Have The People MUTED The Political Music?
It must be the political season in Washington. I know, stupid comment as it is always the political season. Whatever happened to the governing season?
Robert Novak reported on the Joe Wilson debacle that has caused the Progressives to go crazy.
Mr. Novak writes (via Real Clear Politics) – CIA Politics
That contradiction concerned Toensing, a former Senate staffer who helped draft the 1982 Intelligence Identities Act. At the hearing, Waxman menacingly challenged Toensing’s sworn testimony that Mrs. Wilson was not “covert” under the act. Accordingly, she asked Hayden to inform Waxman “you never approved of his using the term ‘covert.’”
The confusion deepened when I obtained Waxman’s talking points for the hearing. The draft typed after the Hayden-Waxman conversation said, “Ms. Wilson had a career as an undercover agent of the CIA.” This was crossed out, the hand-printed change saying she “was a covert employee of the CIA.”
Who had made this questionable but important change? Hayden told me Tuesday that the talking points were edited by a CIA lawyer after conferring with Waxman’s staff. “I am completely comfortable with that,” the general assured me. He added he now sees no difference between “covert” and “undercover” — an astounding statement, considering that the criminal statute refers only to “covert” employees. [Emphasis Added]
Since Waxman likes investigations I wonder if he would demand an investigation into how his talking points got changed? See New West Notes, below.
Like the abortion discussion, apparently Congress does not want to revisit its Kyoto vote.
George Will writes (via Real Clear Politics) – Fuzzy Climate Math
For example, Democrats could demand that the president send the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate so they can embrace it. In 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 in opposition to any agreement which would, like the protocol, require significant reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions in America and some other developed nations but would involve no “specific scheduled commitments” for 129 “developing” countries, including the second, fourth, 10th, 11th, 13th and 15th largest economies (China, India, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico and Indonesia). Forty-two of the senators serving in 1997 are gone. Let’s find out if the new senators disagree with the 1997 vote.
[snip]
We are urged to “think globally and act locally,” as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has done with proposals to reduce California’s carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent by 2020. If California improbably achieves this, at a cost not yet computed, it will have reduced global greenhouse-gas emissions 0.3 percent. The question is:
Suppose the costs over a decade of trying to achieve a local goal are significant. And suppose the positive impact on the globe’s temperature is insignificant — and much less than, say, the negative impact of one year’s increase in the number of vehicles in one country (e.g., India). If so, are people who recommend such things thinking globally but not clearly?
Is there any governing going on in Washington? Can anyone speak the truth once they drink the water at the Congressional dispenser?
The New York Post writes about – THE DURHAM TRAVESTY
It’s about time. North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper yesterday dropped all charges against three for mer Duke lacrosse players accused of raping a stripper at an off-campus party – putting an end to one of the worst cases of legal railroading ever.
And Cooper didn’t simply announce that there was insufficient evidence to make a provable case against the young men. Instead, he fully exonerated them – declaring, “We believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges” and that, in fact, “no attack occurred.”
No word yet about what the university will do to the 80 or so uber-elites that condemned these young men without benefit of the Constitution. Will there be an Imus style apology? Don’t hold your greenhouse producing breath.
Next we have Bill Bradley’s New West Notes – ** NEW WHITE HOUSE CONTROVERSY: MISSING E-MAILS
A scream from the left about the firing of US Attorneys. Conspiracy, he yelled loudly yet we have yet to read the promised revealing of inside information about Rob Reiner and his use of California tax money.
Last, we have from The Moderate Voice – The Boys Who Cried Voter Fraud
The beauty of The Moderate Voice is that you get a variety of views on the subject of the day. This one clearly demonstrates that Progressives shouldn’t act like they are Moderates
The use of formally neutral voter suppression tactics was a key element in maintaining White supremacy, and it is this legacy that drives the drafting of their contemporary cousins.
The statement fails to follow the post as the writer’s history is just a big bit skewed (revisionist). No facts. No supporting theory. Reads like a classroom essay question response. What do you think, Professor?
To America’s elite. Do you really wonder why the great unwashed have turned off the political music? Or is this what you really intended them to do in the first place?
If you bothered to follow the links (almost all of my TMV posts are brief pointers to a more fleshed out version at The Debate Link–the full post is here), you’d see that I indeed supported the claim with both primary (the 1935 Barbour article from the Mississippi Law Journal) and secondary (Michael J. Klarman’s [Professor at UVA] authoritative book) historical sources. I also noted contemporary findings by voting rights expert Spencer Overton (George Washington Univ.) regarding the 1000:1 legitimate vote/fraudlent vote deterred ration for voter ID laws, and the fact that Indiana managed to justify its voter ID laws on anti-fraud grounds despite never having a prosecuted case of voter fraud in the century the law’s been in existence.
So whatever “just a big skewed (revisionist)” is (besides atrocious grammar), my post ain’t.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:05 amI followed the links and the summary didn’t fit. The disenfranchisement debate is something we can talk about once both sides are willing to define the term. The first step in honest elections is a true database of eligible voters and a verifiable method to assure only eligible voters cast ballots.
Both sides of the political spectrum cry foul except in this last election. That gives credence to the idea that this is simply a political game. The problem is that elections are still very close and it doesn’t take a statitically large disenfranchisement/fraud to cause damage (see 2000 when all of the Florida polls were not closed yet the MSM called the state). A little disenfrancisement here, a little fraud there? It is a system problem.
What is going on with the voter ID laws is not the same as the referenced white suppression of the vote in the South and that is what I got from your post. You can disagree with voter ID laws but you can’t compare them to the historical bad deeds of the South. That is skewed history. All eligible voters should be encouraged to register and VOTE. No TAX. No TEST. Yet we must verify then trust. Trust and no verification is not acceptable.
There is more to this debate than the restrictions that you would like to put on it.
Thanks for the spell check…
April 12th, 2007 at 3:21 pm