Executive power was my concern about Roberts too. Hamdan bothered me a lot.
Randy Barnett is on WGBH discussing the failures of Miers now, though it's in the context of a discussion of the right-wing blogosphere's disgust.
And Richard Viguerie, the demon of right-wing direct mail, is on, and he's pissed.
Wasn't he the guy who said Bush should have nominated Ann Coulter?
I don't think so. He wrote a book recently that got published by Regnery. And he was on NOW with Bill Moyers a couple of times.
Here's a link to that interview which includes links to Viguerie's articles.
I roughly agree with you, ogged. But are kidding me on quoting Kaus on this? If there is a question about pledged loyalties on Meier, particularly as regards being selected President, there was a question about it on Roberts, too (who worked for Bush on the election issue in '00). I don't remember Kaus bitching about that then.
Kaus is such a hack. I almost e-mailed you the precise piece you point to as evidence earlier today.
Aaarrrgh. Must go think of 47 year old balding men and ponies to get to my happy place.
What's with all the political blogging, eh? Plus, Kaus' joke at David Brooks' expense earlier in the day is hilarious. He's a smart, funny writer, albeit somewhat demented.
The thing with Roberts is, he was objectively qualified for the job, so there was that.
What's with all the political blogging, eh?
I have to justify our continued existence on the blogrolls of various lefty sites. (The Brooks stuff made me laugh out loud.)
I like the new serious tone here. It is more becoming. More appropriate.
Not getting enough ip2eac lately, eh?
Less pumping, more crying: ipecac.
Why do I have a feeling "ip2eac" is going to become Kotsko's "fetch"?
And, come on, ip[2]eac is far funnier and more pathetic without the "e".
I came here to commend you for your seriousness -- you're the one who made it so that a second political thread got sidetracked with my stupid little abbreviation. This is on your head, Ogged.
SB -- Yes, that works too. But isn't Ogged a little young yet?
I thought the general rule was: the younger the chump, the fewer the pumps. Anyway, I was mostly inspired by your abbreviation's resemblance to a common means of inducing vomit.
The name of such a means, obviously.
SB, I also thought of ipecac.
And since Ogged has defended my honor in the past, I will defend his manhood by linking to this.
not having seen the movie, I don't understand 22. And 23 reminds me: There was a move afoot to offer new regulars a fruit basket. Apo, would you be willing to supply it?
If I'm considered a new member, then you guys really are as cliquish as they say.
I think Matt meant Becks.
"I like the new serious tone here."
We serious lurkers skip the posts and only read the comments, scrolling to get to the dirty parts.
I had no particular new regular in mind. Cala and Emerson, maybe.
Why does Kotsko replace "regular" with "member"?
I'm going to threadjack by mostly copying an extremely inappropriate comment I left at The Poor Man:
So I sort of agree with [the Editors] about the competence factor–that Miers is the most likely we're going to get to be not a right-wing maniac, and her incompetence won't kill as many people as Brownie, Chertoff, and Perle–I think the Dems need to point out that she is a goddamn crook, and in bed with DeLay and Abramoff. Something like "The Republicans are so corrupt, they want to corrupt even the Supreme Court."
(I also think digby, who gets a hat tip for the second link above, may be right about the dangers of a machine justice. [i.e., what Ogged said].)
I had thought we mostly offered sausage here. The German kind.
26: Anybody who started posting after, I dunno, February 18, 2005--total noobs.
Any measure of newness should be tied to requests for explanations of intra-blog jokes. The more recent the initial joke that needs explaining, the more "new" the regular. If (like Becks, I think) you have never needed a joke explained, then you have never been "new". OTOH, if you constantly need jokes explained, then you are constantly new, no matter when you first came across Unfogged.
I'm more than totally noob; I'm completely noob by chronology. By the joke standard, I keep my head low and don't ask, so I'm only moderately new by that metric.
I
That last sentence was actually directed at me, bg, so you're well ahead of some of us.
I tend to lurk at sites for a couple of months before commenting to get a feel for the place. For a prime example of why this is important, I offer up Hilde.
Still, Ogged and I got off to a bit of a rocky start. How far we've come. Awww...
That last sentence was actually directed at me, bg, so you're well ahead of some of us.
The fact that I missed that, though, is just more proof of my status as a newbie. That, or my ineptitude.
Ditto to 37. Except for me it was Gary.
Can I possibly be the only person who read the title of this post, read the post, read the title again, and thought "what does this have to do with Mohamed Atta?"
teofilo, I wouldn't take that personally.
Disturbing; I have just had a dream in which this website and its commenters/proprietors were featured. Does that mean I have passed over some n00b threshold?
Don't remember too much, except that there was an Unfogged book that got published, and it was funny. Kinda like the Onion books.
"Oh, but it wasn't a dream! It was a place! And you - and you - and you - and you were there. But you couldn't have been, could you?"
OT:
Oh no! the Sox have crushed the Sox! will the Sox be able to turn it around, and give the Sox the trouncing they so richly deserve?
Can't they just compromise and be the Pink Sox? Then everybody's a winner.
Can't they just compromise and be the Pink Sox? Then everybody's a winner.
Not only that, it's an easily effected compromise, because all they'd have to do is put their sox in the same hot water load.
Threadkiller that I am, I'm gonna have to wonder why nobody seems to be asking Republicans the obvious question about all of this executive power they're suddenly so keen on: Do they want Hillary to have it? I mean really, since so many Rs seem to have this weird fantasy that Hillary is going to swoop down in the black helicopters and personally scoop out their brains, do the really want to give the executive the right to hold Americans indefinitely without trial? And if they think no Democrat is ever going to be president again, why are they even bothering with the facade of favoring democracy? Why can't they come out and say they're fascist and proud of it?
Because coming out and saying that might lead to a Democrat being President again, unless you mean literal military coup scenarios.