I thought the bizarrest position was Spector's, breaking ranks to extend debate on the new bill but doing the party thing to let the Protect America Act lapse. What is the principle here? That Senate debate is more vital than "protecting America" on Superbowl Sunday? I wondered: if it was the Eagles instead of the Giants, would the balance have tipped the other way in this towering mind?

Go figure. But all the Republicans were bizarre. When McConnell called it pointless to extend since President will veto, I asked, "What is the override clause for? Is the president's ego more important to protect than America?" Plainly it was. as eyes moved toward the House chamber and the evening's farce.

There, about all that was missing from Bush's lambasting of Congress for letting the PAA expire was a mess of feathers coming out of his mouth. It was not the only such segment, and had Madame Speaker brought a down pillow along and reached into it to politely hand Bush a quantum of feathers at key points, she would have lent the occasion a dignity it lacked and given the separation of powers concept a needed boost.

Did someone mention a pony?

We should've put a stake through McCain's shriveled heart when we had the chance. Now that it's looking more and more like the mortician's candidate for President will actually head the Republican ticket, that sucking sound that you hear would be the DCCC pulling all its money out of the downticket races in AZ.

We have/had a good chance to turn AZ blue this election, but a native son running for President on the dark side will make it much harder to succeed as a Democratic candidate here. We'll give 'em a good fight anyway, but DAMN!

If only I wasn't too &*$^@#*& poor to have stayed in CA....

Yes. That is what I was saying. It's just not as much fun when said directly.

It's not all that inconsistent with Spector's prior behavior.

He knows those amendments are going to go down in flames. I think he had one on the table himself (too much SOTU gaming to remember clearly), so he was just reminding his own side not to step on his toes. Same dance as Harry essentially.

For someone who's been doing this tango for so many years, McConnell sure showed his two left feet on this one.

Liked the feather thing. I think it would have added some much needed ambience.

Time to go visit the feathers in my own pillow now. 'Night all.

http://the-band-name-game.blogspot.com/2008/01/growth-package-lifeline-of-learning.html

BAND NAME!
(1) find a good potential band name
(2) shout "band name!"
(3) repeat as necessary

Monday, January 28, 2008

Growth Package

Lifeline Of Learning

Whim Of The Gavel

Pockets Of Despair

Armies Of Compassion

Evil Men Who Despise America

The Assassin's Hand

Purveyor Of False Promises

Giggling In Dick's Ear

[Source: The State Of The Union Address]

- - the-band-name-game.blogspot.com

"Pete Sessions (TX) just trumped AZ

When asked how he felt listening to "the last SOTU from a president from Texas" said, "Well, the last SOTU from this President from Texas. There will be another President from Texas."

-- Pedinska

I know many people inagine GWB to be a Texan, but, as someone raised in Texas; I refuse to concede that point. There were plenty of progressives in Texas who warned the rest of the country about who we find ourselves stuck with, today. So what if we were outnumbered? We lived in Texas for Gods' sake. lol. Molly Ivins, "it's the record...the record".

I saw Bill Maher about 6 weeks ago. He went off on how we should at least all agree, no one should ever be allowed to run for President if they are from the state of Texas, again.

I think it was unfair but I don't necessarily blame people for thinking things can all be so easy.

Right. I'm drifting off into Planet Sweet Dreams For Now. I demand that my voice be heard, and it shall!

I forced myself to watch the annual pack o'lies -- excuse me, the State of the Union -- yelling all the way at a TV that wasn't hooked to cable. In this case, it meant watching on ABC.

To me, the most striking visual from the whole sordid affair was when Bush prodded the Senate to extend the "Protect America Act" -- "The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America. We have had ample time for debate. The time to act is now" -- and the camera behind him panned to a chamber where the right half stood, whooping, and the left sat in stony silence.

However, I watched the post-speech "analysis" (until the start of Sebelius' speech), and the "experts" -- Charlie Gibson, George Stephanopoulos, George Will, Martha Raddatz and Dan Bartlett -- touched upon several highlights. But how much time did they spend mentioning this unbelievable, let alone unlawful, act? I don't have enough cigars to pass out for the correct guess; sorry. Mickey Mouse, indeed ...

As Glenn Greenwald says, many of our Democratic Senators may have voted Nay today during the cloture vote on SSCI's FISA amendment to show they are aggrieved that Republicans would trample Democrats' perogative to debate amendments to the SSCI bill that Democrats would have voted Nay on anyway.

This act of spite, however, is exactly what our Founders built into our system of government--hoping the competing vectors of self interest would result in a keeping this country on the true and narrow path.

Hooray for self preservation. Long may it live.

But it is precisely this principle that makes me at least somewhat confident that, were it to rule on some matter having to do with FISA, the GWOT, or BushCo's various other outrages against the constitution, SCOTUS might well end up ruling against BushCo--not because its conservative justices really oppose the outrage in question, but because they oppose being asked to rubber stamp it in a way that would implicitely diminish their perceived institutional power:

The only reason Democrats were able to hold their caucus together today to filibuster is because The Senators were offended that their inalienable Senatorial Right to vote on amendments was deprived by the GOP's premature Cloture Motion. The one (and only) "principle" that can really inspire many of these Senators to take a stand is the protection of their Senatorial prerogatives. Many of them don't actually have any beliefs other than that.

I'm betting that Mr. Roberts will not be eager to preside over a weakened court for the next 20-30 years as the result of his having ruled in favor of BushCo in a way that he might agree with in principle but which would render the court weaker than it was prior to such a ruling. E.g. ruling that the MCA was fully constitutional, including its provision stripping US citizens of full habeas corpus rights. If SCOTUS does that, it will effectively render itself subordinate to congress and the executive for having blatantly acquiesced to their mutual demand that the constitution be selectively suspended to fit partisan political, political and ideological needs.

Does Mr. Roberts really want to do that? Even Misters Rockefeller, Reid and Specter weren't willing to go quite that far today. I suspect that Mr. Roberts won't either.

I realize that it's not quite the same. But it's very similar, I think. And most of the time, institutional self-interest trumps partisan loyalty between people of comparable power.