Thomas J Belknap
- : Rochester, NY
- : 33
- : Progressive
- : Democrat
- : http://www.dragonflyeye.net
- : DragonFlyEye.Net is a local Rochester, NY webpage dedicated to progressive politics, entertainment and culture in Rochester. DragonFlyEye is an over-opinionated boob who occasionally posts to this and other sites.
- : The Jitterbug Perfume, Take Down, Atlas Shrugged, The J-Curve
-
The second issue has to do with McCain's tricky loan and whether the FEC will conclude that it locked him into the system. But for now, that's really ancillary to the first issue.
I realize what you're saying, inasmuch as the FEC's ineffectuality at the moment seems to be the big issue, but I disagree. Somehow, McCain got the bank to agree to use as collateral money he didn't even possess. Does that not strike anyone as being somehow illegal even beyond the campaign finance issue?
At minimum, it means that not only did he file for the money, he took it. He may not have been handed a check, but he used taxpayer dollars as a commodity in roughly the same way that banks have been using mortgage debts as commodities to be sold on the market.
Posted at February 22, 2008 2:38 PM in response to McCain's FEC Problem
-
Most of this discussion seems to presuppose that the Democrats are going to have much of anything they can do to thwart the "Bush Doctrine," and they really don't. Oh, they can pass a few resolutions, but they don't have any direct control over much of the foreign policy decisions in the first place. The cynicism is a bit premature.
Funny thing is: the best thing they could do would probably be to do the one thing they all said they would not do: start up with the investigations. It's the only way to take already foul public opinion of the war and push it in the direction of a final withdraw that we need. Certainly, defunding the war would have devastating political consequences.
I agree with Dan K in that the only foreign policy discussion that matters now is the Iraq question. But the good news is that the Congress is a big place with lots of people working in it. They can have investigations up the wazoo and still work on far-more-realistic legislative domestic goals like minimum wage.
Watching from just above the water line. . . .
Posted at November 18, 2006 10:12 PM in response to Thank You, Nancy Pelosi
-
I think it bears mentioning that parliamentary tactics are all that legislators really have at the end of the day. If they're doing better with that, then they're doing better period. I frankly am not terribly interested in political theater actors, I'd be much happier with bookish legislators that get thier jobs done, and I think that this is a thing sorely lacking in today's political climate.
Reid's not the most charismatic character ever, that's for sure. In fact, whenever he tries to get folksie, I always get the impression he's trying to sell me a Pepperidge Farms milano cookie. Still, he's a good legislator overall.
By the way, has anyone had a chance to check out the Hamilton Project?
Granted, there is nothing in there about the war, but there are some outstanding recommendations for education and investment that are worth a look. This is the beginning of a new Democratic plan, and while it may not address the Iraq War, it is a positive step that is getting entirely too little press right now.
Watching from just above the water line. . . .
Posted at April 7, 2006 7:01 PM in response to Anti-Anti-Conventional Wisdom on Dem Effectiveness
-
Here, here! And while we're at it, let's not nominate the second American Dynasty in Hillary Clinton.
It really is most effective for a lot of reasons to nominate a governor. For one, he sets the agenda, but doesn't have to suffer the consequences of legislative action, which in truth is where all the problems usually start. Secondly, as you mention, they are the communicators for the party by nature whereas legislators tend to be the wonks.
Third and perhaps most importantly, every bill in any legislature is inevitably tied to a bunch of amendments that have nothing to do with it. That means that there are all these myriad of different ways that a legislator can be attacked politically for voting against something, even when the attack is way off base.
Watching from just above the water line. . . .
Posted at April 7, 2006 6:50 PM in response to Anti-Anti-Conventional Wisdom on Dem Effectiveness
-
Oh, wait! I just reread the article. He didn't just have kiddie-porn on his desktop, he was running a P2P client! How dumb can you get? Seriously, I really think the the White House's policies have created an environment where anything goes and no one feels obligated to follow the rules.
Kiddie-porn, hubris and cronyism all in the same article. How much worse can this get?
Watching from just above the water line. . . .
Posted at April 7, 2006 11:46 AM in response to Be Afraid
-
LOL! You're not kidding! What a goon, but then again, I think that there is a chance that people in the Bush Administration have stopped worrying about getting caught for much of anything unless it involves pissing off the big guys.
This whole thing raises the question: when the Bush Justice Department demanded the release of search results from Google, was it because they were trying to protect kids from kiddie porn, or because folks in the Justice Department were looking for good references?
Watching from just above the water line. . . .
Posted at April 7, 2006 11:21 AM in response to Be Afraid
-
The Bush Administration has, through Executive Orders, so completely muddied the waters of the classification/declassification policy of the Executive Branch as to make any attempt to define this issue on that level pointless. Much though I, too, prefer to analyze the law in cases such as these, it is really a waste.
What matters is that the president pulled a fast one with declassification. Even if it's legal by some order or another, its not even remotely ethical, and any rational person can see that. The whole thing stinks to the heavens, but not so that the media will bother paying any attention.
Watching from just above the water line. . . .
Posted at April 7, 2006 9:00 AM in response to But Is It Legal
-
I think that the largest problem presented by Sharon's departure is as ironic as it is worrisome: in creating his own party committed to the peace process (a bold move by any standard), he has removed from the remaining parties any politicians that were, well, committed to the peace process. Will Likud even consider taking pols back now that they've left? For what? They weren't onboard with the Likud War Party in the first place, as evidenced by the fact that they left.
Of course, I don't even know how Israeli politics work in the first place, perhaps they don't need to be "taken back," but it still seems like those politicians that choose to move towards peace are going to find themselves out in the cold unless they can make a go of the party themselves.
Posted at January 5, 2006 10:31 AM in response to Political Crisis in the Middle East
-
Thanks for the info, joejoejoe!
Actually, this post brings up an interesting point, which is that much of the bribery that took place between Abramoff and his buddies took the form of paid trips and the like. What good will it do to give away the few dollars that might have been given legally?
Posted at January 5, 2006 10:13 AM in response to The Daily Muck
-
Yes, but the bank robber is not up for reelection. I think the point is to make themselves look as repentant as possible to thier constituencies and the media, thereby minimizing the risk to thier reelection campaigns on the off chance that they're not going to jail.
Posted at January 5, 2006 10:10 AM in response to The Daily Muck
