Jim Purcell
- : Seattle
- : 58
- : liberal
- : Democrat
-
Can we please call time on the notion that Democrats who sign up to warrantless wiretapping and other clear violations of the law are "moderates"? I don't see anything moderate about, as Darcy Burner puts it, throwing the Constitution under a bus.
Posted at March 4, 2008 1:25 PM in response to Today's Must Read
-
If I may be (niavely) supportive: perhaps it is a ploy to get this passed the more fiscally conservaitves, only to eliminate the cuts in a year or two?
Unfortunately, that isn't the way things work in Washington today. The more likely scenario is that someone points out how even-the-liberal-New-America-Foundation supports privatization and benefit cuts in principle, so now we're just talking about how much privatization and benefit cuts. It's the tax increase that will get quietly forgotten.Posted at December 14, 2005 2:27 PM in response to "Radical Centrism" or Just Dumb?
-
I had never heard this term until Watergate, when Leon Jaworski fingered Nixon as an "unindicted coconspirator" because, he reasoned, a sitting President could not be indicted, and it was up to the House to pursue articles of impeachment if they thought it appropriate.
The National Archives has a decent explanation here.Posted at October 21, 2005 9:42 AM in response to Bush's Ace in the Hole-- The Pardon Power
-
I very much doubt that Bush is going anywhere, regardless of what happens in November 2006. If the Democrats take control of Congress, there will be investigations and hearings and subpoenas and a lot of stuff will come out, but it would be amazing if they had the time or the stomach for impeachment. A Bush presidency that is mortally wounded politically would do nicely, however.
As to "a generation before anyone looks at Republicans again," much the same sort of talk followed the Nixon resignation and the Ford pardon. Democratic dominance lasted for one election, and six years later Ronald Reagan swept the Republicans back into the White House.
I wish it were otherwise, but otherwise is not the way to bet.
Posted at October 21, 2005 9:32 AM in response to Bush's Ace in the Hole-- The Pardon Power
-
If by some miracle the Democrats regain control of one house or the other and launch an investigation into the Administration and Bush has pardoned the necessary people, presumably those people could not invoke the Fifth Amendment, right? They can't be prosecuted, so they can't incriminate themselves, I would think. I don't know, I'm asking.
Posted at October 20, 2005 3:57 PM in response to Bush's Ace in the Hole-- The Pardon Power
-
Was Ceci Collony kicked out from the NYT because of the dishonest coverage she gave to Gore? No, she is still there.
Actually, Ceci Connolly writes for the Washington Post. Katharine Q. Seelye, her counterpart at the Times, still has a job, too. As, or course, does Ste. Judith Miller. The main point, though, is perfectly true: nobody gets fired for publishing lies about a Democrat, no matter how poorly sourced.
Posted at October 6, 2005 2:38 PM in response to Gore on the Threat to American Democracy
-
The other is anger at the winger media who will almost inevitably use something in the current speech to carry on their campaign of hateful mockery against Gore.
Unfortunately, not only the winger media. As any regular reader of Bob Somerby knows, it was the mainstream media, led by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the broadcast networks, that hammered home the message every damn day that Al Gore was a liar and that George Bush was a dunce who at least had the good sense to surround himself with capable people.
The establishment press has a lot to answer for.
Posted at October 5, 2005 2:29 PM in response to Gore on the Threat to American Democracy
-
The financial scandal, however, arose in 1969, long after his nomination as Chief Justice was dead.
Posted at September 21, 2005 9:58 PM in response to Should Democratic Senators Vote to Confirm Roberts?
-
Clearly, there was a lot of aisle crossing both ways in the cloture vote. The Republican Party wasn't the ideological machine it later became, and the Democratic Party still had its southern wing.
The southern Democrats' willingness to see the Fortas filibuster succeed was, in fact, driven partly by Fortas's votes on civil rights issues, as well as Johnson's work in passing the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. It was also driven by Richard Russell's pique when a judicial appointment that he wanted in Georgia didn't get expedited fast enough to suit him.
If you want me to acknolwedge that the cloture vote was bipartisan, I'm willing to confess it. But contrary to the prevailing spin point on the right, the filibuster itself was not. It was organized and executed by Republicans--not for ideology, but for simple partisanship: they expected a Republican to win the 1968 Presidential election, they wanted a Republican President to pick the next Chief Justice.
Posted at September 21, 2005 7:12 PM in response to Should Democratic Senators Vote to Confirm Roberts?
-
The filibuster was organized and executed by Republicans. As best as I can determine, Southern Democrats, led by Richard Russell of Georgia, joined the vote against cloture, but the filibuster wasn't their doing.
Posted at September 21, 2005 4:36 PM in response to Should Democratic Senators Vote to Confirm Roberts?
