My Pet Jawa examines bloggers and military service. Intertesting idea, but I am not sure how useful the outcome is…
The Twisted Mind of Joe Scarborough
Last night, Joe Scarborough was doing his nightly round-up on the guy who disappeared from the cruise ship (a story I find so uncompelling I can’t even remember his name), and he was showing video of the guy and his attractive new bride kissing, both of them in swimsuits. While he was showing this video, Scarborough commented:
Yeah, if we can‘t go back to that video, are—Matt, I don‘t know if you can do it. I want to get the video, just to show how much bigger George was than Jen, and anybody that thinks George could throw Jen—look at that. It‘d be hard for her to move him across the room, let alone throw him out the window. This guy played football. Look at him. I mean, he‘s everybody‘s all American, a big guy. There is no way that she could hurt the guy and throw him overboard, probably couldn‘t even push him down on a bed.
The dirty minds of MSNBC anchors. She ‘probably couldn‘t even push him down on a bed’ where she could straddle him, and playfully whip him with her flowing blonde locks while…
Woah! Sorry. I was just channeling Joe. At any rate, Crooks and Liars has a rumor that Joe might be replacing Harris in the ’06 Senate race.
Katherine Harris in ’06
According to the Hill, Katherine Harris is going to win:
Last week, GOP Rep. Katherine Harris of Florida kicked off her campaign to unseat Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson. While this should be a much-ballyhooed quest in Republican circles, too few GOP insiders seem to be excited by Harris’s launch. This is a mistake.
Katherine Harris is going to win this election for reasons that I’ll outline in this column. But before making the case that needs to be made, let me make a few disclosures. Yes, I did poll for Harris’s successful bids for secretary of state and Congress. But since 2003, I have not served Harris, providing me an opportunity for an objective view of her candidacy.
Harris’s advantages start with her celebrity status, coupled with the low expectations that surround her bid. Let’s face it: Voters today are more interested in celebrities than in politicians. More Americans read People than Time. More people follow “American Idol” than C-SPAN’s “Road to the White House.”
Celebrity commands attention. When Katherine Harris comes to town, people will want to get in on the action. And because of the nature of criticism that the media have aimed at Harris, people will expect her to disappoint.
But when voters see Katherine as she really is — a smart, vivacious and engaging woman — they will be shocked. Pleasantly shocked. There is no way that Katherine Harris won’t exceed expectations, and that’s a major plus.
Considering what I have seen to date, I will be shocked. Maybe pleasantly, but shocked nonetheless. I repeat:
I will donate $100.00 to the non-political charity of Katherine Harris’s choice if she beats him in 2006. $200.00 if she does it by more than 3% points. Unless Florida is more insane than even I thought, she doesn’t stand a chance.
I still feel safe.
A Shot in the Dark
Woah, Nelly. This is pretty shocking:
The young Brazilian shot dead by police on a London tube train in mistake for a suicide bomber had already been overpowered by a surveillance officer before he was killed, according to secret documents revealed last night…
It has now emerged that Mr de Menezes:
· was never properly identified because a police officer was relieving himself at the very moment he was leaving his home;
· was unaware he was being followed;
· was not wearing a heavy padded jacket or belt as reports at the time suggested;
· never ran from the police;
· and did not jump the ticket barrier.
But the revelation that will prove most uncomfortable for Scotland Yard was that the 27-year-old electrician had already been restrained by a surveillance officer before being shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.
The documents reveal that a member of the surveillance team, who sat nearby, grabbed Mr de Menezes before he was shot: “I heard shouting which included the word ‘police’ and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.
“He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 [firearms squad] officers … I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting … I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage.”
Jesus.
(h/t Washington Monthly)
More here.
The Evolving Standard
Matt Stinson touches on something that has developed over the past few days regarding Cindy Sheehan- namely, that even questioning her statements is part of a smear.
This is, nothing new, of course, and something that Jeff Goldstein has talked about at length. For more evidence, look at the comments of this Sebastian Holsclaw post, and the comments to this post. Simply quoting Cindy Sheehan amounts to a smear, it seems.
None of this mitigates the blunder by the WH by not just simply meeting with her immediately and being done with the whole ordeal, but it is interesting that in certain quarters it is now deemed impermissible, even ‘mean,’ to examine the comments of Cindy Sheehan.
More here.
RU-486 Hijinks?
Bill Ardolino has a pretty long and thorough post discussing attempts to spin the number of fatalities related to RU-486.
More on the ‘Wall’
Deborah Orin has an additional column on Clinton-era policies and terrorism:
PRESIDENT Bill Clinton’s team ignored dire warnings that its approach to terrorism was “very dangerous” and could have “deadly results,” according to a blistering memo just obtained by The Post.
Then-Manhattan U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote the memo as she pleaded in vain with Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick to tear down the wall between intelligence and prosecutors, a wall that went beyond legal requirements.
Looking back after 9/11, the memo makes for eerie reading — because White’s team foresaw, years in advance, that the Clinton-era wall would make it tougher to stop mass murder.
“This is not an area where it is safe or prudent to build unnecessary walls or to compartmentalize our knowledge of any possible players, plans or activities,” wrote White, herself a Clinton appointee.
Again, while all the second-guessing is interesting (and goodness knows the Democrats would be trumpeting this were roles reversed), what is more interesting is why this is all coming out right now. Part of an August roll-out becuase of the slow news cycle? Part of a Plame/Rove pushabck? Or is the information just now becoming available?