Boy, the day has really gotten away from me. Here you go:
- U.S.: Agreement on draft resolution for new Iran sanctions (WashPost) — OK, I’m really confused, because the BBC is saying “‘Strong’ new Iran sanctions UN resolution being tabled.” In any case, it’s important…
- Federal Agency Chief Admits Lapses in Gulf Oil Spill (NYT) — Mistakes were made, apparently. But you knew that, right?
- Kabul suicide bomber kills 18 in attack on Nato convoy (BBC) — So you don’t forget there’s a war on.
- Market-Wide Circuit Breakers Could Start June 14 (WSJ) — Probably a good idea, but my favorite WSJ headline was this one: “Germany to Ban Some Naked Short-Selling.” Definitely. Before you sell anything short, put your clothes on.
- Republicans suggest Democrat Spratt losing his memory (AP) — Things getting nasty in the 5th District.
- Political scandals, take your pick (various) — You can pick your Republican scandal or your Democratic scandal. Of course, none of it is anybody’s business here in SC, any more than those votes going on in other states today. It’s only the business of those voters in those states whom they elect. But everybody seems to be talking about it, so I give a nod…
Related Posts
About your confusion Brad, the British use “tabled” completely differently than us Yanks. For them it means to put on the table so it can be considered, whereas we put something on the table to ignore it.
It’s only the business of those voters in those states whom they elect. But everybody seems to be talking about it, so I give a nod…
-Brad
Astoundingly ridiculous. Of course it’s our business. If Kentucky elects a nut we’re ALL stuck with him. We may not be able to vote but it’s certainly our business.
Here’s yet another example of how the anti-partisan partisans bend over backwards to balance a significant GOP scandal with a relatively minor Democratic one. Souder is a crass hypocrite who has done significant damage to a large group of folk (GLBT and others). He’s disgraced himself and brought tremendous pain to his family. His vile behavior is beyond contempt and he deserves all the scorn he has received. Even in resigned he blamed the Washington culture. He’s simply disgusting on many levels.
The democrat, on the other hand, indicated he served in Vietnam. That was not true but he did serve honorably in the Marine reserves for 6 years. He has championed the cause of veterans for years and by all accounts his actions have not been a detriment to any specific group of people. All in all Mr. Blumenthal has acquitted himself well in the area of veterans affairs in spite of his poor choice of words.
What we have is a huge scandal balanced out by a relatively small one. Let me say once again: The GOP is the real threat to America’s prosperity, morality and security, NOT Washington partisanship.
Only through partisan glasses are either of these scandals “significant” or “huge”.
Re #3: Of course everybody knows there’s a war on. More than one, actually. But certainly we are specifically at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan; the fact that we’ve just passed 1000 US deaths there is also a grim reminder.
Just because some of us do not embrace the “War on Terror” sophism with its blank-check-to-wage-perpetual-war-forever-and-ever-anywhere-and-everywhere implications does not by any means imply that we are not aware of the deaths on the battlefield in Afghanistan. On the contrary, they are being felt deeply every day.
And yesterday a prominent Tea Party/Republican conservative with grave doubts about our involvement in Afghanistan, won his Senate primary. This is going to get very interesting, especially if the war hawks in the TP clash with those suspicious of US geopolitical adventurism.
Oh, it doesn’t surprise me at all for a Tea Partier to take that position. I would EXPECT a Tea Partier to want to pull all U.S. troops home from foreign parts and station them on the border with Mexico.
At the same time, I don’t expect consistency from Tea Partiers, either, so they’re probably all over the place. An endearing quality that they share with the UnParty, if nothing else.
This is the genesis of an idea, albeit a risky one. Let’s get the Tea Party candidates nominated as Republicans. If a high enough percentage of them win then we should expect a substantial number of anti-war pragmatists to occupy seats in congress. Even though these folks will likely be wrong on most other issues they can at least help end this overseas adventurism if enough liberals on the Democratic side remain. There are risks but perhaps it’s time to take a second look at the Tea Partiers.
YIKES! Bud just made the “let’s vote for George Wallace” argument!
When we were in college, my wife had a hyperliberal, antiwar sociology professor who advocated that all who thought like him should vote for George Wallace in 1972. His reasoning? Protopaleoconservative Wallace would NEVER get us involved in a foreign war because he was such an an isolationist. And the Democratic Congress would never, ever allow any of his extreme-right, racist domestic positions be translated into law.
It was the first instance I recall being aware of in which isolationists on the left flowed together with isolationists on the right, so far out there that opposite ends of the spectrum curved back around and touched each other…
Of course, we’ve seen that a lot in recent years, with such paleos as Pat Buchanan taking the same positions on foreign involvement as antiwar activists on the left.
I guess there really aren’t any new ideas in politics. That didn’t work in 1972 and probably won’t work now. But one can always dream.