I can’t tell you how happy I am that ABC is showing Boston Legal once again. One of the best shows on tv.
Denny: You left me, Shirley. Women don’t leave Denny Crane. And for a secretary?
Shirley: It was the Secretary of Defense.
Genius.
by John Cole| 3 Comments
This post is in: Open Threads
I can’t tell you how happy I am that ABC is showing Boston Legal once again. One of the best shows on tv.
Denny: You left me, Shirley. Women don’t leave Denny Crane. And for a secretary?
Shirley: It was the Secretary of Defense.
Genius.
This post is in: Open Threads
Patterico states I was over the line condemning Malkin’s post, and he is right. So:
1.) I apologize to you all and Michelle for the tone and tenor, as well as the language.
2.) I want it made clear that I in no way think the racist crap that is heaped upon Malkin is in any way fair, or justified, or deserved. I said I can understand why she gets it, but that in no way excuses the fact that people say those things. Really, some of the stuff that has been said in the comments of that thread sounds like something spewed by Stormfront or other white supremacist groups. Long story short- what I said was unfair to Michelle and stupid.
I still disagree about the relevance of Sheehan’s marital status and record, but there will be a time for that later, and I don’t want this turning into a typical Washington non-apology apology.
by John Cole| 62 Comments
This post is in: General Stupidity
Apparently remote diagnosis isn’t simply the domain of GOP Senators:
Although I would never make a medical diagnosis without examining a patient, I feel confident in my observation that George W. Bush is a new kind of bi-polar: the poles being indifference and destructive violence. His indifference to families who lost their sons and daughters in Iraq is now writ large – thanks to Cindy Sheehan and an ever-increasing group of parents who demand that Bush explain the “noble cause” for which their sons and daughters continue to be maimed and killed in Iraq. As Sheehan told the press on August 12, Bush has more time for Republican donors than for talking with bereaved families camped outside his Crawford fortress.
Via Ezra Klein, who also notes Arianna slapping around Wonkette.
by John Cole| 37 Comments
This post is in: Media
In between tossing and turning, staring at the ceiling, and swearing about not being able to fall asleep, I heard a teaser/promo (I am not sure what they are called in television) for Fox News regarding immigration/border security that ended with something like this:
“Illegal immigrants- violent, carrying disease, and with possible ties to terrorism?”
It was done with the normal booming sensationalist voice, and I have to state- I AM PARAPHRASING this because I was groggy from trying to sleep, and had turned the tv on to waste time. But I know the “violent, carrying disease, and with possible ties to terrorism?” part is mostly accurate.
Am I the only one who supports border security but finds this sort of approach a little troubling?
by John Cole| 67 Comments
This post is in: Foreign Affairs
Looks like things are turning ugly in the Gaza strip:
Hundreds of Jewish activists clogged the main road into the Gaza Strip’s largest Jewish settlement here today in an effort to block flat-bed trucks being used to move out the belongings of families who are being evacuated as part of Israel’s withdrawal from the region.
Throngs of teenage boys and young men linked arms and pushed against rows several lines deep of the police special forces unit. Many were hauled off by their arms and legs, thrashing and shouting out to the police as they were dragged away, “A Jew does not expel a Jew!” The phrase has become one the main slogans of the struggle against the Gaza withdrawal.
A total of 47 people were taken out of the settlement, a police spokeswoman said, and one was arrested.
The unrest came the day before the first of the Gaza Strip’s 21 Jewish settlements were to be forcibly evacuated by the Israeli police and soldiers.
I am surious what you all think of this.
by John Cole| 21 Comments
This post is in: Politics
The Democrats aren’t even going to mount an opposition:
Democrats have decided that unless there is an unexpected development in the weeks ahead, they will not launch a major fight to block the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr., according to legislators, Senate aides and party strategists.
In a series of interviews in recent days, more than a dozen Democratic senators and aides who are intimately involved in deliberations about strategy said that they see no evidence that most Democratic senators are prepared to expend political capital in what is widely seen as a futile effort to derail the nomination.
Although they expect to subject President Bush’s nominee to tough questioning at confirmation hearings next month, members of the minority party said they do not plan to marshal any concerted campaign against Roberts because they have concluded that he is likely to get at least 70 votes — enough to overrule parliamentary tactics such as a filibuster that could block the nominee.
Now I am not Chuck Schumer or Pat Leahy, but 70 votes seems to mean pretty broad support consaidering the current political climate.
Right now, the only thing that interests me about this debate is which way Hillary votes, because that says more about the possible tone of the 2008 election than anything else. At least right now.
This post is in: Politics
A Small Victory (thanks to Bill for the link):
Is it really necessary to splash her divorce papers all over the internet? Is this anybody’s business? No, her personal life is NOT fair game. Her family is not fair game. And as much as it takes enormous balls of steel for Sheehan herself to pen a diary at Kos entitled Leave My Family Alone when she’s the one who brought this into the public eye, it takes a person with no semblance of common decency to start gloating over Sheehan’s divorce as this proves something, somehow. Do you know how common it is for couples who have suffered the loss of a child to separate? Do you think this is some win on your part, something to high five each other about? Woohooo, a family is falling apart, another point for our side! That’s sick. SICK.
Read the whole thing. And again, there is no reason not to stick to her statements, which provide ample fodder. Forget about the divorce, which is really none of your business. Forget all the Israel/PNAC/War For Oil stuff. This is what Cindy Sheehan said LAST NIGHT on Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question.
SHEEHAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?
SHEEHAN: I don`t think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We`re fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we`re saying. But they`re not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.
MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al Qaeda which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.
SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al Qaeda and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.
Those are the deep thoughts of the new patron saint of the anti-war movement. And I say ‘anti-war,’ and not ‘peace,’ because they are not the same thing. This is the message they have, and it is silly, irresponsible, and easily refutable. And this is AFTER she has spent time with media handlers.
There is no need to go rummaging through her personal life- even if it is ‘news.’ It is mean-spirited, unfair, and should be beneath most decent people. And it is irrelevant.
And just for the sheer comic hilarity of it, this excerpt:
MATTHEWS: Are you considering running for Congress, Cindy?
SHEEHAN: No, not this time. I`m a one issue person. I know a lot about what`s going on in Iraq but I don`t know anything about anything else. And I want to focus my energy on bringing the troops home.
So back off her divorce and other family matters. If her husband comes forward and makes public statements, that is another matter. The focus should be on the message she is spreading, her public statements, and the organizations promoting/using her. And that isn’t smearing her. That is merely examining the public record of a public actor.