• Supreme Court Watch

    Shakespeare's Sister has an excellent pair of posts running down the records potential candidates for the Supreme Court. You should read them ( 1 , 2 ). I'd love to hear Jeralyn's take on these folks as well. While on the subject, you should read Mark Schmitt's post on the "Constitution-in-exile" crowd, and what their goals are. This graf particularly jumped out at me: I hope that when the next Supreme Court nomination finally occurs, the debate will not focus almost exclusively on the Court's position on social issues such as Roe, Griswold, gay marriage and sodomy, affirmative action, etc. The economic role of the federal government is now deeply in question, and the Constitution in Exile judges, just like the Social Security privatizers, want to roll back the clock a lot futher than 1973 or 1961. I can guarantee you that the Republicans don't hold out the same desire. Fighting over dead fetuses and homos kissing is much easier for them than battles over Social Security and...
  • Girls With Keyboards

    I wasn't planning to step into Kevin's not-enough-women-in-the-blogs fluff , having been on the receiving end of it a few times myself. But Avedon Carol dropped me into the fray, and I'll use her mention as an excuse to post some thoughts: • First, on Avedon's point that I got linked on TAPPED despite being a new blog while some excellent women bloggers did not, I don't think that's fair. The situation was more akin to updating an address book. I've been blogging for about three years and been on their blogroll for the better part of the last, so it's not as if I emerged out of nowhere, proved I had a penis, and was admitted to the list o' links. • This argument follows a very similar pattern each time it surfaces. Guy wonders why there aren't more female political bloggers, girl(s) list 500 female political bloggers and wonder why he's not aware of them all, guy lamely protests that that wasn't his point, guy eventually gives up and cheers when post drops off the page. As I said, I'...
  • Maybe I'll Send Flowers

    If you had sat me down six months ago and told me the Democrats were going to not only outmaneuver, but out- organize the Republicans on Social Security, I would have called you a CIA plant. If you did it today, I'd call you the Washington Post : Administration and congressional officials said many Republican members remain afraid of taking on Social Security, and many fewer than the party had hoped are holding Social Security events this week. Republican officials said at least 70 of the party's House members are holding town hall meetings this week, not all of them devoted specifically to Social Security, while House Democrats said they will hold more than 90 Social Security events this week. In other news, my altar to Reid and Pelosi is coming along nicely.
  • How Can We Not?

    Congressman Hinchey really cut through Woodruff's crap on this one. How dare he voice an opinion at a Town Hall? How dare he not! Go read the transcript to hear a Democrat unapologetic about believing in the actual Bush administration, rather than the fantasy one of good government bureaucrats that seems to exist in the minds of so many. It's strange to have gotten to the point where believing the worst is the only reality-based option left...
  • Blunt v. Crowley

    Congressman Roy Blunt gets offended by a Michael Crowley article. Congressman Roy Blunt writes in to The New Republic. Michael Crowley is given a chance to respond. Michael Crowley eviscerates Roy Blunt. You laugh at the hapless congressman before feeling bad that this guy is helping to run the country. C'mon -- you know you want to read the whole thing .
  • The UN and its Critics

    Praktike's criticisms of the UN are on point, I think, but downplay the obstacles to fixing it. Because, as is, the neocons don't hate the UN because there's an inequitable distribution of power, but because there in fact is a distribution of power. Since the only logical ways to reform the UN are up, and by up I mean adding to the Security Council, giving the resolutions more teeth, making it possible to override vetos, and so forth, they'll only worsens the multilateral heartburn of the hawks. I'm not really sure how you fix that, but it seems to me that the UN will remain their bete noire no matter what reforms are instituted, and the neocons just have to be considered marginal so far as critiquing the institution goes. Otherwise it's like an intervention where the alcoholic's worst enemy is invited and he continually presses for even more drinking and, if possible, suicide. You just can't listen to that guy.
  • Blogroll Update and Liberal Philosophers

    Finally put up a long-overdue permalink to the excellent Shakespeare's Sister . Helpful readers are encouraged to head over to her site and apologize for my tardiness. Also, you guys should read Tomasky's piece on progressivism's estrangement from philosophy. One thing I think he omits is that, in addition to talking strategy, we talk a lot of policy, and we generally mistake the latter for philosophy. I think that has something to do with empiricism becoming a stealth philosophy for liberals, but that's a side issue. More to the point, I've already sent in my critique and suggestions for The Prospect's magazine, so I'll put this one here. Tomasky is completely correct that liberals don't have a strong grasp of their own ancestry. He's also one of the few people in the country able to do something about it. I'd love for his magazine to feature a monthly history lesson, zooming in on an important progressive person or event. By the time I became conscious of politics, the Clinton years...
  • Rule #1: Don't Piss Off The Old Folks

    Well Sam certainly hit that nail on the head. The question, though, is whether or not setting some weird front group like USA Next in opposition to AARP is really such a smart idea. AARP's spokespeople certainly won't be alone in news articles, but whether or not anyone actually cares about the pull quotes from both sides is open to dispute. Moreover, they never got articles all to themselves, a CATO-flack or heritage "expert" always contradicted AARP's take, so I'm unconvinced that this play for media equivalency does the right any good. More to the point, G.W. had a good thing going in mending fences with AARP. There's no doubt that Medicare would've failed without their backing, and, even if it had miraculously passed without AARP's, there would've been no cover when AARP decided to turn out its members against the scoundrels who wrecked their system. But even though AARp lined up against Medicare, if you can't be friends, you can at least be enemies only temporarily. Siccing USA...
  • The Amazing Self-Sustaining Argument

    Justin Logan writes : What I wonder, though, is what it would take for hawks to admit they were wrong. Say, for example, a dirty bomb is set off in Chicago. Say several hundred people die in the melee, there's billions in economic damage, and intrusive new government powers are enacted. Say that we trace back the attackers to Iraq. They emerged in the aftermath of the invasion, learned the ways of urban counterinsurgency, and melded together into a group that wanted to hit the U.S. where it hurts most. They were mobilized by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and then they organized, recruited, and trained in its aftermath. It's crystal clear that they emerged as a direct result of our policy in that country. Would the hawks have to say, "Jesus, I really called that one wrong..." Of course not. It would just be a sign that the more dovish of us don't understand how insidious the enemy is, and how much we need to take the fight to the enemy before he takes it to us. You can amplify any of the...
  • Fafblog Gets It Right

    This is easily the best eulogy I've seen for Hunter S. Thompson.