Via MSNBC: Poll shows Virginia Senate race is dead heat
Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off|
  |
Information | |
ARCHIVES
April 2012
January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 |
By Steven L. Taylor
By Steven L. Taylor
Via Roll Call: Reynolds Informed Hastert of Allegations Against Foley National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) issued a statement Saturday in which he said that he had informed Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) of allegations of improper contacts between then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and at least one former male page, contradicting earlier statements from Hastert. Further, Boehner’s statements about what he told Hastert and when are at odds with each other. See here and here. Further, Reynold’s statement raises another issue (emphasis mine): Rodney Alexander brought to my attention the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. [Rodney Alexander's [R-La.]. Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn’t want the matter pursued, I told the Speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me. If the only issue was the one semi-weird e-mail, why would the parents even be involved? There appears to be another shoe yet to drop as it pertains to House Leadership. Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off|
By Steven L. Taylor
From the same CNN some of the inglorious history of Congressman-page scandal: Rep. Gerry Studds, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Rep. Dan Crane, an Illinois Republican — were censured following their admission they had consensual sexual relationships with 17-year-old pages. Studds’ affair was of a homosexual nature, while Crane’s was hetrosexual (I note that only for factual clarity and no other reason). Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off|
By Steven L. Taylor
The question is now going to be “who knew what and when did they know it?” in terms of House leadership and Foley’s behavior. The key issue is whether we are talking about leadership knowing about an e-mail that could be explained away or if they knew about pornographic IMs (or had other information). If all leadership knew about was the one e-mail, then calls for resignations and such are premature. If they knew about the IMs, then I will join the call. Via WaPo (Rep. Foley Quits In Page Scandal) we find: House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of inappropriate “contact” between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he then told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert. Roll Call notes: At least four Republican House Members, one senior GOP aide and a former top officer of the House were aware of the allegations about Foley that prompted the initial reporting regarding his e-mail contacts with a 16-year-old House page. They include: Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) and Reps. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) and John Shimkus (R-Ill.), as well as a senior aide to Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and former Clerk of the House Jeff Trandahl. The fact that no Democrats were informed makes one wonder–although I am not sure what constitutes normal actions in these types of situations. If the statement by John Shimkus (R-Ill.), Chair of the Page Board is an accurate reflection of what leadership knew, then the leadership angle may prove to be nothing. From Shimkus’ statement: “As chairman of the bipartisan House Page Board in late 2005, I was notified by the then Clerk of the House, who manages the Page Program, that he had been told by Congressman Rodney Alexander about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page. I took immediate action to investigate the matter. It is clear that they knew his behavior was questionable. Via CNN (Colleague: We told Foley to stop contacting teen): The lawmaker who oversees the page program, Rep. John Shimkus, a Republican from Illinois, said that he had learned about of Foley’s e-mails in late 2005 and “took immediate action to investigate the matter.” If all they knew about was the e-mail, I can understand the lack of action, as in the absence of any other information it could be explained away. Still, I have to wonder if, indeed, that was all that was known or suspected. The whole thing is an utter mess, to be sure. Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (5)|
By Steven L. Taylor
Robert Downey Jr. — I am “Iron Man” “The Marvel characters are not just about how high they jump or how fast they fly, they’re about their character flaws,” Feige said. “They’re about their inner demons. They’re about the struggles that they go through between being a man and being a hero.” An interesting argument. I suppose I should withhold judgement, given that Michael Keaton was actually pretty good in the first Batman flick, and the choice originally struck me as, well, insane. Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (5)|
By Steven L. Taylor
Via the AP: Foley resigns from Congress over e-mails. ABC’s The Blotter has more: Saying he was “deeply sorry,” Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) resigned from Congress today, hours after ABC News questioned him about sexually explicit internet messages with current and former congressional pages under the age of 18. As of this morning’s WaPo, the Congressman’s office was claiming that there was nothing to the story: “The e-mails in question were a response to a handwritten thank-you letter from a former page,” said Jason Kello, Foley’s spokesman. “There have not been any allegations made by anyone except by Tim Mahoney and the Democrats who are attempting to misrepresent a series of innocent communications to prop up a failing political campaign.” So much for that version of events… It does make you wonder what people are thinking when they send e-mail like that. Also: it would seem that as a result of this we should pencil in a new seat for the Dems, yes? Update: (Irony alert) If one looks at Congressman Foley’s House web page, one finds that two of the most recent headlines extol the Congressman’s work on tracking sexual predators and curtailing child pornography. Somehow, this makes this even more disturbing. Update II: The AP version of the story notes: Foley, chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children, said he would resign after ABC News reported he sent messages to current and former congressional pages with references to sexual organs and acts. And in regards to the race for his seat: Foley’s name will remain on the ballot, which has already been certified, said Susan Smith, a spokeswoman for the Florida Department of State. But Republicans have seven days to notify election officials of a replacement nominee who would take Foley’s spot if he wins, she said. Update III: ABC’s The Blotter has some of the transcripts of the IMs that are the heart of the matter and describes the significance of them as follows: Federal authorities say such messages could result in Foley’s prosecution, under some of the same laws he helped to enact. Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (6)|
By Steven L. Taylor
Via the NYT: Book Says Bush Ignored Urgent Warning on Iraq Mr. Woodward’s first two books about the Bush administration, “Bush at War” and “Plan of Attack,” portrayed a president firmly in command and a loyal, well-run team responding to a surprise attack and the retaliation that followed. As its title indicates, “State of Denial” follows a very different storyline, of an administration that seemed to have only a foggy notion that early military success in Iraq had given way to resentment of the occupiers. The fact that Woodward’s first two books were considered basically positive vis-a-vis the administration will give this one more credibility. Further, the fact that Woodward was for the first two books given a great deal of acess to the principals probably means that he was for this one as well. This, too, will enhance the book’s credibility. I will note that the thesis that the book appears to proffer, that the administration didn’t plan well for the aftermath of the war and that it did not take the difficulty seriously, echoes what Larry Diamond wrote in Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq . The criticisms of Rumsfeld also mirror some of what Diamond had to say. The book is already generating a number of headlines. To wit:
More, no doubt, to follow. And sadly, I have not been offered a review copy… Update: James Joyner points out: Woodward Scooped on Own Book. Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (1)|
By Steven L. Taylor
Via WaPo (House Approves Warrantless Wiretap Law) we get some quotes from House leadership that features the worst kind of “reasoning” in the current debate about how to deal with detainees and how to foster national security. First we have Speaker Haster: After the House voted 253-168 to set rules on tough interrogations and military tribunal proceedings, Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., was even more critical than Boehner. There is a twofold problem here. They are both quite common in this discussion. The first is the fundamental assumption that every single person that we capture is automatically a terrorist (i.e., that suspicion equals guilt). This is not necessarily the case. It is wholly possible that some we have captured were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or that we made some other mistake. A corollary of the first problem is to assume that everyone we capture is equivalent to Khalid Sheik Muhammad and his ilk. They aren’t. However, many speak as if every single person in our custody is the equivalent of a major lieutenant of Osama bin Laden and that they hold treasure troves of information and they are each to be seen as proxies for the 9/11 hijackers. A second major flaw here is the notion that having rules and procedures that acknowledges that we are dealing with human being here is “coddling” anyone. Indeed, the ability to recognize that your enemy is a) a human being, and b) perhaps not as guilty as you suspect that he is, isn’t coddling, it is due process and it a morally superior position that we should aspire to have, not disparage. And, as I noted in my post last night about suspending habeas corpus, the bottom line is that we are talking not about dramatic actions that governments undertake during a specific crisis when the hot war rages, but rather the codification of actions that will be undertaken when passions have cooled and the immediacy of the crisis has faded and when cooler heads ought to prevail. Look, within our own criminal justice system we frequently afford rights to the worst of the worst (and people we are 99% are guilty). We do so because it is the right thing to do and because such mechanisms protect the innocent. There are criminals who deserve to be shot on sight, no doubt. However, we don’t do that because it violates our basic values as a democracy. I am not arguing that we should treat captured combatants the same as we treat criminal defendants. However, there are parallels here in terms of how we should behave. Consider: if the enemy is shot and killed during battle, that is acceptable. However, if once you have the enemy in your control and you bind him and shoot him in the back of the head, we find that highly unacceptable. Why? Either way he is dead by the same bullet. However, we clearly consider those circumstances to be different. As such, once you have people in your custody, the manner of treatment matters. I would note, as I have before, that if we, as a major element of our foreign policy, are going to promote democratic goverance as something that other states should adopt, then we have to be a model of that form of government. If we are going to say that as soon as we feel threatened that we are willing to toss values out the window, then the message being sent is power and security trumps democratic values. How is that going to incentivize non-democracies in insecure parts of the world to adopt democratic norms and values? Isn’t the real lesson that we are teaching is that what really is matters is order and power ? Another example of Leadership and dramatic rhetoric: “The Democrats’ irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people,” Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191. A true sign of serious argumentation: tagging those who disagree with you as being “irrational.” But, then again, it’s election season and majority status is on the line, so why not trivialize the debate? Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (4)|
By Steven L. Taylor
I wonder how many times in the coming days that people will defend the provision in the detainee bill that denies terror suspects the rights of habeas corpus by saying that Lincoln did it in during the Civil War. Two things spring to mind. First, just because something was done in the past by a successful war President doesn’t necessarily make it a good thing. Second, and more importantly, it is one thing for a given President to engage in a particular activity during the crisis moments of a hot war, and it is wholly another to codify such things into law. Via the NYT: Senate Passes Detainee Bill Sought by President Bush
One guess that the whole thing isn’t over, even once the President signs the bill. Of course, as Scott Lemieux, points out, Congress has the Constitutinal authority to suspend habeas rights in times of war and invasion (see Article I, Section 9). Whether this is a good thing, however, is another question. Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (6)|
By Steven L. Taylor
This quote from a WaPo piece (’06 Cuts In Iraq Troops Unlikely) is a couple of days old, but I just came across it: Asked point-blank whether the United States is winning in Iraq, Abizaid replied: “Given unlimited time and unlimited support, we’re winning the war.” Yep, and I hear tell that an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters could produce the complete works of Shakespeare. What a remarkable thing to say, and not at a positive one, despite the attempt to make it sound positive. (Indeed, when I first saw the statement quoted apart from the WaPo story I thought it was someone’s attempt at a glib recapitulation of something Abizaid had said). Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (4)|
|
blog advertising is good for you Visitors Since 2/15/03
Blogroll
Advertisement
|
