Not-So-Hidden Agenda Over at Ezra's, Neil sees through the haze of the Pro-Life Movement. I didn't find it all that hazy, but he writes a nice piece on it.
No Recess Today Harry Reid's got something in mind to keep Bush from pulling any more bullshit recess appointments...never closing the Senate. Me likey.
Membership Rewards Radley Balko joins Andrew Sullivan in the Ron Paul Fan Club. Apparently Bill Maher is pledging, but Chris Dodd? Not so much. Now, I don't find this exchange as frustrating or infuriating as Balko, but Maher really put it on a tee for him, and Dodd's cut was pretty fucking tepid. Swing for the fences, Senator, you have nothing to lose.
Borderline Insanity Hilzoy thinks about immigration so I don't have to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Good link vis a vis the Bill Maher thing. Andrew Sullivan is one of Rickey's favorite guests on that show.
That move by Reid was sweet. Fuck you very much, Karl Rove.
I'm always down with a Fuck Karl moment, but after yesterday's epic cave-in on Iraq, I'm not a fan of the Dems.
Freakin' wusses.
I hear ya. I'm not really gonna make excuses, and I wish they were all as ballsy as Feingold, but the reality is, they were going to lose this one eventually. Personally I wish they would have just kept sending bills up for him to veto...
This fucking mess is still tied around Bush's neck, and after the current Freidman Unit is up, they can hammer him, and I think their hand will be even stronger. Maybe veto-proof stronger.
On your Right to Life link, here in Michiagn we are very soon (maybe June) to embark on the big stem call fight. There's legislation introduced here to allow research on stem cells. The RTL crowd is already starting to spout their rhetoric. I love Orin Hatch's response to them in DC; he can't figure out how RTL's position on stem cells has anything to do with Life.
Great Maher link. And tactically-speaking, Mr. F is right on. The funding was going to have to get done some time. But send him a frazillion bills to veto. One after another.
The funding was going to have to get done some time.
Why?
I hear what you're saying, Mike, but it's just not a political reality to think they are going to de-fund the War. Yes, 70% of the people might think they want us out, but I doubt that's what they think that means. So the public support for that would evaporate immediately, especially since the debate is still framed by Bush and supported by the media.
And they cannot pull that pistol until they can override the veto.
In due time...
Ezra backs me up...
WHAT MORE COULD BE DONE? Like most of us who oppose the war, I'm disappointed with how the vote turned out yesterday. But I'm not exactly sure what more folks would have had the Democrats do. The political invulnerability of President Bush is, I think, a reality that hasn't quite penetrated the punditocracy. Bush is never running for office ever again. He has no political heir to protect, and is clearly uninterested in the future fortunes of the Republican Party. He is massively unpopular, and his agenda is utterly stymied in the Democratic Congress. He can literally veto the spending bills forever -- Congress has absolutely no leverage against him. And the American people, at least as I read the polls, will not support the defunding of the troops. Maybe Congress could have forced a second veto, but the idea that they could continually force Bush's veto and that would result in an eventual win seems wrong.
It doesn't taste good, but I believe it's correct.
Are you THE Mr. Furious? The one from Moviecomics?
But seriously. Are you? What happened to that site?
Nope. Though the name is based on the character from Faming Carrot comics, later made famous by Ben Stiller in the film Mysterymen. I've been "Mr Furious" since long before the movie or what we now think of as the internet...
Anger is a way of life.
Oh, and that's not really Rickey Henderson upthread, either...as far as I know.
On the immigration post, specifically discussing the proposed guest worker program - someone was quoted:
"But the guest worker proposal violates fundamental principles that define what it means to be a liberal, and what it should mean to be a Democrat."
This is true. I totally agree. Problem is, didn't we give up that moral high ground when Democrats decided it was OK for third-world laborers to take American $50,000 a year manufacturing jobs to their countries, but now it's not OK for third-world laborers to take $3 and hour jobs on American soil?
Seem hypocritical for Democrats to support trade polices and treaties that don't contain protection for American jobs and protections for the foreign workers, but now the guest worker program is against or liberal values?
Post a Comment