So, for those of you keeping track at home, I know it can be confusing, trying to keep track of what is and is not allowed in politics. In order to help, I thought I would pass on what appears to be the right wing’s approved list:
Accusing the Senate of being unconcerned about American Security: ok
President’s chief advisor urging Republicans to “run on the war”: ok
Waiting until the after the labor day before midterms to start a new marketing campaign on going to war in Iraq: ok
Accusing Senators who questioned the reach of the PATRIOT act of aiding terrorists: ok
Running ads linking Daschle and Saddam Hussein: ok
Running ads accusing a disabled veteran of being soft on national security: ok
Using the suicide of a White House attorney to advance a political cause: ok
Using a memorial service to encourage people to remember the life and cause of a fallen Senator and to honor his memory by making his cause their own: vile and despicable
October 29th, 2002
|
General |
3 comments
Here
Why? Because there is a picture of Mondale and Clinton laughing at the service.
Gee, turning a memorial service into a joyous remembrance of a man’s life and work and passion. What a rotten, horrible idea.
UPDATE: Yeah, I am sarcastic and pissy here. I don’t care. Instapundit took a cheap shot at politicians he does not approve of based on the fact that he doesn’t think laughing is appropriate at a memorial service. As if people haven’t been laughing at their grief since time began. Ever hear of an Irish wake? Clinton and Mondale, and the people who attended the rally in general, prefer to celebrate the life instead wallow in the death. Instapundit sees it as a sign of moral failing instead of what it is - an expression of strength and love. Instapundit is so blinded by his hatred of all things progressive that he refuses to see the simple truth - not everyone mourns in his prescribed fashion. it is pathetic.
UPDATE 2: Drudge is in on the act
UPDATE 3: Atrios and Hesoid also talk about this.
October 29th, 2002
|
General |
3 comments
this story, Huckabee let a rapist, and soon to be murderer, free. Becasue he thought the person had been framed by Clinton:
New sources, including an advisor to Gov. Mike Huckabee, have told the Arkansas Times that Huckabee and a senior member of his staff exerted behind-the-scenes influence to bring about the parole of rapist Wayne Dumond, who Missouri authorities say raped and killed a woman there shortly after his parole.
Huckabee has denied a role in Dumond’s release, which has become an issue in his race for re-election against Democrat Jimmie Lou Fisher. Fisher says Huckabee’s advocacy of Dumond’s freedom, plus other acts of executive clemency, exhibit poor judgment. In response, Huckabee has shifted responsibility for Dumond’s release to others, claiming former Gov. Jim Guy Tucker made Dumond eligible for parole and saying the Post Prison Transfer Board made the decision on its own to free Dumond.
But the Times’ new reporting shows the extent to which Huckabee and a key aide were involved in the process to win Dumond’s release. It was a process marked by deviation from accepted parole practice and direct personal lobbying by the governor, in an apparently illegal and unrecorded closed-door meeting with the parole board (the informal name by which the Post Prison Transfer Board is known).
In brief, one of Clinton’s distant cousins was raped by Duman. A reporter for the Post ran a couple of columns claiming that - despite the mound of physical evidence - that Druman was innocednt and Clinton framed him, becasue, well, because he is Clinton. Huckabee got hold of this, went to pardon the man, and that blew up in his face. So, he said that he would wait on the parole board reccomendation. The parole board paroled him. Earlier this year, he was arrested in the rape and murder of two more young women (it has yet to go to trial, but again, there is a boatload of physical evidence, and the mo’s are similiar). When this came to light, Huckabee denied influencing the parole board’s decision. This story - backed by on the record testimony of parole board memembers - shows that the only reason the parole board acted as it did was becasue of Huckabee’s influence.
One women was destoryed in print, and tow more were simply destroyed, becasue a mainstream politician shared some of the right wing’s blind hatred of Clinton.
Thanks to Atrios, Daily Kos, and thinking it Through for the link.
October 29th, 2002
|
Politics |
2 comments
DFL sues over absentee ballot issue
DFL attorney Alan Weinblatt told MPR that the party’s lawsuit argues that people who voted absentee should be able to get a new ballot under the state’s spoiled ballot provision.
The article does not cite the relevant laws, so I will have to do some digging before I can give an opinion on this. Of course, the fair thing to do is to make every effort to get new absentee ballots to all voters. Aside from cost (and possibly a badly written law), I do not see why the ballots could not be over-nighted, along with an overnight return envelope.
But we aren’t dealing with fair, we are dealing with election law.
In purely crass, political terms, I don’t think this lawsuit will hurt the DFL. After all, they are simlpy asking that absentee voters get the same choice as voters at the polls. Win or lose, they are standing up for the idea that everything should be done to ensure that everyone’s vote counts.
October 29th, 2002
|
Politics |
2 comments
The feds are going to charge Muhammadwith extortion
Intervening in the wrangling over where two suspected snipers will be tried, the federal government on Tuesday was expected to file extortion charges against John Allen Muhammad that would subject the 41-year-old former military man to the death penalty, sources told NBC News. Word of the federal charges came after police in Tacoma, Wash., announced that Mohammed and 17-year-old John Lee Malvo are now suspects in a slaying and a synagogue shooting there.
‘Cause, you know, extortion is just so much worse than murder. This is grandstanding of the worst kind. Raise your hand if you think Alabama, Virginia or Maryland were going to go easy on this guy.
Remember, when it came to hunting the guy down, this wasn’t a federal issue. Ahh, but now that there is a chance to appear all stern and severe in front of a camera, Johnny Ashcroft is all over this case.
Link via Tbogg
October 29th, 2002
|
Politics |
no comments
So far, not so good
Average fuel economy for the galaxy of shiny new 2003 model cars and trucks headed for showrooms is 20.8 miles per gallon, about 6 percent below the high point for passenger vehicle fuel economy set 15 years ago.
Among the highest achievers, the percentage of the new crop of vehicles getting more than 30 mpg drops to 4 percent from 6 percent a year ago. Only 33 of the 934 cars, trucks and vans listed in the 2003-model annual fuel economy statistics released Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency are that efficient. That compares with 48 of the 865 models available last year.
Why? The auto makers are making a sensible, economic decision:
“With gas prices at historic lows, the cost of fuel is not as important as many other vehicle characteristics such as the utility of the vehicle, how many passengers they can carry, cargo and towing and safety features,'’ said Ron DeFore, a spokesman for the Coalition for Vehicle Choice, which lobbies against government fuel-economy rules.
He is partly correct. When presented with a choice between a long term benefit (fuel efficiency) and a short term reward (pretty much anything else) many, if not most, consumers will choose the short term gain. The short term gain provides immediate gratification, the long term gain is less well understood, and, frankly, it is easier for the car industry to sell instant gratification. Combined with the lack of real alternatives, and the consumer is pushed almost inevitably to make a decision based on anything other than fuel efficiency.
Normally, this is not a concern. That is just how market’s work. However, automobile fuel efficiency, or lack thereof, is not just a personal choice. It has huge and dramatic societal costs, in terms of pollution, economic stability, and national security. This is why national standards are required. Market forces are not going to correct this problem. If the market is not going to, then we need an outside force - the government - to. In this instance, the cost we pay as a society for allowing the market to dictate our addiction to oil is simply to high to ignore.
October 29th, 2002
|
Politics |
no comments
Time for me to get on my soapbox. This is probably the most important election in my lifetime. With just one lost Senate seat, power in this country belongs to the radical wing of the Republican party - a wing bent on remaking the country in its image. Clean air, clean water, worker’s rights, public education, personal privacy, Constitutional freedoms are all at stake. So do something. I have a list of candidates in close Senate elections in the left hand column. If you can, give to them. Even this late, the money can help get out the vote efforts. If you live in their states, volunteer for them. Vote. Don’t stay away from the polls because an opinion poll tells you the vote is not needed. It is. Those polls are just guesses. If you think the seat in your area is safe, it is not, unless you vote. If you think it is hopeless, it is, but only of you do not vote. Nothing is settled until all the votes are counted. You have bitched about politicians since the day you realized what one was. So, now is your chance. Do something about it.
October 29th, 2002
|
Politics |
one comment
Putin is aboutto place the Bush Doctrine in action
President Vladimir V. Putin, echoing statements by President Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks, said today that Russia was prepared to strike at international terrorist groups in whatever country harbored them.
Speaking in the anguished aftermath of the 57-hour siege of a Moscow theater by Chechen guerrillas, Mr. Putin ordered the Russian military to draft a new doctrine adapting the country’s forces and tactics to meet terrorist threats.
This was the inevitable result of Bush making go it alone an official policy. Now he has two choices: allow Russia to romp wherever it pleases, or try and get Russia to back down. In the first case, he makes the world less safe and more inviting to terrorists (and if you think the US has done a bad job in Afghanistan, look at the horrible record the Russian army has in Chechnya). In the second case, Bush starkly declares that there is one set of rules for the US and one for the rest of the world. That further increases tensions, decrease the willingness of people to assist us, and accelerates challenges to American power.
Other nations, especially China, India and Russia and the EU to a lesser extent, are not going to like having their actions dictated by the United States. They may not be able to do anything about it now, but that will not always be the case. By rubbing their face in it, Bush could very well be accelerating the backlash.
October 29th, 2002
|
Politics |
no comments
