Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The Morning News

1

The nice thing about Google is that they probably don't care.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | October 9, 2007 8:53 AM
2

I'm amazed that Nickels hasn't, since the tunnel vote, deemed a Viaduct inspection closure on a weekday.

Re: Yankees - Fuck the piece of shit goddamned Yankees.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | October 9, 2007 8:57 AM
3

@1

Pretty much.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 9, 2007 8:59 AM
4

@ 1: Yeah, when your stock price is going for $600 a share, there ain't much that will bring you down.

Posted by Mike in MO | October 9, 2007 9:19 AM
5

Re: Democrats love illegal wiretapping, hate America

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but isn't there a provision that specifically forbids retroactively legalizing unconstitutional activity like violating the Bill of Rights?

Posted by Original Andrew | October 9, 2007 9:49 AM
6

To be fair:

Somone in the Bush administration leaked DOES NOT EQUAL "The Bush administration leaked"

Posted by raindrop | October 9, 2007 9:57 AM
7

And of course, Administration officials will be crawling all over FAUX News in the next couple of days to assure us that whomever committed this leak, "if found guilty, will be punished", right?

Right?

As for the Dems & wiretap legislation, it seems they're trying to make the best out of a bad situation by requiring more judicial oversight of wiretapping requests, as well as inserting a "sunset clause" into the legislation. Clearly they know any attempts they make to appear to weaken shrub's ability to listen in on any telephone conversation he chooses will be jumped on by the GOP as being "soft on terror", so in one sense I can understand the desire to not give their opponents any more political ammunition than absolutely necessary,

But on the other hand, I really do wish someone would stand up to shrub and start treating him like the spoiled little brat he is by just for once giving him an unequivocable "no!" to his latest tantrum.

And yes, Google probably doesn't care about whiny, titty-baby conservatives. If their delicate sensibilities can be so easily upset over a squiggle of a satellite launched 50 years ago, maybe they should just STFU and start their own online search engine.

Posted by COMTE | October 9, 2007 10:07 AM
8

"The Errorists Have Won" made me snicker, just so's ya know.

Also, the ten skydivers who died in the plane crash: If only there was a way they could have safely jumped from the troubled plane. Oh, well.

Posted by Matt Fuckin' Hickey | October 9, 2007 10:38 AM
9

The elderly queer discrimination isn't that surprising. From the article it seems like most of the discrimination is from the other nursing home residents, and people of that generation are the most likely ones to be homophobic - it's the way they were raised. Queer discrimination in nursing homes is an issue that will lag about 2 generations behind what today's yound adults are thinking.

Posted by Cheeto | October 9, 2007 11:27 AM
10

COMTE @ 7,

Good point, but I'm not so sure. Let's look at this dispassionately: One might theorize that the Dems' strategy is based on fear of a Max Cleland-style attack in which the Republicans cast any opposition to Bush's policies as an alliance with tha terrahists. This is preposterous on its face, and while it's sad that upholding the Constitution is now a partisan issue, the Dems' strategy of non-stop Bush Appeasement just doesn't make any sense. And we can prove that empirically by looking at the polling data showing that their political support has totally collapsed over the last 9 months. Their approval ratings are even lower than Bush's, and most people view the Democratic Congress as a failure precisely because they're such pathetic cowards.

OR

Isn't it possible that the Dems actually want the legislation as well, and any so-called "opposition" is just poorly scripted political theater?

Isn't it more likely that they really have no disagreements with Republicans on Iraq, domestic spying or any other issue (hello Dianne Feinstein)? 'Cause the names on the doors have changed, but the policies are the same. Whether it's with a snarl or friendly smile, we're still getting fucked.

Posted by Original Andrew | October 9, 2007 11:43 AM
11

I still don't get why ten skydivers crashing is more important than four car accidents on I-5 ...

Same number of dead people.

Unless it's the karmic justice of people who leap out of planes dying in a plane crash ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 9, 2007 11:56 AM
12

No need to worry about the damage to a good source of intelligence, guys. We can just torture some people a little harder to make up for it.

Posted by chi type | October 9, 2007 12:48 PM
13

OA:

I honestly don't think it's a matter of a majority of Dems in Congress being in ideological lock-step with shrub on this issue, but rather I see it as one of frustrated pragmatism.

They know he'll veto anything that offers significantly less than what he wants, AND they know they don't have the votes in either house to override that veto. So, their options are limited: either continue to send him bills they know he'll continue to strike off, and run the risk of Repubs using this as fodder against them, either by arguing that the Dems aren't interested in "bipartisanship", or, by dragging out the inevitable, "they don't support the War On Terror" card (which, admittedly they'll do in any case, at any opportunity); or, try to pull him ever so slightly in their direction by offering legislation that gives him 95% of what he wants, with a few limitations thrown in that in reality won't amount to much at all, but at least give the Dems a bit of something to point at come election day by way of, "Well, we tried, but given that the GOP has been obstructing us, this was the best we could manage. And BTW, if you want REAL change, you need to vote more Dems into Congress."

And yes, overall polling for Congress is way down, but the breakdowns show just as much frustration with GOP obstructionism as it does with DEM ineffectualness, and I think the Donkeys have a stronger argument with regards to this point. Give them a veto-proof majority, or better still, a Democratic-controlled Congress AND a Democratic Executive, and the changes people say they want from Congress become a reality, and not an (currently) unachieveable aspiration.

Posted by COMTE | October 9, 2007 2:10 PM
14

COMTE @ 13,

I admire your optimism, but you're setting yourself up for a major disappointment even if there is a Dem trifecta in 2008.

And these Real Politic games are still no excuse for the total abdication of their responsibilities to protect and defend the Constitution. Who says they have to send Bush these bills at all? Don't they control the flow of legislation? Any way you look at it, it's a catastrophic failure of character, ethics and leadership.

Posted by Original Andrew | October 9, 2007 2:31 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).