Nope, it's still wrong.

If you are exceptionally generous and assume that Norm Coleman meant onshore Cuban drilling rather than trying to mislead the questioner about offshore drilling (which I think is much more likely, but that's beside the point), he still said, "American companies should tap into those resources."

Well, American companies can't just go drill for oil in Cuba, regardless of what Congress says about offshore drilling. Sorry, Norman.

Posted at July 3, 2008 5:12 PM in response to Vulnerable GOP Senator Recites Bogus China-Cuba Oil Myth

Why don't you go after the other 90 Senators whose votes are in question?

You are going to lose the vote either way. By focusing on Obama, you just make it more likely that you both lose the vote and hurt the Dem nominee.

Posted at July 3, 2008 5:11 PM in response to Serious question (really): Why is the FISA telecom immunity important?

As I explained below:

A normal civil lawsuit goes through several stages. The first stage is the Motion to Dismiss. The second stage is the Motion for Summary Judgment. The third stage (one rarely reached these days) is the actual trial.

The facts alleged in the complaint are assumed to be true for the purpose of a motion to dismiss. Surviving a motion to dismiss only means that a complaint stated enough facts to make it plausible that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. It does NOT mean that the judge has ruled for the plaintiff on the set of facts alleged by the plaintiff.

These things take time. They are big cases with lots of complicated issues. It takes time to brief, time to go through discovery, time for the judge to rule. The fact that they have taken a long time doesn't prove anything.

Posted at July 3, 2008 5:08 PM in response to Serious question (really): Why is the FISA telecom immunity important?

Obama's program allows federal funds to go to so-called faith-based groups to support their programs. The federal funds they receive may not be used to discriminate in their hiring. The Bush Admin. did allow hiring discrimination, and so would McCain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02obama.html?ref=politics

But Mr. Obama’s plan pointedly departed from the Bush administration’s stance on one fundamental issue: whether religious organizations that get federal money for social services can take faith into account in their hiring. Mr. Bush has said yes. Mr. Obama said no.

“If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion,” Mr. Obama said. “Federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs.”

Martha Minow, a professor of law at Harvard University who has written about religion-based initiatives and has advised the Obama campaign on the issue, said Mr. Obama would move to “return the law to what it was before the current administration,” in other words barring the consideration of religion in hiring decisions for such programs that receive federal financing.

“I don’t think there’s anything too controversial about that,” Ms. Minow said. “Any religious organization that does not want to comply with that requirement simply doesn’t have to take the money.”

Posted at July 3, 2008 5:04 PM in response to Serious question (really): Why is the FISA telecom immunity important?

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Greg.

This is and always has been where you are at your strongest. Taking what someone said, from the Horse's Mouth (tm) so to speak, and comparing it to what the newspapers reported/distorted.

Unless you are willing to get down in the deep weeds with Elizabeth2 and I, you should not post so much on other meaningless topics.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/serious-question-really-why-is.php

Posted at July 3, 2008 4:53 PM in response to News Orgs Already Getting It Wrong On Obama's Iraq Remarks

Nope, it's still wrong.

If you are exceptionally generous and assume that Norm Coleman meant onshore Cuban drilling rather than trying to mislead the questioner about offshore drilling (which I think is much more likely, but that's beside the point), he still said, "American companies should tap into those resources."

Well, American companies can't just go drill for oil in Cuba, regardless of what Congress says about offshore drilling. Sorry, Norman.

Posted at July 3, 2008 4:49 PM in response to Vulnerable GOP Senator Recites Bogus China-Cuba Oil Myth

By shoreline, he means on land!

Posted at July 3, 2008 4:42 PM in response to Vulnerable GOP Senator Recites Bogus China-Cuba Oil Myth

Ted Kennedy has withdrawn any opposition to wind farms in Mass. Sorry, try harder next time!!

Posted at July 3, 2008 4:41 PM in response to Vulnerable GOP Senator Recites Bogus China-Cuba Oil Myth

I'm not saying that he "needs" to vote for it. I honestly don't think he does. He (and/or his advisors) obviously feels differently.

That said, I REALLY don't think we need to be making such a BIG DEAL out of it because this vote is actually NOT A BIG DEAL. The telecoms are getting immunity one way or the other.

Self interest may militate in favor of tempering your anger.

Posted at July 3, 2008 4:35 PM in response to Serious question (really): Why is the FISA telecom immunity important?

That's incorrect. Congress may and does do that.

Posted at July 3, 2008 4:30 PM in response to Serious question (really): Why is the FISA telecom immunity important?