
You people are a joke.
Re "fired Generals" if you are referring to Rick Shenseki, he was not fired. He had reached the end of term of Chief of Staff and retired.
Bruce -
At every turn, the Bush administration demonstrates sneering contempt for the rule of law and our constitutional government. It's just not worth enumerating the examples because you have a servile belief that pretty much whatever they do is Good for America, by definition.
Re districts being gerrymandered, as Mike and a few others alluded to, it's worth pausing to remember that it's the state legislatures that draw Congressional district boundaries. So it's not that Congress gerrymanders the districts, but the parties at the state level. This is another normative reason to preserve a separate and vital sphere for state government: the more authority that is drained out of the states, the less closely people seem to pay attention to what their state governments generally and legislatures particularly are doing, while conversely, the more people feel that important decisions that directly affect their lives are taken in state capitols rather than in Washington, the more attention they will pay to state legislatures. And the more closely the people are watching the state legislatures, the harder it'll be for them to gerrymander congressional districts free of any fear of reprisal. Honestly, look at the map - there's some doozies!
Palladian said...
"BUT THOSE ELECTIONS WERE STOLEN!!!"
They're already moving to pre-delegitimize Thompson in case he wins the primary.
Simon -
That's because he's violating FEC rules.
So how many people here voted against their Congressional Representative last time around?
I did.
I'm sympathetic to Big Fred, though. Once he declares he'll be expected to actually know why he's running for president.
MM: You voted against Tammy?
Doyle said...
"At every turn, the Bush administration demonstrates sneering contempt for the rule of law and our constitutional government."
There's nothing funnier than the way liberal suddenly get God on limited, Constitutional government when it's a handy weapon with which to assail this administration, despite their total and barely-disguised contempt for (or at best, blithe indifference towards) it in all other circumstances. It descends to comedic proportions: Your leadership's pushing to grant voting representation to the District of Columbia, so they're scarcely in a position to complain about anything this administration's supposedly done to the Constitution of the United States (the old one).
Doyle - He may be, or he may not be. I have no idea, I'm no election law expert. But that's not why the complaint's been filed.
Shorter Simon:
"Allow me to ascribe to you these positions which, if you held them, would make you inconsistent."
Doyle, that was merely an example. There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that we would not have to dig very deep into the range of things you would have the federal government do that are beyond its Constitutionally-permissible boundaries. Still, I'm pleased to learn that you understand that D.C. can't be represented in Congress.
Simon -
I have no position on DC representation, but I do have a problem with warrantless spying on Americans.
It is not unusual, when approval ratings for the president or congress come up to compare them to on another.
Is it actually appropriate to compare approval ratings for the president with approval ratings for congress? Isn't this in some ways comparing apples and oranges. I mean we are comparing public approval (or disapproval) for an institution to approval for an actual individual person when we compare ratings for congress and the president.
Would it be more accurate to:
1. Compare approval ratings for the Congress with the Executive Branch (including the V.P if he is part of the executive branch., the Cabinet, presidential advisors, etc), or
2. Compare approval ratings for the president with approval ratings for an individual's congress-man or -woman?
Tammy did not get my vote. She seems nice enough, but she's been there since '98, and my impression is that she doesn't do much.
I don't know if I would have voted against her in a close race. Happily, the Republicans nominated someone who had already proven he wouldn't win.
If Iraq turns out the way S. Korea has in the years to come, Bush will be considered a near great President - more so for sticking it out in the face of bitter opposition than the victory. They will give the victory to Petreus, and rightly so. The WOT goes with Iraq. if we win Iraq, we have won the WOT also. If Iraq remains a total failure, Bush will also be considered a failure.
Right now, things are looking up for our victory in the WOT, which is why Democrats are playing musical chairs with the Surge.
This is also why so many leftists are opposed to us succeeding in Iraq. It is the final stage of Bush derangement syndrom - accepting your own death before acknowledging the rightness of your enemy.
Oh come on, Bruce. Why stop at a felony conviction in your defense of the Bush administration?
Remember, it was a partisan show trial with no underlying crime.
Not sure of your point here. Yes, Libby was convicted of multiple felonies, but no, there was no underlying crime. The convictions were for what are termed "process" crimes (i.e. they involve the investigation itself, and not an underlying crime), and under DoJ guidelines, AUSAs aren't supposed to prosecute them absent prosecution of the underlying crimes.
Yes, the President did determine that Libby was suffering enough without jail time, with a hefty fine and loss of his law license. But he is still a convicted felon, and will be unless his conviction is overturned upon appeal or he is pardoned. But all that was sidetracked was the prison time.
At every turn, the Bush administration demonstrates sneering contempt for the rule of law and our constitutional government. It's just not worth enumerating the examples because you have a servile belief that pretty much whatever they do is Good for America, by definition.
There is an old adage in law, that if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. But if you have neither, just pound the table and scream loundly.
MM said: "I don't know if I would have voted against her in a close race. Happily, the Republicans nominated someone who had already proven he wouldn't win. "
Ahh! Not quite the same. When I voted against her, I meant it.
So you have no position on something that is obviously and plainly unconstitutional, but you're deathly concerned about something which we don't have enough information about to clearly assess yet from what we do know fits squarely within the border search exception? You're not particularly concerned with an attempt to subvert the basic structural provisions of the constitution but you're terribly worried about something that's barely a problem, designed to protect the nation, and wholly soluble through the political process? Your priorities are messed up!
It doesn't necessarily mean we're all walking around feeling exceedingly pissed off at the government.
Maybe not, but I'm definitely 'pissed off' and it bothers me that so many people sit around and feel/do nothing. The hypocrisy inherent in American politics is something we can tolerate to an extent.
Eventually, people who sincerely care about the country and their rights will refuse to accept flawed mindsets that encourage highly partisan political warfare. We've reached the tolerance threshold, the government is the target of 'the people's' anger and the only way to avoid a collapse is to stop wearing the michael moore / anne coulter hats.
Unfortunately, most Americans have become complacent, fat and lazy and our cognitive failures are setting our country up for an implosion.
This is why I argue that 2008 will be yet another referendum on the Iraq War and partisan hacks are going to be livid when their 'well-reasoned predictions' fail. There is no satisfaction in telling partisans 'i told you so' because I guarantee you the excuses and 'reasons' for a 2008 implosion will all somehow tie into the partisan agenda over the long haul.
God, politics really sucks these days.
WMD, Katrina, Torture, Wiretapping, Gonzales, U.S. Attorney firings, Libby, Plame, Brownie, Meirs,
S.S. debacle, fired generals, etc.
Lucky, this just shows that you are a sucker for the mainstream media. You march in lockstep with them like the good lefty soldier that you are - never swaying from the ideological line of Bush derangement syndrom. You behave as the useful idiot that you are, consistently repeating the same tired old lies. Lenin would be proud to have you at his table (or his gulag). Maybe someday you will come up with an independent thought rather than just repeating the introductory mantras on Air America shows. Lucky, it's time to take down the photo of Keith Olberman, he is not God!
Maybe I should reprise my previous position and instead of asserting that there was no underlying crime in the Libby/ Plame case, ask Doyle to cite the relevant statutes and make a case for an underlying, non-process, crime. There is a nice list to pick from in Part I of Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
Didn't conservatives used to be the "tough on crime" people?
The crime was perjury, Bruce. It's a real crime that is illegal for a good reason. Libby committed it, was convicted of it, and was duly sent to... oh wait.
Tammy is an incredibly weak incumbent in my opinion, as far as accomplishments. Because she's unique in the House, however, she can raise money and that makes her formidable. If the Republican Party would nominate a non-nutcase or someone who was actually committed to the race...
My vote last time was pure anti-incumbent.
Can someone translate Fred's comment?
Doyle, I think Bruce's point is that the crime for which the grand jury was impaneled turned out to be non-existent (hence no "underlying" crime). Nevertheless, Bruce, I incline towards Doyle's position on this. Libby was impaled for perjury. That is still a crime, process or otherwise, and Libby was duly convicted of it (although, to be sure, there were meritorious issues that could be raised on appeal, and personally, I think it was a mistake for the defense not to seek a change of venue).
If Congress were a dog in the average home, these kind of low approval ratings appear only when he's shat on the sofa, chewed up your new shoes, eaten the Thanksgiving turkey and smashed the new widescreen TV in the last minute of a playoff game.
Unlike a dog, however, we can't put it to sleep or let it go in the woods. Congress doesn't seem to react even when its nose is rubbed in the evidence and you shout NO NOoo. Although a flat tax would leave a nice neutering effect.
Revenant...yes you are correct in that Bush (thank God) is not running so the opinion of him is moot...but I maintain that national like or dislike of congress means nothing...it is essentially "well 80% of everyone else hates the representative I love"....so truce...its all a pile.
then there is:
Seven Machos said...
It must suck to always be the smartest person in the room, Doyle. Unless, of course, your pal Lucky is there. In which case, your best option to remain mute"
I think 7-nachos meant moot but my point is good old 7, I'm here and I don't give up my standing as smartest person in the room lightly...you should know better.
The crime was perjury, Bruce. It's a real crime that is illegal for a good reason. Libby committed it, was convicted of it, and was duly sent to... oh wait.
Hey, if it wasn't perjury, I am sure Fitzgerald would have gotten him for pirating some Beatles records. Doyle.. you haven't been pirating... have you?
The Plame issue was a political show trial brought to you by the leftist media.
In the end it was Wilson who outed his own wife. And the Wilsons/plames became rich from the entire episode, all because useful idiots despised Bush and were willing to show their hatred by buying Wilson's book.
Simon said...
Doyle, that was merely an example. There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that we would not have to dig very deep into the range of things you would have the federal government do that are beyond its Constitutionally-permissible boundaries...."
Terry Schievo springs to mind.
Pogo - repeal the 17th amendment. I promise, it'll help much more than a flat tax will, restraining the passage of legislation that tends to federalize issues and resisting earmarks much more effectively than directly-elected Senators.
Harry - another good example. You can also chalk up NCLB and (arguably) the prescription drug benefit) to name but two other GOP-led infractions from recent years. And don't forget who is the co-sponsor of the D.C. bill - Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT). I'm not suggesting both parties don't do it. Indeed, the GOP's willingness to abandon federalism when it doesn't suit it is the first question I have for the chap running in my district, and it's a major reason why I'm inclined to back Guiliani as the candidate ">with the incentive structure most likely to produce a federalist President, even though I disagree with him on many issues.
Cliff notes for the smartest person in the room:
Mute = silent; Moot = Debatable. Seven used it correctly.
Addendum to previous comment - and don't even get me started on the so-called "nuclear option."
The crime was perjury, Bruce. It's a real crime that is illegal for a good reason. Libby committed it, was convicted of it, and was duly sent to... oh wait.
As I said, a process crime, not the underlying crime for which the special prosecutor was appointed and multiple grand juries empanelled.
And as I pointed out, under DoJ rules, AUSAs are not supposed to prosecute in this sort of situation. Fitz did, becauase he was a special prosecutor with an unlimited budget and needed a scalp to justify his work there.
It is telling that this is the only real incidence of Administration crime that Doyle can credibly point his finger at, and even then, it is marginal. Likely, Libby would have walked away as a non-felon if tried over on the VA side of the river.
Simon,
Quite right. You have mentioned this before and I agree it would be the best approach. Undoing a constitutional amendment seems quite difficult given that few people seem to know it even exists.
Bruce,
Is it hard to read comments with your head so far up Bush's ass?
And how does it fit...with Fen, Sloan, Seven, b, Hoosier and Jane already occupying space?
Bet it's hot...
It is telling that this is the only real incidence of Administration crime that Doyle can credibly point his finger at
It's not, and it's dishonest to imply that I was presenting the whole list, but obviously you're fond of lying.
And surely we can all agree that a felony conviction is a strong (though by no means only) indicator of criminality.
Lucky, the problem with your position is your taunts are so terribly banal. I think you serve as a foil for the conversation but you need to up your quality. Maybe some Dr. Johnson or more recently Dorothy Parker would be worthwhile reading.
Coming to the end of an argument and turning to insult isn't necessarily a fault, but you have to do it with wit. Something that would indicate education or at least advancement beyond the legal drinking age.
I know, I know, your foil forebears failed as examples, so you're on your own. And you've been making up for it with persistence. Which has been fine. But with the recent comment bans, you've been promoted in the rankings. That requires more quality. It's time to step up and really make a mark.
We're rooting for you and the possibility of a fine witty retort.
Libby was impaled for perjury.
Despite the fondest dreams of some wingnuts, he was actually only sentenced to more ordinary punishments. Though I hear some Kossacks attempted to find Vlad's bones for some sort of ceremony.... :-)
That even sounds more painful than "frog marched".
It's not, and it's dishonest to imply that I was presenting the whole list
So trot it out, and cite the convictions.
For all the hysterical screaming about "above the law" frenzy, yada yada, this has been a remarkably indictment-free administration by modern standards.
Despite the fondest dreams of some wingnuts, he was actually only sentenced to more ordinary punishments.
Which of course he didn't have to serve, because once you're a member of the Bush crime family, no one can touch you.
Roger said...
B: I am sure the term "Prendergast (sic) Machine" isnt on many people's radar these days.
10:52 AM
Your point is well taken, though it's “Pendergast”.
And don't forget that St. Adlai was elected as Gov of Ill with the help of the corrupt Dem machine, of which he was aware though he played reformer.
Remember, a statesman is simply a dead politician, unless, of course, it's Harding, Hoover, Nixon, or Reagan, tho Reagan is sometimes considered a statesman when the MSM & Academia wants another stick with which to beat Bush 43.
Hey, that's why Bob KKK Byrd is a statesman, the Cicero of the Senate. He's really dead.
Which of course he didn't have to serve, because once you're a member of the Bush crime family, no one can touch you.
Which explains the massive fine and the loss of his law license, and that felony conviction record and...oh, wait, only part of the sentence was commuted, wasn't it?
Sounds like he got touched.
Even Rick Springfield knows how to use "moot" correctly.
Hey, that's why Bob KKK Byrd is a statesman, the Cicero of the Senate. He's really dead.
I always suspected he was animatronic.
Which of course he didn't have to serve, because once you're a member of the Bush crime family, no one can touch you.
He was impaled fer Christ's sake, what more do you want?
Simon
I understand your point about Federalism & the XVII Amendment, & I don't want to argue with you, you being one of the few voices of sanity in this thread.
I agree that the XVII Amendment did not bring in another Age Of Pericles. But neither did election of US Senators by state legislators under the previous governing Constitutional clause (Art I, Sect 3, Clause 1)lead to pure government free from the vagaries of the madding crowd. There were many scandals arising out of alleged, but probably real, charges of bribery & corruption in this selection-by-state-legislators process & there was the feeling of populists that it was just The House Of Lords, brought across the pond.
I don't see this as a possible change. Some demagogue will beat you by quoting the bromide that the solution to the evils of democracy is more democracy & QED, Amendment XVII, which accomplishes this is golden!
Regards
Tully
Animatronic. Thanks. A new word for my vocabulary!
I always thought that KKK Bob's supporters, which include some of our best & brightest, he being necessary to overcome the delicate balance which would otherwise occur, his supporters were animists.
As long as WV gets more than its pro-rata share of Pork, he will be re-elected regardless of whether he actually exists.
Even if we follow Simon & repeal the XVII Amendment.
Regards
Actually, I believe that Luckyoldson has done better than usual in his ripostes this turn around - at least as far as I can see from where he says I must be.
He has actually had something worthwhile to say, even though I disagree with his points - and his understanding of geography.
Keep it up Sir Lucky: keep making progress towards being the loyal opposition like hdhouse and doyle, who can make points that sometimes give their ideological opponents pause. You know - actually contributing something worth thinking about.
Does anyone else here remember Congress as it was in '93 after 40 years of Democratic rule?
People are complaing now about 12 years of Republican Congresses, but man, was it even worse back then.
It only took 8 months of Democratic House rule to return to the days of 1993.
I remember my father, a lifelong Democrat, telling us to vote Republican every third election cycle, because "no matter how good they started when they got in, they stank like everybody else after being in awhile".
Guys
Leave the trolls alone. They don't know how to press the mute button in their moot brains.
From Inwood said...
"I agree that the XVII Amendment did not bring in another Age Of Pericles. But neither did election of US Senators by state legislators under the previous governing Constitutional clause ... lead to pure government free from the vagaries of the madding crowd. There were many scandals arising out of alleged, but probably real, charges of bribery & corruption in this selection-by-state-legislators process & there was the feeling of populists that it was just The House Of Lords, brought across the pond."
Sure. And that's not the length and breadth of the problems - the original article I structure wasn't perfect. I say "repeal" somewhat glibly, of course, but it's really something of a shorthand - as the text I proposed makes clear, it doesn't just repeal the 17th am, it corrects a couple of problems. Of course, I can't deny that the Senate was far from perfect before the 17th amendment, but I think that it was no worse than the present shambles, and unlike the Senate of today, was at least institutionally competent to play the role assigned to it in the grand scheme of things, even if its inhabitants sometimes weren't.
Wow. What a surprise. A bitter argument has broken out about Lewis Libby! It's just a shock that after all this time, we can't agree on whether he was truly a criminal or not.
The election of 2008 will clearly turn on what the candidates have to say about the Scooter. And I don't mean the late Phil Rizzuto!
Next up: The Dreyfus Affair. Boon or hindrance.
From the pre-Libby portion of this thread, hd said...
Oh come on. If congress has such low approvals why do we re-elect 90%+ each election. Americans may dislike congress but they relect in numbers that do NOT reflect approval ratings.
It's not "congress" that has such low approval ratings. It's this congress.
What you say is true, generally, about 90+ percent of Congressmembers winning re-election. Gerrymandering makes it impossible to displace all but a few members in swing districts. This is why the Dems are so frustrated and paralyzed by the "Blue Dogs." The Blue Dogs all come from the districts where Republicans could nab the seat if the Democrat strays too far from the center.
The Kos/Doyle types have this fantasy that they can primary-challenge the recalcitrant Blue Dogs with, uh, progressives, just switch them out and turn those Blue Dog states into Blue on Blue. That's not what will happen.
Either the Republicans will have another bad year, and lose a few more swing seats to new Blue Dogs -- thus further empowering the existing Blue Dogs -- or the Republicans will recover, the marginal Blue Dogs will be swept out, and replaced by moderate Republicans... who will drive the hard right crazy.
Gerrymandering has given the extremes of both parties all the seats it can, but there's a limit, and it's been reached. The rest of the Congress is going to swing back and forth like an unhooked door in the breeze, never really giving either side the mandate it wants.
But what does such a low approval rating mean electorally? That's a new development.
Paddy O.,
Geeeee, thanks for the important advice.
Maybe you could give some to your right wing friends, too.
Especially the ones who imply that anyone who disagrees with Bush is some kind of un-American traitor who doesn't deserve to live in America.
*By the way, I love your outfit.
Stodder says: "It's not "congress" that has such low approval ratings. It's this congress."
Oh, please.
THIS CONGRESS is basically made up of an even number of Republicans and Democrats, with a 1-2 vote swing, and that takes Mr. Turncoat, Lieberman into consideration.
There's NO WAY anything can get accomplished as things are...and even someone as biased as yourself knows it, too.
Democrats can't demand an immediate pull out from Iraq because of the logistics and promises made to at least listen to the General on high and merely abandoning the troops isn't an option, even though 70% of America wishes they could just flat...get out
The Democrats know they don't have time to throw the bumbler in the White House out because of the time frame between impeachment proceedings and his leaving office.
They're also limited by the same time frame and system from booting his inept and corrupt Vice President & AG...so they'll have to wait until they kick ass in the 2008 elections to really get things done.
Americans are fed up with much of what we have now, but you can bet your ass that most are more upset with Bush's brand of bullshit than any specific person in Congress.
(Prices are UP for damn near ALL staples, natural gas and gasoline...wages are DOWN...the real estate market sucks...the financial markets are on pins and needles...and Bush continues to tout his fabulous economy.)
Listening to Republicans and many of the right wing nutcases here whine about "Congress" is laughable at best...considering the Republicans controlled things for a full 12 years...and look where it's gotten us.
The only people who would believe your brand of bullshit are suffering from the same form of delusion we've seen from Bush & Company for the last 7 years.
I will give $1000 to anyone who can find a comment in this thread remotely suggesting that anyone who disagrees with Bush is some kind of un-American traitor who doesn't deserve to live in America.
seven,
I can't help by notice you've limited your extensive search to..."this thread."
Now, why is that??
Because Lucky, you are impugning the reasonable people here with incredible, un-credible insults. No serious person says the things you have suggested.
Actually, the only person here who really does any of the kind of name-calling you claim to be so upset about is...you.
Ironic, huh? (I'm sure this irony, like so many others, will escape you completely.)
THIS CONGRESS is basically made up of an even number of Republicans and Democrats, with a 1-2 vote swing, and that takes Mr. Turncoat, Lieberman into consideration
You keep hoping that American education will improve, that they'll go back to teaching both mathematics and civics, but noooooo....
This one time? I had something stuck to my shoe? I scraped it off? It was really gross? I called it LOS.
Now he's back? And man I'm bummed.
Stodder says: "It's not "congress" that has such low approval ratings. It's this congress."
Oh, please.
Jesus, LOS, you're such a twit!
The survey that prompted this post was not about Congress as an institution, it was about current feelings about the current Congress. You're acting like that's a tortured interpretation. It's the only interpretation.
You're so ready to find brownshirts under your bed, you didn't even read the rest of what I said, which was basically a nonpartisan analysis of the small margin available for a shift in power in Congress. I pointed out the folly of Doyle and others wishing the "Blue Dogs" would just go away, since the Democratic majority wouldn't exist without them, and their districts aren't going to suddenly start supporting hard-left candidates. But except for point out that the poll is what it is, I never attacked the Democratic leadership, nor did I exempt the Republican members.
Your irate analysis is also incredibly lame. You're assuming that Congress' low approval ratings are due to the fact that they haven't pulled the US out of Iraq and haven't impeached Bush or Cheney yet.
Do you really think the electorate is comprised of a bunch of Dennis Kucinich's?
You want a reason why Congress' ratings are so low right now. Here it is: They suck. Both parties. They're awful. They're self-dealing. The leadership of the Democratic Party is bumbling, weak, and doesn't understand its responsibilities. The leadership of the Republican Party is spineless, and has no idea what it's doing with the little power they've got.
Most Americans look at these idiots and compare them to, say, their boss, the pastor at their church, the coach of their kids' Little League team, and think, we've got low-quality people representing us in Congress. They don't even measure up to the people I know, who have ethics, who stick to their principles, who are transparent in their business dealings.
The low rating for Congress has little to do with Iraq -- except in ways you'd be unhappy about -- and nothing to do with Bush/Cheney. You're dreaming if you think otherwise.
Seven Machos said...
Ironic, huh? (I'm sure this irony, like so many others, will escape you completely.)
It doesn't escape him at all. In fact, it is his ultimate goal.
Luckyoldson is a parody troll. His message seems to be that liberals are sanctimonious jackasses. I happen to disagree, but it's clearly a matter of opinion. I would, however, prefer that he broaden the scope of his performance to include both ends of the spectrum, while also narrowing it by including only the most extreme elements of both sides.
On the other hand, it is possible that he has attempted to do just that and I have missed it. His frequent inconsistencies and blatant contradictions do suggest that he making an honest effort to parody both extremes. And although these do seem to be unintentional, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The bottom line is that Luckyoldson is, in reality, a thoughtful, moderate person who is clearly upset at the quality of discourse on the Internet and has decided to do something about it. To that end he has adopted the persona of a sanctimonious liberal jackass in order to demonstrate the damage such attitudes inflict on the Internet community.
For my part, I applaud him for his intentions and persistence. I do, however, believe that, having made his point, he should now drop the act and show his true self so that we can all benefit from his input to the conversation.
Luckyoldson said...
"The Democrats know they don't have time to throw the bumbler in the White House out because of the time frame between impeachment proceedings and his leaving office."
That's false both experientially and theoretically. Clinton "was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999" - impeachment procedings didn't begin until after the November '98 election, which means that even if the Clinton impeachment represents an incompressible minimum timeframe of circa three months, it won't be too late for the Democrats to try to throw out Bush until Shortly before the next election - more than a year hence. It's also theoretically false, because if one considers the formal process of impeachment and conviction, there is no Constitutional barrier to Congress impeaching and removing a President in votes taken on the same day -- and even if one could wring such a timeline out of the text - arguing from the original meaning of "try" for example - the question is non-justiciable, cf. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). It all depends on the good faith and sense of probity of Congress, and formal procedures that Congress chooses to adopt and may therefore choose to waive. Indeed, Cindy Sheehan has argued that her agenda on displacing Nancy Pelosi as Representative for San Francisco will be to impeach Bush, notwithstanding that he will have some three weeks left in office after the 111th House convenes, and while it'd be an empty gesture, there's no formalist reason why she couldn't do so, should she persuade enough of her colleagues to go along with it.
"THIS CONGRESS is basically made up of an even number of Republicans and Democrats, with a 1-2 vote swing, and that takes Mr. Turncoat, Lieberman into consideration. There's NO WAY anything can get accomplished as things are...and even someone as biased as yourself knows it, too."
Again, even on its own terms, that criticism is vaporous unless it's true that the CDP has "milled a whole bunch of reform legislation through the House, including lots of earmark-free appropriations bills, and it was all stuck in the Senate logjam. But that isn't the case." (12:21 PM comment.) But I see no reason to take that comment at face value, because lest we forget, it isn't the case that Lieberman is a "turncoat" - people like you mounted a purge to throw him out of the party, arrogance that was in turn rewarded with a Senate where your agenda lives or dies on his vote, and his voting habits in the time since has entirely destroyed the contention that he wasn't actually a democrat.
"Democrats can't demand an immediate pull out from Iraq because of the logistics and promises made to at least listen to the General on high and merely abandoning the troops isn't an option, even though 70% of America wishes they could just flat...get out."
Red herring. Certainly they can't demand such. But there is no question whatsoever that the Democrats can force such a pullout. "[T]he CDP wants to end the war, has the power to do so -- indeed, 'Nancy Pelosi could personally end the war in one budget cycle if she wanted' -- but 'lacks the spine to risk any political price for ending the war' and therefore won't." to borrow Dahlia Lithwick's phrase, "[t]he best and most comprehensive explanation for this has always been that they are gutless."
Justin -- If that's true, I am in awe of Lucky's ability and insight as a performance artist. And I have been had for a long time. I am now going to try to read Lucky's posts as though they are what you say, and see what happens.
For now, I remain skeptical.
Dangit, John, there you go using proper logic and good sense, destroying the surrealism of the moment. ;-)
Simon,
Oh, wise one.
Was it GOOD for the country?
Or...did you miss the point?
Justin says: "His message seems to be that liberals are sanctimonious jackasses."
Well, in addition to that making absolutely no sense, are you doing drugs?
And...any for sale?
I would, however, prefer that he broaden the scope of his performance to include both ends of the spectrum
Well, *somebody* has been writing phony "right-wing" posts here from time to time, but they aren't very convincing. Too over-the-top.
Lucky is unique in being doltish on absolutely every topic, but he is always joined by at least one other leftie dolt on any *specific* topic.
Ever notice that damn near 99% of the time...I'm the ONLY person you suck-asses ever disagree with?
And...based on the intellectual level of most here...I appreciate that.
Now...repeat after me: "I PROMISE TO READ..."
Luckyoldson said...
"Was it GOOD for the country? Or...did you miss the point?"
Was what good for the country? If you're referring to the clinton impeachment - was it good for the country that it was carried out in less than three months? I think you're asking a lot if you want us to believe that your problem with the Clinton impeachment was that it was conducted efficiently. Don't believe you. Your problem with the Clinton impeachment is that it took place. Your point about why the Democrats haven't and won't impeached Bush was perfectly clear: "The[y] ... know they don't have time to throw the bumbler in the White House out because of the time frame between impeachment proceedings and his leaving office." [6:05 PM comment] Now, if you want to change your point -- say to "they won't throw the bumbler in the White House out because it's bad for the country" (or to be more honest about it, "they won't throw the bumbler in the White House out because they'll get slaughtered for it at the next election" - which, ironically enough, would be exceedinly good for the country, no matter how you slice it) -- that's fine; but don't try a feeble attempt to disguise the fact that the foundation has shifted. Everyone here can read - even you, although damned if you don't do your best to hide it. And if that is your new contention, then you're basically acknowledging that the charges you and your fellow-travellers have lodged against Bush are overinflated: they're not worth putting the country through impeachment procedings for. But I've read the stuff you guys have accused Bush of, and if you really believe them, then you have no intellectually or morally credible option but to conclude that impeachment is in the country's best interest.
"Ever notice that damn near 99% of the time...I'm the ONLY person you suck-asses ever disagree with?
I disagree with folks here plenty, I just don't feel the need to call them names, so I can see how you might have missed it.
Simon,
You can't be this dense.
Was BUSH GOOD FOR AMERICA???
Yes...
or
No.
Simon,
By the way:
Is your picture Scalia or Seagal?
Simon,
Regardless...it's really neat.
Help me out here.
Is it narcissistic personality disorder here, or more borderline?
Maybe an overlap?
Luckyoldson said...
"You can't be this dense. Was BUSH GOOD FOR AMERICA??? Yes... or No."
That's an entirely new question so far as I can see - I don't see where you posed that to me (or anyone else) upthread. In any event, I reject the framing of the question - elections involve picking the lesser evil, so the operative question is whether he's been better for America than would have been either Gore or Kerry. And the answer to that question is yes: you have only to imagine what the Supreme Court would look like today, to say nothing of the courts of appeals. After that, everything else is ephemeral, relatively speaking.
Luckyoldson said...
"By the way: Is your picture Scalia or Seagal? Regardless...it's really neat. "
It's Scalia. Although you're not the first person to ask. :)
Ich diagnostiziere eine narzisstische Persönlichkeitsunordnung. Irgendjemand, der diesem Bild erlauben, gesehen zu werden, und noch fortsetzen würde, über die Politik öffentlich zu streiten, hat eine ernste Geistesstörung.
Doyle said...
Didn't conservatives used to be the "tough on crime" people?
The crime was perjury, Bruce. It's a real crime that is illegal for a good reason. Libby committed it, was convicted of it, and was duly sent to... oh wait.
Hayden reminded us that the guidelines that have been in place a long time at DOJ have been NOT to prosecute people for "lying" unless the lie is to conceal an underlying crime or protect someone else engaged in crime - with proof of the lying "not in question".
Fitzpatrick went past his SOP as US Attorney General to assert that all those constraints went away as Special Prosecutor.
If Fitz had been assigned Special Prosecutor for the Bill Clinton and the blowjob investigation, and had been inclined as a partisan - he could have nailed Clinton as a felon under "Libby Rules".
There was no question Clinton lied under oath to investigators. Repeatedly. And to protect his marriage and family. The public wisely believed - and DOJ rules capture that - that people will lie about non-crimes to protect others, lie in divorce court, and the interests of justice is not to make felons of everyone. And the public thought impeaching a sitting Prez for lying under oath about a BJ was going way overboard. Not rabid right wing partisans. But hyperpartisans in Congress & talk radio alone were not enough to get an unchecked special prosecutor appointed to do their bidding and end Clinton's Presidency.
If we think about who should be treated as felons who lie and who aren't, now?? it should be false accusers like the whore Crystal Gail Mangum in the Duke case, the prosecutor Nifong who lied to judges and to defense counsel in official communications and in court, and to the Bar to conceal his crimes (suppression of evidence, railroading).
Libby was bad justice not only because there was no underlying crime and if anyone "outed"
her, it was her husband in pursuit of fame, a better job, and money...It was bad justice because the "lie" had occurred was not known with dead certainty, but was a judgement call if it was a lie or false recollection.
Roger said...
Cliff notes for the smartest person in the room:
Mute = silent; Moot = Debatable. Seven used it correctly."
So did I.
Lucky, as much as NPR, CNN, etc. love the fact that you carry their water on this board as a mindless brownshirt, you should realize that they are never going to offer you a job. Maybe you should consider getting your G.E.D. instead.
The point is moo. Its like a cow's opinion, it doesn't matter.
Ever notice that
Cliche.
damn near 99% of the time...
Cliche.
I'm the ONLY person you suck-asses ever disagree with?
Childish insult.
And...based on the intellectual level of most here...
Childish insult.
I appreciate that.
Bitchy, sarcastic taunt.
Now...repeat after me:
Cliche.
"I PROMISE TO READ..."
Childish insult.
Having nothing substantive or worthwhile to say is bad enough, but it would be nice if you could at least learn to write so you can whisper your sweet nothings in an interesting manner.
. . .
"A mØØt once bit my sister"
"She changed me into a mØØt . . . I got better"
"Oh, wicked, bad, naught evil mØØt! Oh, she is a bad person, and she must pay the penalty!"
You can actually win by going the lowest of all. Once I won a limbo contest, but that was when I was 9.
We've already been confounded by polls. We've lived by the polls and died by the polls, so let's keep hanging onto the polls.
Seven Machos said...
For now, I remain skeptical.
I don't blame you. It took me a while to accept it. I still have my doubts sometimes. But in the end, it's the only theory that makes sense to me.
Revenant said...
Well, *somebody* has been writing phony "right-wing" posts here from time to time, but they aren't very convincing. Too over-the-top.
You're right. I had forgotten about that. If that was indeed Lucky, then I need to modify my theory a bit. My guess is that Lucky is a conservative, but not a radical. His attempts at parody of the right failed because he doesn't understand what it is that those on the far left find so offensive about his beliefs. So instead of being a parody of the right, he ended up a parody of the hard left's view of the right.
In any case, he seems to have abandoned that track and decided to stick to what he's good at.
Luckyoldson said...
Well, in addition to that making absolutely no sense...
You're smarter than that.
"You're smarter than that."
What makes you think so? I've seen no such evidence.
Dieter said... 'Ich diagnostiziere eine narzisstische Persönlichkeitsunordnung. Irgendjemand, der diesem Bild erlauben, gesehen zu werden, und noch fortsetzen würde, über die Politik öffentlich zu streiten, hat eine ernste Geistesstörung."
You're trying to tell us you're a doctor? I don't buy it.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, Darrrrrryyyyyyylllllll,
Why are you people OBSESSED with little ol' ME??
You people spend more time trying to defend Bush and his policies than you do actually discussing or debating issues that matter.
Don't you ever get tired of sucking on Bush...or each other??
Oh, and...please...I'm NOT a conservative. I'm a flaming liberal and always have been...and I love fucking with you dimwits. All I have to do is throw in any kind of typo, misnomer or grammatical faux pas...and we're off to the races.
I consider most conservatives to be social and cultural tight-asses with little or no sense of humor...but with this gang...I suppose that's a "mute" point.
HA!
social and cultural tight-asses with little or no sense of humor.
I'm always amused at how liberals demand respect for their values but then mock the values of others.
MM,
"So how many people here voted against their Congressional Representative last time around?"
I usually vote for whatever sacrificial lamb the R's put up against my Representative For Life, Norm Dicks. It's not that Dicks is such a terrible choice; I'm certainly not embarrased to have him represent me (in the way that, e.g., Seattle should be monstrously embarassed at sending McDermitt back to Congress year after year.) But I do generally prefer what the R's have to offer, though not always by much, and I really dislike the huge margins that Dicks always wins by.
However, last time the R candidate was a genuine 9/11-was-a-government-conspiracy nutcase, so I felt obliged to pull the lever for Norm.
Fen said..."I'm always amused at how liberals demand respect for their values but then mock the values of others."
Based on your comments, you apparently have no real "values."
And please...could you get off the whining jag?
bush...lincoln?
wow
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा