<$BlogRSDURL$>
WaxWorks
|
Friday, March 02, 2007
 
Bush v. Gore Redux

Simply outrageous. The Supreme Court is at it again:

Supreme Court Gives Gore’s Oscar to Bush
Stunning Reversal for Former Veep

Just days after former Vice President Al Gore received an Academy Award
for his global warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” the United States
Supreme Court handed Mr. Gore a stunning reversal, stripping him of his Oscar
and awarding it to President George W. Bush instead.

For Mr. Gore, who basked in the adulation of his Hollywood audience Sunday
night, the high court’s decision to give his Oscar to President Bush was a cruel
twist of fate, to say the least.

But in a 5-4 decision handed down Tuesday morning, the justices made it
clear that they had taken the unprecedented step of stripping Mr. Gore of his
Oscar because President Bush deserved it more.

“It is true that Al Gore has done a lot of talking about global warming,”
wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority. “But President Bush has
actually helped create global warming.”

In another setback for the former vice president, a group of scientists
meeting in Oslo, Norway today said that Mr. Gore was growing at an unsustainable
rate.

“The polar ice caps may be shrinking, but Al Gore is clearly expanding,”
said Dr. Hiroshi Kyosuke of the University of Tokyo.

The scientists concluded that if Mr. Gore continues to expand at his
current rate, he could cause the earth to spin off its axis by 2010, sending it
hurtling into the sun.

“Here’s an inconvenient truth,” Dr. Kyosuke added. “Al’s got to stay away
from those carbs.”

Elsewhere, after foreigners received a record number of Academy Award
nominations, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs proposed building a 12-foot high fence around
the Kodak Theater.

I heard they also said that, like the original Bush v. Gore, the reasoning only applied to that case, and could not be applied to Marisa Tomei.

|
Thursday, March 01, 2007
 
Could You Spell Your Name for the Court Reporter?

I enjoyed this article about a dog that was being summoned into court as a witness because he supposedly had a degree from the same university as the police chief:

An attorney challenging the authority of the city's police chief wants the
department's police dog to appear in court as an exhibit, because he says the
dog and the chief have criminal justice degrees from the same online school.

The issue gives "one pause, if not paws, for concern" about what it takes
to get the degrees from the school based in the Virgin Islands, Gene Murray
wrote in a court document filed Monday.

Murray is seeking to have a drug charge against a client dismissed by
arguing that police Chief John McGuire - who is accused of lying on his job
application - was not legally employed and had no authority as an
officer...

Murray said asking that the police dog, Rocko, show up in court at an
evidence hearing is a key to discrediting McGuire, who took part in a traffic
stop and search in October that resulted in drug possession charges against
Clifford Green of Fostoria.

Both McGuire and Rocko, who is listed as John I. Rocko on his diploma, are
graduates of Concordia College and University, according to copies of diplomas
that are part of Murray's motion.

The court filing did not say how the attorney knows that diploma is for the
dog or how Rocko allegedly managed to enroll in the college.

"My client had absolutely nothing to do with any animal getting a degree
from an institution of higher learning," said McGuire's attorney, Dean Henry.
"The whole thing is bizarre."

He said the dog was with the department before McGuire began working
there.

He also said that the dog rarely went to class and barely graduated, while his client generally excelled in his studies, although he conceded that his client did not finish near the top of his class in fetching. Overall, he said that his client enjoyed his college experience, particularly when he got to move off campus instead of living in the on-campus kennels.

|
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
 
Too Little, Too Late?

On Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on President Bush's new nominee to be Ambassador to Belgium, Sam Fox, a wealthy St. Louis businessman, and big money contributor in 2004 to the Bush campaign as well as the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth."

Guess who is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and had a few questions for Mr. Fox? That would be John Kerry. Here's a few tidbits of their exchange:

Kerry got his turn to question Fox and started out politely enough,
praising Fox's up-by-the-bootstraps life story and his generosity with
non-political charities, while also asking him about American foreign policy
vis-à-vis the European community.

The tone then changed sharply when Kerry switched gears and, indicating he
had concerns about Fox's judgment, said "I assume that you believe the truth in
public life is important."

"Yes, sir," answered Fox.

"And might I ask you what your opinion is with respect to the state of
American politics, as regards the politics of personal destruction?" said
Kerry.

This started a lengthy monologue from Fox in which Bush's nominee railed
against how campaigns are funded in the United States, saving most of his bile
for 527 groups, saying " I'm against 527s, I've always been against 527s. I
think, again, they're mean and destructive, I think they've hurt a lot of good,
decent people."

I'm sure some people in the hearing room must have been stifling laughs
hearing something like that coming from a man who was a major contributor to the
scummiest 527 group ever, but the worst was to come in the next few
sentences.

"Senator Kerry, I very much respect your dedicated service to this
country," said Fox. "I know that you were not drafted -- you volunteered. You
went to Vietnam. You were wounded. Highly decorated. Senator, you're a hero. And
there isn’t anybody or anything that's going to take that away from you. But yet
527s tried to."

Here's the exchange that followed:

Kerry: I certainly appreciate the comments you just made, Mr. Fox, and I'm
not looking for anyone to call me a hero. I think that most heroes died, and do
die, and those of us who are lucky enough to get out of there are lucky.But
notwithstanding the comments you made, you did see fit to contribute a very
significant amount of money in October to a group called Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth, correct?

Fox: Correct.

Kerry: Why would you do that given what you just said about how bad they
are?

Fox: Well, Senator, I have to put it in the proper context and bear with
me. Marilyn and I have lived the American dream -- there's no question about it.
My father came here with the clothes on his back and the Fox family and the
Woodman family have truly lived the American dream that's been very, very good
to us.I heard someone mention here that we gave to 250 charities. I also went
back and had my staff count in '05 and '06, we've made more than 1,000
contributions. More than 100 of those were political, 900 and some odd were
charitable and to institutions of learning and so forth. A great deal of those
had to do with basic human needs. I think it was Senator Danforth who mentioned
every time he got a letter that had Harbour Group on it, he shuddered because it
was going to cost him money. Marilyn and I both raise a lot of money from a lot
of people.The point I'm making is this: We ask a lot of people for money and
people ask us for money. And very fortunately, we've been blessed with being
successful financially and when we're asked, we generally give -- particularly
if we know who gave it.

Kerry: So, well, who asked you to give to the SBVT?

Fox: I can't tell you specifically who did because, you know, I don’t
remember. As a matter of fact, if I…

Kerry: You have no recollection of why you gave away $50,000?

Fox: I gave away $50,000 because I was asked to.

Kerry: But you have no recollection of who asked you to give away
$50,000?

Fox: No, sir. I've given away sums much larger than that to a lot of other
places and I can't tell you specifically who asked me, no.

Kerry: Well, you don’t think that's it's important as a citizen, who
doesn’t like 527s to know where your money is going and how it’s going to be
spent?

Fox: Well, I think with most contributors and if you go to the other side
of the political campaigns and we give to individual candidates, we don’t know
how they’re going to use that money and what…

Kerry: Well at least it's accountable to an individual candidate for whom
people have to vote or not vote. 527s as you said are mean, ugly and not
accountable.

Fox: I agree with that. I absolutely agree with that.

As the hearing went on, Kerry asked several times why he would give $50,000 to a 527 group if he thinks 527s are so awful. Fox then replied with several variations on the theme of, Well, the other side was doing it, so we had to also. So Kerry continued:

Kerry: Why would you give $50,000 to a group you have no sense of
accountability for?

Fox: Well, because if 527s were banned, then it's banned for both parties.
And so long as they’re not banned…

Kerry: So two wrongs make a right?

Fox: Well, I don’t know, but if one side is contributing then the other
side…

Kerry: But is that your judgment? Is that your judgment that you would
bring to the ambassadorship? That two wrongs make a right?

Fox: No, I didn’t say that two wrongs make a right, sir.

Kerry: Why would you do it then?

Fox: Well, I did it because politically, it's necessary if the other side
is doing it.

Fox continued to play dum,b, as Kerry pressed him further:

Kerry: My question to you is why? When you say you couldn’t have known --
these were people very publicly condemning it. How could you not have
known?

Fox: I guess, Mr. Senator, when I'm asked I just generally give.

Kerry: So, again, I ask you the question, do you think now that you and
others bear responsibility for thinking about where we put money in American
politics? What we're saying, what we present to the American people -- is truth
important or isn’t it?

Fox: Senator, if I had reason to believe and if I were convinced that the
money was going to be used to, in any untruthful or false way, knowingly, I
would not give.

Kerry: Well, sir, let me ask you this question: Did you or did you not in
any of the public comments being made at the time, which I assume you were
following, hear or read of any of the public statements at that point in time,
with respect to the legitimacy of these charges and these smears?

Fox: Mr. Senator, I can say this…

Kerry: Did you miss this: In September of 2004, Vice Admiral Ruth, with the
Navy Inspector General, wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Navy that was
made public -- the New York Times, the Washington Post, every major newspaper in the country carried, saying their examination found that the existing
documentation regarding my medals was legitimate.Did you miss that too?

Fox: I don’t remember those, but I'm certain at the time I must have read
them.


Here's a full rough transcript. And here's some video. However, it would have been nice if Kerry had had this conversation in August, September or October 2004.

|
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
 
Even His Own Campaign Doesn't Believe Him

Romney's flip-flops are starting to get a bit of traction in the media, as this AP story shows. However, he's not being criticized harshly enough for clearly taking political positions SOLELY to please the Republican voters in the primaries that are COMPLETELY opposite to what he previously said were strong beliefs of his. Here's a list of some of the reversals from the AP:

In his two previous campaigns, Romney said that regardless of his own
personal beliefs, abortion should be safe and legal. Now, he describes himself
as pro-life and argues that Roe v. Wade should be replaced with state abortion
regulations.

In his Senate race, he wrote a letter promising a gay Republican group
he would be a stronger advocate for gays and their rights than his liberal
opponent, Edward M. Kennedy. Now he emphasizes his opposition to gay marriage
and civil unions.

Then a registered independent, Romney voted in the 1992 Democratic
presidential primary for Paul Tsongas. Two years later, he said he did so
because he favored the Massachusetts senator's ideas over those of Bill Clinton,
and was sure President George H.W. Bush would be renominated. Now, Romney says he backed the candidate he thought might be the weakest opponent for Bush.

In his first two campaigns, Romney emphasized his support of gun-control
measures. In 1994, he said: "I don't line up with the NRA." Now, he is a
card-carrying National Rifle Association member. He joined the organization in
August.

Romney used to distance himself from President Reagan. Now he casts himself
as a conservative in the mold of Reagan.


Now, his own campaign documents, discovered by the Boston Globe, describe the same concerns about flip-flopping. (Why can't these Republicans hold onto their confidential information? Doesn't bode well for their national security bona-fides).

Here are some views of Mitt Romney causing concern inside his campaign: His
hair looks too perfect, he's not a tough war time leader, and he has earned a
reputation as "Slick Dancing Mitt" or "Flip-Flop Mitt."

Romney and his advisers have identified those perceptions as threats to
his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, according to an
exhaustive internal campaign document obtained by the Globe.


When Democrats like Biden make stupid comments or take ridiculously political positions, they are derided and their political chances are written off. Why shouldn't the same happen with Romney?


Powered by Blogger

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com