Fire Sale Explains So Much


The Post's whoring sale of its newsroom can't be really surprising to anyone, but the fact that it's now so blatantly out in the open is enough to generate conspiracy theories aplenty.  For example, today had two seemingly "unrelated" articles: first, an op-ed by Yosemite Sam (John Bolton), urging Israel to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities and second, an A1 story about recently declassified accounts of  Saddam Hussein's interrogation, in which he tells his interlocutors:
Hussein's fear of Iran, which he said he considered a greater threat than the United States, featured prominently in the discussion about weapons of mass destruction. Iran and Iraq had fought a grinding eight-year war in the 1980s, and Hussein said he was convinced that Iran was trying to annex southern Iraq -- which is largely Shiite. "Hussein viewed the other countries in the Middle East as weak and could not defend themselves or Iraq from an attack from Iran," Piro recounted in his summary of a June 11, 2004, conversation.
"The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors," Piro wrote. "Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq."

Fred Hiatt is an open neoconservative.  I'm not suggesting that the news story itself has an agenda behind it, but one wonders about the placement.  As the op-ed pooh-bah, Hiatt ostensibly makes the call as to what goes on the opinion page when.  If you wanted to see Iran blown up, it would certainly help if "even Saddam was afraid" of those crazy mullahs.  
Does anyone who subscribes to the FT want to vouch for it in comments?
 

Do These Guys Do Stock Picks?


Redstate's coverage of L'Affair de Sanford:
First, we need to be clear on the facts -- not the media speculation:
  • Sanford did tell his staff and family where he was going.
  • Because he was traveling without a security detail, it was in his best interests that no one knew he was gone.
  • His political enemies -- Republicans at that -- ginned up the media story.
  • When confronted by a pestering media, things went downhill.
  • Again though, at all times there was no doubt that Sanford's staff and family knew where he was.
And my favorite quote from the prior day: 

1. Governor Sanford's Office Checks In With Us

This is only a story because Sanford is standing up to Democrats and erstwhile Republicans

Can I get a heh. indeed?

This Is What the Lack of A First Amendment Looks Like


Imagine if John Carlos had faced this...

Froomkin Fired.


As one of the few remaining paper subscribers, I am stunned.  I'm going to wait for more details than appear to be currently available, but if I can get my wife to sign off on it I will cancel my subscription and take great pleasure in explaining why.  I'm perfectly happy to surf the site for free and if I can avoid that, I will do so.

 He and Marc Fisher were the most honest writers on the washington post web site, and they're now both gone.


Political Advisers Sank Truth Commission


It was bound to happen sooner or later, but it is nonetheless profoundly disappointing.  I am not sure, given the gigantic s**t sandwich this man inherited on 1/20, how to make him aware that (at a minimum) the investigation of torture is a moral imperative.  (Any doubts about the value of this program should be laid to rest by the testimony of so-called "#3", which the Post elected to place on page A2 in exchange for a critical above-the-fold piece about "Wannabe Wrestlers Ready to Rumble.")




Shorter Jonah Goldberg


Dude, affirmative action is wrong, and if it wasn't for legacies and nepotism, I never would have gotten into harvard.

(And how 'bout that title?  "Jonah Goldberg calls for discussion on race."  About as newsworthy as "Jonah Goldberg calls for Twinkie.  Cupcakes flee, fearing repercussions."  

These are the public intellectuals that have shaped ideas for the last eight years, and they are morons.

That's Why The (Gray) Lady. . .


Is a tramp.

Offered Without the Slightest Sense of Irony


I love it when Politico tells jokes, this one regarding Judge Sotomayor's hill visits:

Graham's tough criticism is an important moment in the process because he is considered one of the top Republican legal minds in the Senate.

And my opinion on the 2012 winter olympics is critical because, you know, I am the best slalom skier in the Sudan.


Because a Lack of Empathy is So Attractive


"By and large, I'm going to be picking from schools that basically are the hardest to get into.  They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can't make a sow's ear out of a silk purse.  If they come in the best and the brightest, they're probably going to leave the best and the brightest, OK?"  

Guess the speaker (opining on how to get SCOTUS clerkship to 2d tier law school student).

(answer in comments)

If Car Dealers Are Republicans


According to 538, most car dealers are republicans, and so therefore the closing of GM dealerships is neither discriminatory nor politically retributive.

Why would dealers vote for a party that despises detroit?    

Oh No, It Was Just a Few Bad Apples


Just when you think it can't get any worse....

How's that truth commission coming?

Bad Ideas and Much Ado About Nothing


So now it appears that a lawsuit has been filed regarding prop 8.  Why?  Or, more specifically, why would Ted Olson--the stalwart defender of "original intent"-- attempt to win such a case?  It's pretty simple, really.  If he wins, the conservative cause wins over the long term (no constitutional right to gay marriage plus stare decisis).  If he loses, the conservative cause wins (activist court-base re-energized).  

It's unclear, after Lawrence, what the court would do with Prop 8.  It is clear that at least four votes (Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts) will vote to sustain it.  The question will be, for the state--tactically--can you swing Kennedy?  I doubt it, especially given the strong state interest in defining marriage .  And if you were going to do it, how would you do so?  Indeed, could you even swing Souter and Breyer? 

The chances that this particular Court will vote to affirm prop 8 are excellent, which means that if you are a conservative, the timing of the lawsuit is also excellent. The tide of public opinion is against you.  Were a majority of states to adopt a gay marriage statute, part of the predicate foundation for finding a substantive due process would be laid.  Now, in contrast, gay marriage is a minority position and one that is relatively recently adopted.  Furthermore, if a liberty interest were found in same-sex marriage, the pathway to non-discrimination statutes and case law that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation is fairly straightforward.  That such a statute is both morally and economically desireable is beside the point.  It means that the baptist church can't fire its gay receptionist (which means, of course, that the parish cat will have to defend its honor).  

 I would also note that Sotomayor's nomination makes no difference.  The Republicans know this, and this fight is a warmup.  The only people on TV and in the media are the B-team.  (Pat Buchanan?  Seriously?  Who cares?)  The voting patterns on the big cases will not be changed by Sotomayor's nomination: Boumedine would still be 5-4. Even Stevens' retirement would only preserve the status quo.  The fight will come if--and when--one of the conservatives retires.  That is the point at which the makeup of the court may drastically change.  Barring anything bad coming out at the hearings, the Republicans, except Sessions (R-Rock Ridge), are going to run from this fight.

If I were the right wing, what I would be truly scared of is a former politician, like O'Connor, or Brennan, or Warren, that was nominated.  There is no more important (and less observed) rule in American law than the law is what five people think it is.  A person that knows how to build consensus on such issues is much more of a danger to their vision of judicial hegemony than a predictable liberal vote.

From the Department of the Surreal, cont'd


It is very hard to read the  Yoo post flagged by the mother ship without immediately attacking the messenger's--how should I put it--many grotesque moral failings.   Were that a criteria for criticism, it would be enough to know that he and Bill Kristol think that Sotomayer is a bad pick, and I hope if he ever has an opinion on copper futures he publish it forthwith.


The piece is laughable for this claptrap:
There are no opinions that suggest she would change the direction of constitutional law as have Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, or Robert Bork and Richard Posner on the appeals courts. 

Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia have been miserable failures at moving the court in any direction.  Brennan, Warren, Stevens, and to a lesser degree the late CJ were far, far greater in that they could amass liberal majorities around principles of law.  (One does not endear oneself to colleagues by letting clerks run amok on the other justices in the footnotes and occasionally the text.)  They were ideological outliers who had justices appointed by conservative presidents that changed the direction of the court on civil liberties, state sovereignty and other issues.  (For his part, Scalia has commented that he doesn't believe in politicking for votes on the court).    But seriously--for someone at that level to believe that these people have "reworked" constitutional law is really remarkable, and explains so much about his thought process. 

Krauthammer is Right. Seriously.


It pains me to write that, but his column today is mostly on target.  Obama is, after sounding all the right rhetorical notes, adopting many of Bush's national security policies.  His legal lieutenants are literally debating the idea of preventive detention, whereby a person may be detained indefinitely on the basis of some future bad act.

The fact that this Administration is considerably more enlightened than the last should be of no comfort whatsoever.  The very fact that this power exists--that is even on the table--ensures that it will be abused.  The same is true of torture, and the lack of prosecutions boggles the mind--particularly after listening to Cheney's little trip down the rabbit hole yesterday.  The failure to slam the door on each of these policies makes it that much easier for the next administration to bring them right back up.  

Krauthammer is a monster, and he is gloating today. He should be.  

Wa Po Online Catfight Moves to Print


Krauthammer's skin seems a little thin these days.  He's now called Froomkin out by name on the op-ed page.  Must be fun around the water cooler.

I don't think this is the end of this issue, somehow...

rumpole

user-pic

Following: 2
Followers: 11

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

  • Favorite Quotes You know you’re a peasant when you worship the very people who are right now, this minute, conning you and taking your shit. Matt Taibbi

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address