Letters to the Editor
-
Eclipse
We saw it B! Cocktailhag's description does it more justice than I can.
I had a good friend die last week. I imagined that the moon was him winking at me.....it brought me peace.
Night all.
-
@Dirigo
Tell Mr. Anon about Col Davis and how he gave up his career because he would not give up the civil rights of Gitmo prisoners unlike the Brig. Gen. who replaced him. Branding all military leaders as no good because some clearly served themselves and not their country is useless stereotyping.
-
Heffalump Droppings Again
Hey, elephant boy, McCain opened himself up to this line of inquiry with the fact he was porking his mistress, now wife, while he was still married to his previous wife. You guys sure know family values, and airport restrooms. So, if he was cozy with a foxy lobbyist young enough to be his daughter, flew back and forth to Phoenix with her, and did favors for her company, pardon me if I think that might be a slightly larger deal than Obama paraphrasing a friend and supporter in a speech. Tell us again why McLame is a big hero. He got shot down. He spent time as POW. For that, all due respect. What has done since, especially since 2000? Spent most of his time with his nose up Bushie's tushie. Straight bullshit express comin' through. love heywood.
-
Proud v. Really Proud
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179344.php
if the remarks were edited, it raises the question of why.
Michelle Obama made two appearances on Monday in which she made the "first time in my adult life" remark. In one appearance, she said "proud." In the later appearance, she said "really proud."
why go to the trouble of editing it out if there's already legitimate video where she didn't use "really"?
-
Curiouser and curiouser
Sysprog.... I can't imagine the reason for the editing, if they had a "clean" tape of what they wished she'd said. But the tape I heard clearly had an "r" sound and a gap, and it's original was the same with the "really."
Any ideas?
-
@Anonymous
Members of the armed forces in this country are not required to follow unlawful orders; and they have protection under military justice rules if they choose to challenge such orders.
It's in the nature of the relationship between the military and civilian leadership that anyone in uniform, whether officer or enlisted, has to follow general orders first, and then, if there is a problem, carefully consider whether to disobey.
That is not an easy decision to make in most situations.
As RMP points out, there is an officer who is now out of service and publicly questioning military justice protocols at Guantanamo.
Unfortunately, the military is not a democracy. It's purpose is to protect the democracy we have.
I think the military has been abused by the civilian leadership over the last few years. Still, it's hard to get too far out of line without inviting severe sanctions. That's the way it works.
-
@Anonymous
The story RMP refers to is in the latest editon of The Nation. The subject of the piece is Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor at Gitmo.
-
a simple solution to everything
snark ... but also:
turning on the activist machines here, and at other mobilizing blogs, to arrange for mindfulness and (ultimately) "boycotting" of fear-mongering and distraction media. religion is no longer the opiate ... it is now: britney spears gone insane, reality tv fights & arguments, trickery and gamesmanship to win money ... the barrage of pure bullshit can be overwhelming. and ... such a source of zone out narcotic for many, many people. bringing awareness to this connection, and how it affects other processes (like elections) is crucial. So ... glad you are spreadin' the word, glenn. you are spot on. sadly.
-
@Dirigo @RMP @Anon
Tell Mr. Anon about Col Davis and how he gave up his career because he would not give up the civil rights of Gitmo prisoners unlike the Brig. Gen. who replaced him. Branding all military leaders as no good because some clearly served themselves and not their country is useless stereotyping.
Not to mention Lt.Cmdr Charles Swift, or Gen. Anthony Taguba, or Gen. Eric Shinseki.
-
NYTimes article
http://nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html
For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk
By JIM RUTENBERG, MARILYN W. THOMPSON, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEPHEN LABATON
Published: February 21, 2008[...] an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career. Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.
Mr. McCain promised, for example, never to fly directly from Washington to Phoenix, his hometown, to avoid the impression of self-interest because he sponsored a law that opened the route nearly a decade ago. But like other lawmakers, he often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support, including the media moguls Rupert Murdoch, Michael R. Bloomberg and Lowell W. Paxson, Ms. Iseman’s client. (Last year he voted to end the practice.)
Mr. McCain helped found a nonprofit group to promote his personal battle for tighter campaign finance rules. But he later resigned as its chairman after news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor. He has criticized the cozy ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, but is relying on corporate lobbyists to donate their time running his presidential race and recently hired a lobbyist to run his Senate office.
[...] Mr. McCain made loosening the grip of special interests the central cause of his 2000 presidential campaign, inviting scrutiny of his own ethics. His Republican rival, George W. Bush, accused him of “double talk” for soliciting campaign contributions from companies with interests that came before the powerful Senate commerce committee, of which Mr. McCain was chairman. Mr. Bush’s allies called Mr. McCain “sanctimonious.”
[...] In 2001, he helped found the nonprofit Reform Institute to promote his cause and, in the process, his career. It collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlimited donations from companies that lobbied the Senate commerce committee. Mr. McCain initially said he saw no problems with the financing, but he severed his ties to the institute in 2005, complaining of “bad publicity” after news reports of the arrangement.
Like other presidential candidates, he has relied on lobbyists to run his campaigns. Since a cash crunch last summer, several of them — including his campaign manager, Rick Davis, who represented companies before Mr. McCain’s Senate panel — have been working without pay, a gift that could be worth tens of thousands of dollars.
In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has hired another lobbyist, Mark Buse, to run his Senate office. In his case, it was a round trip through the revolving door: Mr. Buse had directed Mr. McCain’s committee staff for seven years before leaving in 2001 to lobby for telecommunications companies.
Mr. McCain’s friends dismiss questions about his ties to lobbyists, arguing that he has too much integrity to let such personal connections influence him.
“Unless he gives you special treatment or takes legislative action against his own views, I don’t think his personal and social relationships matter,” said Charles Black, a friend and campaign adviser who has previously lobbied the senator for aviation, broadcasting and tobacco concerns.
[...] The senator declined repeated interview requests, beginning in December. He also would not comment about the assertions that he had been confronted about Ms. Iseman, Mr. Black said Wednesday.
[...] In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.
Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron.
Mr. McCain’s aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favoritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain’s advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that.
Recalling the Paxson episode in his memoir, Mr. McCain said he was merely trying to push along a slow-moving bureaucracy, but added that he was not surprised by the criticism given his history.
“Any hint that I might have acted to reward a supporter,” he wrote, “would be taken as an egregious act of hypocrisy.”
Statement by McCain
Mr. McCain’s presidential campaign issued the following statement Wednesday night:
“It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”
- - McCain Campaign
- - NYTimes 02/21/2008