August 31, 2006
Consider the man likely to run the Judiciary Committee, Michigan's John Conyers, from the Congressional class of 1964. He recently made his plans clear in a 370-page report, "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Coverup in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance." The report accuses the Administration of violating no fewer than 26 laws and regulations, and is a road map of Mr. Conyers's explicit intention to investigate grounds for impeaching President Bush.
Ways and Means, the chief economic policy panel, would go to New York's Charlie Rangel (1970), who opposed the Bush tax cuts and recently voted against free trade with tiny Oman. His committee's crucial health care subcommittee would be run by California's Pete Stark (1972), who in 1993 criticized Hillary Clinton's health care proposal because the government wasn't dominant enough. Over at Financial Services, the ascension of Barney Frank (1980) would mean a reprieve for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite $16 billion in accounting scandals. His main reform priority has been to carve out a new affordable housing fund from the two companies' profits. And forget about any major review of Sarbanes-Oxley.
And then there's Alcee Hastings, who, should Ms. Pelosi succeed in pushing aside current ranking Member Jane Harman, would take over the House Intelligence Committee. Before he won his Florida seat in 1992, Mr. Hastings had been a federal judge who was impeached and convicted by a Democratic Congress for lying to beat a bribery rap. He would handle America's most vital national secrets.
I have nothing useful to add to this except ugh.
August 30, 2006
It looks like we have a winner: Ted Stevens(R-AK), come on down! You're the final contestant on Who's a Whiny, Obnoxious, Petulant, Self-Important Senatorial Prick.
Actually, Senator Stevens has provided an invaluable service for me: I had promised to blog frequently pigs, if for no other reason than to aggravate the many jihadists who keep hacking Aaron's site. And I have to admit that I had fallen down on the job. Congratulations, Ted. You've just reminded me that the biggest oinkers feed at the federal trough.
Oh no, did I post this within 60 days on an election? No? Then I guess that I'll have to repost it on or after September 8 of this year.
I'd like to point out that I don't actually enjoy blogging about politics(and others do it much better). I started out blogging about the things that interested/entertained me: brewing beer, old(bad) jokes, technology/computer issues. But I will be damned if I let such a blatently unconstitutional law prevent me from blogging about whatever I feel like. Starting September 8, almost every post on this site will involve politics. I will post free political ads to whomever asks me(I'm not kidding myself- almost no one knows that this site exists); I will post commentary on the views/votes of politicians; and I will mercilessly mock those running for office. Will these activities run me afoul of McCain-Feingold? Good. I'll bet that I won't be the only one.
August 11, 2006
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Heres my promise: If a conservative organization wants to run a political ad criticizing any Congressman up for re-election during that 60-day window, Ill let them run one on this website, for free, right up until Election Day.
And if Congress or for that matter law enforcement think that Im going to refrain from criticizing an elected or wannabe-elected official, ever, theyre sadly mistaken.
Sounds good to me. Anyone want to put a political ad on my blog free of charge? Not surprisingly, Misha is on board as well.
My blog will change in response to FEC rules. No more quizzes, no more book or movie memes. All political advocacy all the time.
Update: Dean sports the blue version of the image above, which is entirely appropriate. This is an area where the left and the right have the same goal in mind: free speech unregulated by Congress, just as the Constitution demands.
89 queries taking 0.3021 seconds, 215 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.