I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Don't hold your breath...
(Democratic) apples and (Republican oranges)...
Hooray, we are back to annoy George Will week.
Remember posters, now is the time to nominate your choices for Media Whore of the Year. Does Will have this thing sewn up? Or are there others who are more deserving? Send your nominations to the Horse at:
mwo@mediawhoresonline.com
Should Novak be nominated for media whore of the year? Or should there be a separate traitor catagory? be sure to tell the Horse what you think.
IOKIYAR!!!
It's
O
K
IF
You're
A
Republican.
56K, what has happened to the Horse? I miss him for my daily reading. Is he doing the MW of the year? Nothing on the website.....
but 9/11 changed everything, remember?
As I understand it the Horse is on extended leave and will be back after the New Year. As far as I know the email address is good and I assume the Horse will carefully consider any nominations posters send.
In the mean time I just stumbled across another we-hate-the-press site. Makes the Horse look soft spoken by comparison, but judge for yourself:
http://www.theassassinatedpress.....com/
index.html
To paraphrase Mr. Will herself: "That's his business. Got it."
Once he cashes those checks, he'll have some time to go back and rethink that thought. Like Adam says: IOKIYAR
IOKIYAR!!!
Not only is this true, but the Republicans themselves are proud of this fact. In fact, they are trying to embrace this as progressive thinking on their part. Want proof?
ARE REPUBLICANS THE PARTY OF BIG GOVERNMENT?
Mr. Barnes argues that what distinguishes a “big government” conservative from other conservatives is the willingness to use “what would normally be seen as liberal means – activist government – for conservative ends.” He describes “big government conservatism” essentially as a trade-off. A “big government” conservative, according to this view, is willing to increase spending in exchange for free-market solutions and individual choice.
It's not enough for them to just be assholes anymore. Now they want to brag about it, make a record of and display their idiocy to the world, and adopt oxymoronic stupidity as official doctrine.
Apples and Oranges
To be fair to Will -- oh how this pains me and please God let me somehow be wrong! -- his objections here were to the naming of "acting" officials to fill slots, not to the use of recess appointments. Clinton then let those acting officials serve past the statutory limit of 120 days without submitting the appointees to Senate oversight. Thus Byrd's dudgeon and Will's pounce.
More at "Acting" appointments outrage lawmakers.
With apologies to Kos and any here at Eschaton similarly afflicted -- George Will richly deserves his Cubdom. Now I feel better.
O/T: there need to be pundit pundits on television. IE blog-tv. The GORE-NN should hire Atroios to do daily recap segments like the top-10 count down fox crap news shows. But instead of recapping stupid repug talking points, review pundit lies-of-the-day. Include flashy graphics. It would be great. The public loves it when liers are called out!
Expecting consistency or honesty from George Will is like expecting a bowl of soup to drive you home.
excuse me, but is anyone surprised?
and who the fuck did george install?!?
Isn't there an error in that story? It says the appointments are valid until Jan 2005, when the next congress is in session. But isn't the next congress in session in Jan 2004, right after the break?
Charles - the next congress is not elected until next November. In January will be the next session, but of the same congress.
Clear as mud?
Ben-so what's the difference between a class and a session, or is class a Senate thing? (snappily stupid answer, no, but class certainly isn't a Will thing)
I am not an expert, but I play one at Eschaton. 
A session is each time they convene/re-convene. Sometimes there are "special" sessions that last only a few days, or a couple weeks.
A congress/class is every two years - new one starts at each election.
Did Will ever return those Carter debate notes?
Little things like the Constitution and equitable rules of law don't apply to Republicans. Jeeeez, get over it already.
Besides, Will's 1998 article is an obvious example of youthful indescretion.
So I'm completely naked in my hotel room sprawled across the unmade bed, when the maid bursts in.
Finally.
Hey, home team, someone ought to pick up the Acting vs. Recess baton and explain how I'm mistaken. Finally.
There seems to be so serious an error in Atrios's post that his point is obviated.
Flit
I understand the difference between "acting" and "recess", but Im not convinced that the difference would have applied to what Mr. Will wrote. If Clinton had used "recess" appointments, Mr. Will would have made the same complaint about the desire to circumvent the regular nomination process, IMHO.
I'd love it if Atrios was a pundit who got to debate George Will.
If Clinton had used "recess" appointments, Mr. Will would have made the same complaint
I don't doubt it, Killer. But here at least Byrd and Will are using an entirely different stick to smack Clinton about.
That difference is important enough, it seems to me, to neuter your otherwise sensible objection. And the default demurral of both Atrios this board's posters -- IOKIYAR -- doesn't measure up.
Will was criticizing both, with extra criticisms for the pecularities of the Lee appointment.
Flitcraft - What George Will wrote was pertaining to recess appointments in general. It is not the same point which Senator Thompson is complaining about.
Apparently, George Will did not have the foresight in 1998 to realize that indiscriminate partisanship easily leads one to be hoist by their own petard.
Will's advocacy of the separation of powers extends solely to the separation of power from Democrats.
Get it?
Just a quick reminder that Dean is supposed to be on Letterman tonight.
i think george will should retire to spend more time with his family. either that or he should retire to spend more time with his other family.
More-or-less-OT, but someone a few threads back was asking about a journalists' code of ethics, and I actually found one, from the Society of Professional Journalists...
The SPJ should be very, very angry that so many of their members are breaking their code of ethics on a daily basis...
Help Iranian Earthquake Victims:
https://www.redcross.org/donate/d...nation-
form.asp
Choose "International Response Fund"
Thanks!
Kaffir
Something to check out:
http://www.mediacarta.org/
From the site:
We, the undersigned, are troubled by the way information flows and the way meaning is produced in our society.
WE HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE in what we are seeing, hearing and reading: too much infotainment and not enough news; too many outlets telling the same stories; too much commercialism and too much hype. Every day, this commercial information system distorts our view of the world.
WE HAVE LOST FAITH in the institutions of the mass media. A handful of corporations now control more than half the information networks around the world. At a time when people worldwide face hunger, social disruption, war and ecological collapse, only those who know how to walk the walk, talk the talk or pay big bucks are getting their message across.
WE HAVE LOST HOPE that our national media regulators will act in the public interest. Essential rules limiting media ownership and concentration are being scrapped, while rules protecting local content and access are diluted.
WE HAVE LOST PATIENCE waiting for reform.
WE IMAGINE A DIFFERENT SYSTEM – a media democracy. We see great promise in the open communications of the internet and want that openness expanded into every form of media. We envision a global system of communications that has as its foundation the direct, democratic participation of citizens. To this end, we demand the timely transfer of key media sources back to the people.
As a start, we demand the right to buy radio and television airtime under the same rules and conditions as advertising agencies. We ask our media regulators to set aside two minutes of every broadcast hour for citizen-produced messages. We want the six largest media corporations in the world broken up into smaller units.
What we ultimately seek is a new human right for our information age, one that empowers freedom of speech with the right to access the media. This new human right is: The Right to Communicate.
WE HEREBY LAUNCH A MOVEMENT to enshrine The Right to Communicate in the constitutions of all free nations, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
That's fine, Atrios. But you elide the discussion of recess appointments made under Article II with an equally long discussion of acting appointments made under the Vacancies Act, something entirely different:
of the 320 positions in Cabinet-level departments that are subject to Senate confirmation, 59 (18 percent) are currently being filled in violation of the Vacancies Act.
These were not recess appointments, as are today's Bush appointments; nor do Will and Byrd make that implication. And one could hold quite different opinions regarding appointments made under the two different provisions, regardless of whether Will does or not.
By all means, make your argument, but note that the object of Will's examination has changed.
Clark Kent Ervin, now Inspector General of DHS, is an ally of Tom DeLay; as acting Inspector General he helped stonewall the investigation of how DHS resources were illegally used to track the Texas Killer D's before recusing himself after a few days.
See Josh Marshall:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com...ves/
001198.html
http://
www.talkingpointsmemo.com...2003_05_11.html
(BTW, if I understand the argument correctly, the fact that Ervin was already acting IG means that Flitcraft is busted.)
Matt--
1. Did he serve more than 120 days without his nomination being submitted to the Senate?
2. How, in any case, do months-old TPM entries resolve whether Atrios's post is misleading or not?
To be honest, I see no reason why you shouldn't just ignore my first question except, perhaps, politeness.
What Clinton did with Lee was indeed different, but, as already pointed out quite clearly, George Will touched on BOTH the Vacancies Act and Article II vis a vis recess appointments. Take your choice - George Will was whining about both.
Either way, it's mostly partisan whining.
In other words, this issue is just as murky as every other issue these days.
Oh fuck!! I didn't know George Will was in Ken Burns' Civil War!! GAH!! I just bought the DVD's for myself!!
Oh well, Shelby Foote more than makes up for his sorry ass. Shelby Foote rocks!
No, technicaly, that was Sen. Byrd in Ken Burn's Civil War!
It says on the box under "Bonus DVD Features" that there are additional interviews with Burns, Foote, Will, and Stanley Crouch". Hehe
*plugs Foote's books* Very well written. History should be written like this all the time.
Adam,
OT, but Shelby Foote does indeed rock. A very fine writer and historian - an unlikely combination these days - who approaches the Civil War as a student and seeker, rather than looking for a way to refight it. In addition to his many other works, he has a three-volume set called "A Narrative" that's a must-have for any serious student of the Civil War.
Plus, he's a very smart, sharp public speaker. One of the few "Southern Gentlemen" worth the phrase.
as already pointed out quite clearly, George Will touched on BOTH
Pointed out quite clearly everywhere but in the post at issue, you must mean. Because the entry gives no indication that there's even a "BOTH" involved, just a one.
And Will's concluding call-to-arms concerns, well, the other one.
my feet are cold
Pointed out quite clearly everywhere but in the post at issue, you must mean.
Incorrect.
On Dec. 5 Byrd wrote to the president, arguing that a recess appointment of Lee would be an abuse of the constitutional provision permitting such appointments. (Article II, Section 2, Clause 3: "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.")
Flitcraft - it sounds like you just want to be contrary.
I agree with your "concluding call-to-arms" statement. I also agree that what Clinton did was more worthy of criticism.
That being said, it still does not explain why George Will felt the need to invoke both Article II and the Vacancies Act. Clearly he overreached where he had not need to do so. Will could have made his point simply by arguing in support of the Vacancies Act (as you and Senator Fred Thompson did).
So this tells me that these people do read the constitution. Here all this time i thought they probably never have read it. the dol. they just use what they like and forget about the rest.
da lurker,
Well, they run with the same crowd that selectively reads the Bible, so you're surprised?
I refuse to feed lurkers but I enjoy unapologetic debate as has been provided here by Flitcraft. A distinction without a difference? Yes and No.
in belated response to sadfsaf's desire for a pundit-watch TV show on Gore-NN: How about a Mystery Science Theater 3000-style show, where a few silhouetted characters make snarky comments over the crap espoused by mainstream pundits?
And everyone once in a while -- e.g., if Ann Coulter is talking about commie Democrats are making it hard to find meat these days -- the characters' heads could just explode or do other cool graphic tricks 
A “big government” conservative, according to this view, is willing to increase spending in exchange for free-market solutions and individual choice.
But, of course, the Republicans are opposed to individual choice when it comes to sex (homosexuality, birth control, etc.), drugs (recreational or Canadian), criticizing the President, and, oh, just about everything else.
And they're opposed to free-market solutions when they conflict with giving stuff away to their cronies (vis. the no-bid contract for Haliburton).
So, basically, the "big-government conservative" line is just another load of lies.
Rumsfeld backed Saddam even after chemical attacks
The formerly secret documents reveal the Defense Secretary travelled to Baghdad 20 years ago to assure Iraq that America's condemnation of its use of chemical weapons was made "strictly" in principle.
Can we send Rummy to the Hague yet?
OXYMORON ALERT: George Will consistency
Tongass travesty--underreported in the mainstream press--shouldn't be here. The bushies hid this by announcing on new year's eve. NYTimes editorial below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/2...ion/
27SAT1.html
and then there is the Stevens money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/2...ion/
27SAT2.html
The a-holes in Washington are still getting away with robbing the nation blind--good to remind everyone once in a while.
Thanks for the link John. I've been suffering from outrage fatigue for several years now. This is just more par for the course. I just don't understand why it's so hard fighting to protect these rare and important areas. I'm helpless to do anything about it. I guess I could send another letter or email to my congress person. For all the good that will do. Recently, there was a 'letter to the editor' locally by a winger which advocated scrapping the Endangered Species Act letting species go extinct if they couldn't survive with "development."
George Will was born a constipated prevaricator. He looks so tightly wound that he eeks out each lie with a grimace and a leg twitch.
He must be something to see when confronted with his marital infidelities. He probably looks and sounds like a humming vibrator with a sardonic smile that flicks on and off incessently!
My theory of history (for what it's worth) is that the greediest, most aggressive, least scrupulous people usually make it to the top of the power chain in government, business or social gatherings.
I submit Bushboy, Murdoch and George Will as irrefutable evidence of my thesis.
(Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin also prove the point).
Rudy, garbage floats to the top like turds.
"Rudy, garbage floats to the top like turds.
Nemo "
I guess that's why it's so important for democracy to work. But our democracy isn't working.
Coming up on CNN this morning: "Bush basking in new poll numbers after a challenging year."
Thankfully, I have the Food Network. There's a pretentious French chef on right now. Coming up on the Food Network: Paula's Home Cooking.
A pretentious male French chef and a dopey female American blond. Can the wingers politicize that?
MOO!
(Lost in xlation: No damn wonder the Empty Flight Suit didn't have time for another Two Hour Turkey Trot in Baghdad for Xmas!)
Like the new pop ups.
http://www.popupcop.com/
Atrios,
Are you the Angry White Boy for the Master Angry White Man Dean?
Trav
Should Novak be nominated for media whore of the year? Or should there be a separate traitor catagory? be sure to tell the Horse what you think.
how bout the dobber of the year?
Trav are you the dipshit who's not givin' me money?
George Will can't talk when his mouth is loaded with Republican spooge.
Ah, the good old days, when Will was a big fan of advise and consent.>>
That was then, this is now.
It's true, Chauncey Gardener is President!!!
Why can't every week be annoy George F. Will Week?
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
