14 Replies to “Quick question:”

1. mojo says:

   July 11, 2005 at 5:05 pm

   PACK THAT BENCH! PACK THAT BENCH!

   Do it now! You know damn well the Dems would, in a heartbeat.

2. Chrees says:

   July 11, 2005 at 5:08 pm

   Actually I’m beginning to believe the President is a different animal than the people that voted him into office.

   But then, for many it was probably a Faustian bargain where overriding concerns on the war meant also voting for someone they don’t agree with in other areas.

3. SeanH says:

   July 11, 2005 at 5:32 pm

   Amen to that, Chrees.  I keep hoping we get Emelio Garza, Chief Justice McConnell, and Janice Rogers Brown if Ginsberg also retires, but I won’t be at all surprised to be disappointed on all counts.  That would let Bush have his diversity picks and also give us two solid conservatives and a libertarian type to throw a bone to an increasingly disgruntled wing of the party.  It would also make a ton of sense so of course there’s no way we’ll actually get that.

4. Salt Lick says:

   July 11, 2005 at 6:03 pm

   I may be one “moderate” Supreme Court nominee away from taking my margarita to the pool and letting everyone else try to keep the house from burning down.

5. Karl Maher says:

   July 11, 2005 at 6:16 pm

   That’s why federal judges should be subject to retention elections.

6. maggiekatzen says:

   July 11, 2005 at 6:44 pm

   karl, no offense, but here in texas we vote for judges and can i just say it’s quite the asskicking to keep track of? i don’t know of anyone that does it.

   also, it was always my understanding that the judiciary should be somewhat above politics. that’s what makes them more reliable than say our congress critters and executive branch.

7. albo says:

   July 11, 2005 at 6:57 pm

   I’d say my state’s senior Senator, Darlin’ Arlen Specter, has been standing too close to red kryptonite recently. 

   Politics-wise, he’s probably the best RINO politician ever–being a Philadelphian who managed to get 5 terms elected by conservative voters who think people from that city eat Christian babies at their weekly lesbian Wicca meetings. 

   But otherwise, he’s full of wacky pronouncements. “Not proven,” anybody?

8. McGehee says:

   July 11, 2005 at 7:08 pm

   also, it was always my understanding that the judiciary should be somewhat above politics. that’s what makes them more reliable than say our congress critters and executive branch.

   More reliable … if this past term has been any indicator, I think our liberties would be better off with a Magic 8-Ball® issuing rulings on some of these issues.

   And I keep wondering where people get the idea “politics” is something dirty to be avoided if you want to keep your integrity. This is a constitutional republic founded on democratic principles. Politics is supposed to be the way we make important decisions—not by handing them all off to people who are allegedly “above” politics. With politics you have accountability. Without politics you have unaccountable elites making all the important decisions and telling us “it’s as if God has spoken.”

   The Founders were naive to think judges could be “above” politics—if that’s what they really believed. In any event, once the courts took upon themselves final authority over what the Constitution means, any hope they could ever be “above” politics went flush down the toilet.

9. Karen Miller says:

   July 11, 2005 at 7:26 pm

   HighVizPR + Promotion = the new journalism. Politics = Show Biz!
   
   Monday, July 11, 2005
   
   Jeff Gannon was there. This is his opinion, just Plame/Wilson seeking PR (politics as usual?–think again.)

   From http://www.jeffgannon.com – and it all boils down to “Gannongate” and “Politics as PR, plain and simple – just ask Atrios*. But you have to stop and think about Gannon’s final paragraph —

   July 11, 2005

   Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame

   Democrats and their operatives in the mainstream media are breathlessly reporting that White House political advisor Karl Rove leaked the identity of Valerie Plame, allegedly a covert agent for the Central Intelligence Agency. Her name and ties to the intelligence agency became public after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, made allegations that the Bush administration exaggerated claims that Saddam Hussein sought to acquire “yellowcake” uranium from Africa.

   But the e-mails between Time magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper and his bureau chief Michael Duffy that mysteriously found their way into the hands of “rival” publication Newsweek only indicate that Rove had a conversation with the reporter about Wilson and never mentioned his wife’s name. Cooper wrote that Rove tried to steer him away from Wilson’s assertions because his conclusions might have been inaccurate. He also said that neither CIA Director George Tenet nor Vice President Dick Cheney sent Wilson on any mission. Instead, he suggested it was “Wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.”This clearly indicates that Rove did not engage in the “smear campaign” that Wilson has alleged. Just saying that the ambassador’s wife worked for the CIA is not an outing and doesn’t demonstrate that Rove was aware that she might be a secret agent. The agency has thousands of employees, with only a small percentage of them having a covert status. The question still remains whether Plame was covert at the time Rove spoke with Cooper.

   If anyone is responsible for Plame’s outing, it is Wilson himself. Not content to express his opinion within the diplomatic, military or intelligence communities after his inconclusive report was dismissed, he went public. His scathing, op-ed for the New York Times was an overt political act that put him in the spotlight he craved, but also called attention to those around him. As was repeated in Gannongate, controversial figures come under intense professional and personal scrutiny. It now seems clear that Wilson was willing to sacrifice his wife’s career to gain the notoriety he sought. Journalists and government officials began to question Wilson’s motives and how he came to be sent on such an important mission. His outspoken criticism of the Bush administration’s policy toward Iraq made him an unlikely candidate for the trip, despite his qualifications. Wilson did not posses a unique set of abilities and experience to justify selection for a highly sensitive investigation.

   Wilson’s primary role and his wife’s secondary role in her outing have been completely ignored by both the media and the agency itself. In an October 2003 interview with Wilson, I confronted him about an internal memo that detailed a meeting where his wife recommended him for the mission. He denied that any such meeting took place. A CIA source later told Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank that the memo was a forgery, which he dutifully reported in a front-page story in December 2003. Yet the Senate Intelligence Committee verified the content of the memo as part of its July 2004 report and chastised the ambassador for his “misleading” statements to the contrary. Wilson was immediately dropped as a senior foreign policy advisor to the Kerry campaign and all references to him purged from its website.

   Plame’s outing was not a punishment for Wilson’s disagreement with the administration it was by-product of a publicity-seeking ex-diplomat. Wilson’s own actions focused attention on the couple and raised disturbing questions about the agency and its ability to provide the intelligence necessary to protect the Homeland.

   ###

   *SIDEBAR: Atrios, the Liberal one, writes: “This New York Times article on the Rove case is typically clear as mud, but after reading it several times and consulting with a handful of liberal intellectuals, I’ve gained new respect for Matt Cooper. Basically, he got fed up with Rove’s lawyer lying to the press, and figured that combined with the waiver he’d previously received and the emphasis Luskin placed on it, was enough. In other words, Rove’s lawyer, acting as an agent of Rove, mounted a too extreme PR campaign on behalf of his client, and sufficient deceptive remarks led Cooper to say fuck it. Luskin thought Cooper wouldn’t testify no matter what he said, and he was wrong. Good for Cooper.”

   —30—

10. maggiekatzen says:

    July 11, 2005 at 7:47 pm

    mcgehee, i know i’m being idealistic here. and probably reliable wasn’t the best choice of words, but i’d feel better knowing that some judge made a decision based on his interpretation of the law (regardless of whether i agree with it or not)than trying to make sure he’s going to win the next election. theoretically the legistlative branch can still provide checks on judicial decisions by changing the laws they were based on.

    and on a side note i don’t think i’d go to a pelosi quote to make my point. ;D i think most of us agree that kelo was a poor decision, some states are already proposing legislation to clarify public use. the supremes aren’t as god-like as ms. pelosi thinks.

11. SeanH says:

    July 11, 2005 at 8:25 pm

    Am I the only one that thinks Jeff’s yammering, drive-by spam commenters should concentrate on more important things like how hot Valerie Plame is?  I’d actually be halfway interested in that, ‘cause she’s pretty damn hot.

12. Salt Lick says:

    July 11, 2005 at 10:01 pm

    SeanH—Go look at this while we keep yammering.

13. SeanH says:

    July 11, 2005 at 11:09 pm

    Crikey!  I should have been clearer BTW that I was trying to make a lame joke about that Karen Miller comment and the other incredibly off-topic Plame comment that Nikita guy spam-posted yesterday.  Hope nobody thought I was knocking their comments.

14. Karen Miller (an obese college girl) says:

    July 12, 2005 at 10:12 am

    JEFF GANNON, JEFF GANNON

    will he go before a grand jury?

    will Karl Rove be fired?

    will the press keep a backbone?

    did Rove do anything wrong or knowingly “out” anyone anyway? was this cia agent outed a “woman in danger”

    is this worse than watergate?

    what will happen? what will happen?

    THE DAYS OF OUR WHITE HOUSE LIVES

    —30—

Comments are closed.