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.

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” ;-)

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.

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.

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

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.

“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!

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.

Oh jeebus. Talk about the low-information voter…