Today's Seattle Times calls for more candidates to run for state Supreme Court:
An intriguing choice would be Ronald Cox, who has quietly built a solid reputation on the [state Court of Appeals]. Cox is African American.Why is Cox's ethnicity even relevant? The Times editors seem to be suggesting that it's a compelling reason to vote for him. Dare I say that "if Cox was a white man, he would not be in this position"...
Then this:
The mention of integrity brings to mind John McKay, appointed by President Bush to be U.S. attorney and then fired for not toeing the party line in the 2004 gubernatorial-election challenges.In fact, the specific reason for McKay's termination has never been established. And McKay was never criticized for "not toeing the party line" over the 2004 election, only for not doing his job.
Looks like the Times editorial board is making stuff up. Again.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 30, 2008 12:45 PM | Email ThisNow I have no knowledge of the later myself at the point, so I will have to reserve judgement until I learn more about him, but the fact that "The Times" likes him tells me a lot!
Posted by: Right Wing Wacko on March 30, 2008 01:59 PMBy the way -- is WA State Att'y General McKenna doing his job? Should he be fired in November? Do tell.
Posted by: tensor on March 30, 2008 02:11 PMPlease quote for me chapter and verse EXACTLY what law Bush violated by firing McKay.
You cannot because you are an idiotic liberal partisan shill.
"By the way -- is WA State Att'y General McKenna doing his job? Should he be fired in November? Do tell."
Well, he should if he loses the state $10 million for not getting paperwork filed on time as Gregoire did when she was WA State Att'y General.
There is a sleeper of a case in the 11th Circuit. Former Governer Don Seligman, a dem, was just released from prison by the 11th Circuit. The case deals with "bribes" paid by Richard Scrushy the former CEO of health South. Unlike the 9th Circuit which many folks consider to be a joke, the 11th Circuit does not have that reputation. It is unusual to release someone who has been convicted. Whether this is sour grapes or not, only time will tell. Seligman says that he can connect the dots to Karl Rove and a direct attempt by Rove in the White House to influence activities at the Justice Department and to force political prosecutions like his. If he has the "goods" politicizing the Department of Justice would be highly illegal. His full appeal will taken up by the 11th Circuit. Meanwhile, he is out and digging, perhaps, even talking. Depending upon the decision from the 11th Circuit, there might be more to talk about than Rev. Wright and his lame a$$ed sermons this summer. We might be talking about the reason Rove has lawyered-up with some real legal talent. Former Attorney General Gonzales has also lawyered up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/us/28alabama.html?scp=1&sq=siegelman&st=nyt
The conventions are not until August, seems like summer is heating up. For those that thought my prediction of a Gore/Obama ticket was whacky, did you catch the Time article?
Posted by: WVH on March 30, 2008 04:38 PMHave you seen him lately? His chins alone qualify for another precinct. Hells bells, the Michelin tire mascot looks svelte next to the Bore.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 30, 2008 07:12 PMDo you think he gives discounts on his 'carbon credits'?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 30, 2008 07:17 PMHere is the theory remembering that Carly Simon's "You're So Vain" could be the theme song for most pols:
1. The only thing that will end Billary's quest is the donors turn off the money spiget, barring that, she is in through the convention. Per Politico, she is stiffing the small businesses that extended credit to her campaign, including a New Hampshire School District.
2. She is in the race now purely to bloody the next nominee because she has her sights set on 2012. The only thing that can save us is she doesn't win re-election from NY.
3. Dem fat cats will realize that Rev. Wright is just one ice berg tipping out of the waters, the others are Rezko, Rev. and State Senator Meeks, the University of Chicago hospital and Mrs. Obama's raise after some earmarks. By the time the Clinton's are done with this campaign, a party elder might be able to approach candidate Obama with the thought that he needs the seasoning that the Veep slot will bring.
4. If enough dems beg Gore and say pretty please, he would head the ticket.
The only thing that gets the Clintons out early is lack of money to go on.
Posted by: WVH on March 30, 2008 07:56 PMi could give a rats *ss what color the person is, and i'm certainly NOT inclined to favor someone getting pushed because of their race/gender/whatever
Posted by: righton on March 30, 2008 08:49 PMGallup says Barry has a 10 point lead and as we both read in the Politico, Whorrabullary isn't paying her campaign creditors to the tune of $8.7 MILLION.
Big Al Bore has other, more financially lucrative irons in the fire. Salena Zito gives an interesting take on why Big Al won't be having a rise from the politically dead Lazarus moment.
I stand by my assertion that Big Al won't leave his money minting eco-cult. He finally has the chance to prove to/best his daddy, in whose shadow he always resided. He was burned badly in 2000 and 'risk' isn't his middle name. He has too much to lose financially and on his current adulation stage to take a chance that America will once again tell him electorally to go pound salt. I doubt he will even create the controversy of GIVING his opinion... too many eco-cultists to lose.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 30, 2008 09:41 PM"Once again WVH shows his hypocritical racist colors. He refuses to deal head on with the media hyping up this guy's race as a positive, keeps covering up Obama's reverend Wrong problem and in general says that black on white racism is a good thing."
1. I am she, guess you just moved here from Louisiana.
2. You said:
"He refuses to deal head on with the media hyping up this guy's race as a positive,"
So, I assume that in your mind the fact that Judge Cox is Black is a negative. If that is true, that makes you a....
3. You said:
"keeps covering up Obama's reverend Wrong problem and in general"
Really, how could anyone possibly cover up Rev. Wright, he is blogged here 24/7, on FOX, on Drudge and I assume that is the subject of kleven gatherings.
The fact that you can't read reminds me of another poster. Now this is what I said:
3. Dem fat cats will realize that Rev. Wright is just one ice berg tipping out of the waters, the others are Rezko, Rev. and State Senator Meeks, the University of Chicago hospital and Mrs. Obama's raise after some earmarks. By the time the Clinton's are done with this campaign, a party elder might be able to approach candidate Obama with the thought that he needs the seasoning that the Veep slot will bring.
4. Now you said:
"in general says that black on white racism is a good thing."
Really, where have I ever said that? Point to the passages. In fact I have challenged you and the rest of the sheetwearers to disavow bigotry based on race, religion, creed, national origin. I have asked you and your friends to disavow groups like the Aryan Nations, KKK, and others like them. I certainly disavow the equivalent, like Farrakan. Fact is you can't because that is where you libertarians are beginning to get financial support.
I have never said I supported any of the comments of Rev Wright. I simply said that he is a bigot like David Duke and Rev. Hagee. You can't suddenly become a warrior for civil rights if you don't recognize that Duke and Rev. Hageee are also bigots.
So, waiting for you to disavow the KKK. Thought so.
Posted by: WVH on March 30, 2008 09:58 PMWhy am I as a Jew obligated to disavow some obscure white supremacist organizations? You don't sound very coherent.
Posted by: FreedomLover on March 30, 2008 10:07 PMYou don't sound very coherrent.
1. You have accused me of being bigoted. Now, where have I said that I judge a person on the basis of race, religion, or national origin?
Where have I said I supported the comments of Rev. Wright or others like him?
2. You are quick to label and your only defense is to state your religion. The ADL tracks hate groups, do you support the work of the ADL or Anti Defamation League, as a Jew? The ADL has no trouble disavowing hate groups. This is their mission statement:
About ADL
Our Mission
The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all." Now the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.
http://www.adl.org/main_about_adl.asp
As a Jew, do you support their mission?
Posted by: WVH on March 30, 2008 10:17 PMI disavow the ADL for being an anti-Jewish left wing group. I know I just blew your mind right there, but it's really best if you stay out of Jewish politics.
Posted by: FreedomLover on March 30, 2008 10:22 PMGore launches $300 million campaign
By MIKE ALLEN | 3/30/08 10:14 PM EST Text
Debut ads in Al Gore's new climate change campaign feature Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton.
Former Vice President Al Gore is launching a $300 million, bipartisan campaign to try to push climate change higher on the nation's political agenda.
The three-year campaign by the Alliance for Climate Protection will begin Wednesday with network television advertising that will include "American Idol" and other non-traditional shows that reach a non-news audience.
The debut ad, "Anthem," is posted here.
Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton just filmed an ad for the We Campaign, sitting on a couch on the beach. In the ad, now being produced, they say that while they may not agree on many things, they do agree that they have to work to save the planet.
A future couple in the "strange bedfellows" or "unlikely alliances" spots will be recorded soon: Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich....
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9268.html
Just keeping in the public eye, just in case.
I have no problem saying out of the politics of another religion. You brought up your faith, not me. You still haven't answered any questions. Now, let's look at the mission statement of the ADL, not the group or whether one like's the group.
They said:
"ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all."
Yes or No, do you agree or disagree with the above statement?
Posted by: WVH on March 30, 2008 10:27 PMI was BANNED by one of the site gurus from their postings. According to their lame explanation, not because of anything I said, but I alluded to the fact that they didn't like certain groups. That person was not Jim Miller.
Now, regarding your posting on the public blog. The problem with most here is that they label everything that they disagree with as "liberal."
Many people are neither liberal or conservative, but pragmatic. I know that you are a big fan of Ayn Rand and I believe your moniker comes from her book Atlas Shrugged.
The problem is the electorate is not with "you" and because "you" are unable to look at any solutions that don't fit your pre-packaged theory, we have a one-party state. This state is urbanizing at a rapid rate around the Puget Sound and that will bring more density to places like Sno, Whatcom, and Skagit Counties as well as Pierce and Thurston.
People who live in densely populated areas are not voting for what "you" are offereing. Perhaps, Toby Nixon will win his election and maybe Fred Jarret won't win his. "You" have a problem in urban areas and calling every one you disagree with a liberal is just a not winning strategy at the ballot box.
Posted by: WVH on March 30, 2008 11:01 PMI don't support either party, I just don't support one-party rule of any party as it is inefficient and corrupt. People who are vulnerable lose in a one-party system.
So you can label and call people liberals, communists, socialists or whatever. Unless the voters want you in office, all you can do is label and we have one-party rule.
Posted by: WVH on March 30, 2008 11:10 PMI wonder why that is.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 30, 2008 11:19 PMI think a winning message is this:
1. Public schools that excel in teaching the basics like reading, writing, math, and science and get the politics out. There should be accoutablility and there should be a variety of options. This will involve taking on some entrenched interests.
2. Small business is really the job engine and they often give people their first jobs. Business friendly policies and a tax structure to encourage business development and retention.
3. Policies at both the national and local level that favor family creation and support. Assistance for lower and middle income families who adopt children in the form of tax support, rebates, and counseling vouchers for the children.
4. A realisitc look at whether growth policies are artifically raising housing costs for middle income people.
5. A look at what can be done to provide health insurance. I think that Governor Romney deserves credit for thinking outside of the box.
Whatever the answers are, we certainly won't go much beyond where we are now as long as there is one-party rule.
Posted by: WVH on March 30, 2008 11:37 PMBut it still doesn't answer my challenge.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 30, 2008 11:39 PMWe don't know what, if any, laws were violated when President Bush dismissed U.S. Attorneys McKay and Lam. (That's why we have an ongoing investigation.) We do know that Ms. Lam was investigating Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) when she was fired. (Rep. Lewis has close ties to former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham, the Republican from California who went to jail on federal bribery charges.) If President Bush fired her to stop her investigation of Rep. Lewis, then he obstructed justice, which is both an impeachable offense and a federal felony. We need to have the federal Attorney General enforce the Congressional subpoenas, issued as part of our investigation into the firings of our employees. (If he so refuses to do his job, he should be impeached.) Whatever motivated President Bush to fire Attorney McKay, Mr. Bush has done much since to make his motives appear suspect.
"Well, he should if he loses the state $10 million for not getting paperwork filed on time as Gregoire did when she was WA State Att'y General."
Don't avoid the subject. If U.S. Attorney McKay should have investigated the 2004 governor's election, then Attorney General McKenna should have, and more so, as it was a state matter. If U.S. Attorney McKay should have been fired for not conducting such an investigation, then so should Attorney General McKenna. Yet, no one here has ever demanded that McKenna investigate. Has anyone ever even asked Mr. McKenna what he thought of the election?
"...you are an idiotic liberal partisan shill."
Please, not so much effusive compliments. My fellow Seattle liberals will become jealous of someone who receives such praise from SoundPolitics. It's not like I'm Jim McDermott!
Posted by: tensor on March 30, 2008 11:56 PMOne thing I noted in your last posting was all the IFs you use. Here is one for you...IF Al Gore and IF John Kerry had had a stronegre message they would have one. See I can play the IF game too.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 31, 2008 03:18 AMSorry about that been a long day and been sick....
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 31, 2008 03:19 AMHowever, what has he done and what big cases has he litigated?
Michael Bond is advertising on SP for election to Supreme Court Justice. Is he any good? His choice of advertising venues is a good start.
Posted by: swatter on March 31, 2008 08:36 AMLike I said before Ragnar, you should try posting somewhere else besides a Conservative oriented site. You can't really expect someone here to be stupid enough to try to defend a liberal policy here without getting 15 people here gunning for you, attacking your position, and calling you names. I'd say it's a loose-loose situation for that person.
Why don't you try getting your blathering posted in hostile territory like HA or the Slog. Stephan knows a few people over there, he might be able to pull some strings.
The Times editorial says, early on, "Diversity is a plus; the court is currently all white." You may disagree that diversity is a plus, but they've answered your question of why race is relevant.
Furthermore, they don't say race is a "compelling" reason to vote for anyone. They say good things about 6 potential candidates, 5 of whom are (apparently) white. When they mention Cox, they first state his solid reputation, and then mention his ethnicity, suggesting it is one positive factor. That seems appropriate in the context of their earlier statement about diversity.
I know nothing about any of these candidates (except what we've all read about John McKay, of course). But you've taken a balanced editorial and twisted it into some sort of imaginary affirmative action crusade. If you want to criticize the relevance of diversity, do so honestly, not by taking a line out of context.
Posted by: Bruce on March 31, 2008 09:25 AMHere is a quick bio for Judge Cox:
Hon. Ronald E. Cox This is Me
Member, Division One
Washington State Court of Appeals
Employment History
Member, Division One1
Washington State Court of Appeals
Judge3President4
King County Bar Foundation
Education
Punahou High School
United States Military Academy at West Point , New York
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=8373046
From the Washington Courts web site this is what he wrote about a conference he attended with dealt with race. Keep in mind that Secretary of State Rice in the Washington Times commented recently that part of the problem with race in this country is that from its inception this country had a birth defect.
America's ...The Washington Times Foreign: EXCLUSIVE:Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said ... Rice hits U.S. 'birth defect'. By Nicholas Kralev March 28, 2008 ...
washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/FOREIGN/746301768/1001
Judge Cox's comments:
"....As judges, we all aspire to deal fairly with all persons and strive to overcome the impact of society's racial divisions. But as humans, there is still a danger that the effects of racial divisions will affect how we dispense justice.
If we are committed to the principle that we should promote public trust and confidence in the courts and agree that racial bias undermines that goal, then we should ask how we can structure meaningful discussions about bias. How can we structure those discussions so that we can actually change our attitudes about race and racial divisions?"
Posted by: WVH on March 31, 2008 09:29 AMWashington CourtsRonald E. Cox is a judge of the Washington Court of Appeals, Division III and also serves as a member of the Washington State Minority and Justice ...
www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/pos_mjc/index.cfm?fa=pos_mjc.display&fileID=new9901&cb=1 - 58k
I wouldn't credit Romney that much. He just got off the dime and tried to do something about Health Care.
Now, I have been thinking about Pudge's argument regarding the 10th Amendment (I believe) and Health Care. I would have to say that I lean towards his argument with regards to mandates, plus as seen in Massachusetts, even with mandates one doesn't get universal coverage. I don't know, however if providing national umbrella plan is or is not against the 10th amendment. Pudge would state it most definately is. I would argue that it depends on how it is defined.
Given all that, I wonder if all the Universal Health Plan proposals, or urge the insurance companies to better cover everyone (Republican Plan), all miss the boat. Part of the problem, I see is too many hats in the ring making decisions. What gave me pause on the Universal bandwagon is a recent conversation with my own doctor. My doctor who is a very good family practioner in his own business is changing his practice to be a concierge-based practice. For those who aren't familiar with the term, it is where individual pay an annual fee ($1500-2000) for access to the doctor, along with any normal insurance co-payments and deductibles. In return, the doctor limits his overall patient load (to around 450-500 patients) and guarantees same day visits, over the phone consultations, hospital visits, and even home visits if you are too sick to make it out of your house. It also allows the doctor to spend more time with the patient to fully diagnose and prevent illiness/disease, instead of the assembly line medicine practice at HMO's and being force on may group practices, where patient to doctor facetime is being cut down to 4 minutes or less (Group Health main lead in this area). My doctor was in sole business and would have been forced to either increase number of patients from around 1500 to close to 2000, move patients through faster, and thus lowering overall quality, just to break even. This is in an office with the doctor and one front desk person (no nurse, no other fancy equipment, the doctor takes the patient's blood pressure, etc.), where the administrative costs (office rent, insurance, etc.) where 67% of the base costs and insurance companies paying less and less each year. His opinion is you need to get patients closer to paying for their health costs to let the market more drive the costs, instead of the patient being insulated by the insurance companies. In thinking about his argument, it does make some sense. If instead of a Universal health plan run by some either the goverment or oligopy of insurance companies, why not a High Deductable HSA approach combined with catasphrophic insurance approach instead. Cut the insurance companies out of the loop and have the normal citizen better control their costs? If the Republicans want an alternative to the Democrats plan, this is what they should be pitching and not just give the control to the insurance companies.
Posted by: tc on March 31, 2008 09:39 AMI personally prefer by the numbers judges and if the legislature writes it wrong (like in always), then the case should go back to the legislature for corrections and not legislated from the bench.
Posted by: swatter on March 31, 2008 09:40 AMThe reason I included Secretary of State Rice's comments is I expected your type of reply. Now, what do you propose to do to her, drum her out of the republican party, send hate mail to her? What Judge Cox is saying is what we occasionally wrangle about here and what I got BANNED for. In this society, at this time race matters.
It matters because there is not a "critical mass" of achievement among those of color so that achievement overcomes most issues. The key is the education system. The model of the culture is middle class Asian Indian culture. It is no wonder Microsoft and other top companies go to India for talent. They have a strong education system for the middle class. It is interesting there are some very dark complexioned Asian Indians, but the emphasis is on achievement.
Until we move beyond where we are now race and class will continue to be important. I think what the judge is saying is the law should treat people fairly.
I have to agree with Bruce on this one. This site has the most interesting take on race. For example, Rev. Hutcherson was compared to Rev. Wright. I don't particularly like what Rev. Hutcherson is doing regarding gay people, but there is Biblical support in Leviticus for his stance. There is no Biblical support for what Rev. Wright is doing, particularly in light of the fact that he is moving to the gated community of Tinsley Park which is 91% Caucasian and leaving his parishoners behind in his retirement. His message of hate will not help them to be successful, yet it brought him riches. Antioch Church is open to all races. This site compared the two because they haven't discernment in issues of race.
If one wants a negative perception of race, it will usually start on a thread here and all the "mainstreamers" come out.
Remember, Judge Cox is a West Point grad and he is saying what Secretary Rice is saying.
Posted by: WVH on March 31, 2008 10:00 AMWhether Governor Romney was thinking outside the box or not, he did something. A very big issue facing individuals and businesses is health care. I don't think that some hard and fast theory is what is needed, but there is a wide consensus that something should be done from a wide variety of political perspectives.
Posted by: WVH on March 31, 2008 10:08 AMhere's the article on McKay's 2nd termination in 2007 in under 120 days
Posted by: Green on March 31, 2008 10:21 AMClinton fired 94 attorneys when he took office for being appointed by a Republican, a justification ignored by the media and BDS affected hyperpartisans like Tensor.
BTW, McKenna is the state's attorney and has to defend the state regardless of the case, even to defend a fraudulent vote result.
Posted by: Yaddacubed on March 31, 2008 10:31 AMSo did Reagan, whoop de do. The difference is that Bush fired the very people he appointed to serve in these positions, something that had never been done before. He also lied about his reasoning (they supposedly did their jobs poorly, despite evidence to the contrary) which led to a partisan which hunt that went nowhere.
More likely they can't afford to pay him...you seen Getty's stock price recently? Went from $80 in May '06 to a low of $21 in Jan '08.
Anyone who makes a comment like that and wants to dispense justice accordingly, he ain't my cup of tea.
And your reference to Rice's comments are totally irrelevant when selecting a judge. A politician- then okay; a secretary of defense- then okay, but not a judge. A judge has to be color-blind with respect to race, issues, etc. and just adjudicate based upon law.
Posted by: swatter on March 31, 2008 11:24 AMI see, no one answers because I won't post in a "convenient" place. Gosh, might the same be said for Goldstein? Kos? Huffington?
KFI Bryon had it right: "Cato is A Silly Person."
I can name at least a bakers dozen of liberals that comment here and I know for a fact that many more drop in to read (they say so over at the HA)
WHERE I post my challenge matters less than the fact that big-mouthed liberals (read YOU, cato, racist coward, "serial obfuscator") haven't, won't, can't refute my suppositions nor meet its challenge.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 31, 2008 11:34 AMNot a "convenient" place, how about a place not dominated by conservatives who agree with you. You complain about the lack of "loud mouth liberals" standing up against your article...posting on a site where there are about five liberals who regularly post here....maybe even less on the public blog. If you want feedback take your anti-liberal rant to the heart of the enemy.
I can name at least a bakers dozen of liberals that comment here and I know for a fact that many more drop in to read
A bakers dozen...wow!! I bet you could find at least 100 "big-mouthed liberals" at HA who would be more than willing to go toe to toe with you and your posting. Why not take it there? I'm guessing because your a coward who really doesn't want feedback because he enjoys being showered with compliments from fellow conservatives.
Gee, I can't seem to find any articles they've written put up for discussion here. Imagine that.
You and your swirly twirly obuscation two-step perfectly illustrate the duplicity of your failed ideology: "Do as I SAY, not as I do."
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 31, 2008 11:54 AMWow, lets just being all the Liberals from HA here so they can contradict you. Like that's going to happen.
Gee, I can't seem to find any articles they've written put up for discussion here
Wonder why, maybe you should go extend the olive branch to Goldy at HA or some staff at the Slog and tell them they can post as Admin's here.
Btw, I can point you to some of Stephan's writings that are not open for discussion either.
AND we aren't talking writing that aren't open for discussion. We are talking about writing that big-mouthed liberal cowards REFUSE to discuss.
Nice try, but predictably and typically LAME.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 31, 2008 12:12 PM
If a judge has to be colorblind per your specs, how do explain the Seligmann case above? Both the judge and Gov. Seligmann are Caucasian. So, the judge was colorblind, but might have let other prejudices interfere. Isn't what is needed is a judge that follows the law?
Here is some info on Judge Fuller:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000690
Incidently, I would have been totally BANNED had Brown v. Board of Education and its companion cases not been decided to give me Equal Rights under the Law. Fortunately for me those Justices on the Supreme Court were not colorblind.
Posted by: WVH on March 31, 2008 12:23 PMIf a judge has to be colorblind per your specs, how do explain the Seligmann case above? Both the judge and Gov. Seligmann are Caucasian. So, the judge was colorblind, but might have let other prejudices interfere. Isn't what is needed is a judge that follows the law?
Here is some info on Judge Fuller:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000690
Incidently, I would have been totally BANNED had Brown v. Board of Education and its companion cases not been decided to give me Equal Rights under the Law. Fortunately for me those Justices on the Supreme Court were not colorblind.
Posted by: WVH on March 31, 2008 12:23 PMThe reason why candidates get up at dawn, eat crappy food and kiss babies who slobber and poop on them is for the chance to say I am President and you are not. That means they can kick anyone's lame butt to the curb if it is Thursday and they just don't like you. That is called the excercise of executive power and privledge. What they cannot do is:
1. Use the Department of Justice for political purposes
2. Interfere with legitimate prosecutorial discretion and try to influence the outcome of an investigation or case.
Here is a discription of the Seligman case from Huffington:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/13/new-evidence-in-siegelman_n_91186.html
The issues posed by this case are:
1. Did Karl Rove, who was physically and in terms of chain of command located in the White House attempt to interfere and influence an investigation and the charging of Governor Seligman?
2. Was there an attempt by Mr. Rove with the acquiesence of Attorney General Gonzales to politicize the Department of Justice?
If the answers to those two questions are NO, then the President can kick anybody's butt to the curb.
If the answer to either question is YES, then Rev. Wright gets kicked off the front page.
Posted by: WVH on March 31, 2008 12:32 PMI'm sure it does. Like you said though, there are only a "bakers dozen or so" of liberals here. Maybe you should find a real audience instead of one that showers you kudos every time you give them what they want to hear.
We are talking about writing that big-mouthed liberal cowards REFUSE to discuss.
Those cowards would be happy to discuss it with you where they can see it. Since your nothing but a hypocritical name calling coward I can see why no one took you up on your offer here.
Nice try, but predictably and typically LAME.
Call me what you will, I'm not going to stop you from kissing your own delusional ass.
Nah, cato our racist coward seial obfusCATOr is entertaining free fun.
Those cowards would be happy to discuss it with you where they can see it. -Posted by Cato at March 31, 2008 12:41 PM
And yet here you sit, a big mouthed liberal seeing it and doing everything in your power to avoid it. You, my little liberal are a fraud, a fool AND a coward.
You aptly prove it with every word you write, every excuse you posit.
Cato, You have succeeded in missing every one of my points. Or, you are a serial obfuscator. Either way, I am forced to declare you A Silly Person. Cato is A Silly Person. There, I've said my piece. -Posted by KFIBryan at March 28, 2008 05:50 PM
Dude, you were punked by the best and you just keep coming back and proving his point. Remind me, what was it Einstein said about the definition of insanity?
LMAO You walk right into it every single time! What a hoot.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 31, 2008 12:53 PMYOU GO RAGNAR!!! lol : )
Posted by: NW Denizen on March 31, 2008 01:01 PMDoes it matter? You seem to be the one with mental issues who becomes enraged when someone points out the logical fallacy of his argument.
And yet here you sit, a big mouthed liberal seeing it and doing everything in your power to avoid it.
I'm avoiding it because I don't care. If you want to find someone to give you feedback try going somewhere where people give a damn.
Dude, you were punked by the best and you just keep coming back and proving his point.
Do you think I actually care? I'm just some anonymous person on the internet. I am free to ignore or taunt you as much as I please.
Believe me, I take take great pleasure in watching you embarrass yourself with your short temper and circular nonsensical arguments.
Darlin, enraged is not something I get when dealing with you. Amused would be a better term.
when someone points out the logical fallacy of his argument.
Remind me, when exactly did that happen... and by whom?
Toying with you, batting you around and nibbling at your... ears, makes me feel like a sated cheshire, "serial obfusCATOr"
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 31, 2008 01:39 PMHaha, when did you get to be such a good liar?
Remind me, when exactly did that happen... and by whom?
There's a reason why no liberal is responding to your attack on liberal policy...If you can't see the glaring fallacy of your nonsensical argument then I can't help you.
Toying with you, batting you around and nibbling at your... ears,
You see it your way, I see it mine. I'm fine with that. =)
You regurgitate well what the White House pumped into your head, but like them, you made a blatantly false statement. Firing someone for conducting a criminal investigation is the very definition of obstructing justice. We don't know if the firing of Carol Lam was connected to her investigation of a powerful Republican Member of Congress, but it certainly seems likely.
"BTW, McKenna is the state's attorney and has to defend the state regardless of the case, even to defend a fraudulent vote result."
Wrong again. His office is completely independent of the Governor's Office, and was made so specifically to enable him to investigate any wrongdoing connected to the Governor's Office. (This trait was instilled by the Progressive Movement, and opposed by the conservatives of that day.) If he truly believes that illegal activity influenced the results of the 2004 election, he is bound to investigate. His dead silence on this issue shows what he thinks of that charge. The dead silence of other Republicans on this point shows how little they really think of that charge. The only point of their endless whining is a failed attempt to delegitimatize our Governor.
Even if McKay or McKenna once truly thought an investigation might have been in order, the total collapse of the election-challenge lawsuit forms a practical bar to any criminal inquiry. The case failed, totally and completely, to meet any aspect of the weaker standard of a civil case; anyone attempting to spend public money on a criminal inquiry would get stiff resistance from us taxpayers, and rightly so. Rossi, Borders, Vance, et. al. are the persons most responsible for stopping any potential criminal investigation.
"One thing I noted in your last posting was all the IFs you use."
There's no "if" U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was investigating Rep. Lewis, and there's no "if" she was one of a very small number of U.S. Attorneys who suddenly lost their jobs. (There's no "if" the Administration lied about why they were fired.) The only "if" is whether that first fact caused the second. If so, the President is a felon, pure and simple. That's the only question in that matter.
Now, if McKay lost his job for not investigating something that had already been investigated, that puts us in murkier territory, but we still have the Administration lying about why he lost his job. And, as other commenters have noted, politicizing law enforcement will not earn the love of voters.
Posted by: tensor on March 31, 2008 07:39 PMMcKenna's position was stated in this Seattle Times article of April 2005:
A spokeswoman for state Attorney General Rob McKenna, a Republican, said yesterday he supports some kind of investigation. But his department doesn't have authority to launch one unless the governor or the county prosecutor asks for it. No such request has been made.Obviously, the Governor's Office is motivated not to request an investigation. And the County Prosecutor, as we learned, believes his primary role is to be the County Executive's in-house counsel and is too conflicted (both politically and in terms of his work product) to instigate an investigation of his primary client.
I don't know enough about McKenna's statutory authority to independently either confirm or refute his statement about his authority. But that has been his stated position. I would tend to assume that if he had the authority to independently launch an investigation but chose not to do so, he would have given a different reason.
So an independently-elected prosecutorial office, one held by Republicans for a very long time, is complicit with a Democrat in blocking a criminal investigation? (How much did you pay for those drugs? Can I have some?) Let me guess -- your "evidence" for accusing the King County Prosecutor of ignoring a crime is your own groundless assertion that a crime has occurred. Well then, time to launch a movement to remove those complicit Republicans from office!
"...you keep repeating, like a broken record, the claim that the failure of the civil trial to produce evidence of a crime means that no criminal case exists. As I've responded to you numerous times, a lot of evidence that suggests possible criminal activity wasn't discovered until after the civil trial ended and therefore was not considered in the judge's ruling."
As a matter of legal reality, the total and complete failure of the plaintiffs to prove anything they claimed sets a very large stone in the path of any criminal investigation. The standard of proof in a civil trial is lower than that of a criminal trial, and still the plaintiffs proved nothing. Their total lack of any convincing evidence strongly suggests no criminal act took place. (And, please, only in the rarest of cases can we ever prove that no crime occurred. Hence, the burden of proof is always on the accuser.)
Judge Bridges already told you that errors occur in every election. How many Republicans are you going to accuse of complicity before you admit to the simpler explanation: that no crime took place? I would think the Republican Party in this state has enough problems already, but if you want to throw endless accusations of incompetence, stupidity, laziness, and complicity at them, I can't stop you. Fire away.
Posted by: tensor on March 31, 2008 10:15 PM(Yeah, no elected official would ever try to weasel out of a difficult situation!) If he launches an investigation and finds nothing, would you honor that result? Even if you answer in the affirmative, why should he believe you at this point? His wisest course of action is to keep his mouth shut, and hope no one accuses him of complicity.
Posted by: tensor on March 31, 2008 10:20 PM We still don't know all of the reasons McKay and the
others were fired, because the White House is illegally obstructing our Congessional inquiry.
Then Tensor wrote in post#64
(There's no "if" the Administration lied about why they were fired.)
This clearly shows that Tensor does not even keep his own "facts" straight.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 1, 2008 01:06 AMIt gives him some exercise and provides loads of entertainment for the rest of us.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 1, 2008 06:00 AMHow do the Administration's proven lies tell us all of the reasons McKay was fired? All it tells is why he was not fired, i.e. "for not doing his job". Due to the Administration's illegal refusal to comply with Congressional subpoenas, we do not know. Only when the Administration ends this criminal activity will we have a true investigation.
"...provides loads of entertainment for the rest of us."
Because governmental corruption is just so danged funny. (And right-wingers wonder why their 'jokes' never get any laughs from liberals.)
Oh, BTW: "IF Al Gore and IF John Kerry had a stronger message they would have won."
Gore spent less money than Bush, and more voters agreed with his message. By your own standards, Bush is a loser. Thanks for playing, better luck next time, move along now.
Finally, who still believes the Times' editorial board? They endorsed Linda Smith, demanded that Clinton resign over Monica, and actually printed Michele Malkin's scribbles. People who behave like that should be ignored. Glad to see you're finally catching up to us liberals. It only took you about ten years -- unusually fast learning for you guys.
Posted by: tensor on April 1, 2008 07:12 PM
