Bloticsblog's Journal

08/13/2007 14:54 #40514

The Redemption of John Edwards
Category: politics

In 2004, I rooted for a John Edwards victory in the Democratic primaries. I wanted the senator from North Carolina to take his populist-themed message against George W. Bush and his wealthiest 1%.

Disappointment over his primary losses to John Kerry turned to hope when Edwards was added to the ticket as the candidate for vice president. The best of both worlds, perhaps, with the experienced New Englander teaming up with the young, ultra-smooth Southerner poised to take on the Republican machinery.

John Edwards, I believed, would add a great deal to the ticket, particularly because he drew such a striking distinction with Vice President Dick Cheney. I hoped that Edwards would expose Cheney as the driving force behind the rampant malevolence of 2000-2004. The charming, Southern gentleman versus the grumpy, old-boys network crony: how could Edwards lose?

That feeling began to dissipate, however, on October 5, 2004....

For the rest of the story, please visit us at:

paul - 08/13/07 20:49
I would be more than happy to help you move your 8 journals from :::link::: to estrip.org

If you want your journal displayed alone as well, this is possible the estrip api as you can see with my journal :::link:::

A new version of the API should also be coming out shortly.

james - 08/13/07 20:21
I have to agree with libertad.

Unless you are Paul Harvey, in which case please go on with the rest of the story.

libertad - 08/13/07 16:52
I think you should just put everything you want to say here rather than continuing to ask us to visit your own blog on another site if we want to know "the rest of the story". If you want to advertise your own blog you can put it under the favorite links section. Otherwise you are just going to look like you are spamming us as someone once pointed out to someone previously.

08/08/2007 17:06 #40446

Gonzalez' Dishonesty Hiding Others' Corr
Category: politics

The latest issue of TIME Magazine includes an interesting article focusing on George Bush's refusal to rid his cabinet of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Titled "Why Bush Won't Axe Gonzalez," author Christopher Morris lays out four reasons the embattled leader of the Department of Justice remains in office.

I find reason #3 most intriguing:
"If Gonzales goes, the White House fears that other losses will follow. Top Bush advisers argue that Democrats are after scalps and would not stop at Gonzales. Congressional judiciary committees have already subpoenaed Harriet Miers and Karl Rove in the firings of U.S. Attorneys last year. Republicans are loath to hand Democrats some high-profile casualties to use in the 2008 campaign. Stonewalling, they believe, is their best way to avoid another election focused on corruption issues."

So to avoid handing the Democrats a victory on corruption, Bush is hanging onto the biggest political hack on his cabinet? This is the same man who hired and fired federal prosecutors based on political loyalties ("loyal Bushies" were kept around), not on their ability to convict criminals.

For the rest of this story, click

joshua - 08/09/07 13:02
On Fox News Sunday a couple weeks ago Russ Feingold admitted that he had no evidence to back the accusations levied on Gonzalez. That to me is very telling. You can see it here -

:::link:::

They are investigating based on a hunch. This is one of the many reasons why people aren't happy with Congress.

The latest Zogby poll showed congressional approval of their handling the war at 3%. THREE PERCENT! Nobody is happy, for a large variety of reasons. At least we are all unified in our hatred of our Congress... ha! Just an assumption on my part, but I feel as if people are largely displeased with these investigations and would, like you point out (e:blotics), rather see them work on something substantive rather than play political games. Obviously we all disagree and have our own views on what those substantive things should be, but the point is that we should at least be talking about things that are meaningful... rather than what is going on now.

What people need to remember is that US attorneys can be fired at any time, for any reason. I couldn't agree more that US attorneys should be above the fray, but the reality is that they are not and are subject to hiring and firing depending on which party wins the election. US attorneys get fired every single time a new president is elected and at times in between... none of this is new. Does that similarly constitute firing for political reasons? I think so. Are we next going to debate which political reasons are more legitimate than others? Really... this is silly.

As for abuse of power, I think that if you are going to accuse a high ranking government official of something malicious, you damn well better have hard evidence lined up. What people are going to find is that the law wasn't broken and investigators, just like in the case of Scooter Libby, will try to hang a perjury charge on him for lying about a non-crime.

I suppose this puts us at odds over whether we think somebody should "pay" here. I simply view this as the continuation of an ongoing witch hunt. I find Democrats' collective hatred of Karl Rove a little irrational.

james - 08/09/07 11:36
If the president does axe the AG that means congress will have to approve a new one. And congress would never approve one that would let the same shit fly that the white house has been slinging. That is how I think of it at least.

The approval ratings of congress though are always low. Always. And lower than the presidents usually. So, I don't find the numbers to be very interesting other than suddenly the media is interested in congress' numbers. Additionally, if you look at approval ratings for each senator and each rep. you will see that they all enjoy better approval ratings than congress as a whole. Besides, the senate is deadlocked between Joe Lieberman and Tim Johnson. Coupled with dozens of veto threats and the largest number of filibusters in the history of our government, who is surprised that there is compromise and frustration?

bloticsblog - 08/09/07 09:14
Federal prosecutors are generally seen as above the political fray, so these firings are unusual from an historic perspective. It makes sense that they should be unfettered by politics to do their jobs correctly and again, that job is to put criminals in jail regardless of political leanings.

I'm with you, Joshua, on how poorly Congress has performed since the '06 election. On the whole, they deserve the low approval numbers that they are receiving.

The fact that they're going for scalps, and I'm thinking of the Harry Reid and Howard Dean types, is part of the problem. Don't worry about revenge, just pass some damn legislation that helps get this country moving in the right direction again.

uncutsaniflush - 08/08/07 22:29
If my memory serves me correctly, and I think it does, every president gets rid of the attorneys he doesn't like (i.e. from the opposition party) and replaces them with attorneys that he likes (i.e. from his own party); what is different this time is that the attorneys were terminated for cause because of their job performance and not because the Prez wanted some yes-dudes in their positions.

joshua - 08/08/07 21:20
These are lawyers that are employed at the pleasure of the President of the United States. I've yet to be compelled to believe that hiring lawyers you like is actually a new sort of practice in our "democracy."

I think the Bush Administration has a point, though. Democrats *are* after scalps. Personally, I think its fascinating that Congressional approval numbers are lower than those of the president.

08/06/2007 15:06 #40408

Feingold Defends Constitution, Senate Be
Category: politics

The Democratic controlled Senate bent to Republican and White House pressure Friday night passing a bill that gives the National Security Agency the power to spy on any American's overseas communications without a warrant. President Bush threatened to suspend the Senate's August recess unless Bill 1927 passed, which it did by a 60-28 vote.

At least they don't have to cancel their barbeque plans....

Click here for the rest of the story:

bloticsblog - 08/07/07 11:47
We could certainly use more bipartisanship, but in this case, there was not a single Republican voting against the measure. It was the president leaning heavily on all members, and only a handful of senators, who happen to be Democrats, with the courage to stand up to it.

paul - 08/06/07 17:46
Welcome to the site.

joshua - 08/06/07 15:11
Actually I think what that means is that it was a bipartisan vote... simple as that.