Gift of kidney to ailing lawmaker against the rules

ETHICS LAW: Legislative aide wants to donate organ to Nome legislator Richard Foster.

By SEAN COCKERHAM

Published: January 25th, 2008 12:24 AM

JUNEAU -- Nome Rep. Richard Foster is famous at the state Capitol for his love of machine guns and the weekly "Foster Night" musical jam parties he used to host in his Capitol office...

Foster, a retired air taxi operator first elected to the House in 1988, is a colorful character in the old Alaskan style.

His official legislative Web site lists his interests as "Enjoying the country, Music by Spank The Dog."

Foster also likes guns, a lot. He faced federal charges in 1991 of illegal possession of unregistered automatic weapons. His stash included two AKs, a German MG 42 from World War II, two British World War II-style Sten guns and a Soviet 50 mm mortar.

The jury in Nome, where Foster was born, quickly found him not guilty on all counts...

Foster is also known for jokes that can crack up somber House floor sessions.

"He'll make you smile on a dark day in this building when smiles are hard to come by," said Stancliff, the legislative aide who wants to give Foster one of her kidneys.

http://www.adn.com/politics/story/293601.html

Thank you.

The stillness of a winter moon,

rides the thin chill breath of night.

the bounding thoughts in silence swoon,

frosted in the tranquil light.

G'night everyone.

Trying to characterize that as "telling people how they need to think" is stupid. -- Glenn

Not to mention insulting to your commentariat who, quite obviously, think for themselves. But then, maybe Daniel's used to being told how to think by the M$M, so he's assuming that's how you work too. That's a shame.

I just don't see how this fits into the current media narrative that Bill Clinton's "trashy, ugly" comments somehow imply that the only reason that Obama won so convincingly in SC was due to his race.

First, Glenn's narrative is not the same as the "current media narrative" you are implying he is following. From Glenn's post:

One highly likely explanation for this huge disparity is that so many voters decided to vote for Obama in the last several days as a result of their revulsion towards Obama's treatment by the Clinton campaign

But come on: only an idiot would claim that Obama's race had nothing to do with the margin of his victory.

Could you quote where Glenn said this? Reading comprehension - meaning what is actually said versus what you think you read - is your friend. Or, at least, it will keep you from making untrue observations.

What's so horrible about the Clinton strategist comments? Again, I'd heard these exact same reports from media sources like Salon for weeks before the Clinton strategists were ever quoted saying the same.

Again with the reading comprehension issue: Glenn's point is that it is hypocritical for the left to accept from democratic candidates behavior that will then be considered unnacceptable in the general election. He's not addressing media sources, he's addressing Clinton's statement as part of a campaign strategy.

Your fourth point is unclear to me. You seem to be attributing media statements about the Bradley Effect to official statements from members of the Obama campaign. That's pretty dishonest unless you can provide a cite for an actual quote.

Lastly, your eye rolling fatigue might be mitigated somewhat if you were to improve your reading comprehension. Then again, you might come down with headaches from the cognitive dissonance.

Maybe you could just apply an irony detector to your own statements:

the number of times that commentators (like those on Salon, sadly) repeat again and again how "aggressive" and "trashy" and "ugly" the Clinton campaign has become while never actually quoting evidence of such.

I refer you, again, to your fourth "point".

Apparently you have no qualms about accusing others of behavior you demonstrably engage in yourself in the same post.

To be honest, I think that his passions have overruled his good sense. In that, he's not alone.

And it wouldn't be a first for him either. ;->

I think you have hit on something here. It is more personal for him than for others because he is Hillary's husband. Criticism of his tin ear may be warranted, but criticism of his passions in this case, perhaps not so much.

and then bash Glenn over the head post after post for writing stuff he didn't write

Not to mention attempting to lump him in with the comments of other media - whether on Salon or not. You know, all those Salonistas are the same. No one has a distinctive brain cell in their body....sheesh.

It's really no different than the "all them black people vote the same" meme.

Clinton was clearly comparing Obama's campaign win in SC to Jesse Jackson's campaign win in SC. That is what Glenn and DCLaw have been talking about.

No one has been denigrating Jesse Jackson's personal history here. When DCLaw writes:

Jesse Jackson objectively, factually, and indisputably did not have the same endorsements, widespread popular support, credibility, message, and galvinizing effect on the electorate that Obama does

He, like Clinton, is referring to historical campaign facts. He is also saying that Clinton's analogy is, therefore, false and misleading. There is nothing in his point that addresses Jesse Jackson as being personally marginal.

Might be channeling a bit, but Cythera can spell and put together complete sentences.