Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Shooter McGavin
Published Letters: 36 Editor's Choice: 1
One of the most distressing elements of Progressive political discourse over the last 8 years has been the rising belief that in order to deal with the deplorable excesses of Bush and the Republican Party, Progressives need to develop a strident liberal orthodoxy with enough “backbone” to stand up to the challenges presented by the supposedly unified Conservative front. Greenwald’s plan for a Progressive kristallnacht seems to be just the latest chapter in this saga.
As a more conservative Democrat, I’ve got to wonder if anyone who has seen the Republican Party disintegrate over the last couple of years thinks this is a good idea. All that “RINO” hunting chased off the Country Club Republicans, and left us with the Jesus Loving, Global Warming Denying, Tax Cutting, Immigrant Hating, Waterboarding, maniacs pack the GOP today. I’m a fiscally conservative, socially liberal guy. Do you really have to get rid of me to make progress? Is “ideological purity” the goal? Is “DINO” hunting next, as we collapse our values around a core defined by an ever shrinking circle of true believers while I (and my checkbook) and sent to the sidelines?
I happen to know Stenny Hoyer personally. You know why Stenny Hoyer keeps winning elections? Because Stenny Hoyer is a pro-choice, supporter of affirmative action, gay rights, who does spectacular constituent service work and raises millions for fellow Democrats in Congress. You want to get rid of him for Collins Bailey, who is pro-life, supports the death penalty, concealed carry, No Child Left Behind, and an isolationist foreign policy? Lord, I hope not.
this is terrifying. Make an "example" of enough Blue Dogs and somehow they will return to the fold? Why don't you kids just publish a list of how you think members of Congress should vote and kill the ones who don't? Bullet to the back of the noggin out behind Rayburn and a shallow grave on the Mall, covered in quicklime.
Better yet, why not skip the voting all together? Just institute a Counsel of the Enlighted and let them decide everything for us.
I’m not a surrender monkey, because no matter how much some of you want it to be, this is not a war. Do times of national crisis (real or imagined) lead to regrettable excesses? Of course they do. But retroactive civil immunity for telecom companies who acted in good faith at the direction of the Executive is not the same as the interment of American Citizens because they are of Japanese decent.
What I have been suggesting from the beginning is that we need to establish – perhaps over an extended period of time – in the minds of Joe Average Voter that the Democratic Party is a party that can govern competently. This means addressing the issues that matter to them. This does not include the perceived ideological impurity of the Blue Dogs. This includes bread and butter economic and local issues. Not surprisingly, this polling data supports this, with Economic concerns at the top of every recent poll, followed by gas prices, and then the war in Iraq.
Before everyone goes baying for blood, we need to remember that this Administration’s abuse of the 4th Amendment is going to be an issue on which a miniscule percentage of the population go out and vote.
“A tu quo que fallacy is committed when one responds to criticism by criticizing the critic.”
Sam Brownback (regretably) supports warrantless wiretapping here, so he can no longer criticize the Chinese. Of course. It makes sense now! Hypocrisy negates the validity of criticism. Please note that going forward, anyone who has ever supported any curbs on privacy or free speech anywhere ever (including shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre) will be precluded from criticizing the wholesale censorhip of daily life by the Chinese government.
@ Jebbie
I am a registered Democrat.
It's interesting to me that the Court disclaimed the possibility of requiring the Administration to develop a priv. log. Instead, they supposed to use Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 45 as a guide, which might make for a lower standard. They can just deny the existence of something if they don't have to put it on a priv. log.
"So is there any mechanism (Either the court or the bar) for sanctioning the attorneys responsible for taking these ludicrous arguments to the court?"
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 allows for sanctions of an attorney who submitts a motion that contains mistatements or other problematic elements.
11(b) (2) and (3) require "that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery."
So you could make the argument that if they knowingly put forward a pile of crap, the judge could sanction them. The chance of this happening is somewhere between "slim" and "none." I would suggest however that people trying this argument again might be in big trouble.
Well, the standard is "knowing." Novel theories are not always sactionable. As I mentioned before, what this does establish is a good precident. If someone goes out and makes the same argument again - after it has been rejected - then they could very well be sactioned.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
