Two debates in two days, and two hard sets of boos for Hillary Clinton.
(Also, can we have a time out on discussion of Pakistan while all of the candidates buy a clue? There are some really scary things being said up there . . . )
Category: Politics Page 62 of 73
So, with Sen. Jim Webb’s vote, the Senate passed a measure that “broaden[s] the ability to eavesdrop without warrants on communications that are primarily “foreign†in nature, even if they may touch on Americans’ phone calls and e-mail.” In doing so, they capitulated to a President who has shown, over and over again, that he cannot be trusted to respect American’s most basic rights.
I know that Sen. Webb knows that Bush can’t be trusted. I also know that he’s not stupid enough to be bamboozled by the sky-is-falling act the Administration goes through every time it wants something. What I don’t know is what in the world would move Webb to give more power to a President and Attorney General who have absolutely no respect for the law.
So what your problem, Jim Webb? Do you think that your constituents are so stupid that they’ll demand that you give Bush everything he wants? Do you just not give a damn about the Constitution? Or was it just easier for you?
I think you owe us an answer.
Background for those who are interested:
Marty Lederman’s analysis of the bill
The Director of National Intelligence and Dems agreed on a bill, Bush threw a fit, Dems capitulated.
Update: Here’s Webb’s statement on the matter. It’s as appalling as I expected. And the apologists should really be ashamed, falling all over themselves to make excuses (and what’s really sad is that they sound just like the Republicans they spent so much time and effort berating.
You can catch most of the main hall events, and some of the smaller forums, on both CSPAN and via the web here.
My time there last year was very positive and reinvigorating. I’m truly sorry I wasn’t able to make it this year.
I’m still trying to avoid the primary campaigns, but this TPM Cafe review of campaign expense reports caught my eye. Nothing particularly meaningful, but interesting nonetheless, if for no other reason than to discover that I’ve generated Lexis bills that dwarf those of presidential campaigns . . .
I look forward to Bush taking a personal interest and action in every other federal sentence handed down to ensure that it isn’t too harsh.
This is so indefensible as to leave me speechless.
Updated to add this bit of perfect context:
The Bush administration is trying to roll back a Supreme Court decision by pushing legislation that would require prison time for nearly all criminals.
[ . . . ]
Republicans are seizing the administration’s crackdown, packaged in legislation to combat violent crime, as a campaign issue for 2008.
In a speech June 1 to announce the bill, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urged Congress to reimpose mandatory minimum prison sentences against federal convicts — and not let judges consider such penalties “merely a suggestion.”
Such an overhaul, in part, “will strengthen our hand in fighting criminals who threaten the safety and security of all Americans,” Gonzales said in the speech, delivered three days before the FBI announced a slight national uptick in violent crime during 2006.
I’m told that there’s been breathless coverage of the failed bombing attempts in London over the past 24 hours, and I can see that it’s going to exponentially ratchet up with the mostly-failed attempt in Glasgow today. A few cars, cans of gasoline, and a whole lot of stupidity. Now, I’m not complaining about that bit – in fact, I quite prefer my terrorists to be rather stupid. Makes us all safer, really. But to hear the US government, security industry, and news networks over the past six years, you’d think we were facing Dr. Evil with frickin’ sharks with frickin’ lasers on their heads everywhere we turned.
But we’re not.
And they’re idiots.
So why can’t we treat them like idiots?
(Update: Apparently Atrios & Larry Johnson were thinking this, too.)
So the immigration bill has once again gone down in flames. Fine by me. I’d certainly like to see some improvements and changes to US immigration laws, but I’ve zero faith in this Congress getting it right and I don’t view it as some pressing emergency. This isn’t to say I’ve not enjoyed the show, though.  GOP xenophobes versus GOP marketphobes?  What’s not to like about that? I’m just disappointed that it ended so quickly. C’mon, George, you can’t back down now!
That’s what John Aravosis says on his post noting Elizabeth Edward’s support of gay marriage. While I’m not sure I entirely agree with his predictions, I think Aravosis makes some excellent points when he says:
I want my civil rights, I don’t want to be on the receiving end of constant triangulation. Mrs. Edwards will be a force for good, at least as it concerns the civil and human rights of gay and lesbian Americans. As much as I like the man, I can’t say the same about Mr. Clinton. He’s going to be advising Hillary to throw us under the bus. That doesn’t mean Hillary will, but her top two advisers have a history of legislative gay-bashing for political gain. That’s of legitimate concern.
For a number of reasons, I don’t think Bill Clinton would urge repeating his appalling DOMA behavior. That said, I like Elizabeth Edwards more than any of the 2008 spouses (and many of the candidates themselves).
I, and many of my fellow countrymen, have been extraordinarily disappointed with Labour of late. Putting aside (work with me here) Blair’s unfathomable shadowing of Bush in Iraq, Labour’s domestic policy initiatives – National ID, expanded CCTV surveillance, anti-social behaviour laws, among others – have me running into the arms of another party. You know, if there *were* another party to run to. The Lib Dems? One trick ponys. The Tories? Ha.
Which brings me to the point of this post. Honestly, I’ve been fairly impressed (in a relative sense) with where David Cameron is trying to drag the Tories, but I just can’t imagine myself actually casting a ballot for his party. Why? Because this is what the Tories have always been, and may always be, to me:
Go on, click it for the high res version and all of its detailed glory. Wait. To be clear, it’s horribly racist and ignorant and only (really really) funny if you paid attention to the Tories in the 70s and 80s. When I hear “Tory”, two things come to mind: Enoch “Rivers of Blood” Powell and the sort of mindset that could create this map (sans humour). To be fair, I’ve not lived in Britain for forever and a day, and maybe the Tories are honestly and truly changing. But I doubt it, and David Cameron & Co. will have to work pretty hard to overcome this map.
(This post courtesy of my exploration of the many glorious maps highlighted by Waldo’s link to StrangeMaps.)