Thursday, June 28, 2007


that I don't think she makes outrageous statements in her quest for book sales. Still, at least Ms. Coulter, brings arguments to bear that get lost, however bracingly she addresses them.

[Edit hat tip: Stephanie.]


You may want to reconsider that quote in context...think Bill Maher.

Ann at it again

Well Scooter, your girl is in the news again. Just when she is out of the limelight, she pops up somewhere and says something that at best is controversial - at worst, sick. The argument one hears is that she is just doing what liberals do. To me, the difference is that she is billed as a “political pundit”. It’s one thing for a comedian or celebrity to make bad jokes or comments (Letterman, O’Donnell, Maher), it is another for a “political pundit” to say…

“if I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

Maybe I’ve missed it, but I don’t think I’ve heard or read where James Carville or Paul Begala has said they wished John McCain or Rudy Giuliani had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.

I listened to the exchange between Ann and Elizabeth Edwards. I don’t care for John Edwards and other than his wife having cancer, I don’t know much about her. But I thought she was polite, respectful and not out of bounds asking for the personal attacks to stop. Ann said a couple of times…”are you asking me to stop writing columns, are you asking me to stop writing…’ No, she wasn’t asking her to stop. Just stop with the personal attacks. I do think Ann was blindsided by the call, which seemed a bit unfair, but that wasn’t Elizabeth Edwards fault – that was Hardball’s.

I’m interested in you thoughts/comments…as well as Michael’s, if he is still with us.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Byron York Channels Scooter

At the Corner today:

Then I read Bob Shrum's book, No Excuses, in which he writes this:

Kerry talked with several potential [vice presidential] picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else -- that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before -- and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.

Previously posted by yours truly here.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Re: A civics lesson from the White House

It's a ridiculous argument...Cheney's, not yours. If the DMN is the only place you've seen it, you haven't been looking at enough conservative websites. It's all part of his grand plan to reestablish to the Executive the powers lost by Nixon.

A civics lesson from the White House

So I’ve been following the latest “fight” between the WH and the Congress over national security information oversight. I’m really surprised that this hasn’t had more “traction” (using a news term) in the news cycle (using another news term). I will tip my hat to the VP’s office and the WH lawyers – they are using very creative reasoning to somehow maintain that since the VP has duties and responsibilities in both the executive and legislative branches of government, he is exempt from the rules that apply to both, of course only when it suits him. Remember the Energy Task Force? When the VP was asked to disclose the members of this group, he refused, citing executive privilege. When asked to provide information regarding national security matters, the VP refuses, saying his office is part of the legislative branch and therefore, doesn’t have to comply with an executive order signed by President Bush in 2003. What is interesting about this position is that for 2 years, his office DID comply to this EO, but now, nope….not gonna do it.

Now I will admit the ongoing tussle between the VP and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has made the DMN for the past several days, along with numerous on-line news sites. However, this little nugget was in the DMN on Saturday and I haven’t seen this mentioned anywhere else:

White House: Bush's office exempt from order

WASHINGTON – The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick
Cheney's office, President Bush's office is exempt from a presidential order
requiring government agencies that handle classified national security
information to submit to oversight by an independent federal watchdog. The
executive order that Mr. Bush issued in March 2003 covers all government
agencies that are part of the executive branch and, although it doesn't
specifically say so, was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or
the president's office, a White House spokesman said.

If I’m reading this correctly, now the President isn’t part of the executive branch either. Or if so, the EO doesn’t apply to him or his office as well. I am very, very confused. Exactly who is part of the executive branch anymore? All throughout my schooling, I was told, I think, that the President and VP WERE the executive branch. Now we’re being told that they are not. Who can clear this up for me?? For help, I decided to check out the WH press office – surely they know and can explain it to the rest of us:

WH press briefing via YouTube