At this point I'm beginning to wonder if the blog of the law professor from Cornell who started the "Dijon Gate" the other day is really just a very good right-wing pardoy site. This can't be real.
On that note I'm headed to catch the train to go see The Dead at Pepsi Center tonight. I'm going in with little to no expectations. I'm imagining the good stuff will be pretty good and the bad stuff will be cringe worthy. Just like with the Grateful Dead.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Fallout for McInnis over Pinon expansion support
Pols has the details but this is exactly the PR disaster political observers thought it would be. Scooter is apparently a little rusty at this whole "campaigning" business.
Talked with a political insider yesterday and they speculated that this must be tied to some sort of financial contribution. The speculation was that he wouldn't speak out on the issue, which clearly has no strategic upside, without even being prompted if he wasn't doing something for a contributor. That theory makes some sense but it's really just speculation until the next campaign finance reports come due.
Talked with a political insider yesterday and they speculated that this must be tied to some sort of financial contribution. The speculation was that he wouldn't speak out on the issue, which clearly has no strategic upside, without even being prompted if he wasn't doing something for a contributor. That theory makes some sense but it's really just speculation until the next campaign finance reports come due.
Rep. Hodge and her death penalty vote
The death penalty in Colorado has survived by a single vote,
One by one, senators at last revealed their views Wednesday on the complicated and controversial topic of the death penalty with simple ayes and nays during a roll-call vote in the waning hours of the legislative session.
The verdict, by a single vote, came back in favor of keeping capital punishment in Colorado despite appeals from Senate leadership and pleas from the families of victims killed in unsolved murders.
The final tally: 17-18.
The outcome is not a surprise, it's been obvious for weeks that the bill was in trouble in the Senate and that the governor, per usual, wasn't going to provide leadership on this issue. What I find curious though is the reasoning and logic (if you can call it that) of Rep. Mary Hodge who was one of four Democrats to vote against the bill and thus ensure the preservation of the death penalty in Colorado for the near future,
Hodge said she's anti-death penalty but didn't agree with using its demise as a way to help solve cold cases.
I do not understand how one can be opposed to the death penalty and still cast the deciding vote to maintain the death penalty. If she's not happy with funding cold cases with the money saved I still don't understand now that pushes you to vote "No" on the bill. How the money saved is spent is sort of a minor detail in the grand scheme of things, no? Also, does she not support more funding for cold cases? What are her specific issues with the legislation?
My impression was that the cold case funding was placed into the bill to provide an incentive to those on the fence. It has a logical connection to the issue as the death penalty is, of course, a penalty for murder. I understand that not every legislator might be happy with every detail of the bill but this is politics and that's just how it goes. You don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Bottom line, I don't think you can claim to oppose the death penalty and then cast the deciding vote to uphold it.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Who's advising Scooter?
Via ColoradoPols comes this stunning self-inflicted wound from Scott McInnis,
Its way too early to say that McInnis has just cost himself the governor's race should he manage to survive the GOP primary but this is a HUGE political mistake. The Pinon expansion is extremely unpopular with just about everyone in the region. Democrat, Independent, Republican - everyone is opposed to this land grab. It could easily be the Ref A of the 2010 election. Any politican who supported Ref A in 2003 did irreprable harm to their state wide career. It was literally electoral suicide.
Did Scooter McInnis just off himself?
Former U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis jumped into the fight over expanding the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site this week, sending a letter to Gov. Bill Ritter urging him to veto legislation that would stop the Army from buying any Colorado State Board land around the 238,000-acre training range.
Its way too early to say that McInnis has just cost himself the governor's race should he manage to survive the GOP primary but this is a HUGE political mistake. The Pinon expansion is extremely unpopular with just about everyone in the region. Democrat, Independent, Republican - everyone is opposed to this land grab. It could easily be the Ref A of the 2010 election. Any politican who supported Ref A in 2003 did irreprable harm to their state wide career. It was literally electoral suicide.
Did Scooter McInnis just off himself?
Neo-Calhounism
Ed Kilgore has the goods on the revival of the long dead idea of state nullification of Federal laws. This idea first took off with John C. Calhoun who proposed it in response to the 1828 and 1832 tariff legislation signed into law by President Jackson. The President ultimately dispatched the navy to Calhoun's home state of South Carolina to demonstrate Federal force.
It should be noted that Calhoun was actually Jackson's Vice-President through 1832 while he was agitating for nullification. Calhoun essentially birthed the intellectual rationale for seccession which ultimately led to the Civil War. Remember that South Carolina was the first state to secede after the election of Lincoln. That South Carolina is also Calhoun's home state is not a coincidence.
I wonder if Texas governor Rick Perry or any of the other neo-Calhouns have an understanding of the history of state nullification? Somehow I doubt it but then again I also doubt that they would care much about being viewed as the ideological descendants of secession and treason.
It should be noted that Calhoun was actually Jackson's Vice-President through 1832 while he was agitating for nullification. Calhoun essentially birthed the intellectual rationale for seccession which ultimately led to the Civil War. Remember that South Carolina was the first state to secede after the election of Lincoln. That South Carolina is also Calhoun's home state is not a coincidence.
I wonder if Texas governor Rick Perry or any of the other neo-Calhouns have an understanding of the history of state nullification? Somehow I doubt it but then again I also doubt that they would care much about being viewed as the ideological descendants of secession and treason.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Complete and total lack of self-awareness
Perusing Memeorandum tonight I happened upon a blog by a guy named William A. Jacobsen who is apparently flogging a story about what kind of mustard Barack Obama ordered on his burger today.
No, really.
Seriously, stop laughing - he really did.
What made me bother linking to this nonsense though is this little crack from Mr. Jacobsen,
Emphasis mine.
Jacobsen then proceeds to write another 200 words on the topic, break down the audio of the MSNBC broadcast, post two updates of increasing paranoia and then another version of the video.
How totally unaware do you have to be to slam Andrea Mitchell for reporting on the presidents day and then immediately follow-up with a lengthy, tedious and borderline delusional analysis of said report?
Professor Jacobsen, Ms. Mitchell is paid to follow the president and report. What's your excuse?
UPDATE: Jacobsen has now added 3 more updates and 2 more videos. So that's a total of 5 updates and 4 videos on the type of mustard that the President ordered. After criticizing Andrea Mitchell for not having anything better to do with her time.
I'm shocked that guys like Professor Jacobsen find themselves completely without power in the American democracy.
No, really.
Seriously, stop laughing - he really did.
What made me bother linking to this nonsense though is this little crack from Mr. Jacobsen,
MSNBC, Obama's favorite network, reported on Obama's trip with Joe Biden to get a burger... Andrea Mitchell (does she have nothing else to do?) reported that Obama ordered a burger and mustard. Sounds like it had that "real guy kind of quality."
Emphasis mine.
Jacobsen then proceeds to write another 200 words on the topic, break down the audio of the MSNBC broadcast, post two updates of increasing paranoia and then another version of the video.
How totally unaware do you have to be to slam Andrea Mitchell for reporting on the presidents day and then immediately follow-up with a lengthy, tedious and borderline delusional analysis of said report?
Professor Jacobsen, Ms. Mitchell is paid to follow the president and report. What's your excuse?
UPDATE: Jacobsen has now added 3 more updates and 2 more videos. So that's a total of 5 updates and 4 videos on the type of mustard that the President ordered. After criticizing Andrea Mitchell for not having anything better to do with her time.
I'm shocked that guys like Professor Jacobsen find themselves completely without power in the American democracy.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Ritter and the death penalty
Under the Dome the bill to end executions in Colorado is moving forward. Notably without any public statement from the Governor,
The Colorado Senate was preparing Monday to take an initial vote on a proposal to eliminate the death penalty.House Bill 1274 would take the $1 million now being spent to prosecute death penalty cases each year and use it to investigate cold cases instead...
Gov. Bill Ritter, a former Denver district attorney, hasn't publicly said whether he would sign the bill if it passes.
As district attorney, the Democrat unsuccessfully sought the death penalty seven times. Before becoming DA he expressed personal doubts about capital punishment.
As a Catholic (Jesuit educated I might add) I find it interesting that Governor Ritter uses his faith as a shield on the issue of abortion but, apparently, doesn't apply the same standard to the death penalty. He's pro-life because he's a devout Catholic and his religious convictions have led him to oppose a woman's right to choose. Pro-choice Democrats were asked to respect Ritter's position on abortion as one borne out of religious conviction and we've done that.
Now Ritter is faced with an issue that his Church is as clear on as abortion and he refuses to give a public position. Governor if you are such a devoutly religious man as you claim to be when discussing abortion then you should have no problem stating publicly your support for this legislation.
Why are you duty bound to the Church's teaching on abortion but not on the death penalty? Can you explain to the voters why you seem to pick and choose when your faith is the ultimate arbiter of your policy positions and when it's not? Can you articulate some standard here governor or are you merely a Catholic when it's politically expedient? It sure as hell looks that way from where I'm sitting.
Relatedly, has anyone heard a peep out of Archbishop Chaput on this legislation?Cognitive capture and Geithner
Andrew Oh-Willeke has some follow-up thoughts on the issue of Geithner, his close ties to Wall Street and how that may or may not affect his policies.
A question
How come so many otherwise bright young bloggers exhibit such terrible judgment when it comes to movies? I mean did you actually have to spend $15 and waste 2 hours of your time to know that Wolverine is a terrible movie? Wasn't that self-evident?
If it's a terrible Hollywood movie about a comic book here you can bet that Yglesias, Ackerman and Klein will be there opening weekend. It happens without fail.
If it's a terrible Hollywood movie about a comic book here you can bet that Yglesias, Ackerman and Klein will be there opening weekend. It happens without fail.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Souter, can't say I'm surprised
I think that we can lump David Souter's retirement in with Arlen Specter's defection. As I wrote on this blog last fall after the election,
No one but David Souter knows exactly why he is retiring now but suffice it to say that he apparently was more comfortable with Barack Obama appointing his successor than George W. Bush or John McCain. This is another indictment of the extreme rightward slide of the GOP and the Supre. Where men with the temperment of David Souter are considered unfit to serve on the United States Supreme Court.
My guess, without having had my coffee or without looking at a list of possible replacements, is that Obama will select a Hispanic. I'd assume he'd like to appoint a Hispanic woman as well to reclaim a second seat for a woman on the Court after Sandra Day O'Connor was replaced by Samuel Alito.
I saw Chuck Todd on the television give his opinion that since Souter was considered a moderate to liberal Justice confirming a replacement should be relatively simple. I'm not entirely sure which planet Chuck Todd has been living on since the election, or really since 1994, but it apparently hasn't been Earth. This will be a bruising fight no matter who Obama nominates. Whatever their qualifications Republicans will declare that the nominee is outside the judicial mainstream. They will threaten to fillibuster and with no Franken and the help of Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh they may actually stop an appointment. The Republicans have no reason to cooperate, depsite what Todd thinks. They have proven time and time again that they have no interest in cooperating or even negotiating with the popular President or the majority in the Senate. The Republicans have been routinely embarrassed by the President and were just humiliated by Specter. They need a win and this is one arena where they may be able to get that win. They'll play to the lowest common denominators in their base and go to extreme lengths to prevent this appointment.
Ultimately they have the right to do that. Liberals should simply understand what fight is coming their way. We should be prepared to stand up and push back against the inevitable dissembling, lies and smears. We shoud also be prepared to see Obama nominate a pragmatic liberal. I'm sure that we on the left will be able to find fault with the whomever Obama selects. With very few exceptions all of his high-profile nominations have been of fairly pragmatic individuals.
On the positive side for progressives it appears that Obama may be able to appoint at least two more Justices in his first term if Justices Stevens and Ginsburg retire as expected. I would not be shocked to see Kennedy retire either and I don't think Scalia's age should be ignored. At the end of Obama's first term we should see a considerably younger, considerably more diverse and considerably more liberal Supreme Court. He will have likely appointed three new Justices and possibly four or even five. Let's not loose site of the long game.
Souter is a stereo-typical Northeastern Republican. The son of a banker he was born in Massachusetts, attended Harvard college and Harvard law. Tossing the blue blood Souter in with a former ACLU General Counsel [Ginsburg] says far more about the current state of the GOP as a national party than it does about Souter's alleged liberalism. As Andrew Oh-Willeke discusses at his blog today, the GOP has all but vacated the Northeast. With the loss of Connecticuts Chris Shay's seat last Tuesday there is now not a single member of the United States House of Representatives from the GOP. There are only three GOP Senators from the region and those 3 are the most moderate of their caucus.
There is simply no room in the modern GOP for men of Souter's temperament. Rational, logical, reasoned and of moderate temperament and politics Justice Souter is an outcast. The GOP is essentially a regional party with it's power base in the old Confederacy and some holdout rural states in the plains and mountain west.
No one but David Souter knows exactly why he is retiring now but suffice it to say that he apparently was more comfortable with Barack Obama appointing his successor than George W. Bush or John McCain. This is another indictment of the extreme rightward slide of the GOP and the Supre. Where men with the temperment of David Souter are considered unfit to serve on the United States Supreme Court.
My guess, without having had my coffee or without looking at a list of possible replacements, is that Obama will select a Hispanic. I'd assume he'd like to appoint a Hispanic woman as well to reclaim a second seat for a woman on the Court after Sandra Day O'Connor was replaced by Samuel Alito.
I saw Chuck Todd on the television give his opinion that since Souter was considered a moderate to liberal Justice confirming a replacement should be relatively simple. I'm not entirely sure which planet Chuck Todd has been living on since the election, or really since 1994, but it apparently hasn't been Earth. This will be a bruising fight no matter who Obama nominates. Whatever their qualifications Republicans will declare that the nominee is outside the judicial mainstream. They will threaten to fillibuster and with no Franken and the help of Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh they may actually stop an appointment. The Republicans have no reason to cooperate, depsite what Todd thinks. They have proven time and time again that they have no interest in cooperating or even negotiating with the popular President or the majority in the Senate. The Republicans have been routinely embarrassed by the President and were just humiliated by Specter. They need a win and this is one arena where they may be able to get that win. They'll play to the lowest common denominators in their base and go to extreme lengths to prevent this appointment.
Ultimately they have the right to do that. Liberals should simply understand what fight is coming their way. We should be prepared to stand up and push back against the inevitable dissembling, lies and smears. We shoud also be prepared to see Obama nominate a pragmatic liberal. I'm sure that we on the left will be able to find fault with the whomever Obama selects. With very few exceptions all of his high-profile nominations have been of fairly pragmatic individuals.
On the positive side for progressives it appears that Obama may be able to appoint at least two more Justices in his first term if Justices Stevens and Ginsburg retire as expected. I would not be shocked to see Kennedy retire either and I don't think Scalia's age should be ignored. At the end of Obama's first term we should see a considerably younger, considerably more diverse and considerably more liberal Supreme Court. He will have likely appointed three new Justices and possibly four or even five. Let's not loose site of the long game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)