Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

The words do not have to be perfect.

The willow is too close to the house.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

Not all heroes wear capes.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

“More of this”, i said to the dog.

People are complicated. Love is not.

We still have time to mess this up!

In my day, never was longer.

Everybody saw this coming.

I like you, you’re my kind of trouble.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

This fight is for everything.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

Americans barely caring about Afghanistan is so last month.

You cannot shame the shameless.

You are here: Home / z-Retired Categories / Site Maintenance / Open Thread

Reader Interactions

51Comments

  3. 3.

    srv

    Sweet. My mom fell off the couch laughing with the mastermind one. I never found an older SNL commercial about a new denture glue ala Krazy Glue. They actually had a helicopter fly up and lift “grandpa” out of some backyard and had him flying over Queens or someplace…

  4. 4.

    NR

    Anyone catch this little gem in Chuck Todd’s Q&A today?

    Chuck,

    In the last week, John McCain has denied voting against Katrina Aid when he did, twice, and denied comments he made regarding the media’s treatment of Hillary Clinton. I have not seen reportage of these inconsistencies in the media, except for the latter story on Countdown (which is hardly “mainstream”).

    Do you have any thoughts on that? Am I overreacting?

    -loosecannon

    I think the media will start their candidate fact-checking in the weeks ahead… i think there just hasn’t been a focus on this right now as we’ve had to cover the Clinton end game and the general election launch. I suspect these candidate fact checking stories to pop up a lot in July.

    Or, you know, maybe you guys could do your fucking jobs and let the public know when a presidential candidate is lying to them. There “hasn’t been a focus” on telling the public when McCain lies to their faces and pointing out what the truth actually is…. No shit, Chuck. Tell us something we don’t know.

    Oh, but you’re going to get right on that in July. Well, that’s a comfort. I can rest easy now – I’m sure this presidential election won’t be anything like the last two, where the Republican candidate was allowed to say anything he felt like saying without regard for the truth and was never called on it by anyone in the media. I feel so much better now.

  5. 5.

    JC

    I might have missed the discussion here – but take a look at this Olbermann discussion with Jonathan Turley.

    They are talking about Kucinich introducting impeachment.

    It seems to me, that if you take seriously “duty to the Constitution”, then our Congress is really falling down on the job, specifically Pelosi and Reid.

    Am I wrong?

    Not only in their swearing on a oath, to protect the Constitution – but also, as a example for the future, of even worse behavior by a future President.

    Each time the crooks do their thing – they push it farther and farther, and this gets stretched, without the necessary punishments – the protection built into the system – getting engaged.

    From Nixon (break-ins) to Iran-Contra, to now, everything that this administration has done illegally – where are there consequences?

    You now have an open map, for future Presidents, of how to subvert the other two houses of government. Just be smarter about it, and who knows how far you can go?

    Only CONSEQUENCES would dissuade someone in the future – but what consequences have Reagan or Bush cronies faced?

    There is a moral issue here, about proctecting our style of government, right?

  7. 7.

    ThymeZone

    Just wondering. If the Administration basically mishandles the intelligence, asks for AUMF, and Congress votes for AUMF without doing its homework (without any actual oversight) ….. why should the executive take all the blame? Isn’t Congress obligated to get this right, or at least try to?

    If no, then … what purpose does congress serve in this scenario at all? Is it not just a rubber stamp?

    If that’s not so, then how does congress come along later and claim malfeasance on the part of the executive?

  8. 8.

    JC

    One other point – we here always talk about the “balance of powers” – but in the British system, isn’t the Prime Minister a type of Unitary Executive anyway?

    If Blair had pulled the kind of s**t that the Bush administration had done – what’s the remedy?

  9. 9.

    JC

    Thymzone,

    Well, you could make a point about purposely misleading the Congress – but then, you have McClatchy, and you have the IAEA who are doing GOOD reporting on the subject, at the time, and finding the administration’s claims to be full of shit.

    So, yeah, I suppose you have to say that the Congress fell down as well. Not on some of the other issues, such as AT&T spying, or Guantanamo, or the ghost ships of torture floating about.

  11. 11.

    double-plus-ungood

    Dullest videos ever.

    We’re sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed within the United States. For more information on Hulu’s international availability, click here.

  12. 12.

    Brachiator

    I love how some Clinton supporters love to pretend to be all sweetness and light, and need to be wooed by Obama to prove his sincere respect for them after the defeat of the Sun Queen, and yet the Clintons still seem to have an Enemies List (Those Loyal to the Clintons Take Note of Who Was Not):

    While Mrs. Clinton has a short list of people who disappointed her, Mr. Clinton, who reportedly has an encyclopedic memory of all the people he has helped, employed or appointed over the years, apparently has a far longer one, the campaign officials said.

    Mrs. Clinton’s friends have a list of their own (it has frequently included the former president), as do veterans of Mr. Clinton’s White House (who love to blame Patti Solis Doyle, Mrs. Clinton’s former campaign manager), Clinton campaign employees (who complained incessantly — and continue to — about Mark Penn, the demoted chief strategist), Clinton fund-raisers and women’s groups who supported Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

    “I won’t forget these people,” said Susie Tompkins Buell, a co-founder of the Esprit clothing company and a longtime friend of the Clintons who describes herself as “a soul sister” to Mrs. Clinton.

    When asked to name “these people,” Ms. Buell specifies “all the women who sold out Hillary.” She declined to volunteer names on her list but answered “all of the above” when read a roster of prominent women supporting Mr. Obama that includes Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

  13. 13.

    ThymeZone

    you could make a point about purposely misleading the Congress

    Well, if that is the rationale, then the system is broken.

    The intelligence needs to be vetted via congress in real time with the administration. The only way oversight can be applied is when congress has the same information that the executive has, and can make a judgment. If the executive controls the flow of information, then the game is rigged.

    To my mind, the entire AUMF concept is extra-legal, extra-constitutional in the first place. Congress doesn’t want the power to declare war, it wants to avoid its consitutional responsibility, and that’s why you get the clusterfuck we saw in 2002. The failure to enforce the requirement to have congress declare war has produced a muddle in which manipulators can hide in the shadows of the ambiguities and then try to redirect blame later when it all turns to shit.

  14. 14.

    Fern

    One other point – we here always talk about the “balance of powers” – but in the British system, isn’t the Prime Minister a type of Unitary Executive anyway?

    Not really. The PM is a member of parliament – not a separate executive branch. The prime minister is simply the leader of the party that has the most seats in parliament.

    Plus there are ways to to get rid of the prime minister, or of the leader of any of the minority parties. Generally involves considerable bloodletting and general nastiness, but it can be done.

  15. 15.

    SGEW

    Generally involves considerable bloodletting . . . .

    Sounds pretty good to me. Pres. Bush looks like he could use some leeches and cupping. Not to mention a fleam.

  16. 16.

    sam t

    I was watching Lou Dobbs for a few seconds before turning to the Jim Lehrer hour and I noticed something sorta strange. This show has Dobbs and just female reporters. It is like his little old man fantasy.

  17. 17.

    Calouste

    JC Says:

    One other point – we here always talk about the “balance of powers” – but in the British system, isn’t the Prime Minister a type of Unitary Executive anyway?

    If Blair had pulled the kind of s**t that the Bush administration had done – what’s the remedy?

    June 11th, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    Nothing much. The United Kingdom is not a democracy, it’s more of a parliamentary dictatorship. There is no constitution and separation of powers doesn’t really exist, as the cabinet are members of parliament as well, as are the judges on the highest court of appeal (the Law Lords).

    The only thing that really keeps the PM in check are the factions within his own party and the relative independence of the House of Lords, members of which are appointed for life.

    Thatcher for example was brought down by factions within her won party who thought they wouldn’t win the next elections with her.

  18. 18.

    Calouste

    Kucinich’s 35 Articles of Impeachment have made it to the committee stage. All Democrats attending voted for, as did 24 Republicans.

  19. 19.

    HyperIon

    hmm – do you know Hulu doesn’t stream to locations outside the US?

    count your blessings.
    q. do all Hulu videos come with a fucking commercial?

  20. 20.

    Fern

    So Calouste, in your view, are all parliamentary systems of government dictatorships, or just that in the UK?

    Because here I thought all along that being able to freely elect the people who govern you was the essence of democracy.

  21. 21.

    Nellcote

    Governor Strickland invites you to the first annual Ted Strickland for Governor 2008 Cornhole Tournament Tour. This exciting event will be held in locations throughout Ohio this summer.

    Cornhole enthusiasts can sign up to play in the singles bracket or team up in the doubles bracket. The entry fees will be $50 for singles and $100 for doubles.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Strickland_otherwise_engaged.html
    …
    and they bitch about SF Liberals!

  22. 22.

    Dreggas

    When asked to name “these people,” Ms. Buell specifies “all the women who sold out Hillary.” She declined to volunteer names on her list but answered “all of the above” when read a roster of prominent women supporting Mr. Obama that includes Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

    That’s it NO OVER PRICED CLOTHING FOR YOU!

  23. 23.

    JC

    I have two views here – Fern says “not really” to unitary executive, while Calouste says a “parliamentary dictatorship”.

    But isn’t a parliamentary dictatorship sort of like a unitary executive?

    What’s the difference?

    We again see to be at the view – which would work in Britain, Australia, Canada, etc – that the leader of the parliament is both the executive and leader of the Congress. Which ironically is somewhat similar to the Cheney view, that Congress stripped necessary power from the executive.

    Elected dictator, or elected unitary executive, what’s the difference.

    Of course, there is a whole difference in the treatment of 3rd parties. I suppose if we had a more parliamentary system, that 3rd parties would be ABLE to play a greater role, while here they are silent.

    But again – if the travesties that have happened here under Bush, would have happened under a British prime minister, would have there been any difference, as Calouste claims – that the “Bush Prime Minister” would have gotten away with it?

  24. 24.

    JC

    Thymzone,

    I wholly agree with you. 9/11 made political cowards out of a lot of politicians.

  25. 25.

    Fern

    But again – if the travesties that have happened here under Bush, would have happened under a British prime minister, would have there been any difference, as Calouste claims – that the “Bush Prime Minister” would have gotten away with it?

    Under a parliamentary system, he would gotten away with it for a while, but once his approval ratings dropped to the level of Bush’s and once it was clear that he was going to affect the results of the next election, the party would have taken action to replace him.

  26. 26.

    Fern

    Oh, I should have added – this process is why Tony Blair is no longer the Prime Minister – he had just become too much of a liability.

  27. 27.

    srv

    that the “Bush Prime Minister” would have gotten away with it?

    You know, you can instant-watch the House of Cards series on Netflix. I bet even Dicky boy would be afraid of Ian Richardson as PM.

  28. 28.

    Calouste

    @Fern:

    Just the UK (well in my experience). Freely electing the people who govern you is somewhat relative there. First, the UK has a district system, so you can at most vote for one candidate of your preferred party. Secondly, the candidate is selected by the local party, with heavy input from the parliamentary party in some cases, and there is no requirement for candidates to have any ties to the district they represent. This often results in party bigwigs being assigned to safe seats. Thirdly, the House of Lords is not representative at all, and most of it’s members are appointed by the Prime Minister these days.

    The UK has never had a revolution and there are still remnants in the legal and parliamentary system that date back to medieval times, and that shows occasionally (for example, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancashire is a cabinet post). The Secretary of State for the Home Department has almost absolute powers to commute or extend prison sentences whereas in a proper democracy this would be decided by the courts.

    Oh, and whichever party you vote for, you can safely assume that half the cabinet will have attended Oxford University.

  30. 30.

    srv

    I wholly agree with you. 9/11 made political cowards out of a lot of politicians.

    You’d have to go back a lot farther than 9/11 to find the institutionalization of Congressional Cowardice. It is an innate quality of our “democracy” at this point.

  31. 31.

    mikefromtexas

    Thanks for the tips on puting up a link. My first ever, and it actually works.

  32. 32.

    Kali's Little Sister

    Doughy, limp, spongy, simple, flat…?

    Seriously, I missed the McCain pancake connection. Any help available?

  33. 33.

    Fern

    @ Calouste

    I actually prefer our system for selecting candidates (I’m a Canadian) than the primary system – or the freaking electoral college.

    This is the first time I’ve ever closely watched an American presidential election, and I must say I’m somewhat aghast at some of the things I see.

    Two things I now love about our system – the writ is dropped, and 39 days or whatever later there is an election. And then it’s done.

    And I love Elections Canada – standard procedures, reasonably well enforced.

    Oh and enumeration instead of registering to vote. AND not having to identify your political affiliation to get on the voters list.

  34. 34.

    passerby

    ThymeZone Says:

    Just wondering. If the Administration basically mishandles the intelligence, asks for AUMF, and Congress votes for AUMF without doing its homework (without any actual oversight) ….. why should the executive take all the blame? Isn’t Congress obligated to get this right, or at least try to?

    Ooh. A good point.

    I’m assuming Kucinich voted against AUMF. If so, doesn’t that put him in a minority? I think the rest, the majority, who voted for AUMF is by extension, complicit with the Executive.

    Last year DK launched articles of impeachment and it was voted down by this majority. Now he’s doing it in prime time, jabbing away, trying to open the wound.

    Half of congress, Republicans and Dems need to be voted out, this fall if possible.

    The down ticket races have never been so important.

    T

  35. 35.

    Calouste

    Fern Says:

    Oh, I should have added – this process is why Tony Blair is no longer the Prime Minister – he had just become too much of a liability.

    June 11th, 2008 at 7:40 pm

    And the same happened to Maggie Thatcher.

    As long as the PM has control over his/her party and does ok in the polls, they can pretty much do what they want though. In a two party system, MPs are not going to jump ship that often. In a multi party system, coalition parties will always be on the lookout for an opportunity to jump to the other side if they don’t like the way thing are going.

    In the US system, the President is pretty much immune to this, and there’s no power level between the House/Senate and the President that would create factions that could put a check on the President.

  38. 38.

    AlphaFactor

    President Ronald Reagan: Mastermind.

    Heh. Ok, I’m sure it was funny to the people in 1986…

    But, with the disturbing benefit of hindsight and what Reagan’s screw-ups brought ushered in over the next several decades… it’s morbidly/wierdly funnier.

    You know, there was a great AMERICAN DAD episode where they did a skit on Oliver North.

    http://tinyurl.com/5emdqo

    It’s a Hulu.Com link. The skit begins around the 5:00 mark. I think you’ll like it.

  40. 40.

    SGEW

    And I am so looking forward to the first official Prime Time Exorcism from V.P. candidate Jindal!

    It’ll make the Scopes Monkey Trial look positively fucking classy by comparison.

  43. 43.

    OriGuy

    The UK has never had a revolution

    What was that little interlude with Oliver Cromwell, then? Not to mention the “Glorious Revolution” where they pitched out the Stuarts?

  44. 44.

    passerby

    The mystery of McCain as the GOP nominee grows deeper. Now, The Hill is reporting:

    At least 14 Republican members of Congress have refused to endorse or publicly support Sen. John McCain for president, and more than a dozen others declined to answer whether they back the Arizona senator.

    I think that GOP convention will produce a candidate other than John McCain. Bet, they’re cooking something up.

    Nothing, nothing about this campaign = viable presidential nominee.

    T

  45. 45.

    SGEW

    Nothing, nothing about this campaign = viable presidential nominee.

    Um . . . Sen. McCain is a White, Baptist, war hero Senator. That used to be just about all you needed.

  46. 46.

    Krista

    Fox News: possibly more racist than you expected them to be this early.

    I saw that. Stay classy, Fox News.

  48. 48.

    SGEW

    Since when is McCain Baptist?

    For about 15 years. Or for about 2 years. Or only just recently. He appears to be a tad, uh, confused about it.

    But he does self-identify as Baptist. More or less.

  49. 49.

    passerby

    SGEW Says:

    Nothing, nothing about this campaign = viable presidential nominee.

    Um . . . Sen. McCain is a White, Baptist, war hero Senator. That used to be just about all you needed.

    Touchee! SGEW.

    Adjustment must be made. How about they settle for a White, Male, Baptist/Military (in that order)somebody.

    They may be waiting to find out how much race can “help” them. They are beating that drum louder and louder: Malkin and the “Michele is Obama baby momma” meme.

    Something’s gotta give, McCain cannot make it thru the summer.

    T

  50. 50.

    passerby

    mikefromtexas Says:

    Go read this.
    June 11th, 2008 at 7:49 pm

    Thanks for the link to the Lowermanhattanite essay.

    Wow! Just, Wow!

    That was rich.

  51. 51.

    Sasha

    One thing that struck me from “Mastermind” was the shout-out to Ivan Boesky, who was involved in some really impressive insider trading scandal at the time.

    Young wonk that I was, I remember chuckling heartilly at that as a kid.

Comments are closed.