A Note on Food Fights

A Note on Politics

Yes, the House is pleased as punch to have the administration lowering expectations after they did a far superior job than the Senate supporting the President’s pre- and post-inauguration agenda (only to be short-sheeted). Thanks for nothin’.

Politics 101 is don’t piss off your base.

Thanks for explaining Jay’s column to us.

Leftie-hefty-crefties vilify Obama because they think he let them down. Rightie-tighty-whities vilify Obama because they think he represents their worst nightmare. You know what? I’m actually pretty happy right now. Boom crash lightning strike steaming turd pile. Back to my books.

Agh! “clefties”, not “crefties”. I really do need to go away now.

Geez Louise– might he simply have given an honest answer to a simple question?

Regardless, this is all a zero-content sideshow.

Joe Klein:
.
You don’t know the first thing about this episode, so why pretend that you do?
.
Maybe Pelosi was right in the middle of reassuring terrified House Dems that a vote for White House-sponsored package X might not be that apocalyptically dangerous to cast.
.
Maybe poor-mouthing the House Dems puts Pelosi in less of a strong negotiating position with swing Blue Dog votes, while Boehner comes whispering in their ears “soon you’ll have to deal with me, I’d like you on board ASAP.”
.
Maybe not, maybe Pelosi has “surprisingly” become a moron overnight, who knows.
.
But why do you feel especially qualified to comment here, Joe Klein?
.
How can you know with any certainty at all that “What’s really happening here is some classic politics?”
.
What, did you call somebody in the Administration up, and ask them about it, right after you took Dan Bernal or somebody else on her staff out for lunch? Did you run into someone last night at a soiree who knows both sides of the story? Did you get emails from both camps laying out the story of how this obvious lack of coordination came about?
.
Or are you just repeating an old, comfortable saw?
.
If you know some actual information about the situation or what the plan is, then tell us. If not, then don’t pretend to be handing political wisdom down from the mountain tops, Joe Klein.
.
We have enough in reality to deal with, we don’t need false reassurances from the equally ignorant.

This is a great notation of the “food fights” we are seeing amongst the democRATS. Thanks for your enlightening denial Joe, it is making a difference without a doubt.

I just watched a great “food fight”.
.
The Arizona republican Senate debate. Lots of hate in that room.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071604081_pf.html
.
More on politics 101: From the Obudsman of the Washington Post set to release on Sunday, July 18, 2010 in the Sunday Post edition.
.

“Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?

By Andrew Alexander
Ombudsman
Sunday, July 18, 2010; A13

Thursday’s Post reported about a growing controversy over the Justice Department’s decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. The story succinctly summarized the issues but left many readers with a question: What took you so long?

For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn’t been covering the case. The calls increased recently after competitors such as the New York Times and the Associated Press wrote stories. Fox News and right-wing bloggers have been pumping the story. Liberal bloggers have countered, accusing them of trying to manufacture a scandal.

But The Post has been virtually silent. (As have been most of the liberal newspapers, the liberal media, and liberal blog sites with the exception of outright distortion of the facts for who exactly dropped the case)

The story has its origins on Election Day in 2008, when two members of the New Black Panther Party stood in front of a Philadelphia polling place. YouTube video of the men, now viewed nearly 1.5 million times, shows both wearing paramilitary clothing. One carried a nightstick.

Early last year, just before the Bush administration left office, the Justice Department filed a voter-intimidation lawsuit against the men, the New Black Panther Party and its chairman. But several months later, with the government poised to win by default because the defendants didn’t contest the suit, the Obama Justice Department (not the Bush II Justice Department as liberal web sites have lied about) decided the case was over-charged and narrowed it to the man with the nightstick. It secured only a narrow injunction forbidding him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of Philadelphia polling places through 2012.

Congressional Republicans pounced. For months they stalled the confirmation of Thomas E. Perez, President Obama’s pick to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, while seeking answers to why the case had been downgraded over the objections of some of the department’s career lawyers. The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation, which is pending. The independent, eight-member Commission on Civil Rights also began what has become a yearlong probe with multiple public hearings; its report is due soon. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), a prominent lawmaker in The Post’s circulation area, has been a loud and leading critic of how the case was handled. His office has “aggressively” sought to interest The Post in coverage, a spokesman said.

The controversy was elevated last month when J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer who had helped develop the case, wrote in the Washington Times that his superiors’ decision to reduce its scope was “motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law.” Some in the department believe “the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation,” he wrote. Adams recently repeated these charges in public testimony before the commission.

The Post didn’t cover it. Indeed, until Thursday’s story, The Post had written no news stories about the controversy this year. In 2009, there were passing references to it in only three stories.

That’s prompted many readers to accuse The Post of a double standard. Royal S. Dellinger of Olney said that if the controversy had involved Bush administration Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, “Lord, there’d have been editorials and stories, and it would go on for months.”

To be sure, ideology and party politics are at play. Liberal bloggers have accused Adams of being a right-wing activist (he insisted to me Friday that his sole motivation is applying civil rights laws in a race-neutral way). Conservatives appointed during the Bush administration control a majority of the civil rights commission’s board. And Fox News has used interviews with Adams to push the story. Sarah Palin has weighed in via Twitter, urging followers to watch Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly’s coverage because “her revelations leave Left steaming.”

The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left.

But in this case, coverage is justified because it’s a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights’ investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.

National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy “significant,” said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.

Better late than never. There’s plenty left to explore.

Andrew Alexander can be reached at 202-334-7582 For daily updates, read the Omblog.

.
I wonder when the “Ombudsman from TIME.com” will also write a similar article?

Agree with you Joe, along with thinking Gibbs was ginning up the base with the fear of the Republicans taking over. Not sure what Pelosi was doing, but she couldn’t very well agree with Gibbs.

Sigh. Reposting, w/o links, to avoid moderation:

U.S. Civil Rights Commission vice chair Abigail Thernstrom, a Bush appointee… A longtime affirmative action foe and critic of so-called “political correctness” on questions of race, [she] nonetheless blasts the Fox News firestorm over the Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute two men who allegedly intimidated voters outside a Philadelphia polling station on Election Day, 2008. Never mind that one of the men was captured on tape denouncing the “puppet” Barack Obama; three Republican poll monitors claimed they were there to intimidate anti-Obama voters. But the Bush and Obama Justice Department investigated the claims, and found insufficient evidence to prosecute the men. Still, one of Thernstrom’s Civil Rights Commission colleagues, Todd Gaziano, insisted the Justice Department should have pursued the case more aggressively.
…
But Thernstrom told Politico: “This doesn’t have to do with the Black Panthers, this has to do with [her Republican colleagues'] fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration,” said Thernstrom. “My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president.”

There’s no “there” there. The GOP has no policy views, it has a series of resentments. And lord knows it loves to resent black people. So this nonstory about a moron who failed to intimidate anyone, against whom the Bush administration dropped criminal charges, is Teh Most Importantest Thing Evah. Because some Republican hack (search: “Adams is a long-time right-wing activist, who is known for filing an ethics complaint against Hugh Rodham that was subsequently dismissed, served as a Bush poll watcher in Florida 2004, and reportedly volunteered for a Republican group that trains lawyers to fight “racially tinged battles over voting rights” ” ) says “jump,” and the MSM asks, “how high.”

God the media sucks at reporting the news. When is the Post finally going to go bankrupt?

To be clear, the entire bolded passage

But The Post has been virtually silent. (As have been most of the liberal newspapers, the liberal media, and liberal blog sites with the exception of outright distortion of the facts for who exactly dropped the case)

does not exist in the original piece.
.
What’s funny is that we liberals would actually love it for this to happen:

If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights’ investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.

Of course, reporting such a conclusion would require more than just the He Said She Said framework of contemporary journalism.
.
So far, we haven’t been able to expect clearly repeated conclusions from establishment media outlets like the Washington Post regarding even the most rudimentary of (ginned up) “controversy,” like whether or not the President is a secret socialist or was born in the United States, for example.
.
We liberals would be ecstatic if the Post would do its job, and provide a clear answer: Is this more rightist scandal-mongering, or not?
.
The difference here is that liberals want a political press corps that demonstrates the capability of settling controversy with fact, while the partisan right wants a political press corps that falls into the predictably destructive patterns outlined in Gene Lyons’ “Fools for Scandal” ( http://www.amazon.com/Fools-Scandal-Media-Invented-Whitewater/dp/1879957523 ). We want clear conclusions repeated as often as clear falsehoods, the partisan right wants repetitions of whatever scandalous claims they can manufacture.
.
In the meantime, while establishment journalism gets its act together (or not), we on the left won’t have any problem clearly stating reasonable conclusions about how this hyped non-story is yet one more example of how GOP partisans’ desperate and amoral tabloidism hurts our democracy.
.
In this, the deliberate degeneration of the system of free information that the Founders enshrined in the Constitution, the right betrays its contempt for America and Americans –as does the national political press corps.

I will however post links to the truth:
.

““Millions of people saw the clip on Fox News and YouTube,” said Todd Gaziano, a commissioner who has been the driving force behind the commission’s investigation. “Any reasonable American knows this is voter intimidation. And so the dismissal itself of an infamous case where there’s footage is more damaging to people’s perception of the rule of law than a dismissal when nobody’s paying attention.”
.
The commission chairman, Gerald Reynolds, said Thernstrom is attacking the commission out of pique dating back to a dispute about organizing a conference scheduled for this fall. “The allegation that there’s any interest in bringing down the Obama Administration is false – and it’s a lot more, it’s personal and petty.”

.
So much for mr elvis’ rebuttal. Seems we not only have an ineffective DOJ with Holder in charge, we also have people claiming to be Republicans degrading other Republicans. Imagine that. Why else would we post this on a thread called A Note On Food Fights: Politics 101
.
But unfortunately, voter intimidation or even potential voter intimidation by ANYONE despite color should be investigated to the fullest. Not simply swept under the rug. How can the United States ever have any credibility in places like Afghanistan claiming election fraud, etc if we allow it to happen in our own country. Yes Ladies and Gentlemen it is that simple. It is that important.
.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/16/wow-republican-member-claims-civil-rights-commission-is-out-to-get-holder-on-black-panthers-case/

Thank you for your response mr zechman, I am positive you would like to hear nothing but the truth so help me God from our lame stream media, who pick and chose what they should report and what they shouldn’t based solely on ideology or politics.
.
But, even if we step beyond the politics or ideology, not reporting the news is as guilty as reporting factually incorrect information. Here we can agree. And, despite your barbs and slams at Republican or conservatives of which I am equally guilty of, You yourself should be calling for the media to be reporting on this to once and for all put it to rest. To push those in power to justify their actions just like you do on everything else. But, with the exception of this comment here from you, you have been like the rest of the liberal media, totally silent. I find that very curious. I also find it hypocritical.

Michael Scmerconish, the conservative Philly radio host, actually raised a great point about this — if these idiots were actually trying to intimidate Republican voters, they picked the absolute worst district in which to do it.
.
This district is overwhelmingly black and working class, and had literally only 8-32 Republican votes (compared to 500-600 Democratic votes) in the 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential election. As Smerconish noted, if they wanted to intimidate Republicans they would have gone to a polling place that actually had Republicans.
.
Maybe they intimidated a dozen voters? Big deal. Florida Republicans illegally removed 44,000 black voters from the rolls in 2000 and it barely generated a yawn in the national media.

“This doesn’t have to do with the Black Panthers; this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration,” said Thernstrom, who said members of the commission voiced their political aims “in the initial discussions” of the Panther case last year.

“My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president,” Thernstrom said in an interview with POLITICO.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/07/16/heart-of-darkness/

Rustydog:
.
with the exception of this comment here from you, you have been like the rest of the liberal media, totally silent. I find that very curious. I also find it hypocritical.
.
That’s so interesting, because that’s the exact same line –”why the silence”– I was asked just days ago from another movement conservative, to which I answered:

3xfire3:

If this is true, why have you and most of the Liberals on this site failed to condemn the act of attempted Voter Intimidation and comments made about killing whites and white babies? I have made several posts asking for your comments on this situation. Even Liberals like Stuart remain silent. Liberals silence gives the impression that they support these actions or are afraid to appear racist by saying anything negative about black people.

I don’t think that’s the case. I’m not “remaining silent” because I’m afraid of other liberals calling me “less than progressive on race” (which they do, upon occasion), I just don’t care about a group that has nothing to do with the left or what we movement liberals stand for.
.
Also, it’s just not that important. It’s not systemic, it’s not like the country is over-run by this group, it’s not like they’re in positions of power over local municipalities, like the Klan was. They’re nothing, nobodies. It’s not the pressing issue of our time.
.
So why would we talk about this? Why would we feel some need to defend ourselves from accusations that we don’t want to talk about it because of impure motives?
.
More importantly, who is talking about this nothing “issue”?
.
Look at Google’s News search results for “new black panther party voter intimidation”:

FOXNews – 2 days ago
.
Big Government (blog)
.
WND.com – Mediaite.com
.
FNC Exclusive: Former DOJ Attorney Discusses New Black Panther …
‎.
FOXNews – Jun 30, 2010
.
New Black Panther voter intimidation case dismissal is part of a …‎ – New York Post (blog)
.
The Coke Head Elect and his administration keeping voter …‎ – Strategy Page
.
Holder’s Black Panther Shame‎ – Right Side News
.
Right Pundits – Andrew Zarowny – 18 hours ago

My thought is that movement liberals (rightly) are not going to let movement rightist or GOP-partisan news sources drive our conversation.
.
We don’t have to worry about “failing to condemn” these comments.
.
Do you know what that sort of thing sounds like, 3xfire3?
.
It sounds a lot like when Hillary Clinton was trying to get Barack Obama to “condemn AND reject” Louis Farrakhan at that debate, doesn’t it?
.
It’s nonsense, pure political nonsense. It’s sensationalist, it’s nothing to do with any real issues of any kind, and it’s meant to stir up the worst kind of conversation, the worst kind of debate. It’s just not productive. It’s kindergarten stuff. It’s why people at that debate laughed at Hillary for that silly insistence of hers.
.
I’m sure you’ll agree with me that the course our country is on is a bad one, 3xfire3, and that we need to really man and woman-up, focus on what really matters, and resolve some basic factual disputes over what works and doesn’t work in terms of government and economic policy.
.
If you agree with that description, then surely you can see that “remaining silent” about a sensationalist, tabloid story –a tale some people would like to foam over, and make the most of because it somehow proves how hypocritical and wrong all liberals are, and how “the real racists” are liberals and Democrats– isn’t so bad at all.
.
In this case “remaining silent” really means “not falling for it.” It means “not gullible enough to take our eyes off of the ball.”
.
Notice here how I haven’t said anything about your views on race, and that I’ve just assumed you’re an normal American, somebody who isn’t overly prejudiced or unjust, somebody who believes in their heart that long-term, equal application of the Bill of Rights is the measure of our nation’s morality.
.
I’ll tell you what, though: some people, i.e. the people who are pushing this political nonsense, the people in that list of results from Google would just love it if I were to call you a racist, and you were to call me a racist right back, and we ended up fighting about nothing. Those kind of folks are happiest when we Americans are at each others’ throats over stuff that doesn’t even affect out daily lives, and that we can’t really insist that anyone in power do very much about.
.
No, I’m not “afraid to appear racist,” although those people would like you to think that’s what I’m all about. But you know me, don’t you? You know that I get the crap end of the rhetorical stick sometimes from those who want to make racism into the sole problem that the Democratic Party and liberalism are supposed to solve. You know that lots of us liberals aren’t afraid of very much at all –besides our beloved country going to hell.
.
You know these things about some of us liberals, 3xfire3, because you’ve seen us in action, speaking amongst each other, something you would never have been able to see even 25 years ago.
.
So, I think that you might want to step back and think about whose agenda you might be serving by this insistence that liberals all rush forward to condemn and reject Louis Farrakhan or the “New Black Panther Party” or what have you, and what kind of conversation is in people’s minds when they try to get you to have that “impression” of “liberal silence on this situation.”
.
Is that a productive, problem-solving conversation they want us to have, 3xfire3, or is there something else on their minds?
.
Thanks for reading and considering this, 3xfire3.
.
Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/07/12/morning-must-reads-contenders/#ixzz0ty1cqSFa

So, with the exception of that novella (and the other response to you, in which I included the full PDF of the Justice Department’s testimony) I suppose I have “remained totally silent,” Rustydog.
.
It is eerie how identical the language accusing liberals and the establishment media of a conspiracy of silence seems, isn’t it?
.
It’s almost like…it’s a talking point designed to manufacture controversy, and to con writers tasked with “objectivity” into repeating it.

See 10.1
.
stuart I am not disputing that Fox News and other right-wing establishment have not taken hold of this issue and not run with it. I won’t even dispute the fact that republicans would take this as a major issue most Americans would feel apalled about, and cause a major outcry from the average American, just to get a political stab into the heart of the liberal political machine.
.
But, simply ask the question which begs to be asked. Should there be voter intimidation in any form, anywhere in the world to say the least right here in the United States of America?
.
If we lose the integrity of our elections, if we allow people no matter how big or small the infraction to commit voter intimidation, what is left of our democracy?
.
You may think this is some half-baked, cooked up Fox News or right wing conspiracy, so be it. I frankly believe it is much much more.

“Should there be voter intimidation in any form, anywhere in the world to say the least right here in the United States of America?”
.
There. Was. No. Voter. Intimidation. None. Nadda. Zippo. They were black men in a predominately black polling station and no one complained about being intimidated. Inasmuch as you appear to actually believe that any of this merits more than a blink and a yawn, you’ve been duped by your thoroughly discredited authoritarian leaders in the right-wing propaganda machine. Again.

I apologize in advance if this is not Stuart’s take on it, but it is my conclusion and I believe similar to his:
.
Just because an item does not qualify as “A”, does not immediately classify it as “Z”. In other words, this may not be “some half-baked, cooked up Fox News or right wing conspiracy” … but that doesn’t mean it’s relevant enough to focus attention on.
.
We as humans have a tendancy to attract to simplicity. One could argue it is really just natural law. The path of least resistance is ultimately always followed, and human beings are no different. That’s a larger scope scientific and philisophical discussion, but there is no denying that American culture too oft devolves into us/them, black/white, liberal/conservative, and any other ying yang we can get our hands on.
.
However, hindsight always tells us that in reality there are a million varying shades of grey between black and white, that time is limited and maturity demands prioritization to provide a successful long term outcome, at times even at the loss of current benefit.
.
This story is simply not high enough on the priority list no matter what it’s factual (or lack thereof) base is. There is far too much, more impactful, systemic problems to deal with. That doesn’t make something wrong insignificant and those who don’t focus on it villains, it means they have the sometimes difficult responsibility of deciding what’s more important in the long run. These are choices every adult makes, and really shouldn’t need explaining, but in our fan-based society, where everyone is a good guy or bad guy, for you or against you, it seems reminders are frequently needed.

I have to say Stuart, sometimes I seems like you go at JK just for the sake of doin’ it. You don’t like the guy. We get it. Move on.
.
What he put up there doesn’t really require a conscious decision by Gibbs at all. It is basically a description of just how people in such positions operate. Whether they considered how Pelosi would take it or didn’t think of it at all, would not likely have changed his statement to any real degree.
.
It’s not a question of what they “should” have said, it’s a matter of “what did you think they’d say?” Exactly what they did. That’s all I took from Klein’s post here, that this is business as usual, nothing new to see here. Not sure why that required a tirade from you.
.
I mean, to be honest he doesn’t have to justify himself as smarter or more informed than anyone to post on a blog, his own blog at that. If you really dislike the content so much, either boycot it, or complain to his boss. Griping at him time and time again within this structure is not likely to produce the result you seem to be after.
.
You generally have a lot of great insight on topics I admittedly don’t have the knowledge to speak on or the time/effort to research properly, so I like to check out your posts. Yet, this rather common JK bashing seems kinda unnecessary.

Nancy Pelosi thanks you, Klein, for the much needed lesson in politics.
.
Because, you know, it’s perfectly feasible to become the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives without learning anything about politics.

Exactly. Klein seems to think Pelosi is some naive pol.
She did more to keep the President’s agenda moving (often having to make unpleasant comprimises) with skill and intelligence.

I’m going to be making a ham and cheese sandwich here in a little bit, and I’m hoping that Joe can chime in with some advice.
.
I’ve only made a ham and cheese sandwich a few thousand times in my life, you see, so I haven’t quite gotten the basics down and will probably screw it up.

maurice2u:
.
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to help me understand what you find less than useful about my commentary.
.
I have to say Stuart, sometimes I seems like you go at JK just for the sake of doin’ it. You don’t like the guy. We get it. Move on.
.
Well, I’m not a professional writer, so I may have done less than a superb job communicating this, but no, I don’t harbor any personal animosity toward Joe Klein whatsoever.
.
I don’t know the guy! I’ve never met him, and I’ve never done business with him, except to consume his product.
.
So I have no idea. He may be a lovely person, for all I know.
.
So, no, you’re wrong. My commentary isn’t the manifestation of some personal vendetta against him, it’s an attempt to help a pro journalist understand what at least some of his audience does or doesn’t find valuable about his work, so that there is no ambiguity in his (and his editors’) decision-making –just like you’ve taken time out of your day to comment on my little effort at writing. Now I have a better idea of how mean and personal my critiques can appear to some, because you’ve done the work to make that known.
.
What he put up there doesn’t really require a conscious decision by Gibbs at all.
.
OK, it doesn’t, I suppose. It could, maybe is even likely, but it’s not necessary. I don’t see the relevance of this, but, OK, so stipulated.
.

.
Yes, “lowered expectations” is just a generic description of a common messaging tactic employed by political operatives. I guess that isn’t really the point, nor is that in dispute, either, so stipulated.
.
It’s not a question of what they “should” have said, it’s a matter of “what did you think they’d say?” Exactly what they did.
.
Say what?
.
Seriously, that’s actually part of the issue. One of the problems establishment Democrats seem to have is getting on the same messaging page about precisely such things. When did they decide to roll out the old “lowered expectations” saw, exactly? Was the timing of it a surprise to Pelosi? Was there a decision, or was this a reflexive move by Gibbs, and not so terribly smart or coordinated? These questions have just as much value and information as trotting out the “politics as usual, what did you expect?” trope of the Savvy.
.
That’s all I took from Klein’s post here, that this is business as usual, nothing new to see here. Not sure why that required a tirade from you.
.
Well, you see, I didn’t exactly think that I was throwing a fit about it. The criticism wasn’t expletive-laden, nor particularly emotional at all, hardly a “tirade.” I’m not sure why you’re particularly troubled by it, actually.
.
I mean, to be honest he doesn’t have to justify himself as smarter or more informed than anyone to post on a blog, his own blog at that.
.
Well, if he’s going to position himself as a credible source for political analysis, surely he’s got to have something going for him, doesn’t he? That’s a rather odd way of looking at journalism, isn’t it? What’s the difference between a “blog” and some other source of journalism? More importantly, where did you get the idea that there was a difference, or that one is more important than another in terms of the journalists being “smarter or more informed than anyone?” Who told you that blogs were for writers and readers who wanted to dispense with such standards? Is that your notion?
.
Also, I’m not a big Pelosi fan, but if Joe Klein is going to claim that he’s surprised she doesn’t get “politics 101,” then surely he’s got to have some notion of himself as being “smarter or more informed than anyone,” right?
.
If you really dislike the content so much, either boycot it, or complain to his boss. Griping at him time and time again within this structure is not likely to produce the result you seem to be after.
.
Look, when the content –the thought, really– is up to the quality that Joe Klein is capable of producing, I say so. Much of the time, as is the case with a great deal of establishment political journalism, it isn’t, so I also say so.
.
That’s what this forum is ultimately for, isn’t it?
.
I mean, do you think that this place is some kind of dog-fighting arena for the journos, where they can watch us partisans and ideologues foam and snarl at each other from the pit of right and left, but from the safety of paid seats? Is it your idea that we’re supposed to come here to insult and berate other commenters, to tell them how offensive we find their obviously personally motivated tirades?
.
What do you think we’re doing here? Providing each other with some spite-filled and largely humorless form of extraordinarily thin and dry entertainment? Maybe because we have nothing better to do with our time? Is that it?
.
I don’t wish to impugn you or to put insults in your mouth, so please clarify, if that’s not your meaning.
.
The result I’m after, just to be clear, is good political journalism, the democracy-saving kind. This may or may not be the structure to produce that result, but I’m here to try to tell the pro writers here that this is the result I think would be best –and that I’m willing to pay for it, if I thought I could obtain it.
.
Look, the movement rightists are going to be doing this, too. They’ve been at work on “the liberal media,” endlessly voicing their discontent for decades. They want the organs of the press to reflect their culture and identity, and to portray reality as they have constructed it within their movement, party and think tank infrastructure.
.
Rather than seeking a political or partisan outcome, it’s my opinion that the reality-based community also needs to make “the liberal media” aware of what we think that our democracy deserves. That means taking advantage of the new media’s capabilities for engagement, and “griping at him time and time again,” until we have a better journalism product to show for it, or they go out of business altogether because everybody hates them, albeit for different reasons. Either way, it’s up to us to help them understand that we’re out here, and that producing journalism largely for their little community isn’t getting anyone anywhere.
.
You generally have a lot of great insight on topics I admittedly don’t have the knowledge to speak on or the time/effort to research properly, so I like to check out your posts. Yet, this rather common JK bashing seems kinda unnecessary.
.
That’s very generous of you to mention, especially when you’ve found yourself irritated by my commentary today.
.
If you can try to understand a couple of things, I would greatly appreciated it.
.
One, is that, even though Joe Klein is my political enemy (he’s a Third Way radical middle-ist, I’m a movement liberal), these criticisms aren’t politically motivated. In other words, I’m not being intellectually dishonest (trying, anyway) by pointing out what I think are more or less egregious flaws in his journalism. I also try hard to make the political criticism distinct from evaluations of the quality of his writing and coverage.
.
Two, is that, by recycling old political hackery (“politics 101″) as wisdom to be received, Joe Klein exposes the kind of error rife within the establishment political press corps, namely an appeal to “Savviness” (see Jay Rosen at Pressthink .com), and a supreme willingness to pass assumption off as knowledge to an audience starving for real information about process and policy.
.
Taking sides in a dispute is also what Joe Klein did today, maurice2u. He said that Nancy Pelosi had forgotten basic politics, had been “unsavvy.” That’s some damning language within the culture of people like Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell. I’d like to know what specifically he knows, if anything, that would cause him to take Pelosi down that way. If he’s not going to say, well then that needs to be clear to us, too.
.
Only if you take his word for it, and assume that, yes, indeed, Pelosi behaved like a rank amateur this week, does it make sense not to think too deeply about what he claims to know, and why he would bother to write this short post. If you just assume he’s right about “politics 101,” then there’s no need to ask yourself “Why is this guy taking sides so strongly?”
.
I think that it might say something about what’s to come after this fall, if people like Joe Klein race to the defense of the Administration at the expense of House Democrats, don’t you? Isn’t that worth thinking about a little deeper than “politics 101?”
.
Thank you for reading and considering this, maurice2u. I hope that have given you a better idea of why I address Joe Klein’s work here the way that I do.

“… but that doesn’t mean it’s relevant enough to focus attention on.”

.
I fully understand what you mean maurice. Take for example back in 1965, in the south, there were polling places which saw a few men in white hoods and robes. Now these polling places were predominately white voting places, but there were a few blacks who did vote at those same polls in 1965.
.
There was much outrage since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed the year before, but anger and hate still filled the air. Despite the Act, people were still intimidated at the polls.
.
Now here is a list of voter intimidation cases which have also occurred since 1964. I have removed the dates. Try and guess when these events occurred. I will post a link at the bottom of this comment so you can go find out the dates mr maurice.
.

“Most recently, controversy has erupted over the use in the Orlando area of armed, plainclothes officers from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to question elderly black voters in their homes. The incidents were part of a state investigation of voting irregularities in the city’s March **** mayoral election. Critics have charged that the tactics used by the FDLE have intimidated black voters, which could suppress their turnout in this year’s elections. Six members of Congress recently called on Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate potential civil rights violations in the matter.
.
This year in Florida, the state ordered the implementation of a ‘potential felon’ purge list to remove voters from the rolls, in a disturbing echo of the infamous **** purge, which removed thousands of eligible voters, primarily African-Americans, from the rolls. The state abandoned the plan after news media investigations revealed that the **** list also included thousands of people who were eligible to vote, and heavily targeted African-Americans while virtually ignoring Hispanic voters.
.
This summer, Michigan state Rep. John Pappageorge (R- Troy) was quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying, ‘If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we’re going to have a tough time in this election.’ African Americans comprise 83% of Detroit’s population.
.
In South Dakota’s June **** primary, Native American voters were prevented from voting after they were challenged to provide photo IDs, which they were not required to present under state or federal law.
.
In Kentucky in July ****, Black Republican officials joined to ask their State GOP party chairman to renounce plans to place ‘vote challengers’ in African-American precincts during the coming elections.
Earlier this year in Texas, a local district attorney claimed that students at a majority black college were not eligible to vote in the county where the school is located. It happened in Waller County – the same county where ** years earlier, a federal court order was required to prevent discrimination against the students.
.
In **** in Philadelphia, voters in African American areas were systematically challenged by men carrying clipboards, driving a fleet of some 300 sedans with magnetic signs designed to look like law enforcement insignia.
.
In **** in Louisiana, flyers were distributed in African American communities telling voters they could go to the polls on Tuesday, December 10th – three days after a Senate runoff election was actually held.
In **** in South Carolina, a state representative mailed 3,000 brochures to African American neighborhoods, claiming that law enforcement agents would be ‘working’ the election, and warning voters that ‘this election is not worth going to jail.’

.
I think you would agree that in all of these cases, this would be deemed voter intimidation or at least the threat of voter intimidation, correct mr maurice? Now if I count correctly, that would be 9 separate cases, correct mr maurice?
.
But, I guess when I go by your analysis of my original comment, I really shouldn’t care about all of these. I should maybe look at my Representatives and say to them, oh, don’t bother making a big fuss out of those cases. These stories are simply not high enough on the priority list no matter what it’s factual (or lack thereof) base is. There is far too much, more impactful, systemic problems to deal with.
.
Do I have that right mr maurice. Is that how you also feel about these 9 cases?

I’m sorry mr maurice and mr zechman, here is the link with the dates.
.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Jim-Crow-Intimidation26aug04.htm

I must also be tired too, I’m so sorry I forgot my disclaimer.
.
Thank you for reading and considering this, maurice2u and stuartzechman. I hope that I have given you a better idea of why I addressed this very important issue and concern, especially when the media (TIME Magazine or TIME.com) with the exception of Fox News did not care enough about it to even print anything about it.

I’m sorry mr maurice and mr zechman, here is the link with the dates.
.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Jim-Crow-Intimidation26aug04.htm
.
Thank you for reading and considering this, maurice2u and stuartzechman. I hope that I have given you a better idea of why I addressed this very important issue and concern, especially when the media (TIME Magazine or TIME.com) with the exception of Fox News did not care enough about it to even print anything. I am sure it is just
not high enough on the priority list no matter what it’s factual.

It’s not that Klein truly believes that Pelosi is an amateur or a moron, it’s that he’s immediately taken sides in a messaging conflict, and has shown (whom?) he’s supremely willing to insult and deride whoever opposes the Administration –even the Speaker of the House– in the terms most damaging to the ears of other political journos, namely that “she’s unsavvy.”

Here you go little kevie. See 8.8. Oh, and those polling places were predominantly black polling places too.

I must say, Rustyblog, you’re being extraordinarily polite and civil, and I appreciate that greatly, as well has having had the courtesy to link to the source of your claims, so that we may examine for ourselves their veracity or lack thereof.
.
I think that you might be making two different points, actually, so I will go ahead and look at these examples you have provided.
.
If there is actually something of any value whatsoever behind this “controversy” that I may have missed, I might even mention the subject during the Virtually Speaking Sunday show on which I will be a guest tomorrow (along with political consultant Cliff Schecter).

Thank you stuart. But, I did go back and re-read your comment back to me which basically was a regurgitation of one you gave to 3xfire3.
.
Now I do understand fully what you are saying in what you said to 3xfire3, but I don’t think you fully understand the meaning behind what I have done for the past week.
.
I think you would agree, I have posted probably a good 20 comments or more on this subject. Most to get TIME.com to write a blog posting about it. Time after time after time after time, I was called a racist, accused of race baiting, told there was nothing significant about the event, even actual lies to distort the facts which occurred when the case was dropped by the Obama Administration by liberals on this site. Not one self-identified liberal stood up and said, I agree with you newfreedomblog, this isn’t right”.
.
It has been an eye-opening experience. One that says to me, the laws and rules of this country only apply to certain people. That is concerning to me stuart, very concerning. Then to read, this is just not that big of a deal or concern. There are way too many other more important issues to be concerned about. Again, very disturbing in my opinion as a democracy loving American.
.
It even makes me wonder to myself, if this is how most liberals think, and they do not really care about my voting rights, what other rights do they also not really care about? What other rights will they one day decide to take away from me?
.
But, I am sure that is simply paranoia on my part. I am perhaps “schzoid” as I have also been called a couple days ago. Yea, I think I will just throw away my Republican Committee Card and go join the Democrat Party Committee. They really don’t give a flying F*ck, so why should I?

My goodness, Newrusty just could not maintain that new civility.
.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100717/ap_on_re_us/us_neo_nazi_patrols
.
Above is an article about neo-nazi minute men patroling the Arizona border. They seem to have the same philosophy as the Republicans on immigration, gun control, etc. Ergo, Republicans support neo-nazi minute men. Why isn’t the press looking into this scandal.
.
I find it amusing that the right is now having serious questions about the Afghan war. This is a concern the liberals have had for some time. Just conjecture, McCain is so invested in the Afghan war, I doubt we would hear the same concern if he had been elected President. No, the right would have fallen back into the fear mode and accused anyone opposing the war as anti-american, Talilban lovers. How about a few more Friedman Units that the right, neo-cons, and the media so loved to apply to Iraq?

Now, having watched these proceedings, here is my input:
.
I have debated SZ on the subject of whether or not one can be considered racist or not, and we both had valid points.
.
To start with, it is possible that you don’t really believe all these things you say, and you are retaliating in kind for people not being concerned about your voting rights. That may be possible, so at this point I’ll place myself, in a “reset condition”.
.
1. I have not, to date, called 3xfire3, freeinpa, 2/3rdsrocks, etc racist. Whey do you think that is?
2. The other day you posted a link to something on the racial divide on your blog site, and you did not make any racially inflammatory statements whatsoever on Swampland. I pointed out, unlike others, that this is a free country and you have a right to post whatever you want on your own site. Why would I do this?
3. There have been other rare instances where I have agreed with you on certain points.
.
These are clues that I actually do understand the issues regarding reverse discrimination, voter intimidation against whites, etc etc I also understand the concept of smaller government and lower taxes – and many other conservative values.
.
I don’t have a problem with having the case aired in the press, so long as the materials presented are accurate.
.
To be honest, I have not heard enough from reliable sources about the case you and 3xfire3 had presented, and so, given the context of other messages you and 3xfire3 have presented, I have refrained from coming to a definitive judgment on the NBP case. FOX and opinions do not meet standards of fact. Of course, there are other sources. An accurate, reliable piece on this subject would be useful.
.
I’ve looked at some of those cases mentioned at the link you’ve provided. Some I’m not too knowledgeable about, and some, such as the Florida cases, have been brought to a legal conclusion that finds against the defendants (the State of Florida).
.
My view is this on the NBP case is that if voter intimidation occurred, they should be prosecuted, just like anyone else.
.
A dialogue, an honest dialogue is possible, but the problem does not lie with what you or I believe to be true, but how much one is willing to learn from the other. I am an American in an urban, mixed community, and you are, I presume, in a rural community where there is not a lot of diversity. Neither is a fault. Both are conditions. If I’m wrong about your community setting, inform me. I’m open to correction too.

Should be:
.
“…and you are, I presume, an American in a rural community…”

It even makes me wonder to myself, if this is how most liberals think, and they do not really care about my voting rights, what other rights do they also not really care about? What other rights will they one day decide to take away from me?

Well rustyblogwhore, that’s amusing coming from you given your history of pissing on the Constitution and the rule of law. Do you remember making these comments?

Yes, in a perfect world where everyone is law-abiding, the “rule of law” does provide for some form of civility. However in the real world, full of terrorist and individuals who wish harm for the sake of some perverted ideology, then you may as well use a document like the constitution to wipe your arse.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/12/30/on-undiebomber/

I’m not reading that much written diarrhea from anyone, and especially not an unhinged lunatic like you, Racisty.

Both parties try to do some voting manipulation. The Republicans are the masters however. It is rare that the Villagers do much reporting on this, usually characterizing it as amusing and unimportant. See link in next thread. Even the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Renquist at one time was involved in voter intimidation.
.
http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1046
.
James Tobin: Remember him. Led phone jamming on behalf of Reps in New Hampshire. 2002. Convicted.
.
Vote caging done extensively by Reps.
.
Granddaddy of then all. Supreme Court decision of 2000. Gave election to Bush but claimed wasn’t precedent.
.
Legal but unethical robocalls.
.
Ohio 2002. Ken Blackell manipulation.. Diebold CEO. Promised to deliver Bush election.

Link above is to the Ohio problems.
.
This link concerns Renquist:
.
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/lstripp/rehnquist.htm
.
Wish we could post more than one link per comment. Many of us have indicated a concern about the limitation but we are ignored.
.
Nothing attests to NewRusty’s paranoia than his trying to maintain civility during some comments where he is trying to impress others and then his complete breakdown later. So sad.
.
I had vowed not to interact with Rusty. It is hard. I am cheating by addressing his comments obliquely.

Great nights sleep here and I am nothing short of amazed with mr 53_3′s comment. Thank you mr 53_3 for taking the time to truly understand what I am and have been saying. It is very encouraging to say the least. I will leave it at that and move forward.
.
And to mr diecash. Yes I do remember fully that discussion back in December, and given it’s full context which you did link but make it sound like I flippantly dismissed the constitution as some rag we should wipe our arse on, is not solely within the context of the ENTIRE discussion that cold December day.
.
The discussion was in reponse to another Klein post where he was demonizing the Bush Administration, the Republicans who were outraged by the handling of the undiebomber, and how Klein felt they should not question Obama’s motives on granting rights to a Terrorist who just attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit killing hundreds of people. At the time the main issue at hand was should a Terrorist be granted the same rights as an American citizen. My point and reponse was in context a reply to that.
.
In a perfect world, where people respect the “rule of law” as you were arguing, then yes terrorist should be treated the same as our own God given rights protect us as written in the constitution. However as we know, Terrorist do not respect our constitution or our rule of law. They are not citizens of the US of A, and in my opinion should not have the same treatment as someone who is a citizen of the United States. They are terrorists and enemy combatants. People with no respect of our constitution or our laws. They simply just want to kill a whole bunch of American citizens.
.
But, mr diecash, will take one comment and use it totally out of context to make some point in the future about a totally different discussion or comment. You are nothing short of disgusting mr diecash. The typical spin and distortion of why the people in this country no longer have any honor or respect anymore.

Why am I not surprised little kevie. A typical liberal response.

Give it up rustyblogwhore. You can attempt to channel SZ’s method of dialog if you like but it doesn’t change what you said or what you believe. Anyone here can go back and read the disgusting, cowardly and pathetic comments that you made in that thread and see what you really believe and that context is what makes your current attempt at rewriting the past so laughable. The only difference is you’re attempting to do so more civilly now versus wishing death to my friends and family at the hands of terrorist as you did before.

You’re a know-nothing racist. Why on earth would anyone want to engage in conversation with you?

Apparently you do little kevie, as you comment on most all of my comments. But, you lose 99.9% of your arguments, and then we get retorts such as
You’re a know-nothing racist. Why on earth would anyone want to engage in conversation with you?
.
Have a nice day, little kevie!! Enjoy!!

I almost forgot this gem:

In a perfect world, where people respect the “rule of law” as you were arguing, then yes terrorist should be treated the same as our own God given rights protect us as written in the constitution.

So since we don’t live in a “perfect world”, our laws should not apply to terrorists or anyone else for that matter, yes? That seems to be the basis of your “argument” and it appears to be based entirely in fantasy.
..
We don’t live in a perfect world yet the rule of law still applies to all of us. Your desire to throw aside the law when it’s convenient is entirely misguided. As I and many others have pointed out to you before, when you discard the rule of law, the terrorists win.
..
Can you not see that is what they desire? They seek to demonstrate that we (more specifically people like you, W, Cheney, et. al) will throw aside our values when confronted with a difficult situation. You’re only helping the terrorist when you advocate such positions.
..
Don’t you love America rustyblogwhore? If so, why do you treat it with such disregard? I suggest you rethink your entire position.

Mr diecash:
.
I will give this one more attempt at explaining my position, and I also believe the position of the majority of American citizens. Simply, Terrorist do not respect our constitution. They do not respect us as Americans at all. Terrorist want simply to destroy or kill us and our country. They do not respect our sovereignty as a country, and want to destroy it. They want to destroy everything, including our constitution and have it replaced with some perverted doctrine of their own choosing. This has been proven without a shadow of a doubt, time after time after time again.
.
My opinion and my stand on this argument you wish to rehash is simply I do not believe Terrorist who want to see me dead should be granted full privileges and rights of our constitution as it is written for our citizens. Their motive, their only motive, is to destroy us and this country. Period. If you believe you can civilize these people, great. Go to their country and advocate for them to put a “rule of law” in effect which would mimic our own. Educate them, and ask them to respect not only us but our “rule of law”.
.
If I visit a Terrorist’s country, I am taking the chance that my constitutional rights are not guaranteed as they are written in our own constitution. As a matter of fact once I leave the soil of the United States of America or anyone of its territories I am no longer protected by those rights or “rule of law”. I will now be judged by, and will suffer any consequences as they may chose to throw my way. Nothing guarantees me anything shy of some diplomatic agreement or treaty.
.
But what you are saying is simply under any circumstance what-so-ever, anyone who steps foot on American soil should have the same rights and privileges as an American citizen. I totally disagree with that stand, and it is not how our constitution is written. It is written for the sole protection of our own citizens. The most important of those protections by the Federal Government is the safety and security of American citizens. To defend us from any and all enemies, foreign and domestic. To provide us with the unalienable rights to live our lives with freedom and liberty.
.
Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence, mr diecash? Do you fully understand where the Constitution of the United States was born? In the Declaration it says the following; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness”.
.
Therefore mr diecash, the Constitution of the United States was written first to protect, and defend MY rights as a citizen of the United States, not the rights of a known Terrorist whose only goal in life is to potentially kill me. When we are faced with the difficult decision to protect our own citizens’ rights against our enemies or attackers, it is my opinion we must first chose the rights of our own citizens first. If we deem those same rights should be given to Terrorists, then so be it if that is what the majority of Americans deem to be in our own best interests. However to my knowledge, the Constitution does not specifically say the rights contained within this great document protect Terrorists or any other person who is not a citizen of the United States of America. If you can prove otherwise, I will stand corrected.

Appreciate the reply. I won’t be too long on this, have to run.
.
Now you did use that “3rd way” thing again, and I just want to comment on that because you took the time to explain what that meant before (thanks again), but I didn’t really comment back. I think ultimately the label is not useful. Unless it is a self-description, a title he put on himself, it just boils down to “he’s not one of us, so if he’s not one of them, fine …. he’s #3″. That’s not really useful. I think our (humans) need for putting individuals (or groups of people) in neat little package definitions cheapens our discussions and serves more to divide than to connect while accepting our differences.
.
You say (and I believe) you don’t have a personal gripe with JK, but if you just put a label on him as “he’s one of those”, and then have a personal gripe with that group as you see it, it skews too much the lens through which you see anything he does, or anyone else you believe fits in that box does. People are not always the same, all the time, on all topics. Sometimes they are conservative, sometimes they are liberal, sometimes they are agressive, sometimes passive, and none of those are hard boundaries. We could hit anywhere within a large range on any one issue. If it could be divided a thousand times, it would not cover the varying degrees of opinion, and the amount of importance they apply to the issue.
.
When people don’t see something the same way we do, or aren’t as passionate about it, it doesn’t make them “one of them”. I guess that’s my point. It’s an attitude we are all guilty of from time to time, but I’d like to see those of us who prescribe to the effort of continuous self improvement shed this as much as possible.
.
Now on the subject of what we’re here for: I think that varies too. I will say though that TIME’s reason for us being here, the content writers reason for being here, and the commenters reasons for being here are almost certainly VERY different. Businesses are doin’ it for the bottom line, and if turning a place into
“some kind of dog-fighting arena for the journos” gets the most ad revenue, that’s exactly what most of the have done and will do again. There are many examples on large and small scale, no need for elaboration, sadly.

Rusty:
.
Since a dialogue clearly is not in your plans, here is what I’m proposing:
.
You refrain from broadcasting racially inflammatory statements on Swampland, and I will do the following:
.
1. I will refrain from calling you racist
2. I will engage you civilly on matters of race
3. I will engage you civilly on all other matters

One last comment Rusty:
.
Had you read my many comments on the subject, you would not have been surprised.

Heh, just thought of this example.
.
Colin Powell vs. John Boehner
.
If I just say “Colin Powell is one of those Republicans”, and subsequently take what he says as words from the “party of no”, the “Limbaugh brigade”, or whatever catch phrase one might apply …. I’ve made a terrible mistake, taking a slant on what he said based on a group title without giving the content it’s fair shake.
.
Anyone taking a semi-rational look at those two men realizes that are cut from far different cloth. So me lumping them into one generic pile is counterproductive.
.
I will say however that this works both ways. Since Powell has decided to title himself as Republican, he has the burden, let’s call it the responsibility, to be an example of how varied people can be under that umbrella.
.
Historically people complain about the Dems being weak and the Repubs being strong because the Republicans get in line and tow the same message with very little break in ranks. However, the reality is A) that means a lot of them are lying for their own gain and B) those who aren’t are probably about as closed minded as you can get. What that means is the moment you find yourself with some difference that doesn’t fit the plan, you’re on the outside looking in. Right back to the “one of us, or one of them”.
.
The Dems inclusiveness of many view points, not to mention gender and race diversity, means they will not always be “on message”, it will be harder to make consensus, they will have to listen to other people and compromise. I believe that’s a “good thing”. Characteristics that all Americans should try to take on, not avoid for the sake of speed or easiness (or political expedience if that sounds fancier). Takin’ the path of least resistance is natural. It is the way of all nature, and as such of mankind too. Yet, we have that little thing called sentience and the intellect to act against our natural instincts. We just need to use it a bit more often in my opinion.

Thank you for your proposal mr 53, and with you I shall make the same committment as well. Since you and I rest at almost polar opposites in ideology in general, our main goal in any future discussion would be primarily a situation we agree to disagree, I doubt you will change my mind, and vice versa. But, it is encouraging to say the least that perhaps we could one day have a very civil as well as enlightening discussion.

Rusty:
.
An excellent agreement!
.
If we get into a situation where we disagree whether something is or is not inflammatory (I promise to not just jump in and assume it is except in more egregious situations), let’s try to talk about it.
.
I understand the root of our differences, fundamentally are truly polar opposites.
.
To point out what I mean, I believe that Rand and Ron Paul are not racists. They believe that individual freedoms at all levels take precedence over collective rights (a rather vague narrative, I admit). This is something I strongly disagree with, but I do understand the mechanics of it.

I guess that I’m just simple and naive. I do not try and mystically analyze everything that Gibbs says, or that any Time commentator posts. Could we not just take what Gibbs said as just a simple statement of fact?? Do we have to analyze his political relationships with other Democratic leaders? Must there always be something symbolic of something else?? Just my humble opinion.

Huh. Seems like Slow Joe Biden didn’t get the memo either. “”We’re going to win the House and we’re going to win the Senate,” Biden told ABC’s “This Week” in an interview that aired Sunday. “I don’t think the losses are going to be bad at all. … We’re going to be in great shape.”

I wonder if Klein has the CD of REM’s “Life’s Rich Pageant.” I suspect he’d like the song “Fall On Me.”

You have a good day, too, Racisty. Maybe you can bring some of your other personalities onto the Swampland boards to keep you company. Just make sure they’re white!

It’s not that I wish to rehash the argument as you’ve already demonstrated your lack of understanding of it, it’s merely that I find it humorous when you accuse others of not respecting the rule of law or our Constitution.
..

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected for the third time President Bush’s policy of holding foreign prisoners under exclusive control of the military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ruling that the men have a right to seek their freedom before a federal judge.

The justices said the Constitution from the beginning enshrined the “privilege of habeas corpus” – or the right to go before a judge — as one of the safeguards of liberty. And that right extends even to foreigners captured in the war on terrorism, the high court said, particularly when they have been held for as long as six years without charges.

..
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/13/nation/na-scotus13
..
It would appear, again, that you stand “corrected”.

This from law professor Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law:

[Eugene Volokh, February 18, 2009 at 8:31pm] Trackbacks
Constitutional Rights of Non-Citizens:
I’ve heard many people suggest that the Bill of Rights protects only citizens, and not legally admitted aliens. Some have argued that surely the Framers would not have understood the Bill of Rights as protecting noncitizens.
..
It turns out, though, that at least one pretty significant Framer — that would be James Madison — took the opposite view. Here’s Madison, from his Report on the Virginia Resolutions, which criticized the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798:
..
Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.
..
To this reasoning, also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.
..
But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet, it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage.
..
If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.
..
The Supreme Court has endorsed Madison’s view at least since Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896) as to the criminal procedure provisions, and in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) (also unanimously) as to the Equal Protection Clause racial equality principle. Aliens might be deportable for their speech (see here for more on that question), but they can’t be otherwise punished for it, nor can they be criminally prosecuted in the civil justice system without the normal constitutional protections. (The question of when military justice may be applied to them is a separate and complicated issue, and one that may potentially relate to citizens as well as aliens.)
..
Now I’m not a historian of the matter, and it may well be that the matter was unclear. Certainly Madison was arguing against people who took the contrary view; perhaps they were in the solid majority on this. But at the very least one shouldn’t just casually assume that the Bill of Rights must of course apply only to citizens, when the principal drafter of the Bill of Rights took the opposite view.

http://volokh.com/posts/1235007104.shtml#535177

This from a KSU op/ed piece:

Our rights do not come from God or the government, but from nature and reason. The existence of God cannot be rationally proven, and belief in such a being is solely based on faith and revelation. To say that our rights come from God imply that our rights do not come from reason, but mysticism. This notion leaves the very concept of rights meaningless and vulnerable to the whims of government.
..
To believe that only American citizens have the constitutional protection of these rights would indicate that these rights come from citizenship granted by the government, not from nature or reason. The implications of that notion would lead us straight to tyranny

http://ksusentinel.com/op-ed/should-non-us-citizens-have-constitutional-rights/
..
In reading the last paragraph, you can see the difference between inalienable rights versus unalienable rights.

A good discussion of inalienable vs. unalienable rights can be found here:
..
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm

From your own article you cite, mr diecahs:
.

June 13, 2008|David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected for the third time President Bush’s policy of holding foreign prisoners under exclusive control of the military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ruling that the men have a right to seek their freedom before a federal judge.
.
The justices said the Constitution from the beginning enshrined the “privilege of habeas corpus” — or the right to go before a judge — as one of the safeguards of liberty. And that right extends even to foreigners captured in the war on terrorism, the high court said, particularly when they have been held for as long as six years without charges.

.
Do you as a citizen of the United States, assuming you even are a citizen of the United States mr diecash, give up the right to be jailed, without a trial or seeing a judge for SIX YEARS?
.
Simple answer is NO. Why because you are a citizen of the US of A. Period. If your feeble minded self thinks those same “rights” are also afforded to Terrorists then you are sorely wrong yet again.

Whatever kevie!!

If your feeble minded self thinks those same “rights” are also afforded to Terrorists then you are sorely wrong yet again.

I knew it was only a matter of time (not much at that) before the same old ignorant rustyblogwhore showed up and started tossing insults and stupidity. Nice job.
..
I notice that you continued your history of reading incomprehension. Did you not notice that the SC affirmed the right of habeas corpus for non-citizens such as the terrorist that you speak of? As such, the six year detention of them was wrong as they were not granted habeas corpus as afforded by the constitution.
..
I’ll give you credit rustyblogwhore, when you’re as dim as you are, you stick with your lack of understanding right to the bitter end.

seriously Kevin, do yourself the biggest favor possible and stop joining or even reading any conversation started by newfreedomblog. do you know how much time i saved by not reading #8 and everything that followed? did i miss anything? i really REALLY doubt it. even brilliant responses to raving nonsense are unlikely to be helpful

I know, I know. I realized recently that I was trying to have a political discussion with someone who thinks Glenn Beck is informative, someone who’s so stupid he had to have the concept of capitalization and proper nouns explained to him. Repeatedly.
.
I might as well try to teach my dog calculus.

Might I remind everyone who may be reading, just when did the “insults” start in our discussions?
.
Insult #1
.

“Well rustyblogwhore, that’s amusing coming from you given your history of pissing on the Constitution and the rule of law. Do you remember making these comments? So said diecash on 7/17/2010 at 10:29 pm

.
Insult #2
.

“Give it up rustyblogwhore. You can attempt to channel SZ’s method of dialog if you like but it doesn’t change what you said or what you believe. Anyone here can go back and read the disgusting, cowardly and pathetic comments So said diecash July 18, 2010 at 9:00 am

.
So who needs to wonder who the person was who started out and ends with insults? Amazing, it is diecash1. The same person who also lies, distorts and does not even have a clue as to what he is even talking about. Wow, the one and the same, diecash1.
.
Listen diecash1. Time to move on. Go play in mommy and daddy’s basement with your nintendo. Perhaps even consider a Wii-fit game for exercise as the First Lady suggest for obese children. You really shouldn’t spend so much time on the computer as you do for your age. I am sure you have little 10 year old friends to play with rather than to disrupt and bother adults. I’ll bet you could make online friends with kevie, I’m guessing he is about your same age.
.
Maybe someday you will be mature enough to hold on an adult conversation with someone online, but for now, I recommend you stick with your Wizzards of Warfare game, and let the adults discuss the issues at hand today.
.
Have a nice day, diecash1. Enjoy the Wii-fit games!!

Nice to see that you failed to counter the substance of my post and I’m sure you also failed to realize the multiple errors in your line of thought on the subject. Par for the course for you. Perhaps you could have one of those kids playing the Wii explain the SC decision to you.
..
FYI, “rustyblogwhore” is not an insult so much as it is who you are. You were so disingenuous as to create a second (or more) persona to post online in the Swamp. You then stated you would be leaving the Swamp only to continue your ranting and raving with your rustyblogwhore persona. You earned it so live with it.

I guess since the 10 year old doesn’t want to move on, I’ll help him a little.
.
diecash1 says:
.

“Nice to see that you failed to counter the substance of my post and I’m sure you also failed to realize the multiple errors in your line of thought on the subject.”

.
However…here is the complete and unadultered truth which mr diecash1 has no clue as to what he is talking about.
.
Mr diecash1 lays the claim that the Constitution as the “rule of law” covers all people, including terrorists. He even cited a recent court case where the “rights” of an enemy combatant was kept from his right of habeas corpus intact within the United States. Yes, mr diecash1 is right, MOST of the time.
.
However, there have been times in our country when habeas corpus has been suspended, generally in times of crisis or wars. One such time was as late as 2006 when the Military Commission Act was put into place by Congress as law. Within this Act, which the Constitution of the United States allows, the right of habeas corpus was suspended in consideration of the Presidential powers used in times of war. George Bush II as Commander –in-Chief suspended habeas corpus with regards to enemy combatants. The Constitution also provides for the suspension at anytime by stating, “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.”.
.
Every country in the world has this same type of suspension of habeas corpus, and my detain anyone due to potential rebellion or invasion or times of war. Period.
.
While mr diecash1 is correct that the majority of time habeas corpus is the process from which a defendant, citizen or non-citizen can take their appeal to a judge for release, there are these special times when it can be suspended, and the individual in question may be held for a period of time, indefinately. PERIOD.
.
The Supreme Court has made various opinions on the suspension of habeas corpus, but have never found the suspension of habeas corpus as being un-constitutional. End of story. Good night, and sleep well everyone.
.
Oh and one last thing, there was an attempt to restore habeas corpus for enemy combatants, but it failed to pass in Congress.
.

”The Act was attached, as an amendment, to a Defense bill. On September 19, 2007, the Senate voted on a cloture motion for including the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act as an amendment to the FY 2008 Defense Department Authorization bill. The final vote was 56-43, just four votes short of overriding the Republican filibuster.”

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Restoration_Act_of_2007
.
How’s that Wii-fit game coming along mr diecash1?

Last time moron: Read the Supreme Court decision. The SC did not agree. The court held that the prisoners had a right to habeas corpus under the constitution and that the Military Commissions Act was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. Your entire diatribe about the lawfulness of suspending the writ of habeas corpus is a non sequitur.
..
You calling anyone ignorant is beyond laughable as you are the most biased and ignorant commenter in the Swamp. Even a broken clock is right twice per day but you have yet to be right on just about anything; quite a remarkable accomplishment for most but just another day in the life for you.

For those who can read.
.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/1/5/17538/24703
.

“The DC Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed the denial of a habeas petition by a Yemeni detainee, held since 2002. The case is Al-Bihani v. Obama (Circuit docket 09-5051). The opinion is here. Al-Bihani was a cook who went from Saudi Arabia, through Pakistan, to Afghanistan to help the Taliban fight the Northern Alliance. Along the way, he stayed at guest houses he says were Taliban-affiliated and the Government says were al-Qaeda affiliated.
.
The ruling in Al-Bihani v. Obama (Circuit docket 09-5051) was the first by the Circuit Court to directly apply the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Boumediene v. Bush creating a constitutional right for Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their captivity. Unless reviewed and overturned either by the en banc Circuit Court or the Supreme Court, the new decision will control how scores of detainee cases are resolved in District Court in Washington.
.
So, if you’re not an American, be careful whom you cook for overseas. What if you cater an affair that is being sponsored by a group that is associated with or supports the goals of one of our enemies and there are firearms at the event? Is that enough to authorize your transport halfway across the world to be held for years in indefinite detention at Gitmo? Using a lesser standard of proof than an American would receive, possibly even “reasonable belief”, it just might be.”

.
Why else could Obama himself continue to hold prisoners in Guantanamo Bay this very minute?

In the case you cite, which expounded upon the 2008 SC case I cited, the court did not declare that the detainees had no habeas rights. It stated:

Habeas procedures for wartime detainees, the majority said, need not match those developed for regular criminal cases.

The court also held:

Turning from presidential power to the nature of the legal rights that detainees have in habeas challenges, the majority rejected every one of Al-Bihani’s claims that the procedures used in his case were inadequate. The panel rejected his claim that a “reasonable doubt” standard should be used to test the government’s reasons for detention, embracing instead a “preponderance of the evidence” (the lowest legal hurdle).

As such, they rejected the plaintiffs claims but nowhere was it claimed that he did not possess habeas rights.
..
This decision was a prime example of “judicial activism” and you need read no further than Judge Brown’s opinion to see it.

The language of her majority opinion, and the sentiments she expressed in her separate concurrence, indicated that the panel was largely moved by the view that “an ongoing war” made a major difference not only to the scope of presidential power, but also to the limits on procedural rights for detainees who go to court to test their confinement.

In the context of “wartime detention,” the majority opinion said, “national securfity interests are at their zenith and the rights of the alien [habeas] petitioner at their nadir.” Judge Brown’s separate opinion also spoke of a novel form of “new warfare,” to which old legal concepts are not well suited. “War is a challenge to law, and the law must adjust,” she wrote.

The law must adjust? Where are all of your neocon pals yelling from the rooftops about activist judges? Pathetic and hypocritical as usual. She sounds very much like Alberto Gonzales when he call the Geneva Conventions “quaint” and it’s absolutely sickening.

Yes mr diecash1, and when you go to the level of black and white, putting no grey in the matter. “Alien’s” do not have any habeas corpus “rights” at this time if they are picked up and placed in jail. PERIOD. They can be and are being held in Gitmo as we speak.
.
All you have done is bitched about the fact this is an activist judge’s decision but it does not change the fact at all.
.
Have a nice day, mr diecash!

“Alien’s” do not have any habeas corpus “rights” at this time if they are picked up and placed in jail. PERIOD.

Where, oh where does it say any such thing?
..
All you’ve done is proven yet again that you have little to no reading comprehension and zero ability to think critically. You are completely unhinged.