clever in your own mind, Sen McCarthy

Posted at August 14, 2008 7:18 PM in response to Georgia on my mind

The lesson of the 1932 Covention that you raw from this was what? Aside from how long it took to nominate the candidate who everyone knew would win, because the then prevailing 2/3rds rule allowed the southern states to continue to extort promises against civil rights, etc., and the bitter feelings of Gov Smith, it is best remembered because it was the first time the nominee actually appeared before the Convention where he gave the "new deal" speech and made clear what was at stake.

What is it that you want from these groups detracting from the need to beat Sen McCain?

Posted at July 20, 2008 11:50 AM in response to Will the Democratic Party Learn the Lessons of 1932?

I fear not.

I read Lizza; yes.

(I did not think the cover of the New Yorker would change the election and actually enjoyed it.)

Posted at July 19, 2008 12:26 PM in response to Change

(pssst; I was trying to be funny)

Posted at July 17, 2008 5:20 PM in response to The New Yorker arrives at my house and my drivel moves to the TPM cafe

I think you have it just right. We have become a nation of idiots who think we are smarter than the rest of the idiots. We are who Karl Rove and his smarmy predecessors wanted us to become.

No Child Left Behind? A whole country way behind.

And this is why we can tub thump "U-S-A, U-S-A" and keep driving our SUVS on our way to becoming some irrelevant third rate country whose time has past.

Posted at July 15, 2008 1:37 PM in response to The New Yorker and The Height of Elitism

the most ridiculous version of this which I have heard is the one that suggests that the cover will convince Mr and Mrs Goober Fromoutthere that it is all true: what they have suspected, has now been confirmed by a cartoon on the cover of the New Yorker.

This position is always taken by someone who tells me that both you and I know what they meant, but Those People Out There won't understand and it will confirm what they believe.

Posted at July 15, 2008 1:31 PM in response to The New Yorker and The Height of Elitism

There is a tape from 1960 where President Eisenhower, asked to name a contribution to his administration from Vice President Nixon (who was running to succeed him) he said that if given a week, "I'll think of something." (see http://www.wdsu.com/news/1448265/detail.html)

Same thing.

Posted at July 15, 2008 1:27 PM in response to Whoops! GOPer On McCain's Veep List Struggles To Cite Differences Between McCain And Bush

While Nixon v. United States, 418 U.S. 683, 712, n. 19 (1974) the most aptly named case in history specifically limited its holding to the invocation of executive privilege to a grand jury subpoena and did not address a congressional subpoena which does not serve the same weighty interests in support of an investigation of potentially criminal activity which might result in an indictment and prosecution as does a grand jury subpoena, the Court's unanimous opinion hardly supports the broad claims made here.

Thus, "he interest in preserving confidentiality is weighty indeed and entitled to great respect. However, we cannot conclude that advisers will be moved to temper the candor of their remarks by the infrequent occasions of disclosure because of the possibility that such conversations will be called for in the context of a criminal prosecution," id., could well apply to the rare congressional inquiry of the activities of presidential advisors.

The limits of the privilege may be found, if the law still holds (a big question in these lawless times) at page 714 of the opinion where, quoting from the Aaron Burr treason case, the Nixon Court said "'[T]he guard, furnished to [the President] to protect him from being harassed by vexatious and unnecessary subpoenas, is to be looked for in the conduct of a [district] court after those subpoenas have issued; not in any circumstance which is to precede their being issued.' United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas., at 34."

Just my view.

Posted at July 5, 2008 9:02 PM in response to Waxman: "I Don't Think We've Had a Situation Like This Since Richard Nixon"

As I understand it, a court has to agree to the immunity; no?

Posted at June 21, 2008 11:09 AM in response to Why Obama's Support For FISA Cave-In Is Such A Downer

I support Sen Obama and believe Sen Clinton's race was over months ago and is kept alive just to give cable tv something to talk about.

That said:

She only meant that in 1968, the California primary was in June. She said it badly. She was not suggesting that she could step in if someone was assasinated. (The man nominated in 1968 was not even in the race on the day Senator Kennedy was murdered.)

The word assassination is scary, but it's just a word.

Posted at May 24, 2008 9:06 AM in response to Hillary Invokes RFK Assassination While Describing Why She's Staying In Race