You are currently browsing the daily archive for April 29, 2008.
Can we get back to the issues now?
Addendum: The New York Times says it’s time for McCain to anti up.
It is an injustice, a legacy of the racist threads of this nation’s history, but prominent African-Americans are regularly called upon to explain or repudiate what other black Americans have to say, while white public figures are rarely, if ever, handed that burden.Senator John McCain has continued to embrace a prominent white supporter, Pastor John Hagee, whose bigotry matches that of Mr. Wright. Mr. McCain has not tried hard enough to stop a race-baiting commercial — complete with video of Mr. Wright — that is being run against Mr. Obama in North Carolina.
Granted, Hagee did not marry McCain and his wife, nor did he baptize McCain’s children. So basically, unlike Obama, McCain remains “loyal” purely for politics. What a relief.
Friday, not yesterday as I erroneously reported.
The race is back on. And it looks like one side got a head start. I received the following e-mail last night.
Today has been a very active day in our small little corner of the political world.
As you probably know, Johanna Rodoni has officially requested the governor to “suspend normal protocol” and immediately appoint her has Roger’s successor for the balance of his term.
Additionally, I understand the Supervisor Jill Geist, using Chair’s discretion, has also written the Governor, supporting this request, without the action or approval of the rest of the Board of Supervisors.
I also understand that at least 3 other letters in support of Johanna’s request have been received by the Governor this day. These have been written by Joe Russ IV, Rob Arkley and Archie “Red” Emerson.
It would appear to me that there is a considerable effort being applied to make this appointment happen, and quickly.
While I really don’t have any objections to Johanna being considered to fill Roger’s vacant term, I really feel the decision should be made by the Governor using the standard protocol, which allows for a request for applicants, time for submissions of resumes or CV’s, time to research and consideration, interviews and a final decision. There doesn’t appear to be any overwhelming reason that Humboldt County Board of Supervisors can’t wait a few weeks for an appointment to this vacancy. If the appointment was to happen after the June 3rd election, the will of the people could also be considered.
I urge you to write the Governor, copied to others, asking that:
1. The process not be rushed,
2. That normal protocol be followed and
3. To hear the will of the voters on June 3rd before making a decision.
Should either Clendenen or Fennel win a 50+% margin in June, wouldn’t it make sense to appoint that person to fill the next 8 months, then taking their rightful seat in January, thereby creating continuity on the Board.
Please address your letters to:
Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor of the State of California
State Capital Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Cc: Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
Congressman Mike Thompson
Senator Patricia Wiggins
Assemblymember Patty Berg
Loretta Nickolaus, Humboldt County Administrative Officer
BCC: Bill Thorington, email@example.com
And or call me at 496-4703 if you have any thoughts.
Bill Thoringon, Manager
Clendenen for Supervisor
707-725-4146 Campaign Office
Que sera sera. In the end, it’s just politics. Still, Clif’s campaign will wait until after the memorial to resume phone banking. I have no word on whether Thursday night’s debate is still on.
Here is the TS coverage.
Oddly enough, there’s no coverage from the Eureka Reporter.
Addendum: Whew! The letters attached to the TS article make this thread look like a Bible study!
I thought Reverend Wright did pretty well yesterday, but I just watched this morning’s press conference.
Obama has one chance, and one chance only. And it may be too late. He’s got to shun the man who baptized his children and married him to his wife. Obama will probably lose Indiana and he may very well lose his advantage in North Carolina.
Obama has to announce firmly that Wright is not the man he was drawn to years ago and he has to announce that he has left that church. It’s being reported on CNN that long time friends of Rev. Wright think that he’s gone wacko. That could give Obama a little wiggle room to suggest that Wright has changed, not him. But he has to do it soon, and he can’t couch it in gentle terms. He’s got to make a clean break.
If he doesn’t, he may still win the nomination, but he’ll lose to McCain.
Clinton is running for 2012. I noticed she actually attempted to defend Obama today. But he has to do it himself. He can’t just distance himself and says he disagrees. He’s got to denounce Wright for his performance this morning.
And Wright has pretty much called Obama a liar. I agree with David Gergin that he has to respond with anger. It can’t be an “he and I have intellectual disagreements.” He has to… thrown Wright under the bus.
The liberal/conservative intellectual war in the realm of Constitutional law hinges on the debate between literalism and the “living document.” I’ve already discussed the debate as it deals with the Second Amendment here and here. Of course I side with the living document side, which I view as counterpart to the “progressive revelation” debate vs. fundamentalism in religion.
In listening to the interviews of Justice Anton Scalia over this day I find that he, someone of serious intellectual heavyweight status (for a conservative), perhaps deliberate mushes together the concepts of textualism and “original intent.” The presumption is that the drafters intended for the fundamentalist texualist approach, but that’s a huge matter of dispute. In reading the Ninth Amendment and the explanation for it, you can just as easily conclude that the “living document” approach was in fact the “original intent.” Often we hear from Scalia and other Constitutional conservatives the refrain that “privacy” is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution because it is not specifically enumerated – the product of a philosophy in which rights originate from the state and contrary to the concept of “natural rights” or those “endowed by our Creator.” If it wasn’t listed, it wasn’t contemplated, and therefor is not secured against the state.
I’ll get into th 9th Amendment in another thread. I and Mark Drake did a radio program on the topic a few years back and I think it was one of our better shows.
But Scalia is also an original intent fundamentalist. With regard to the 8th Amendment, his view is that if a punishment was acceptable at the time of the drafters or “Founding Fathers” then it is not prohibited as “cruel and unusual.” The concept froze in time in lock step with the sensibilities of society at that moment. Therefor, publicly displaying criminals in a town square or even a public flogging is acceptable under Constitutional law.
There are certainly inconsistencies. Scalia was perfectly happy to hold that the “Founding Fathers” would have accepted aerial surveillance of private property sans a warrant, when really, they would have run away in terror if they actually saw an airplane. The concept is only allowed so much wiggle room.
But Scalia made a comment today (other than telling people who didn’t like the Gore v. Bush decision and thought it constituted a coup to “get over it”) about torture. He didn’t have to get so far as to suggest that water boarding was acceptable to the drafter contemporaries. You don’t have to get that far. See, when a suspect is being interrogated he is not being punished. If he’s being tortured, he’s not being punished. The aim of the torture is to obtain information, not to punish. Therefor, it is not “cruel and unusual punishment,” and the Constitution does not prohibit “cruel and unusual” investigation.
Basically, you have more rights and more protection.once you have been convicted of the crime. The presumption of innocence actually negates any rights when it comes to torture because then it can’t be interpreted as punishment.
Boggles this bleeding heart libs’ mind. But maybe it makes perfect sense to you. Talk to me about it.