McNerney!!

BTW, tauscher in German is someone who trades off or exchanges. Her previous tradeoffs make her deserving of a primary challenge.

Danke, Howie.

Trex could give you the sordid details, but John Barrow’s district was changed to make it Republican. I was amazed he won this time. His vote on the estate tax was lousy but he stuck with the Dems on Iraq. David Scott has no excuse.

Thanks Howie– this one definately got my knickers in a twist this am, I did link to it a coupla threads back. The wapoo is taking comments…

Great post, btw. Slice and dice.

Howie–you nailed this one perfectly.

See if I read THEIR free website anymore (without clicking on any advertisements, ever)!

Legislators cannot be held liable for votes.
Time to sue the lobbyists.

Follow the Money.

Aiee, a topic not Libby-trial-related. Interesting and well-written of course, but symbolic of the wait-state we are now in… Aieee… :( C’mon jury …

As usual, Howie righteously skewers those who desert their Dem party and lie about it.
Good job Howie, there is a target rich environment out there.

Not knowing really anything about Tauscher before reading the WaPo article, I came away with the conclusion that she really was Lieberman in a pantsuit. I thought Eilperin & Grunwald went out of their way to treat her objectively (arguably to the point of pandering), but they certainly didn’t strain themselves by trying to make her more attractive to the majority of Americans who would staunchly disagree with her advocacy/enabling of the current administration.

For years, I lived in SF East Bay and was dismally represented by Tauscher. Then I moved to Palm Springs, where my critter was Mary Bono. Then to North San Diego: Daryl Issa. I saw little to distinguish between them: all three are retrograde lackeys. (Thank God I’m now in Mass and represented by Barney Frank, bless him.)

I often wonder where those 90% voting numbers come from. For example, Tauscher courageously voted with her party (and only 420 other members) for the controversial HR 437 on February 13.

So we can all rest a little easier that the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 500 West Eisenhower Street in Rio Grande City, Texas, will henceforth be known as the “Lino Perez, Jr. Post Office”.

Howie, what can we do to help you re Tauscher?

I’m going to repost here something I first posted yesterday on an important story that I feel has already disappeared without trace:

Yesterday in a 2-1 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Coulmbia affirmed the Congress’s right in the Military Commissions Act to deny federal courts habeas corpus review of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

The 3 judge panel was comprised of the following:

Raymond Randolph, Bush I appointee, wrote the opinion in this case.

David Sentelle, Reagan appointee, voted to overturn the convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter. One of the judges responsible for appointing Kenneth Starr to investigate President Bill Clinton. Voted with Randolph in this opinion.

Judith Rogers, Clinton appointee, dissented.

As Judge Randolph framed the issues of the case:

The first question is whether the MCA applies to the detainees’ habeas petitions. If the MCA does apply, the second question is whether the statute is an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. [p.9]

I believe all 3 judges agreed that the MCA applied to the detainees’ habeas petitions and that it was Congress’s intent to deny all such petitions.

With regard to the second point, Randolph argues in the majority opinion that these were aliens detained outside the United States, with no real connection to it or its courts. They therefore never had a habeas right because they were never under an American court’s jurisdiction.

In her dissent, Rogers cited the Supreme Court decision in Rasul:

“[a]pplication of the habeas statute to persons detained at the [Guantanamo] base is consistent with the historical reach of the writ of habeas corpus.” 542 U.S. at 481.

So the detainees did at some point have a habeas right recognized by the Supreme Court. In such a case, the only way that Congress can suspend habeas is in accordance with Article I, 9, cl.2 of the Constitution which states “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

This is a limitation on the powers of the Congress which were clearly superseded in the MCA. In the absence of a rebellion or invasion, the Congress can not arbitrarily suspend habeas.

The effect of such a move, Rogers captures in the following: (Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers citing William Blackstone)

To bereave a man of life (says he), or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.

THE FEDERALIST NO. 84, at 468 (E.H. Scott ed. 1898) (quoting WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, 1 COMMENTARIES *131-32);

In other words, this is the kind of issue for which our forefathers fought a revolution and thought it was worth fighting for, that a government must be answerable for its actions and that those actions are challengeable.

As I see it, Randolph is making the case that detainees never had a habeas right. This would be a defensible legal (if not ultimately Constitutional) position if both the Congress and the Supreme Court had held to it consistently. But they haven’t. The Supreme Court in Rasul acknowledged that habeas existed in such cases, as did the Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act (while trying to place limitations upon it). Habeas is not a sometime thing. Once admitted it can not be finessed or glossed over. As soon as it is accepted however grudgingly, it can not be suspended except under the conditions of rebellion or invasion specified in the Constitution. Randolph’s opinion is specious because it chooses to ignore the judicial and legislative histories of the current habeas controversy, our common law heritage, and the Constitution itself. That’s a lot to overlook even for an appellate judge, except of course one who believes in arbitrary government.

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov…..-5062b.pdf

Don’t get mad — get even.

Are there any credible Democratic candidates considering a primary challenge? The last I heard, the best candidate, a local state senator, was more interested in becoming the state education secretary. Is there anyone else considering the race?

Th @
3

Trex could give you the sordid details, but John Barrow’s district was changed to make it Republican. I was amazed he won this time. His vote on the estate tax was lousy but he stuck with the Dems on Iraq. David Scott has no excuse.

Like I’ve said before, the only good thing about Barrow being elected is that we don’t have to see his pompous ass around Athens as much!

Here’s an interesting primer on jury deliberations from the Jury Research Institute:

http://www.jri-inc.com/article3.htm

thanks Hugh @ 13, for bringing up that apalling travesty from yesterday that seems to have indeed just been ignored.

;( shame

although the post does have a story on it right now

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00490.html

Primary Time.
And, time to create a third party which will give the progressive candidate another line on the ballot.

RBG – got your message, and replied

Aren’t the reasons the “left opposes” her given by her p.r. flack enough? Especially free trade and Bankruptcy law. Christ the Bankruptcy law was written by credit card companies and promoted by one of their butt boys Biden. She should escape criticism? Or opposition?

“third party”

That’s like buyin hydrogen futures- big investment with no chance of a return in your lifetime.

My big issues are medical care, energy, and fiscal sanity. Dems can win on those issues. I support those who have good workable solutions and stand a better than even chance of being elected. I don’t care about the party affiliation- but inevitably it will be dems who bring these issues home.

The war is, of course, an overhelming issue- but it will be on it’s way out of existance by 2008.

In all fairness (I know, I know. It’s stretching it…) to Ms. Tauscher and to the writers, the story does say Tauscher has voted lockstep with Pelosi this year, which appears to be the case, but, how hard is that?

http://www.vote-smart.org/voti…..d=BC029008

supporting legislation to scale back the estate tax

As in ‘help the poor rich folks, who can’t afford to pay taxes on inherited and unearned money‘.

They made the estate tax sound like everyone who wasn’t below the poverty line would have to pay it, when it actually applied only to estates over $2 million (for an individual). Another of Shrub’s messes we’ll have to clean up.

“David Sentelle, Reagan appointee, voted to overturn the convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter. One of the judges responsible for appointing Kenneth Starr to investigate President Bill Clinton…”

Sentelle made that “hire” with the help of Sen. Jesse Helms and Sen. Lauch Faircloth (Starr, Sentelle, Helms and Faircloth are all North Carolinians).

John Edwards beat Faircloth in the following election, and Helms is no longer with us, but Sentelle is still right in the thick of it, and his votes have consistently defied every principle of law our founders ever considered.

The thought that someone like David Sentelle would have the power of life and death and detainment over these prisoners only proves how corrupt our judicial branch has become at the hands of the Bush family.

Cheney staved off public scrutiny of his Energy Industry Task Force by claiming priveledges that Helms and Sentelle never afforded Clinton. Sentelle should be impeached, right along with Cheney.

Scuse me, I know Helms is still with us, just wishful thinking I guess…

Froomkin is up:
The Cloud Over Cheney

By Dan Froomkin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00879.html

Howie,

Wonderful Blue America post on Saturday and it’s great to see Tauschers feet held to the progressive fire where they belong. She may be on a minor course correction now, but I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that anyone dumb dangerous enough to stay in lock step with those darn neo-republicans for so long is flawed beyond moderate excuses.
It sure helps knowing we are focused on the flaws in our party as much as the republics.

thanks

Hugh #13- Do you see that case moving up to the supremes? Thanks for the summary.

Great Luckovich cartoon about the Libby trial

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/con….._mask.html

Here’s a bit from the wapo article, ESAR

Washington lawyer David Remes, who also represents Guantanamo detainees, said he is disappointed by the decision but not completely surprised. He expects the Supreme Court to hear the case.

(snip)

Democrats, who now hold the majority in both houses, have vowed to quickly amend the Military Commissions Act with provisions that would restore habeas rights for detainees.

Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the committee’s ranking Republican, Arlen Specter (Pa.), have introduced a bill that would restore habeas corpus rights. Specter urged congressional action because the Supreme Court could take months to hear the case.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, introduced a bill last week that would return habeas corpus rights to detainees while clarifying other parts of the law. Dodd said yesterday his legislation is now “even more critical.”

It is unclear whether Bush would veto such legislation, which would challenge a central element of his anti-terrorism platform.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00490.html

The Lobby, aka AIPAC/PNAC: follow the bread crumbs! Duh!

Me @ 30 —–Also the most probable reason for Hillary’s waffling about Iraq and Iran. She is from NY, remember.

Thanks angie..) Sorry for the delay I was watching the mid day flight of bald eagles over my house.

Sounds like a plan…

Hillary and I couldn’t do it without you.

Sincerely,

Bill Clinton

Eureka Springs, AR @ 27

Hugh #13- Do you see that case moving up to the supremes?

The issue will definitely make it to the Supreme Court. There it seems to be a real toss up. The Court surprised everyone both in Rasul and Hamdan. The MCA was an effort by Republicans to address the issues raised in Hamdan. So who knows? With Roberts and Alito onboard, they may just rubberstamp the MCA or maybe some of them may actually go back, read the Constitution, and try to understand it. OK, this is unlikely but they may question a perceived intrusion or overstepping into the judicial sphere by abolishing habeas rather than severely restricting it.

Rant warning!
The Roberts court is in some ways more in keeping with the historical political bent of the Court. Except for a few years in and around the Warren Court, the Court has not been simply conservative relative to its day but radically conservative and reactionary. Since the days of John Marshall, it has been a bastion for the protection of the rights of the rich and privileged. This is why I always find it funny (and not in a good way) when some pundit talks about the Court moving to the right. It’s always been there. In fact, it’s always been, with a few hiccups, the far right.

OT: Dickerson is a wanker!

Last week, Scooter Libby and his defense team decided not to call Vice President Dick Cheney to the witness stand. Today, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald brought him in anyway. ‘Let’s talk straight,’ he said, sounding like John McCain.

(via Froomkin)

I suppose the supreme court SHOULD have a conservative bias- in the sense that changes in the basic underpinnings of the judicial system should come slowly and methodically.
A bias for the status quo is not a bad thing in such an institution. A bias in favor of modern conservativism- however- is a RADICAL position- and not one that the court should hold.

Hugh – The MCA served it’s purpose already. CYA for Bushco. Hopefully the supremes will understand that and see Leahy and Dodd et al as another reason for, well, reason.
Oh yea, and that darned old piece of paper, the constitution.

HOWIE!!!

BLUE AMERICA!!

I like the “Lieberman in a pantsuit” description.

They should have a challenge on the next “Project Runway” for the designers to make a more modern/attractive version of the uniform worn by Ellen and Hill.

Hillary decided a LONG time ago that the nation’s first woman president has to be seen as Hawkish on national defense.. like Thatcher. She may be right.

Now her hawkish views have become unfashionable- but she can’t afford to ditch em altogether or she’ll never get elected.

Rock and a hard place.

rwcole @ 36

A bias for the status quo is not a bad thing in such an institution. A bias in favor of modern conservativism- however- is a RADICAL position- and not one that the court should hold.

My view is that the Court is not and has not been about the status quo but a radical defense of principles that have been discredited in the wider society for decades, and which invariably favor the haves over the have nots.

MassChuck @
10

For years, I lived in SF East Bay and was dismally represented by Tauscher. Then I moved to Palm Springs, where my critter was Mary Bono. Then to North San Diego: Daryl Issa. I saw little to distinguish between them: all three are retrograde lackeys. (Thank God I’m now in Mass and represented by Barney Frank, bless him.)

Tauscher, Bono, Issa: Dick Vitale would say you hit the “trifecter.”

So, let’s nominate really, really left-of-center candidates so they can be defeated by “moderate” or “posing-as-moderate” republicans. Do you not realize the country is MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. Extremists of either party will be defeated in the general election. GET A CLUE.

TOTAL DISASTER IN ITALYhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ita…..oAOxms0NUE

Prodi only had 158 votes, 2 short of the 160 votes needed. all lifetime senators did not vote on foreign policy.

Prodi pushed Iraq withdrawal, but also more troops in Afghanistan and an extended US base in Viecenza.

It was a good deal, but obviously too much gambling for the senators.

2 communists also stayed absent.

What is a moderate? Name a moderate who demonstrates leadership through action please.

Via Froomkin,

The National Press Club had a get together last night with Tony Snow and one of the topics was blogging.

Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe responded: “There seems to be this sort of – the witch hunt that’s out there. A lot of the blogs are, are, are unduly devoted to media criticism which is itself kind of interesting given all the things you could comment on. . . .

“In my humble view, the press here does a fantastic job of adhering to journalistic standards and covering politics in general,” Wolffe said.

Froomkin links to Glenn Greenwald who had a slightly different view.

It is truly astonishing that the people who enabled the administration to spew one falsehood after the next — and who aided and abetted the worst strategic disaster in our country’s history by mindlessly passing those falsehoods along to their readers, completely failing to investigate any of it, but instead obediently validating it all with journalistic approval — now want to sit around in the most self-satisfied way and pronounce that they are doing an absolutely ‘fantastic job’ and complain about the vulgar masses who disrupt their tranquility by criticizing them for being insufficiently vigilant.

Ya know, this type of article by WAPO really reeks.

Is there any way these obsequious lackeys can be more of the definition of brown-nosers. It reminds me of a line from an episode of The Sopranos where Junior is talking about the FBI and how they’re investigating him so closely that “I can taste the brillcream, they’re so far up my a$$”

These reporters stenographers can taste the brillcream.

BTW, what business is it of the … Washington … Post that constituents of Tauscher’s disapprove of her job?

Im at the point of not voting for Hillary. Im not sure I can even hold my nose and do it. Im a woman too.

DinNova #42,

You can start with Reagan, the Gingrich takeover of the House in 1994, or the last 6 years of the Bush Presidency of unrelenting polarization of American politics. Nowadays moderate Republicans are about as common as chicken with teeth. Given the Republican defeat in the November elections, it seems strange that you should be advocating that Democrats should be acting more like Republicans or Republican-lite. What the country wants now is less not more of the Republicans.

I have followed this issue rather distantly. But: Using the link which Howie provided, I checked the Pelosi and Tauscher “Iraq voting records.” They do, in fact, seem to be identical. Is further information or explanation available? Note again: I’m using the “Progressive Punch” voting records to which Howie links, right in his paragraph on this subject.

If Hillary were speaking out against the lies that put us in the war while calling the neo-nuts (in three parties) to the carpet I could understand her parsing the “mistake” word. But we are in the midst of a crisis, and denial of it all by Hillary does not bode well for repairing it.
Way to little, way to late. next?

john in sacramento @ 46

BTW, what business is it of the … Washington … Post that constituents of Tauscher’s disapprove of her job?

Some in DC can’t imagine a group of party activists targeting an incumbent. Lamont’s challenge to Lieberman was a huge deal, and these DC folks are finally waking up to the fact that Connecticut is not an anomoly but the tip of the iceberg.

I don’t particularly care for the tone of the piece, and Howie’s got some good criticisms of it – but the fact that the Post is writing about sites like Kos and Firedoglake and the challenge to folks like Short Ride Joe and Tauscher says to me that we’re on the national political radar.

Someone is worried. Maybe several someones.

OT–My apologies but couldn’t resist. We can lighten up the mood a little.

From overheardinnewyork.com:

If You’re Too Busy for That, You’re Too Busy for Life

Junkie lady: Excuse me, I need someone to help me. I’m trying to run for President, and I need someone — whaddyacallit — to book my limos and hotels for me and shit.

Librarian: Like a personal assistant?

Junkie lady: Yeah, that’s it! I’m running for President, and the minorities keep telling people that I’m crazy. I’m too busy to fuckin’ beat em with a metal baseball bat, you know, so I need a personal assistant.

–228 E 23rd St

The Caress … ain’t she cute?

Hugh @
40

rwcole @ 36

A bias for the status quo is not a bad thing in such an institution. A bias in favor of modern conservativism- however- is a RADICAL position- and not one that the court should hold.

My view is that the Court is not and has not been about the status quo but a radical defense of principles that have been discredited in the wider society for decades, and which invariably favor the haves over the have nots.

The Federalist Society

[…]

Who are they?

With 25,000 members plus scores of close affiliates nationwide–including Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, and University of Chicago brain-boxes Richard Epstein and Frank Easterbrook (also a federal appellate judge)–the Federalist Society is quite simply the best-organized, best-funded, and most effective legal network operating in this country. Its rank-and-file include conservative lawyers, law students, law professors, bureaucrats, activists, and judges. They meet at law schools and function rooms across the country to discuss and debate the finer points of legal theory and substance on panels that often include liberals–providing friction, stimulus, and the illusion of balance. What gets less attention, however, is that the Society is accomplishing in the courts what Republicans cant achieve politically. There is nothing like the Federalist Society on the left.

The Societys origins can be traced back to 1979–the year before Ronald Reagans victory–when a legal scholar named Michael Horowitz published a tract on the public-interest law movement, exhorting conservatives to overturn a half-century of liberal dominance of the legal establishment. This could be done, he wrote, by indoctrinating or winning over succeeding generations of law students, lawyers, and judges. By definition, the campaign had to be rooted in the fertile ground of law schools. To Horowitzs good fortune, Reagan was elected in 1980, and his administration set to work filling the sails of the Federalist movement. …

How have they done it?

Horowitzs concept was taken up with relish by senior members of the new Administration. They operated on two tracks–designed to insure that the Reagan Revolution would well outlast the Reagan Presidency. The first, to reclaim the Federal courts from liberals, swept an array of conservative scholars and judges from law schools and state courts onto the Federal bench: the likes of Robert Bork, Ralph Winter, Antonin Scalia, Richard Posner, Sandra Day OConnor, and Anthony Kennedy.

The second track was even more forward looking and involved the apprenticing of a new generation of conservative lawyer-intellectuals-under-30 to the Reagan apparat. This second track required fresh meat, which is where the Federalist Society came in. The founding chapters of the Society were established at Yale, where Bork taught before Reagan nominated him to the bench, and at the University of Chicago, where Scalia was faculty advisor and from whose ranks he would later recruit former student-Federalists to prestigious Supreme Court clerkships. Originally the chapters were little more than a debating circle and comfort station for young conservatives who felt themselves victimized by liberal persecution. The Societys executive director Eugene Meyer recalls of his experience at Yale Law School that “someone was writing Œfascist on our posters, or taking them down. Then cooler faculty heads [such as Bork] channeled our angers and frustrations into organizational activity.” Keen self-promoters, they made a mascot of James Madison (on the debatable grounds that he favored decentralized government in his later years) and took the name of Madisons 18th-century Federalist Party as their own.

Click on the link above for the whole article

Off to lunch

L8r

Emptywheel hits another home run:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/21/101949/711

Thank you for bringing this to my attention Howie….and let me know as soon as Tauscher has a progressive primary opponent that I can contribute to.

What is most disturbing on a meta-level about this anti-progressive hit piece is that it demonstrates how the Washington Post has degenerated into a local paper in a one company town — rather than being the daily paper that acted as a watchdog over the federal government.

The essense of democracy is choice, but this piece was all about how absolutely horrible was the very idea that Ellen Tauscher might face a strong primary challenge in 2008. The Post has simply become a cog in the incumbency protection racket — and it sucks.

Peterr (51) — oh, absolutely, a bunch of someones are interested in a disruptive force that encourages direct representation of the people in a government of, by and for the people, because it interferes with a government owned and operated by a couple handfuls of corporate interests.

How dare those constituents seek to fire incompetent representation like Tauscher and Lieberman!! The nerve of these angry hordes, these rabid lambs, interfering with the conduct of business as usual.

I can see from looking at Tauscher’s profile at OpenSecrets.org that constituents are going to have to have a more constructive dialogue within the ranks of labor and among women voters. Is this the best person to represent them? Or can they find, groom and run somebody better?

Well, for Pete’s sake.

Tauscher is simply playing a very old and very productive game, which is to be an authoritarian, corporatist Republican who poses as a “pro-choice” Democrat in order to get elected in California.

The originator of that tactic was also a Californian, Dianne Feinstein, who has been selling out and fucking over progressives consistently throughout her entire career in the Senate. And you won’t have heard anyone among the Beltway Democrats say boo about her, either.

DinNova @
42

So, let’s nominate really, really left-of-center candidates so they can be defeated by “moderate” or “posing-as-moderate” republicans. Do you not realize the country is MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. Extremists of either party will be defeated in the general election. GET A CLUE.

Your statement/position is a bit myopic.

In many congressional races we’ve already seen in 2006 how a slightly lefty candidate (Sherod Brown – OH) can win in a race which was previously thought to be won by a moderate Conservative or a Centrist Dem (beating Pombo, for example). And, in the Senate we saw in Montana a Progressive (Jon Tester) plain beat a rock-hard Conservative in a middlin’ conservative state. So, consider the political weather and the particular locale of the race and do a little math.

In presidential races, despite pop commentary to the contrary, I believe America will wobble between Dem & Repub pretty equally with almost complete disregard for just how far to the Left or Right a candidate it. Let me explain.

Let’s go back to Harry Truman’s second race. He was expected to lose handily to Dewey, but won in a close close race. Ike won in an easy race because everyone knew and “liked Ike”. Kennedy-Nixon was another nail-biter like Truman-Dewey. After Kennedy’s death Johnson, like Eisenhower, won easily (largest victory in modern times). Then America went Republican largely because the Dem party disintegrated over Vietnam — a walkover for Tricky Dick. After that came Ford-Carter and again it was very close. It seems when there’s no over-riding crisis that it’s close. Carter-Reagan…close. Reagan-Mondale was a walkover, mash, crush. The, right back to a close one where Bush was behind until the last week or so and came from behind to win by a few pts. Some might wonder if this beginning of polling “error” indicated the beginning of computerized election fraud (especially seeing as how a Bush was involved). Next we had the strange 3-way with Bush, Clinton & Perot. It’s hard to say what to make of that. Next Clinton won re-election against the walking stiff Dole in a walkover. These aren’t surprise victories when a president wins re-election or when there’s an obvious heir apparent (v.p. wins after successful presidenty or v.p. wins after president assassinated). Again, right back to a close close close election with Bush v. Gore. Again, many say it was stolen. Then again with Bush v. Kerry.

So, we see a lot of close close races interspersed occasionally with a walk-over due to an assassination, heir apparent, election fraud or something really big.

That’s why a lot of people wonder if the next one will be very very close or if the Bush-phenomenon will trash Republican potential and hand it to the Dems in a walk-over.

There is also the question of what would happen if Cheney had to leave office and was replaced with a possible “heir apparent” to Dubya.

I believe Dems have about a 90% chance of winning.

OT–My apologies again.

Here’s another one from overheardinnewyork.com:

TV: ‘It’s official — Hillary Clinton is running for the presidency…’

Secretary #1: You gonna vote for her?

Secretary #2: I don’t know… I have to see who else is running.

Service associate: You think a woman can handle these 52 states? This is a big continent — you think a woman can handle that?

–Montefiore Medical Center

Biodun @ 61

Oh jeebus. Talk about the low-information voter…

I’ve been thinking about why Hillary Clinton would essentially flip the bird at the Dem base on Iraq. She, and her campaign staff, know it’s the driving issue for the base. I have a few hypotheses, but I’m going to focus on just one, which rwcole talks about @39.

Senator Clinton and her staff have decided she needs to campaign as a hawk to win the general. She might even be a hawk, genuinely. By admitting that her Iraq vote was a mistake, she erodes those hawk credentials.

Further, I think that Senator Clinton wants the flexibility to vote “yes” on an IRAN AUMF, should it come before Congress. If she denounces her own 02 Iraq vote, and then gives Bush authorization to use force in Iran…well, that doesn’t square with anybody, Dem primary voters or general election voters. She’s everybody’s hypocrite and flip-flopper.

Why do I think this? Her so-called harsh words for Bush this week-end. That if he wanted to use force against Iran, he’d better be coming to Congress for authorization. In nothing I’ve read has she denounced force against Iran. Nor have I heard her advocate for a careful and robust dipolomatic strategy, with force as a last option. “Nothing’s off the table,” she says.

I’m not saying thats she WILL vote “yes” on an Iran AUMF. Only that she needs the flexibility to do so, if she and her staff decide she should, and if it comes up. By refusing to admit her Iraq vote was a mistake, she retains political wiggle-room, avoids flip-flopper accusations, and buys herself some time. Because it’s a long time before the early primaries. If the Iran situation cools down (from my fingers to God’s ears) and her pollster tells her in September that Iraq’s starting to hurt her in the primaries, she can claim “mistake” then. At least, that’s what I think they might be thinking.

Am very interested in hearing others’ thoughts.

I must say I found Jeralyn’s article at Huff Post rather peculiar. She basically repeats Wells’ closing as her own opinion, without mentioning Fitz’s closing which directly responded to those points.

“The bottom line is, who’s to say Libby’s faulty recollections were a lie while the faulty recollections of the other witnesses were innocent mistakes?“

Did she listen to Fitz and Z. yesterday? Wasn’t this what all Fitz’s stuff about 9 people and 10 conversations was about? Fitz doesn’t have audio recordings of Scoots talking to the reporters, but it sure seems like he did about as well as anyone could to prove Scoots was lying. Z. and Fitz clearly stayed on point about laying out what the lies were, and what motive Scoots had to lie. I haven’t been able to follow the trial in great detail, but wasn’t this crystal clear yesterday?

And what was this all about?!?

“The dumbest thing the Government did was charge too narrow a case and not indict Cheney along with Libby.“

Again, does she pay attention when Fitz talks? He’s been saying all along that sand is being thrown in the eyes of the umpire. Fitz has proven over and over again that “clearing the brush” in order to get to the truth is a winning strategy for him.

There were several other points in her post, like calling Wells’ emotional appeal very effective, which Jane, EW, etc. said was fake and laughable, that just completely contradicted what we’ve been getting from our other trusted sources there. I’ve appreciated Jeralyn’s opinions throughout this process, but her wrap-up seemed, to continue the baseball analogy, outta left field.

I know she comes from the defense side of things, but this article seemed beyond that simple distinction. If Scoots Skates (Jeralyn’s hunch), or if Scoots Sinks (most other FDL legal eagles’ hunches), just wanted to thank FDL again for everything, and even for providing a variety of opinions!

On Hillary: It’s simple.

She voted yes on Iraq because she wants to pose as a moderate hawk. She’s on the Senate Armed Services Committee after all.

Now she regrets that vote, given the current state of affairs.

But she can’t apologize because she’ll be accused of being a flip-flopper. Pace: Kerry.

On Iran: She’ll vote no if an Iraqi-like Iran motion comes before the Senate. But it won’t because Harry Reid sets the agenda.

Peterr is upstairs

EPU’d from previous thread;
How about a weekly FireDogLake TV Show?
One that concentrates on the “missing news” that the MSM ignores or covers up?

Any sponsors out there willing to consider it? The opening page of the TVshow could look just like the website.

Think about the expertise and talent we already have in front of us; Jane’s the producer, Christy’s the Director and Marcy’s the copywriter. Swopa could be the daily host and Pach could do the hard-hitting, thought provoking editorials. And the rest of the crew could help cover the stories and production.

And punaise could offer some occasional humor, either original or gleaned from othere on the blog…

Invite Arriana now and then for a guest editorial.(Hey, I’d watch it just to see those girls again. True confessions from a recovering dominant male, just don’t tell my wife of thirty years…)

How about this; it starts with “Live, from the campfires of Firedog Lake, we bring you “The Weekly Truth” a television show dedicated to uncovering the secrets and lies of our lawmakers and political leaders.”

We may not be able to sell it to the MSM, but there’s lot of local-access cable and u-tube for now. If the sponsorship was great enough, even one of the MSM outlets might bite on it.

We could even produce a weekly DVD to mail out to anyone who wants to pay the nominal “inter-netflix” fees it might take to send it out.

We could have a “truth and concequenses” game, reading the tripe that the Judiths, Victorias, Babs and others post and cutting it to shreds with simple logic and offsetting facts, much like we did with Juliet Eilperin and Michael Grunwald today about their whitewashing of Tauscher.

Just consider it, at least as an experiment; FireDog Lake, as part of the MSM?

Well, I guess it goes to “if you can’t beat em, join them.”

And then beat them at their own game.

Jane, you must have considered this some time or another, what’s the chances of mixing medias here, making FDL a true multimedia entity, with radio and TV versions, all built on your website model.

Instead of the MSM finally getting onto the blogs (Keith’s “Bloggerman” was one of the first to recognize the potential), we’ll be the blogs finally getting into the MSM.

Look for an email from me. I think this is a good beginning to a plan to open up the truth to more people who, due to MSM billionaire bosses, never hear the truth.

I will be persistent here, I want a personal rejection of some sort from one of you SENIOR FDLers for this idea, I won’t be offended, and anything less would leave me hope that these mighty mediums might merge sooner than later.

If history looks back on this moment, FDL’s entry into the MSM as a “conscience transplant” for a sociopathic mainstream media may well have started with your work this past week.

JEP

Celtic Music #63,

I would say that Hillary has already flip-flopped on Iraq. If anything her position(s) are even more equivocal than Kerry’s “I voted for it before I voted against it.” She supported the war longer than some neocons but then has said A)her original vote for the AUMF was not a vote for war, B)her real problem is not with the war but the mess that Bush made of it, and C)she’s not going to apologize for her position (whatever it was at any given time).

To have supported the Iraq for nearly 4 years and now to admit that it is a mistake but in no way her mistake seem to me the kind of arrogance and responsibility avoidance that so characterizes Bush and his Presidency. I do not find this to be leadership but the anti-thesis of leadership.

Hugh @
13

As I see it, Randolph is making the case that detainees never had a habeas right. This would be a defensible legal (if not ultimately Constitutional) position if both the Congress and the Supreme Court had held to it consistently. But they haven’t. The Supreme Court in Rasul acknowledged that habeas existed in such cases, as did the Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act (while trying to place limitations upon it). Habeas is not a sometime thing. Once admitted it can not be finessed or glossed over. As soon as it is accepted however grudgingly, it can not be suspended except under the conditions of rebellion or invasion specified in the Constitution. Randolph’s opinion is specious because it chooses to ignore the judicial and legislative histories of the current habeas controversy, our common law heritage, and the Constitution itself. That’s a lot to overlook even for an appellate judge, except of course one who believes in arbitrary government.

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov…..-5062b.pdf

And are the justices so certain that the appelants NEVER had habeas corpus rights? 1) I thought that these were inalienable rights…not rights “granted” by the state. The Constitution never states that these are priveleges given by Congress, or the Executive…or even the courts. They are assumed rights. The state can only SUSPEND the “Natural Rights” under the most extreme circumstances (invasion and civil insurrection), and even this is simply because under such circumstances the ability to have fair trials is limited. But once the judicial system can be secured again habeas corpus returns.

And even asserting that “they never held habeas corpus” rights under the idea that these rights are “dispensed” doesn’t fly. Many of the appelants come from nations that DO have habeas corpus. France, Australia, Britain, the US, Canada, and a host of other countries certainly have this right enshrined in their legal doctrines. I suspect that it is in Egyptian, Jordanian, Turkish, and many other Muslim nations laws, as well.

The most bizarre point that the majority (of 2) held is that Gitmo isn’t under US sovereignity but is under Cuban Sovereignity? WHAATTTT????

By that twisted logic the Cubans could order these individuals immediately released, or they should be tried under Cuban law.

This is simply the worst case of legal contortionism to reach a prejudged verdict that I’ve ever seen.

BTW, tauscher in German is someone who trades off or exchanges. Her previous tradeoffs make her deserving of a primary challenge.

Perhaps the Brits would translate that to “Tosser” ;-)

Jeff Gannon gets into the action:

February 21, 2007
Radical Base Devouring Moderate Democrats
Democrats and the Old Media have been complaining for nearly a decade that moderate Republicans are being driven from the GOP by ultra-conservatives and the Religious Right. Sen. Chuck Schumer said as much on Friday at the National Press Club that “theocrats and economic royalists” run the Republican Party.

However, much less talked about has been the purge of moderate Democrats from the party of John F. Kennedy and Henry “Scoop” Jackson. The jihad of the radicalized Hard Left base against liberal except on national security Sen. Joe Lieberman provided a look at how the Democrats are becoming the party of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson.

Now the Hard Left is pressing hard for control of the party appartatus, controlled since 1992 by the “centrist” Clintons. Howard Dean’s selection as chairman of the Democratic National Committee was a significant milestone in the lefward lurch of the Donkey Party. The target of the de-Baathification (re-Baathification?) of the Democratic Party is California Rep. Ellen Taucher, leader of the centrist New Democrat Coalition.

Good idea, throw the members that put Democrats in control of the House overboard.