22 February 2008
News and Comments - 02/22/08
Posted by Joy Bischoff under: What's News .
32 Comments so far...
Cameron Says:
22 February 2008 at 9:30 am.
I wonder if McCain has caught on yet that he is being betrayed by his old pals in the press?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At 71, leading Republican presidential contender John McCain must convince voters that despite his age he is up to the rigors of what is often called the world’s toughest job.
“I’m not the youngest candidate but I am the most experienced,” says the white-haired senator from Arizona, first elected to Congress in 1982 after a 22-year career in the Navy.
The pressures of the presidency weigh heavily on those who have occupied the Oval Office. George W. Bush was boyish-looking when he took power in January 2001 at the age of 54. He now has gray hair and crinkles around his eyes.
If he prevails, McCain, who turns 72 in August, next January would be the oldest person ever sworn in as a first-term U.S. president. Ronald Reagan was 69 when he took office in 1981.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080222/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_age_dc_1
Cameron Says:
22 February 2008 at 9:36 am.
Looks like the NYT article was the best thing that could have happened to McCain. Go figure.
McCain turns tables on Times
The piece about McCain’s friendly relations with a telecommunications lobbyist—long-discussed in political circles and planned for weeks by McCain operatives—was the first test of his ability to confront a public-relations crisis since becoming the GOP’s presumptive nominee.
But the reaction may have said as much about the mindset of the conservative movement on the brink of the general election as it did about McCain and his team.
“Even if they want to quibble within our own tribe, they’ll circle the wagons when we’re attacked by the Times,” said McCain campaign senior adviser Charlie Black.
Few commentators on the right—including some who regularly denounce ethical lapses or weaknesses of the flesh among Democrats—paused to assess seriously whether the Times’s suggestions of conflict of interest were well-founded.
Instead, many swallowed past misgivings about McCain to rally to his defense, on the apparent theory that anyone under assault by the most powerful institution in the mainstream media could not be all bad.
“For conservatives, the New York Times is shorthand for everything they distrust,” said John Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College and former Republican operative.
E.E. Says:
22 February 2008 at 9:41 am.
When I listened to talk radio yesterday I was kind of disgusted. Not only did the NYT article get the talk radio hosts on board with McCain but they were even defending him on things like the Keating Five. I am surprised that they could be so easily manipulated. I guess human nature is a pretty easy thing to manipulate.
Mac Says:
22 February 2008 at 9:49 am.
That New York Times article is being thrown up as a terrible piece of journalism. Yeah I think they shouldn’t have made the whole romance accusation without more proof but all the other stuff in there about him doing her favors and the Keating Five and the private jet flights that were illegal with Rupert Murdock and some other things were all true. This guy is not honorable. He isn’t honest but if the dems attack him we are going to forget that and think he is pure as the freaking driven snow. I agree E.E. what’s with people being this easy to manipulate???
Cameron Says:
22 February 2008 at 9:55 am.
We don’t talk a lot about the war around here but when I read this article this morning I wanted to point out that there isn’t enough discussion in our country about how to end this war. Mitt got blasted for saying there should be bench marks. It feels like no one actually cares about hurrying up and ending it so we can turn it back to Iraqis and get out. I know the Iraqis aren’t ready but what is going to change to get them ready? Something has to happen or I will start to believe it is just an occupation and not a war we intend to win and get out.
Iraq cleric extends cease-fire by 6 months
BAGHDAD (AP) — Anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr announced Friday that he has extended a cease-fire order to his Shiite Mahdi Army by another six months, giving Iraq a chance to continue its fragile recovery from brutal sectarian violence.
His message was delivered by Shiite clerics during prayer services in mosques dominated by followers of the black-turbaned cleric.
“According to an order by Sayyid Muqtada, activities of the Mahdi Army will be suspended … for another six-month period,” al-Sadr’s aide Hazim al-Aaraji said, using an honorific for al-Sadr during his sermon at the Kazimiyah mosque in Baghdad.
Al-Sadr’s decision to halt the activities of his powerful militia for up to six months last August was one of three critical steps widely credited with bringing the Iraqi death toll down more than 60% in recent months.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-22-iraq-cease-fire_N.htm
Jesse Says:
22 February 2008 at 10:18 am.
Cameron, you are close to where I come down on the war. I don’t think we should have gone in there in the first place but if I thought we would actually finish the thing and get out then I would feel a lot better about it. They just aren’t going to put up with long term occupation. If we try it then the whole Muslim world will eventually join the extremists and want us taken out.
Carrie Says:
22 February 2008 at 12:02 pm.
Rush just said the political spectrum is really a circle. That is so cool. Way to go Roy.
Jan W. Says:
22 February 2008 at 1:17 pm.
I just read two articles about Obama. First was about the Secret Service telling police to stop checking people with metal detectors at the rally in Texas yesterday. The other article was about how Blacks are worried about Obama’s safety. It looks fishy and people might think Hillary wants Barak taken out.
Jesse Says:
22 February 2008 at 1:28 pm.
Here is the man everybody feels pressured into calling honorable:
McCain: ‘I’m The Only Candidate That The Special Interests Don’t Give Money To’
At a townhall meeting in New Hampshire last November, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the audience that he’s never allowed himself to be corrupted by lobbyist money:
Everybody says that they’re against the special interests. I’m the only one the special interests don’t give any money to.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McCain has taken nearly $1.2 million in campaign contributions from the telephone utility and telecom service industries, more than any other Senator. McCain sides with the telecom companies on retroactive immunity.
McCain is also the single largest recipient of campaign contribution by Ion Media Networks — formerly Paxson Communication — receiving $36,000 from the company and employees from 1997 to mid-year 2006.
In 2004, as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, McCain reversed a position and took “crucial legislative action” that saved Paxson Communications from “financial ruin.” Drew Clark reports:
McCain initially supported legislation that would have forced Paxson and handful of broadcasters — but not the great bulk of television stations — off the air by December 31, 2006. Bud Paxson himself personally testified about this bill with “fear and trepidation” at a hearing on September 8, 2004.
Two weeks later, McCain had reversed himself. He now supported legislation that would grant two-year reprieve for Paxson — and instead force all broadcasters to stop transmitting analog television by December 31, 2008. Paxson and his lobbyists, including Iseman, were working at this time for just such a change.
Vicki Iseman has represented Paxson since 1998, longer than any of her other clients. The Washington Post reports that Iseman’s clients have given nearly $85,000 to McCain campaigns since 2000, according to records at the Federal Election Commission.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/220208McCain.htm
E.E. Says:
22 February 2008 at 1:45 pm.
I am listening to Rush and his caller is totally wrong about the political spectrum and Rush doesn’t get it either. If they read Roy’s article with an open mind they would get it. It makes such perfect sense. Too bad someone can’t get it to Rush.
Jesse Says:
22 February 2008 at 2:51 pm.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Democratic superdelegates are starting to follow the voters—straight to Barack Obama.
In just the past two weeks, more than two dozen of them have climbed aboard his presidential campaign, according to a survey by The Associated Press. At the same time, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s are beginning to jump ship, abandoning her for Obama or deciding they now are undecided.
The result: He’s narrowing her once-commanding lead among these “superdelegates,” the Democratic office holders and party officials who automatically attend the national convention and can vote for whomever they choose.
As Obama has reeled off 11 straight primary victories, some of the superdelegates are having second—or third—thoughts about their public commitments.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UVIGO81&show_article=1
Jeezer Says:
22 February 2008 at 4:18 pm.
Rule by fear or rule by law?
“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.”
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of “an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.”
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of “all removable aliens” and “potential terrorists.”
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of “new programs” require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,” gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to “a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order.”
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of “terrorist” organizations, or who speaks out against the government’s policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure “continuity of government” in the event of what the document vaguely calls a “catastrophic emergency.” Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure “continuity of government.” This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL
Cavetrollhead Says:
22 February 2008 at 4:23 pm.
Dang Jeezer thanks for ruining my sleep.
Cavetrollhead Says:
22 February 2008 at 4:58 pm.
You know, has anyone here thought about how, if our rights are taken away from us, that preserving anonymity on the internet might be critical to the rebirth of our rights.
IP addresses can be traced, anonymity on the internet doesn’t truly exist.
T. Fan Says:
22 February 2008 at 5:02 pm.
You’re right Cave. People who criticize the government lately are called fifth columnists and can be put on a list of possible terrorists. I thought about that when I started coming to a few different sites. This site isn’t a conspiracy site but still, nowadays with the new laws on the books, it is still scary and a risk to open your mouth at all. The only thing that makes me have the courage to do it is reading about the regrets the scholars had in Germany. They saw the problems coming but were afraid to say anything. Almost every one of them wished they had spoken up. I don’t want that on my conscious.
Pickles Says:
22 February 2008 at 5:06 pm.
My friends and I talk about this stuff all the time. We’ve read the new executive orders and the scary parts of the patriot act. When you get people so scared of attack then they give away their freedom just cause they want to be safe. But we should be okay here because we don’t believe in violence. At least I haven’t noticed anyone wanting to fight the government or anything. We want to try and change it peacefully to be what it was suppose to be under the constitution. No terrorists around here.
Mac Says:
22 February 2008 at 5:40 pm.
I know we can’t go overboard but we are facing an enemy different than what we ever had before. It does take strong measures.
Cavetrollhead Says:
22 February 2008 at 5:45 pm.
Amen to that Pickles. And we also have to realize that the new and scary laws are not completely without reason. We don’t have to be opposed to the to be scared by them.
For Example,
The seat belt law might be a good law. I don’t have to be opposed to it to be scared by it because the the precedent it sets for Government sticking its nose in.
Was it here that I saw an article by Glenn beck and and an interview with Jonah Goldberg that talked about the laws people are making to protect us? Yes of course it was. The road to hell, I think I said before, is paved with good intentions. We make laws to keep us safe and that can lead to the greatest danger of all- a government with too much power. Governments have the ability to oppress like to other institution.
On another vein, the development of the atomic bomb was scary almost everyone. But most Americans who were scared by it were not opposed to it.
The same can be said of genetic engineering, surveillance technology and so on.
Where the divide exists is in the fact that people on both side speak in idealistic and absolute terms.
Those on the side of life feel that liberty is of little use if you are dead.
Those on the side of liberty feel that life is of little use if you are not free.
But to pretend that there is not an acceptable balance between the preservation of life and the preservation of liberty is folly. Absolute liberty says life is cheap. Absolute safety says that liberty is worthless. We accept that there is an optimal area where liberty and life (safety) have to compromise to coexist.
We can’t forget that both life and liberty are to be protected and magnified. So we can’t automatically suppose that those on the other side of the issue are villains.
The divide is being widened by too strong of rhetoric on both sides. Both sides should be able to admit that life and liberty are both precious and that a threat to either is scary.
Those on the side of safety need to at least admit that these new laws are scary. We can’t expect them to therefore oppose those laws- but just to admit that they are scary is a step in the right direction.
Those on the side of liberty need to admit that terrorism is also scary. We don’t need to support the new laws to make this admission. It is obvious that steps need to be taken to assure bolster security.
Whichever side we find ourselves, we aught to be able to make our arguments bend to the optimum policy.
Cavetrollhead Says:
22 February 2008 at 5:47 pm.
Wow that was long. Sorry.
To add to what I just said, “Idealism can be more dangerous that compromise. ” Maybe that would be a good title for my comment.
Cavetrollhead Says:
22 February 2008 at 5:51 pm.
Wow Mac. Well said. Maybe I should have been so concise.
Mac Says:
22 February 2008 at 6:00 pm.
Speaking of well said, there is a lot of wisdom in what you wrote Cave. We are living in a tricky new world. If we assume the other side are all villians then we will never listen to them and we won’t understand enough to try and find a solution.
Stumpy Says:
22 February 2008 at 6:14 pm.
Yup yer right Cave. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Looks to me like pretty soon that road is first gonna lead to prison camps fer Americans that still believe in speaking their minds. Its being paved by them laws I read about and I cant be interred in one of there camps cause I got critters to care for.
Seems like the road to hell is gonna be paved by strips of hide when God whips them bad ole lawmakers runnin and screamin their way right into the devils arms. Then that ole devil will give em a big kiss and welcome those fellas home then give them a taste and then some of the mess they made for us. And they got plenty of hide to strip off cause every last one of them is to big for there britches.
Mac Says:
22 February 2008 at 6:27 pm.
So Stumpy are you saying we don’t need some of those laws? You know you can’t talk peace with people who don’t want peace. If we are all dead what is there to preserve?
Stumpy Says:
22 February 2008 at 6:31 pm.
Our souls boy. Our souls.
Cavetrollhead Says:
22 February 2008 at 6:42 pm.
Speaking of caring for your critters Stumpy, do all of your critters run free?
E.E. Says:
22 February 2008 at 6:48 pm.
While we wait for Stumpy to answer I want to share my feelings. Victory at the price of our freedoms is no victory at all and holds no honor.
Stumpy Says:
22 February 2008 at 6:59 pm.
Well son just in case were still talking philosophy let me answer ya this way. Some of my critters have sense enough to run free and some dont. Thats okay cause Im there to take care of them. Thats almighty different than us human though. God gave me the ability to reason unlike his sweet critters. And he also gave me dominion over the earth and its living things. I take mighty good care of them. Then God gave them as are blessed to live in this country the constitution that tells us we got from him, the rights to be free and use our own reason to live by within inspired laws that come from him. Anybody tries to take them from me dont got the right. It just aint for them to change what was God given just cause they think they know better than me how to keep me safe. What they done forgot is that they work me. There kind a dumb that way sometimes.
Cavetrollhead Says:
22 February 2008 at 10:20 pm.
That is fair enough Stumpy and I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I am trying to make a point about judging people unfairly. I think we need to find common ground with understanding hearts.
I give my dogs a lot of freedom. I give my kids almost as much. Of course it is not because I love my kids less but because they can screw up twice as bad. And I as a wise parent know that they are too precious to leave up to their own devices. But their are some on the left who think that the parent must allow kids more freedom and parents should have less dominion.
You don’t let your animals run free because you love them. But an idealist would accuse you of cruelty by robbing them of freedom.
Similarly, it is easy to think that our leaders who disagree with us are villains but I don’t think that is fair. The threat of terrorism is new, unprecedented, not addressed in the constitution and in the age of biological, nuclear and chemical weapons, extremely scary.
The executive branch is given power by the constitution to deal with emergencies even if that violates the constitution’s own principles. That is what martial law is. And martial law is not the only example of it. A police officer can prevent you from going into your own home under certain conditions. Local governments can remove children from dangerous parents. People can be forced out of their homes during disasters.
I am not saying that these new laws are good. No doubt they are scary and lets hope they can be replaced once alternative solutions are found. But there is a lot of rhetoric out there that is just inflammatory, and unfair. We are doing our duty by keeping an eye on things. I truly commend Jeezer for bringing this to our attention. But I don’t think divisiveness in the republican party is going to help a bit. If these laws are not replaced by something better in time maybe it will be time to rock the boat. But we need to be patient for now as well as vigilant. And we need to be careful accusing officials in VERY difficult situations of evil.
Roy Bischoff Says:
22 February 2008 at 10:45 pm.
I just have a little bit different take on some of these laws. Although the potential for abuse concerns me, I am much more concerned about the curtailing of Due Process and Freedom of Speech. The most radical or extreme visitor to the US should be able to criticize our government freely. The only limits should be that they cannot advocate violence against our government.
From Jeezer’s article it appears that these laws have been broadly written. Imagine a president who starts to exercise these powers and any concerned citizens who want to challenge the president’s actions is arrested and tried secretly. Politicians that cannot be held responsible for their actions are in serious danger of running amok. Absolute power . . .
Cavetrollhead Says:
22 February 2008 at 11:01 pm.
I agree Roy but we just saw a paraphrase of the laws. I hope it is wrong. I found some info on wikipedia. But I am still sifting through it. I hate to read stuff that is ao hard to read. And of course we don’t know that the author is getting it right but it looks like direct quoting. Here it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006. maybe your legal mind can cut through it better than mine.
Maybe I am in denial. It just seems like we are Damned if we do and Damned if we don’t.
As stumpy would say, “I’m shake’n in my boots.”
Cavetrollhead Says:
22 February 2008 at 11:02 pm.
Oops lets try that again without the period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006
Cavetrollhead Says:
22 February 2008 at 11:04 pm.
I have to say one more thing. If we would seal the boarders these darn laws might not be necessary. We just need to be careful who we let in, right?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.