President Barack Obama today asserted executive privilege over documents long sought by Congress in the investigation of the “Fast and Furious” operation. The assertion in my view is facially overbroad and excessive. It is the latest example of sweeping claims of executive power and privilege by this Administration. Congress has ample reason to investigate this operation, which involves alleged criminal acts that may have resulted in the death of third parties, including a U.S. agent. The Justice Department is accused of complicity in one of the most ill-conceived and harmful operations in recent years. The very officials and agency accused of wrongdoing is claiming that it can withhold documents from a committee with oversight responsibilities.
The position of the Justice Department on the issue seems hopelessly conflicted. On one hand, the White House and Justice Department have stressed that Obama did not review these documents to protect him from the political backlash over the operation. Yet, it is claiming sweeping privilege over Justice Department documents. It is precisely the type of executive privilege claim that many of us denounced during the Bush Administration. The Administration is left with deliberative process rather than a presidential communication privilege since these documents were not “solicited and received” by the President
In a letter by Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the Justice Department refused to turn over the documents on the basis of privilege. The letter was delivered shortly before a scheduled contempt vote. The full House would have to approve the measure for Holder to be held in contempt.
Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., on Wednesday informing him that the president has granted the request.
The documents were written from February 2011 and afterward detailing how Justice officials learned about the Fast and Furious probe. Holder insists that they fall within the “deliberative process” privilege. The position however could sharply curtail the ability of Congress to be a check and balance in such controversies. Any documents prepared in response to such a controversy would be viewed as deliberative process. This claim is generally used in discovery in civil litigations and Freedom of Information Act requests. It is the most frequently invoked executive privilege in the federal courts. However, the documents must be both “predecisional” as well as “deliberative.”
The use of the privilege in my view raises serious questions over the separation of powers in the tripartite system. The deliberative process privilege is not constitutionally based and “disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct [has] occurred.” In re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F.3d 729, 745 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
The Justice Department has long tried to expand the deliberative process privilege to allow it the same sweeping protections that come with presidential communications. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the notion that agency employees are chilled by congressional inquiries in NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co:
The probability that the agency employee will be inhibited from freely advising a decisionmaker for fear that his advice if adopted, will become public is slight. First, when adopted, the reasoning becomes that of the agency and becomes its responsibility to defend. Second, agency employees will generally be encouraged rather than discouraged by public knowledge that their policy suggestions have been adopted by the agency. Moreover, the public interest in knowing the reasons for a policy actually adopted by an agency supports [disclosure].
My greatest concern rests with the impact on checks and balances in a system already left anemic by ever-expanding claims of executive power.
Source: ABA Journal
This is the first time Obama has used “executive privilege”. Bush used it six times, and Clinton used it fourteen times.
It seems to be following the pattern of “recess appointments” and filibusters.
That is, seemingly one-of behaviors tend to become systemic in our current culture of government.
The list is long.
Take bully religion wars for example.
“Swarthmore mom
1, June 20, 2012 at 12:52 pm
This is the first time Obama has used “executive privilege”. Bush used it six times, and Clinton used it fourteen times.”
So we’re good then, amirite?
Using Executive Privilege as an end run around Congressional oversight is a violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine critically impairing the system of checks and balances our system depends upon and a sign that the Neocon agenda of creating a unitary executive is working out exactly as they planned: turning the Office of President in to a serial dictatorship. Such abuses of Executive Privilege are Constitutionally unacceptable no matter who does it.
anon, Guess you didn’t get the point. Since Fox nation refers to Obama as the “imperial president”, one would assume that he is constantly evoking “executive privilege”. Also, just maybe Issa is out of line. He has been on a “witch hunt” ever since he took charge of the committee.
I mean invoke not evoke
“Democrats argued that Republicans were rushing to do something unprecedented in American history: citing the highest law enforcement official in the land for contempt. (In 1998, the Republican-led oversight committee voted to recommend holding Attorney General Janet Reno in contempt over documents related to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, but the measure was never put before the full House for a vote.) But Republicans said Mr. Holder had no legal right to withhold the documents, and they needed the information to complete the investigation.
But Representative Carolyn Maloney, Democrat of New York, said the investigation had degenerated into a “political witch hunt,” while a fellow Democrat, Representative Gerald E. Connolly of Virginia, called the proceeding a “kangaroo court,” saying it was designed to result in a contempt citation from the start as a way to get at Mr. Obama. They and other Democrats complained that the panel was ignoring its mission of coming up with reforms, like finding ways to strength laws to combat gun trafficking along the Southwestern border. ” New York Times, Charlie Savage.
It’s obvious that Swarthy mom will never be convinced. Well we all have different opinions and that’s OK. Let’s just point out that the plethora of late Friday “exec orders” is quite different than asserting “exec privilege”. By making this assertion IL Duce Obama has just admitted involvement in this terrible operation. I’m no barrister but it seems that way. DOJ Prime Minister Document Holder has simply stonewalled the process of justice and has held onto these precious documents like an anus getting it’s money’s worth out of a Prep H suppository. Obama has now advertised that this is all going to be “covered up” by his excellency’s edict. So much for the facade of being the most transparent Presidency, unless the meaning of transparent means “I don’t care what you and those silly “separation of powers” believers think … I’m boldly stating that I am the KIng and you will declare fealty to my desires”.
7600 documents released seems like not withholding.
This is a witch hunt, the repubs trying to smear the pres with this. It has been their m.o. since Mr. Obama took office.
I think that the professor is so unhappy with the president that almost everything he now does has a nefarious cause regardless of the reason.
Is it too late to start an impeachment hearing….. This is bull shit…. It was bull shit when Clinton did it as well as Bush…. At least George the first and rocket Ronnie stated the could not recall….. Yeah right…..
Who thought of this dumb idea to send guns to Mexico thinking they could be ‘tracked’? oh yea, someone who is getting paid off by the drug cartels. We launder the drug money in our banks and send weapons down to defend that money.
Gad, I simply want to know who thought this was a good idea? I know it started under the Bush administration, but, sheesh- whoever thought of this is too dumb to even work for the government.
Is it one of those Bush embeds who is impossible to fire?
And of course, the whistleblower in this case is the one being punished…..
Geeba, Geeba, Fox Nation: “Obama’s Lawless Presidency Close to Totalitarianism.” from the Maddow blog.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rep-darrell-issa-bars-minority-witness-a-woman-on-contraception-2/ Issa barred Sandra Fluke from testifying. He definitely has some agenda……..
“http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rep-darrell-issa-bars-minority-witness-a-woman-on-contraception-2/ Issa barred Sandra Fluke from testifying. He definitely has some agenda……..”
Exactly! This is why it is okay for Obama to claim executive privilege here.
The problem is that Issa isn’t trying to get to the truth to make things better. He is just looking for dirt to smear the administration. He has proven this over and over again. They even have an acronym for his extreme partisan investigations: IOKIYAR.
Cheryl, Spot on.
Let’s not get off subject with Fluke, but since you insist – She had/has NO qualifications to testify. She’s a law student at a prestigious school that will guarantee her a very very nice living in the future, should she elect to do so. Her asking that we have to pay for her rubbers for all the screwing she is alleging is ridiculous. I suggest she get a collection of all the dudes she is doing it with to throw in a buck for the purpose of procuring the needed allotment of rubbers needed to protect the USA from her replicating and infesting humanity even further. If she pools the $ together it should come up to at least 110 to 125 bucks (for now) which should stock her up for a little while. Of course if Holder was one of the beaus then Obama would assert Exec Priv to cover up any documentation related to this.
Or am I being too harsh?
Anybody remember The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986? Anybody remember that Congress has blocked the ATF from keeping a centralized computer database of gun transactions? Anybody remember that in In 2006, while the last permanent director, Carl J. Truscott, was being investigated for his spending habits, the N.R.A. prodded Congress to require Senate confirmation for the job? Since then neither Bush nor Obama has succeeded in getting a confirmation for Director through the Congress.
The NRA wants to shut down ATF for good and that’s what’s really going on here. Just as Obama protected the CIA torturers, he’s protecting the ATF agents who, since Congress won’t let them keep a database of gun sales, come up with stupid operations like Fast and Furious.
As far as I’m concerned, Obama was wrong about the torturers and he’s wrong about this.
But the people working to do the bidding of the NRA are also a big part of the problem and Issa has been accused by the Watchdog Institute of building a team within the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that includes staff members with close connections to industries that could benefit from his investigations. Issa’s speech at the 2012 NRA Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum was interesting. He’s definitely an NRA kiss-up.
That Issa is a partisan schmuck is tangential to the issue of the abuse of Executive Privilege to circumvent Constitutionally valid Congressional oversight that both parties have abused in trying to create a unitary executive. The sauce that is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Blouise, how did we let the NRA take over most of the Congress? good god, as if weapons manufacturers needed help selling their products. greed greed and more greed.
GeebaGeeba too harsh and off topic and wrong about the birth control insurance issue. I will bet you are a man? do I win?
“There should be no executive privilege. The deliberations of our Congress, Supreme Court and president should always be fully open to the public so that we can understand what these people are doing and why. But until we reach that point, the Issa committee like all other such investigations of one branch by the other are highly political and should be acknowledged as such.” Rabbi Michael Lerner. …. I agree.
“Issa made his fortune building and selling Viper car alarms. He is the wealthiest member of Congress, worth as much as $450 million. In fact, it’s Issa’s voice on the popular alarm’s signature warning to would-be thieves: “Protected by Viper. Stand back.”
What’s less well known is how Issa got into car alarms in the first place.
“For years I used to tell everyone that I went into it because my brother was a car thief. Then they found out when I ran for office my brother did spend time in prison as a car thief, and it ruined the whole joke I’d had for 20 years in business,” Issa said during an interview with WhoRunsGov.
Issa himself was accused several times of auto theft. In the early 1970s, he and his brother were arrested after police suspected them of stealing a Maserati sports car from a dealership in Cleveland. Issa says the police mistook his identity, and the charges were later dismissed.
Another time, Issa was arrested and eventually pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed weapon. Police found a handgun and a tear-gas gun — plus ammunition for both — in Issa’s glove compartment.” NPR
“Take bully religion wars for example.”
Dredd seriously, it is annoying that you post the first or second comments on each thread and use it as self promotion for your blog. While you write well and we agree o many issues, this gets tiresome. Every issue is not about you, you know and I seriously doubt that you’ve actually written a piece on every issue that comes up. You’re welcome to do it here, but you lose credibility with me at least. Surely there are other ways you can promote yourself.
We need to remember that Darrell Issa is not on Planned Parenthood’s endorsed list of candidates, this means President Obama gets a pass.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blog%20whoring
Darrell Issa is perhaps the most sleazy member of Congress as SwM details in part above. He NEVER does anything that isn’t political and so I don’t give a damn what this hearing is about, its’ purpose is the Presidential Campaign.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blogwhore
1. Blogwhore 24 up, 2 down
A person (usually dopey) who participates in all or most of the following:
1. Spending large amounts of time posting entries on his/her blog (usually a blogspot or wordpress blog) about things no one other than them cares about.
2. Tries any way possible to get others to read his/her blog.
3. Posts comments on every blog he/she comes across in hopes that other bloggers will find and comment on his/her blog.
4. Uses their blog to advance other areas of his/her life, such as relationships, positions in work, social status, or anything else.
Blogwhores can come in different categories, the most notable of these include:
- The activist blogwhore, who will post about 20 entries a day revolving around news articles which support his/her political views and/or desperately crying for others to care about his/her favorite political cause.
- The gamer blogwhore, who posts a new entry every time he/she advances in an online game or MMORPG.
- The slutty blogwhore, whose posts are just images of her showing her assets to any willing male.
- The homeschool mom blogwhore, who truly believes others think her kids are as valuable members of society as she does and posts in the mindframe as such.
- The Jesusfreak blogwhore, whose posts are mainly Bible entries or what he/sh…
anon, I am against the idea of executive privilege but considering Issa’s own lack of honesty in the past and his extreme partisan nature, just maybe, Obama needed to do this.
“We need to remember that Darrell Issa is not on Planned Parenthood’s endorsed list of candidates, this means President Obama gets a pass.”
Anon,
We must remember also that you are a misogynist with an actual (in your mind at least) grievance against women, lawyers and courts.
anon, as if Planned Parenthood has anything to do with Fast & Furious. I live in Az., and let me tell you, this program should have been shut down a LONG TIME ago. Obama should have shut down this Bush program.
Weapon manufacturers were the only beneficiaries. It put every person in border states in harms way. The NRA would love for this to become public policy- hey Mexico! Come and get all the guns you want!
I keep telling Obama to fire Eric Holder, but he does not listen
“1. Blogwhore 24 up, 2 down
A person (usually dopey) who participates in all or most of the following:”
Anon,
You missed a fifth category:
5. A Blogwhore is an anonymous poster who suffered a reversal with a woman and so misogynistic-ally vents his hatred against women at every opportunity.
Might as well stop trying to convince Swarthmore mom. She is completely compartmentalized and seems to buy hook line and sinker into the whole Republican v. Democrat false paradigm. In her world, Obama and the Dems are always right and Fox News and the Republicans are always wrong. Kind of like rooting for your favoriet football team, no matter what.
Even when you point out, as Gene did, that Issa’s bad character is a non-issue because it has nothing to do with the fact that Obama is attempting to essentially thwart the checks and balances of our government with this stunt, she continues to post Issa’s sordid alleged criminal past. We already know Issa’s an alleged criminal Swarthmore, but that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of congressional oversight of executive agencies.
The congress could move to impeach the President over this. He is thumbing his nose at them now. If they let him get away with this behavior, it is a message that they are going to be assuming more of a ceremonial/accomodative role in the future, and not so much one of balancing power.
If you have witches, a witch hunt isn’t a bad idea!
I do not think I care about Issa’s motivations, if he is acting within legal bounds (and as far as I can tell he is) and targeting actual wrong-doing (which I think he is) then his motivations, emotions and any political gain are pretty much irrelevant.
Besides, it was pretty much the founder’s intent to pit one branch against the other, legislating was never intended to be a cakewalk for anybody.
“Besides, it was pretty much the founder’s intent to pit one branch against the other, legislating was never intended to be a cakewalk for anybody.”
The very nature of checks and balances.
Darrell Issa is dirty and his claim that Holder has not been forthcoming are ridiculous. Here is an explanation of why Obama elected to exert the claim of executive privilege and which type of privilege he is claiming, from Think Progress: “But there are two types of executive privilege: the robust “presidential communications privilege” and the more limited “deliberative process privilege.” The White House may invoke the latter to apply to executive branch officials outside of the president’s inner circle, as long as they were involved with the government’s decision-making process. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all asserted executive privilege in matters not involving presidential communications. And Bush Administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey invoked the same “deliberative process privilege” as recently as 2008, rejecting congressional subpoenas for reports of Department of Justice interviews with the White House staff regarding the Valerie Plame Wilson identify leak investigation.
Furthermore, the very man behind the witch-hunt against Holder, Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), has in the past recognized that same privilege for Bush administration deliberations.
In a May 2008 hearing, then-Ranking Minority Member Issa defended Bush EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson’s right not to answer questions, comparing her deliberations to the “speech and debate” protections enjoyed by Congress:
‘ So it probably shouldn’t come as a surprise – or it should come as a surprise to you that we are surprised that you are not going to tell us whether or not there were conversations within the executive branch that led to your independent decision.’ ”
If it was good for Reagan and Both Bushes, why isn’t it good for Obama?
over 7000 documents and they wanted more?
but no one has the time to read the bills….
what ever happened to Cheneys subpeonaed papers? as he held in contempt? (I mean formally….)
This goes beyond we can do it because they did it…this is crap behaviour supporting partisan power grabbing and undermining the CURRENT office.
I don’t think people realize how lucky they are that Obama is in that seat and not some republican big business puppet….you can’t keep saying there are laws and checks and balances if they have been ignored by so many others….the laws don’t exist. The checks and balances were dismantled and ignored and the ignoring was ignored….long ago….
these hysterics are silly and impotent….
Tony C.,
If the Justice Department was witholding documents from a truly non-partisan investigation, then I would agree that the privilege claim was excessive. Nothing Issa does is non-partisan.
“If it was good for Reagan and Both Bushes, why isn’t it good for Obama?”
The point is that it wasn’t, raff. Reagan abused Executive Privilege to protect the criminals in government behind the Iran-Contra affair and the Bush’s? Do I really need to spell out their abuses of Executive Privilege? If Congress were properly doing their job and not getting railroaded by an increasingly unitary Executive, Bush I would have never made it to the Oval Office because he and Ollie North would be sharing a jail cell and the Bush II/Cheney criminal conspiracy would have been impeached and prosecuted for their various offenses before they left office. Allowing the abuse of Executive Privilege led to things like the ever increasing assertion of unitary executive power through mechanisms like signing statements.
“The congress could move to impeach the President over this.”
—————————————————
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAAA!!!
I don’t think so.
He kept his pants on the WHOLE time.
…and no 3rd World Nation was invaded during the filming of this executive decision….
rafflaw
1, June 20, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Tony C.,
If the Justice Department was witholding documents from a truly non-partisan investigation, then I would agree that the privilege claim was excessive
————————
me too….
“5. A Blogwhore is an anonymous poster who suffered a reversal with a woman and so misogynistic-ally vents his hatred against women at every opportunity.”
Yeah, that’s pretty funny.
Once again I invite you to produce any evidence of misogyny on my part that are not obvious parody of feminist cant.
“if he is acting within legal bounds (and as far as I can tell he is) and targeting actual wrong-doing (which I think he is) then his motivations, emotions and any political gain are pretty much irrelevant”
Tony,
Back in the 40′s and 50′s HUAC was certainly acting within its legal bounds when it persecuted “communists” as was Congress when they impeached Clinton.
“Might as well stop trying to convince Swarthmore mom. She is completely compartmentalized and seems to buy hook line and sinker into the whole Republican v. Democrat false paradigm.”
Neil,
Might as well not bother actually reading what SwM has written about this election because your opinion trumps the facts, doesn’t it?
“The congress could move to impeach the President over this. He is thumbing his nose at them now. If they let him get away with this behavior, it is a message that they are going to be assuming more of a ceremonial/accomodative role in the future, and not so much one of balancing power.”
Nothing like supposedly defending the Rule of Law by going to the extremes like impeachment. Who are you voting for Neil?
“Once again I invite you to produce any evidence of misogyny on my part that are not obvious parody of feminist cant.”
Anon,
It has been produced and you know it. You are simply not that important for me to again prove what everyone here knows is true.
Gene,
I understand what you are saying, but this is not a valid investigation on Issa’s part. Review the letter from the Justice Department and look at what they provided and what they offered to provide and you can see that Issa is just fishing. The claim of privilege is a legal claim. I don’t like having to use it, but it is as legal as Issa’s fishing expedition.
“Once again I invite you to produce any evidence of misogyny on my part that are not obvious parody of feminist cant.”
Anon,
It has been produced and you know it. You are simply not that important for me to again prove what everyone here knows is true.”
Once again the therapist comes up short, then runs and hides.
From the RESOLUTION (pdf):
Additionally, these documents will reveal the identities of
Department officials who orchestrated various forms of retaliation against the
whistleblowers.
This one really sticks in my craw.
Anon
“5. A Blogwhore is an anonymous poster …”
It’s amusing how often my “anon” comes up as a beef for Mike. I’m about as anonymous as SwarthmoreMom, Woosty, Blouise, Bron, Otteray Scribe, there have been maybe half a dozen occurrences that anyone else has used “anon” in a thread I’ve posted on.
It goes to show how empty the theories of our elderly therapist is and how imperceptive he has been.
But keep tilting at those whiskey bottles Mike!
Nal’s quote hardly sounds like fishing to me, raff.
I don’t question that Issa is a partisan hack, but privilege was not intended to protect criminals.
Raff, you had me at “Darryl Issa is dirty…” That crooked used-car dealer is on my (very short) list of completely evil people.
Jeez I hate these threads where Gene Howington and I are taking the same side.
It does make me go back and triple check my calculations.
Where are the JOBS ????????
Oh my bad and I thought these people were looking out for our interest,silly me.
Gene,
Issa has received thousands of documents and he won’t be satisfied until he gets Obama on the stand at his committee. It isn’t a matter of hiding criminals. It is a matter of making non-criminals look like criminals for partisan purposes. Was Issa lying when he claimed that the Bush adminstration officials didn’t have to comply with committee requests during the Bush days, or is he lying now? I say he is a consistent liar.
Jeez, I
hatefind really funny these threads where anon thinks he’s actually invisible and fools anybody.It makes me laugh and laugh.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/168505/darrell-issas-contemptable-disregard-constitution# Although Kucinich has been critical of Holder in the past, he is no longer at Issa’s side.
“Was Issa lying when he claimed that the Bush adminstration officials didn’t have to comply with committee requests during the Bush days,”
Yes, he was.
His personal (and partisan) failings don’t justify dismantling the Separation of Powers Doctrine just because his guy got away with it.
Letting “their guy” get away with malfeasance in office is part and parcel of the problem with a two party locked in system.
Since myself, SwM and Raff keep being called Obama apologists and partisans, let me share a response to a question I was asked by MoveOn today as to why I will vote for him.
“Barack Obama has disappointed me in many ways. He has not been the spokesman for Progressive politics that I imagined he would be. His initial time spent on bi-partisanship showed a naive understanding of our current political situation. His absolution of the possible crimes of the previous administration was disturbing. His furtherance of the repressive intelligence initiatives of the previous administration was alarming. His continuing of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was just plain wrong. His not initially demanding single-payer healthcare showed a lack of foresight in negotiation. His appointment of Tim Geithner at treasury was wrong and as we have seen Holder has not covered himself with glory as the AG. I could go on and on in this vein, but you [MoveOn] already know the points I am making.
However, now let us put all of our disappointments with the President into perspective. I have been involved in Left Wing politics since I came of age in the 60′s. As I’ve aged into an old codger, my commitment to social change and fairness has not diminished one bit, as you can discern from Googling my guest blogs at Jonathanturley.org. Nevertheless, if we don’t learn from our experiences, we cease to grow emotionally and intellectually.
While a minor member of the 60′s Movement I saw how some of our leaders, rapt with their own self-importance, led us (me included) down the garden path of political perfectionism, making assumptions not borne out by the history they had lived through. We saw the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK and many others without acknowledging the possibility that our leaders were being constricted in their options from behind the scenes. We know now that untold millions have been funneled into a decades long blitz of political propaganda dedicated to creating false memes about the nature of our government. So many of us on the Left gleefully watched as we caused chaos in the Chicago Convention and then sat on our hands as Nixon won the Presidency from Humphrey who as a senator had a distinguished and brave career. By doing that we definitely prolonged the war for seven more years and greatly increased the carnage of both Southeast Asians and our own troops, who had been sacrificed in the name of a “Domino Theory” that history has proven false. If you’ve read the book “Nixonland” by Rick Perlstein you’ll know exactly where I’m coming from, since I lived what he talks about.
President Obama has been consistently attacked by “progressive purists” for not meeting up to their personal expectations, even though many never expected much from him in the first place. Politics in human history has always been a rough game, yet somehow given all the Congressional limitations faced, the amount of money arrayed against the President and the almost complete corporate control of the media, Obama is being blamed for not doing enough and or doing the wrong things. Since I wouldn’t be writing you [MoveO] if you already didn’t understand the problems he faced I won’t bother to iterate them. However, let me list the reasons to vote for the President, stating my personal belief that if Romney wins the Congress goes with him.
If Romney Wins this is what will be lost:
1. The next SCOTUS appointments.
2. Women’s Rights, including freedom of choice.
3. LBGT Rights and freedom from oppression.
4. Separation of Church and State.
5. Our Social Safety Net, including Social Security, Health Care, Welfare and UIB.
6. Any environmental protections, as weak as they are.
7. The right of labor to organize and protect its workers.
8. Any Protections against the incursion of our civil liberties.
9. Any regulatory oversight of the financial entrepreneurs who have wrecked our economy.
10. Any check on the outrageous spending for the M.I. Complex.
11. Any check on the unconstitutional behavior of our intelligence community.
12. Any concept in fairness in our tax system.
13. Any hope that the wealth gap between the 1% and the 99% will be diminished.
I could list a hundred reasons, but with these 13 above, need I say more?”
“Holder is a flawed player, and he has not managed his response to Issa’s abuses well. And no one should be pleased to see a president invoking “executive privilege” in a fight with Congress, as Barack Obama has done to thwart Issa’s demands.
But it is Issa whose actions have been contemptible. He is demanding deliberative documents that are ordinarily off-limits to Congress, a big ask, yet he has not built a credible coalition of supporters for the demand. And when the details of the documents and the issues involved are laid out — along with the offers by Holder to brief the committee — it quickly becomes evident that the committee chairman is so unwilling to compromise that he won’t take yes for an answer.
Issa has failed to respect the House as an institution, or to make even the most basic moves to organize the chamber for a challenge to the executive branch. Instead, he’s gone to hyper-partisan and divisive extreme, redesigning the Oversight Committee’s website to look like a Fox News “alert” — with dubious images of Holder and headlines reading “Contempt” splashed all over the page.” John Nichols the “Nation”.
Gene,
This isn’t a Separation of Powers issue because the request is a bogus one from a partisan hack. This is just an additional part of the Republican plan prior to the election.
Well said Mike. I got the same Moveon email. I didn’t give them a reason for my answer.
The party line vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for a disagreement over documents related to Fast and Furious was 23-17.
” Most of the women will stick with the candidate that Planned Parenthood has endorsed, and so will the men that support them.”
“And you wonder why you’re called a vagina voter.”
Anon,
From you on the other Obama thread today, proof that you are a misogynist and so into it that you don’t even get you are.
Dredd,
I don’t know why you are being singled out for hijacking the thread(s) when you were not the first to change topics……
If I recall the germane issue is Holder…… Deliberately defying a properly issued congressional subpoena…… And Obama exerting the executive privilege…… This thread the got jacked about a known car thief, that turned thievery to his advantage……
You’re good…. Keep posting what it is you please…..
Attacking sitting Democratic Presidents is becoming quite the American pattern….maybe the whole political process has a ‘personality disorder’
raff,
How can abuse of Executive Privilege not be a Separation of Powers issue?
In addition to what Gene said there is another consistent pattern to this administration that is of great concern to me. JT writes: “On one hand, the White House and Justice Department have stressed that Obama did not
review these documents to protect him from the political backlash over the operation.” An actual, functioning president would have reviewed those documents. (He also would have fired Holder a long time ago.)
There are way too many reports of Obama not being in charge of much of anything. 1. the drone program. Yes, evidently he’s the killer in chief on one of them but there is another, much more secret program run by the CIA, OGA/private contractors that he has no oversight over. Why is that?
2. The killing of OBL. Yes, he’s getting political mileage out of that killing by his supportive murder groupies but if you really listen to accounts of what went on this fact will jump out at you. Numerous “intelligence” officials say they did not want him watching the raid and would have overridden any decision he might have made to stop it. If that doesn’t disturb you, you are not paying attention.
3. So here we have his AG up to his neck in illegal activity. Wouldn’t a functioning president want to know what the hell was going on?
There seems to be so much that Obama doesn’t want to know about, things that any person in charge, really in charge, not just a seat warmer, would know.
Dick Cheney knew what was going on in his administration. The fact that Obama doesn’t know tells you someone else is calling the shots. I’m already terrified of the fact that we have a non-functioning govt. but I’d really like to know who is in charge because quite clearly, it isn’t Obama.
n a party-line vote, the Republican majority on the House Oversight and Government Reform panel voted to approve the first contempt citation for a Cabinet member in 14 years. Amazing…………….I know what I think but I won’t play the card on here.
“This goes beyond we can do it because they did it…this is crap behaviour supporting partisan power grabbing and undermining the CURRENT office.
I don’t think people realize how lucky they are that Obama is in that seat and not some republican big business puppet….you can’t keep saying there are laws and checks and balances if they have been ignored by so many others….the laws don’t exist. The checks and balances were dismantled and ignored and the ignoring was ignored….long ago….
these hysterics are silly and impotent….”
Woosty,
This was so on point it needs being repeated. We’ve lived under the pretense that the “Rule of Law” has existed in this Country since at least the beginning of the “Cold War”. Once the Communist “bogeyman” got raised after WWII, the M.I. Complex, which had grown during prosecution of WWII couldn’t bear to have themselves removed from the public teat and threatened anyone who disagreed with being deemed a traitor. After the Goldwater debacle in 1964 a good part of the 99% elite like the Koch Family, Mars Family, Welch Family, Mellon Family and others from within the ranks of the John Birch Society financed billions of dollars worth of propaganda to undermine the notion of Government on all fronts. To ignore this state of affairs just doesn’t jibe with the history we’ve lived.
Gene,
It is not an abuse of executive privilege. The Think Progress article that I quoted states that the claimed privilege is legitimate.
Jill,
Your comments about the killing of OBL are bogus. The numerous unnamed officials that you suggest would not have allowed the President to make the commander in chief decision? How could they stop him? What you are suggesting is against the information we have and against the commander in chief principle. Where are your facts that Holder is up to his neck in criminal activity???
“Dick Cheney knew what was going on in his administration. The fact that Obama doesn’t know tells you someone else is calling the shots. I’m already terrified of the fact that we have a non-functioning govt. but I’d really like to know who is in charge because quite clearly, it isn’t Obama.”
Nice sally Jill, you’ve got him coming and going. He’s either a despicable man doing despicable things. Or in the alternative he’s an incompetent man allowing despicable things to happen. Buddy Roehmer, anyone?
“Where are your facts that Holder is up to his neck in criminal activity???”
Raff,
He’s black, he works for Obama and Jill doesn’t like either of them. She don’t need no stinkin facts.
” Most of the women will stick with the candidate that Planned Parenthood has endorsed, and so will the men that support them.”
“And you wonder why you’re called a vagina voter.”
Anon,
From you on the other Obama thread today, proof that you are a misogynist and so into it that you don’t even get you are”
“Once again I invite you to produce any evidence of misogyny on my part that are not obvious parody of feminist cant.”
Cf: patriarchy
Cf: special interest voters
Calling SwarthmoreMom a vagina voter since she admits she will only support Planned Parenthood endorsed candidates is an example of metonymy not misogyny.
But I wouldn’t expect a therapist to understand nuance. The rapists are normally associated with forcing their own points of view over society, bullying until it is becomes so, all the while declaring how independent and non-judgmental they are.
Where is your opinion of car thief Issa demanding documents from the Justice Department that would be ILLEGAL to turn over, such as wiretap info?
Issa should held in Contempt for issuing illegal requests for confidential documents.
Besides, the ATF ran Fast and Furious with the Justice Dept. signing off on “gunwalking” to identify the distribution network, but not signing off on 1,000s of weapons allowed to continue to Mexico. The ATF hasn’t had a permanent Director for years thanks to the toadies of the NRA, every single Republican in Congress.
Why didn’t you point out the obvious, that the President is reacting to car thief Issa’s Contempt of Congress move, not the original ridiculous request that Holder actually AGREED TO COMPLY WITH yesterday, just not any of the specifically prohibited by law documents.
Misogyny is the hatred of women.
Metonymy is a figure of speech used in rhetoric in which a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept.
Try to find examples of hatred of women, not love of english.
anon,
and how do these definitional spats relate to the issue at hand?
Issa is just baling political hay. The R’s have only one issue. Our’s should be the opposite. All other issues can wait, even if I recognize the justice in them.
And a little imperial power is needed to counter the other two branches, right now.
Unfortunately, he has lousy judgement in his choices of front man Plouffe and his campaign manager.
He’s just trying to avoid getting the choice they offered JFK. Him or his kids. Am not kidding. Do you think the Bushes would blink. PapaDoc did not in -63. And Beorge 2 did not even blink when he got the news, what news?, he arranged it.
When you see what goes down daily in your lawyer life, how can you not believe in conspiracies on a higher level? You do you say, but you want your kids to have someone to pay for college. Understand that.
raff,
If the information requested has probative value to ascertain the identity of those in the Executive or it sub-departments engaging in systematically punishing whistleblowers against Federal law, it is arguably not a valid exercise of Executive Privilege. The place to decide that is in court, not Think Progress.
Mike and rafflaw,
These are numerous reports that you could both look into if you were so inclined. I even heard them on NPR and I’m guessing you would both accept an NPR program as accurate. The words were that they would physically push him out of the way. You can research this if you have interest in facts. You can also research what Eric Holder was up to. The fact that neither of you have done this does not speak well of you.
Mike, As you know I was as critical of Bush and Cheney, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Mukasey as I am of Holder and Obama. You used to criticize all of them as well. So did we hate white people and a Hispanic person then?
The people who are not holding to a set of actual intellectual principles are both of you, not me.
Gentlemen! You can’t fight here, it’s the internet! t
rafflaw,
They don’t!
Mike Spindell needed to hijack the thread with yet another incoherent personal attack on me.
I’ve actually found much of the discussion in this thread interesting, and informative, apart from Mike’s sad sad need to misrepresent others.
I would be happy to get back to seeing what develops here.
Thank you for that reminder Mein Fuhrer, er, Mr. President.
I can walk!
On the other hand rafflaw,
“Calling SwarthmoreMom a vagina voter since she admits she will only support Planned Parenthood endorsed candidates is an example of metonymy not misogyny.”
That’s a pretty awesome comeback.
Sigh, it’s been fun, but I have to run, it’s Wednesday and time for the ex to deny visitation once again.
Gene,
I have no problem with it going to court. That is something Issa doesn’t want. He may lose there and his only goal is embarrassment and the Fox News headlines of claims of illegality. We may just have to agree to disagree. I can’t believe that Issa does anything unless it is for partisan gain. It is against his DNA to do otherwise.
Jill,
Your NPR comments are unbelievable. How can any subordinate push the President out of the way on a military mission? What you are suggesting would be illegal, wouldn’t it? And didn’t he stick with the raid? Isn’t he the one who has authorized too many drone attacks against al-Qaeda officials? Why would any official think Obama would get in the way??
By the way, I have held Obama’s feet to the fire from day one when they took torture off the table. But I also can see what the Republicans are doing and why they are doing it. They announced it publicly and in secret meetings recently disclosed by the Draper book. So you can continue to call or suggest that I am an apologist, but the facts don’t support it.
anon,
sorry to hear about any visitation problems. Good luck with that.
anon, are you a female or a male and what are you wearing?
Yep, still voting for Obama, but he should get someone better than Eric Holder who has allowed the Justice Dept. to get such a rabidly right wing reputation during this term in office- (shutting down medical marijuana, going after whistleblowers, the weird waffling on DADT and DOMA, etc) Just get rid of Eric and get someone tough with some real ethics in there.
How about Eliot Spitzer for AG?
raff,
“I can’t believe that Issa does anything unless it is for partisan gain. It is against his DNA to do otherwise.”
And I don’t disagree with that. He a poster boy for what is wrong with partisan politics in America. However, that does not negate that his assertion of subpoena power is as arguably legally valid and (I think) probably more so than the President’s exercise of Executive Privilege in this instance. In the end, this is indicative of the illusion of choice that a two party system creates when mired in partisanship. The R’s like Issa are willing to use every tool at their disposal to get at the D’s and the D’s are unwilling to take the R’s to task properly (such as refusing to investigate/impeach/indict Bush Co.) because they fear R. retribution (whereas the R’s aren’t scared of the spineless D’s in the slightest). What should be a clear cut matter of law has been distorted in to a partisan issue by years of abuse of Privilege (and subpoena power for that matter – Monica Lewinski? Really?) that went unchecked by either party.
shano,
Prof. Turley and Mespo and Mike A. are available if the President wants to change the AG! Three great candidates.
I had high hopes, but Eric Holder has been one of the biggest disappointments of all the administration appointments. Timothy Geithner is another disappointment, but his performance is much less surprising. Holder has surprised me.
Gene,
I agree that the Dems have brought some of this upon themselves, but this executive privilege issue predates the Lewinski years. (Lewinski years??? Scary!)
OS,
I am not a fan of Geithner and I would love someone who would actually hold Wall Street accontable as opposed to one of their own protecting their own.
“I am not a fan of Geithner and I would love someone who would actually hold Wall Street accontable as opposed to one of their own protecting their own.”
But EVERYBODY in office is one of Wall Street’s own.
raff,
Oh yeah, it absolutely predates the Lewinski years (:)). Arguably, I’d trace the abuse of EP back to Nixon, but you can make an argument for Johnson too. Maybe even Truman.
rafflaw,
I’m not asking you to believe anything. I’m asking you to research it for yourself. I told you one place, NPR, that I think you would find acceptable as a news source for what I said. I did not refer you to FOX newz. You should look it up.
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/capitalcomment/news-gossip/the-obama-administrations-war-on-information-leaks.php
“Based on the deep reporting on and documents from leak cases, it’s clear the government has made the electronic records of reporter-to-source communications the evidentiary centerpiece of its cases. But as another ex-senior official at the Justice Department told me, investigators have better tools to track those communications now—and, more important, better access to them. This person, who was a political appointee, also asked not to be identified. But he said that in many of the cases the government has prosecuted, electronic evidence of a relationship between reporter and source was at the heart of the cases.
I wrote in my book, The Watchers, about how the National Security Agency created “mirror” databases of telecom network traffic, essentially taking the records from companies like AT&T and putting them into a form that could be mined by the intelligence agency.
Two former NSA officials say they believe that capability has allowed the government to track reporters and their sources. Bill Binney and Kirk Wiebe helped the agency build information-collection and analysis tools. They were, in effect, data miners. They quit the agency after the 9/11 attacks because they thought NSA was designing systems that weren’t very good at catching unknown terrorists, but that would be very good for spying on known Americans and rapidly finding connections among people based on their communications.”
Obamas justice department is such a huge disappointment. Huge.
rafflaw,
I should have added that of course it would be illegal, that’s why I bring these things up. Illegality is running straight through all the three branches of this govt. In addition, there is a layer of illegality on top of this, the one that desperately needs our attention. You’re scared of what I wrote, and so am I. It’s not one instance and it has very dire implications for our nation. You can deny it because you don’t want to know about it or you can research it, it’s up to you.
“Mike Spindell needed to hijack the thread with yet another incoherent personal attack on me.”
Pity the poor misogynist.
Mike, stand up to it, man. We vaginalists can breathe a sigh of relief when you take some of the flak and we can catch a break. C’mon, be our hero!
A friend and I (two laypersons) broke a case of organized child abuse and abuser-protection in the Army, at Fort Benning Georgia, in the early 90s. The General in charge of social services for the whole Army demanded to see me at the Pentagon and his first (and last) question was: Where did I get the information. Of COURSE it was leaked to us, but I said that I took the Fifth and wouldn’t answer him. Just imagine. Somebody’s raping children on the base and the General wants to find out about the leak, not about the perp.
Jill,
The comments you were suggesting to non-Obama supporters were the ones that were illegal, not Obama for going after OBL. The idea that I am scared of what you write is not only false, it is arrogant. See ya later.
Gene,
I think you may be right to at least Truman.
“These are numerous reports that you could both look into if you were so inclined. I even heard them on NPR and I’m guessing you would both accept an NPR program as accurate.”
So Jill,
That means you have no evidence but what you’ve heard. For someone who is always making charges one would think you’d have the backup at your fingertips, but you don’t do you? As to NPR why would I accept them as authoritative? They are merely another Corporatist controlled outlet like PBS.
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/04/28/pbs-why-i-watch-but-dont-contribute/#more-48384
“You can deny it because you don’t want to know about it or you can research it, it’s up to you.”
Keep thinking you are smarter and more perceptive than anyone else Jill, it is you M.O. Why I’m such a believer in the Kool Aid that I wrote this:
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/17/a-real-history-of-the-last-sixty-two-years/
Now I gave thirteen reasons above why I am voting for Obama and guess what none of them were about his being independent of Corporate influence.
You see Jill one of the things that I see in your writing is an overwhelming interest in foreign affairs. Compelling as that interest might be, I see little solidarity in your writing with the 99% of this country for who life has gotten worse and for which life will further deteriorate when Mitt Romney wins the election. Ah….but then Jill you’ll decry Romney, just as you did Bush, but in all your writing production not once have you offered any solution except a protest vote which gains nothing but lets you feel all warm and fuzzy about your integrity. People without jobs, women oppressed, LBGT people discriminated against arouse little in you, judging from your writings, but your sympathy goes out to Osama Bin Laden.
“The people who are not holding to a set of actual intellectual principles are both of you, not me.”
Jill, quite frankly you having any principles except for feeling that you are a principled person, is shattered by your inability to supply sources for your assertions.
May Darrel Issa rot in hell.
I tend to avoid the comments section on this site (and the site in general on weekends) like the plague for one reason and one reason only. I don’t even agree on Turley with some things but he makes a dedicated effort to evaluate matters from a relatively neutral perspective while applying his understanding of the law and I respect that and his insight.
The comments on the other hand take about 2 seconds to degenerate into partisan bylines, ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, group think and pretty much every other amateur debating tactic.
Add in the level of smugness and utter arrogance some people here possess and this place becomes no better than a youtube comments section.
For a libertarian, liberals vs. conservatives is like Aliens vs. Predators. No matter who wins, we lose.
Exec privilege: libs like and cons hate when protecting Holder. Opposite true for Gonzalez.
State rights: cons like and libs hate when banning gay marriage. Opposite true for banning guns.
Billionaire activists: libs like and cons hate when Soros. Opposite true for Kochs.
Protests: cons like and libs hate when tea party. Opposite true for occupy.
Product bans: libs like and cons hate when soda. Opposite true for pot.
Using military without Congress: cons like and libs hate when Iraq. Opposite true when Libya.
Leaks: libs like and cons hate when Seals. Opposite true for Plame.
Calling people on the other side of the fence extremists when you are polar opposites despite that logically meaning you too are an extremist… oh, wait. They both like that.
House GOP Leadership Balks At Issa’s Anti-Holder Witchhunt
By Ian Millhiser on May 10, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/10/481718/house-gop-leadership-balks-at-issas-anti-holder-witchhunt/
“I had high hopes, but Eric Holder has been one of the biggest disappointments of all the administration appointments. Timothy Geithner is another disappointment, but his performance is much less surprising. Holder has surprised me.” (OS)
My sentiments, exactly.
Otteray & Blouise,
I never had high hopes for Geithner. I was disappointed when Obama choose him to serve as Treasury Secretary. I felt bringing him and Larry Summers into the Administration was a bad omen.
rcampbell,
Ol’ Scratch might not let Issa into hell. He won’t want the competition.
The National Rifle Association supports the contempt resolution and announced Wednesday that it would score the vote, which will affect how the powerful gun lobby ranks and endorses lawmakers.
Now there’s a real surprise
“Otteray & Blouise,
I never had high hopes for Geithner. I was disappointed when Obama choose him to serve as Treasury Secretary. I felt bringing him and Larry Summers into the Administration was a bad omen.” (Elaine)
Geithner and Summers proved to be exactly what we expected … an early sign, along with that sophomoric Beerfest in the Rose Garden, that Obama was not going to live up to the rhetoric.
He’s got a good Secretary of State, but yeah, corrupt immoral incompetent jackasses at Treasury, AG, and Homeland Security
Someone should go back and see what the Turley regulars wrote when they needed to whitewash Geithner and his taxes. Probably entrapped by Darrell Issa.
Good chef too, or so I’m told.
Nancy Pelosi Slams Contempt Vote: ‘I Could Have Arrested Karl Rove … But We Didn’t’ [UPDATE]
You don’t say, Nancy!
That’s admitting you (and others) committed malfeasance of office.
You pencil necks in Congress need to start working for the best interests of ALL Americans, not just yourself, all your political playmates and graft money of lobbyists.
You’ll get no tears from me because you don’t have the spine to do the right thing by the rule of law.
I’m fresh out of crocodiles to squeeze them out of.
Gene sure most people feel this way about Congress. Fed up since corporations became Multinational corporations that have more wealth than most nation states. They own our government.
So now we have to rely on the people who are slurping up the gravy to turn off the gravy spigot.
Jill,
I’ve heard plenty of people on the right on NPR. Just last night I had to turn off “The Commonwealth Club” who had some guy from CA right wing talk radio for the hour. So if you’ve got it – just give us the link so we can see who said what that will support your argument.
Nancy Pelosi Slams Contempt Vote: ‘I Could Have Arrested Karl Rove … But We Didn’t’ [UPDATE]
You don’t say, Nancy!
That’s admitting you (and others) committed malfeasance of office.
—————————————
I remember the zeitgeist…people and Dems were just about begging for renewed civility and non-partisan behavior. As usual, the Dems held out an olive branch and the repugs spit on it. And now they doing it again….
Darrell Issa Shows Contemptible Disregard for the Constitution
John Nichols on June 20, 2012
http://www.thenation.com/blog/168505/darrell-issa-shows-contemptible-disregard-constitution
Excerpt:
The system of checks and balances works best when the separate branches of government are inherently and proudly adversarial toward one another. But that can’t happen when partisanship defines when and how accountability moments play out.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Darrell Issa — the headline-hungry California Republican who on Wednesday engineered a committee vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt — forgot that essential rule.
He failed to build a credible case or a credible coalition for his initiative. After a day of increasingly ridiculous posturing, Issa secured the contempt citation he sought. But is came on a straight party-line vote that rendered the decision all but meaningless.
The chairman’s heavy-handed style invoted the reproach that the contempt vote was “nothing more than a political witch hunt,” as People for the American Way president Michael Keegan termed it.
“To be sure, Congress has a legitimate interest in investigating Operation Fast and Furious, but Chairman Issa and Republican majority on the Committee appear to be more interested in scoring political points than in getting to the bottom of what happened,” argued Keegan, who added that, “The hoops the Committee is demanding the Attorney General jump through illustrate that these contempt hearings are as partisan as they are extreme. Over the course of this ‘investigation,’ the Committee has ordered the A.G. to produce documents whose confidentiality is protected by federal law, has refused to subpoena Bush Administration officials to testify about their knowledge of the operation during their time in office, has refused to allow public testimony from officials whose testimony counters Issa’s partisan narrative, and has repeatedly rejected the A.G.’s efforts to accommodate the committee, making compliance all but impossible.”
Issa’s actions undermined not just his own credibility but any sense that he and his allies might be acting in defense of — or with any regard for — the Constitution.
There is no reason to suggest that Holder is above criticism for his actions as Attorney General. He has been called out by Democrats as well as Republicans on a variety of issues. And he has not always managed his response to Issa’s abuses well. Nor should anyone who vaiues transparency and government oversight be pleased when a president determines that it is necessary to invoke “executive privilege” in a fight with Congress, as Barack Obama has done to thwart Issa’s demands.
But it is Issa whose actions have been contemptible. He is demanding deliberative documents that are ordinarily off-limits to Congress, a big ask, yet he has not built a credible coalition of supporters for the demand. And when the details of the documents and the issues involved are laid out—along with the offers by Holder to brief the committee—it quickly becomes evident that the committee chairman is so unwilling to compromise that he won’t take “yes” for an answer.
Issa has failed to respect the House as an institution, or to make even the most basic moves to organize the chamber for a challenge to the executive branch. Instead, he’s gone to hyper-partisan and divisive extreme, redesigning the Oversight Committee’s website to look like a Fox News “alert”—with dubious images of Holder and headlines reading “Contempt” splashed all over the page.
It’s likely that the genesis of Fast & Furious was to create a case (or tragic events) that would advance gun control in the United States. If evidence of this motivation existed in the documents requested by Congress it makes political sense that the Executive would go to great lengths to restrict them, as they have done.
Gene & shano:
I am pretty sure we have had this discussion before. In a recent poll, Congress had a lower approval rating than herpes. I do not agree with many polling results, but that one sounds about right. And the difference exceeded the Standard Error of Measurement as well.
OS,
All in all, I will have to say at this point I’d rather have herpes.
Gene, you remember what Mark Twain had to say about Congress. He observed that we had only one true criminal class in this country: Congress.
“Wentzell
1, June 20, 2012 at 9:09 pm
It’s likely that the genesis of Fast & Furious was to create a case (or tragic events) that would advance gun control in the United States. If evidence of this motivation existed in the documents requested by Congress it makes political sense that the Executive would go to great lengths to restrict them, as they have done.”
======
You’re being played. File that under ‘today’s right-wing conspiracy made up out of whole cloth’.
Excellent thread, got here late but enjoyed the read.
Twain was an astute observer, OS.
Not for nothing, but we’re talking about allegations of criminal acts surrounding the death of a U.S. agent.
Accordingly, in Dr. Strangelove speak, the DOJ is alleged to have knowledge as to who busted into the soda machine and therefore must answer to the Coca Cola company (aka congress).
Wentzel, not likely as this program was started under George ‘NRA Cheerleader’ Bush.
Bob, the DOJ wouldnt know where the damn soda machine might be located, much less who busted into it.
All I can say is, wtf are we doing with all these nano sized RFD chips and all this teeny tiny spy equipment if we cannot use it it track guns being smuggled into Mexico?
The DOJ ‘lost’ thousands and thousands of guns. W.T.F.
I must agree with Elaine about Summers and Geithner and wrote about it when they were appointed. As I remember it in one comment I listed the White House number and urged people to call prior to their appointment. I don’t know what got into me since I was so hypnotised by Obama’s rhetoric.
I fully support the idea of a TOTAL RECALL of elected officials. I can’t see this happening at the federal level but our state has an initiative process so it might be easier to implement.
What I mean by a Total Recall is where the voters instigate an initiative for a special election where there are two choices. 1) Initiate a recall election against the entirety of the legislature. 2) Initiate a recall against the governor. If both choices are yes, the governor and all members of the state legislature are out of office that day. No bills can be levied from the time the initiative reaches the level to hold an election until after the votes are counted. If NO then business as usual. If YES then hit the road jack.
A caretaking government will preside by the Lieutenant Governor as acting governor, the attorney general as advisor, and the supreme court as an oversite committee. (Despite what people think, the state does function without the presence of the governor or legislature in office) A general election would be held within a reasonable amount of time. Former recalled politicians would be banned from holding office until the following full election cycle.
No need for an upheaval, just get them out if they are not worthy.
Interesting article from the Nation!
Gene,
You are right that Pelosi should have arrested Rove if they ad the goods on him!
“I keep telling Obama to fire Eric Holder, but he does not listen”
Why would Obenito fire him?
The thing that bothers me about the pending House vote is that the NRA has made it known that they will be noting who votes nay and it will go against their hallowed “score”. This is basically a threat to GOP house members. If they had an idea to vote nay on principle, it will be quickly scuttled to avoid a black mark from the NRA. That is the kind of power that the NRA wields on the Hill.
The GOP is responsible for gutting many government agencies, making it next to impossible for them to do their jobs effectively. The ATF is their special target because the NRA would like to see it gone. So, step 1: cripple the regulating authority that you don’t like. Step 2: wait for it to fail. Step 3: go in for the kill, justifying said action by pointing out how ineffective it is. Or in this instance, base your case on the conspiracy theory that F&F was intentionally flawed in order to take away our guns.
They have to turn over the documents. Do you know what the “Rosemary Rule” is?
=========
The 18½ minute gap
According to President Nixon’s secretary, Rose Mary Woods, on September 29, 1973, she was reviewing a tape of the June 20, 1972 recordings[3] when she said she had made “a terrible mistake” during transcription. While playing the tape on a Uher 5000, she answered a phone call. Reaching for the Uher 5000 stop button, she said that she mistakenly hit the button next to it, the record button. For the duration of the phone call, about 5 minutes, she kept her foot on the device’s pedal, causing a five-minute portion of the tape to be re-recorded. When she listened to the tape, the gap had grown to 18½ minutes and later insisted that she was not responsible for the remaining 13 minutes of buzz.
The contents missing from the recording remain unknown to this day. It is widely believed that the tapes recorded a conversation between Nixon and Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman. Nixon said that he never heard the conversation and did not know the topics of the missing tapes.[4] Haldeman’s notes from the meeting show that among the topics of discussion was the arrests at the Watergate Hotel.[5] White House lawyers first heard the now infamous 18½ minute gap on the evening of November 14, 1973 and Judge Sirica, who had issued the subpoenas for the tapes, was not told until November 21, after the President’s attorneys had decided that there was “no innocent explanation” they could offer.[5]
Rose Mary Woods demonstrating how she may have erased tape recordings
Woods was asked to replicate the position she took to cause that accident. Seated at a desk, she reached far back over her left shoulder for a telephone as her foot applied pressure to the pedal controlling the transcription machine. Her posture during the demonstration, dubbed the “Rose Mary Stretch,” resulted in many political commentators questioning the validity of the explanation.[6]
Years later, former White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig speculated that the erasures may conceivably have been caused by Nixon himself. According to Haig, the President was spectacularly inept at understanding and operating mechanical devices, and in the course of reviewing the tape in question, he may have caused the erasures by fumbling with the recorder’s controls; whether inadvertently or intentionally, Haig could not say.
In a grand jury interview in 1975, Nixon noted that he initially believed that only four minutes of the tape was missing. When he later heard that 18 minutes was missing, he said, “I practically blew my stack.”
==============================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_White_House_tapes
This is precisely what happens in a polarized world of party politics. Neither sides assumes any sense of goodwill from the other to fairly judge an issue. Thus the Executive believes that the Legislature, controlled by its opponents, will take every unfair advantage to mushroom a relatively minor scandal into an election year debacle, while the Legislature assumes the worst from the Executive and demands accountability. It’s a kangaroo court with each side unworthy of belief. This is precisely the problem with factions as Madison noted in Federalist 10:
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
Is it about the Board on Professional Responsibility?
A complaint could be made against Eric Holder to the DC Board on Professional Responsibility, for instance.
US FUNDS THE TALIBAN????
One of the most important issues today is the war in Afghanistan-Pakistan and the fact that US
Military Aid to Pakistan is being used to fund the Pakistani ISI which is in turn funding Taliban
and Al Quada fighters. While this has been reported sporadically in the media for whatever
reason political pundits on the left and right have effectively ignored this issue.
Joe Klein in an article for Time, August 9, 2010, p. 19, has written an article that every American
citizen should go to their library and read, he writes,
“The commanders are unanimous in their belief that the ISI is running the show….And so,
despite professions of alliance with the US by Pakistan’s then dictator Pervez Musharraf, a
decision was made to keep the Taliban alive. A spigot of untargeted military aid from the George
W. Bush Administration helped fund the effort. A commander of the vicious Haqqani Taliban
network tells Waldman that their funding comes from ‘the Americans–from them to the
Pakistani military, and then to us.’ Waldman reports that the commander receives from the
Pakistanis ‘a reward for killing foreign soldiers, usually $4000 to $5000 for each soldier killed’”.
American tax dollars if not directly, then indirectly are being used to fund the Taliban and put
a bounty on American boys and girls head… Makes one wonder why the establishment right
or left is not reporting on this? If the right is covering for
the mistakes of the Bush administration…why is the establishment left not reporting on this???
…this is the most important issue of the day…we will never win a war where if not directly then
indirectly the US is funding the opposition!!!!
woody voinche
*************************************************************************
This is a bigger scandal than Fast and Furious…that Amerikan
tax dollars are funding the Pakistani military and ISI who are
then funding the Taliban and Alquada and putting a $5000 bounty
on Amerikan boys and girls heads….why isnt there a call for a
Senatorial and Congressional investigation of this?????
Some of these officials get selective amnesia along party lines???
woody voinche 1, June 21, 2012 at 9:42 am
US FUNDS THE TALIBAN????
…this is the most important issue of the day…we will never win a war where if not directly then
indirectly the US is funding the opposition!!!!
====================================
Time to leave. Never should have done it in the first place. Afghanistan, yes, because of what they did. Iraq, no.
Pattern of lawlessness continuesPublished on Thursday, June 21, 2012 by Common Dreams
Obama White House Rejects Request for Targeted Killing Docs
- Common Dreams staff
Citing national security concerns, the Obama administration on Wednesday rejected requests by the ACLU and the New York Times for documents relating to the US military’s drone and targeted killing campaigns.
Critics argue that the government cannot reasonably expect to exploit details of these programs for political reasons on the one hand and then deny they exist when the legality of the same programs are challenged in court. In court documents filed late Wednesday — in accordance with a deadline set by a New York federal court – the administration argued the information requested was “highly classified,” despite the fact that details of the programs have been leaked to the media. Critics argue that the government cannot reasonably expect to exploit details of these programs for political reasons on the one hand and then deny they exist when the legality of the same programs are challenged in court.
In response to the government’s court action, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said Thursday: “The notion that the CIA’s targeted killing program is still a secret is beyond absurd. Senior officials have discussed it, both on the record and off.”
The ACLU’s Jaffer said, “The public is entitled to know more about the legal authority the administration is claiming and the way that the administration is using it.”
“We continue to have profound concerns with the power the administration is claiming and with the proposition that the president should be permitted to exercise this power without oversight by the courts,” Jaffer said.: ”
Consistent patterns of lawlessness have a meaning. People are willing to ignore that meaning and the events when it’s “their” side doing them. That is as dangerous as the lawlessness itself. When Republicans do that, it is dangerous to our whole nation. When Democrats do it, it is dangerous to our whole nation. Our fellow citizens have to mean more to us than cheering for our party. Real things are at stake here, things that will destroy our social fabric. Radical honesty and integrity of mind and spirit are the only tools citizens have to combat this level of corruption and lawlessness. We must exercise our finest qualities as human beings.
The truth is, despite what Mike would tell you, that Romney and Obama are very much alike. One appeals to the right wing of society and one appeals to the left. In substance they are both quite similar. Look at how similar Obama has been to Bush with regard to foreign policy and domestic police-state policies. Don’t let people scare you about Romney banning abortions, outlawing homosexuality, or taking away a woman’s right to vote. I would bet a million dollars that Romney would not outlaw abortion even with two Republican majorities in congress. These are the issues they use to divide people along religious lines. Romney, if you remember, is very much pro-choice. Oh, he changed his view? Of course he did. But it means nothing. He is running on a national Republican ticket now. This ain’t Massachusetts anymore.
importanttopics 1, June 21, 2012 at 11:15 am
I would bet a million dollars that Romney would not outlaw abortion even with two Republican majorities in congress.
==================================
Keep your money. They’re already trying to ban vodka.
“The truth is, despite what Mike would tell you, that Romney and Obama are very much alike. One appeals to the right wing of society and one appeals to the left. In substance they are both quite similar. Look at how similar Obama has been to Bush with regard to foreign policy and domestic police-state policies. Don’t let people scare you about Romney banning abortions, outlawing homosexuality, or taking away a woman’s right to vote. I would bet a million dollars that Romney would not outlaw abortion even with two Republican majorities in congress.”
importanttopics,
Now if I was a clever right-wing operative, who wanted to affect the election by stating that the two candidates were one in the same and so it doesn’t matter who you vote for, or whether you vote at all, I would adopt exactly what you said. I don’t know enough about you to be able to say I had discerned your motivation, but strategically it would be a good move if you were such an operative.
But riddle me this, per today’s story in the DailyKos link below, why are all these corporate fat cats and Republican operatives hovering around Mitt and think his election so important, if who’s President doesn’t make a difference to the 1%?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/20/1101747/-Open-thread-for-night-owls-Bush-conservatism-s-second-act
“The wolf in charge of shepherding modern American conservatism, Grover Norquist, observed a while back that it did not really matter which Republican was put in the presidency so long as they could sign their own name. His point was a valid one. No matter which Republican wins the nomination, the same figures would still hold sway; the same narrow group of people would be selected from, to govern and to give advice; the same money handlers would be present, collecting from the same groups and companies, demanding in return the same policies and agendas.”
Now you try to ease our minds by stating:
“Don’t let people scare you about Romney banning abortions, outlawing homosexuality, or taking away a woman’s right to vote. I would bet a million dollars that Romney would not outlaw abortion even with two Republican majorities in congress. These are the issues they use to divide people along religious lines.”
Now I’m sure you’re ready to put up your million dollars in a wager, but who are you that I should trust your “sureness”. One would have thought that extremely conservative Senator Richard Lugar would be immune from primary defeat at the hands of the Tea Baggers, but lo and behold he lost his primary and a further message was sent to Republicans that they follow the dictum of this radical religious base, or face defeat. Romney has prove nothing if not that he’s the most pliable of candidates. Somehow your assurances don’t comfort me.
“This is precisely what happens in a polarized world of party politics.”
Thanks Mark, the other way we the people aid and abet this is because we allow the Democratic Party to assume they can count on our votes, because “who else are you going to vote for”, and “if Romney gets in it’s DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM”. As well as all the bullying that goes on, even/especially at sites like this: “All women and good men should vote for Planned Parenthood candidates or else MISOGYNY”, “You like Ron Paul, YOU ARE A RACIST!”, “You are a white Democrat considering someone other than Obama? RACISM!”
Support proportional voting, and if you don’t see a candidate you like, vote for the most viable third party candidate to encourage other alternative party runs in the future.
anon, Most Americans have used Planned Parenthood at one point or another in their lives. For some women it is the only doctor they can afford to see! If you are against Planned Parenthood, you are really against medical care for the poor or disadvantaged.
Not quite racist, but ‘classist’ you think only the well to do should have medical care.
I give to PP because the gave me medical care I could afford when I was poor. And they saved my sisters fertility so she has a beautiful daughter now. They preserved her fertility. I would not have this beautiful niece if Planned Parenthood had not helped my sister.
but, yea, I think you are a misogynist anyway. Try to back off Planned Parenthood if you can, because it is a great organization that does more good in the world than you ever could.
Romney will be worse than Obama, there is no doubt about that. Just like Bush was much worse than we could even imagine. Romney will forcefully cut everyones hair.
“anon, Most Americans have used Planned Parenthood at one point or another in their lives. For some women it is the only doctor they can afford to see! If you are against Planned Parenthood, you are really against medical care for the poor or disadvantaged.
Not quite racist, but ‘classist’ you think only the well to do should have medical care.”
Thank you for misrepresenting me.
If you can find anything that suggests either a) I don’t support Planned Parenthood, or b) I think only the well to do should have medical care, than please do.
In the meantime, keep your misrepresentations of others to yourself.
Regardless, the statement from SwM (echoed by other feministas) that she will only vote for Planned Parenthood endorsed candidates certainly makes her a special interest, vote your vagina voter.
Acceptable statements:
Vote your head!
Vote your heart!
Don’t let your dick do your thinking!
All women and “good men” will vote for planned parenthood endorsed candidates.
Unacceptable statements:
“I don’t consider a planned parenthood endorsement the final word on who I vote for”.
which is responded to with bullshit calls of
MISOGYNY MISOGYNY. CLASSISM! RACIST! MISOGYNST!
So shano, take your bullying and your cries of misogyny and either put up the evidence or shove them deep.
Anon, when you want to state in your own words and with your own “take” on things your own reason to vote for your own candidate of choice, fine, do it for whatever reason you like.
When you start fussing about another person making a choice of whom to vote for by a standard that you would not use, and even by a standard you ABHOR, then your objections to THAT PERSON’S VOTING PROTOCOLS are certainly open for criticism.
See, if you and someone else were running for office and I was a voter in that election, I could vote against you for the dumbest reason on earth; no justification is needed. I could be a uterus voter; I could be a flip-coin voter; the vote is mine to use and even to waste.
So your tempest in a teapot about who votes for candidates based on what is really nonsensical; nobody needs a “good” reason — or, more particularly, a reason YOU find “good” — to vote for whomsoever.
I have this on good authority from the Uterod.
Swarthmore mom
1, June 9, 2012 at 12:20 pm
anon, Womem that are supporters of Planned Parenthood should rightfully be afraid of Rpmney. He has promised to “eliminate” it.
anon
1, June 9, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Oh, I’m sorry SM, I momentarily forgot you were a single issue voter. Enjoy your win with Obama, hope that works out for you, and make sure everyone knows how you detest his foreign policy and other civil rights stances.
“Swarthmore mom
1, June 2, 2012 at 10:29 am
One of the deal breakers for me is women’s rights and reproductive freedom. I find myself more and more aligned with Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood endorsed Obama the other day. That’s why I could never have never supported Ron Paul, and I can vote for Obama despite disagreement with him on some other issues.”
“Swarthmore mom
1, June 19, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Even after all the puffery of the anti-Obama people, no one has changed their mind in this small blog group. I suppose it gets frustrating for those that want to skim off a percentage or two and guarantee a win for Romney. Most of the women will stick with the candidate that Planned Parenthood has endorsed, and so will the men that support them.”
Anon:
SwarthmoreMom is a special interest voter. She has repeatedly told us her one and sole criteria is Planned Parenthood endorsement. Special interest voters are dangerous in a two party system. It’s another reason not to favor two party systems or bullies.
SwarthmoreMom doesn’t vote with her head.
SwarthmoreMom doesn’t vote with her heart.
SwarthmoreMom doesn’t vote with her stomach.
SwarthmoreMom doesn’t let her dick do the thinking.
SwarthmoreMom votes with her vagina.”
Malisha, Swindler, Shano, et. al., RACISM!!!! YOU ARE A MISOGYNIST!!!!!!!!111!!!
anon, Any one that has clue sees a huge red flag in Romney’s words. That is if one is at all concerned about the healthcare of poor women.
“anon, Any one that has clue sees a huge red flag in Romney’s words. That is if one is at all concerned about the healthcare of poor women.”
I think you’re right.
You said what I quoted in a thread about how Obama uses drones to kill civilians in a “double tap”, and you responded by explaining how none of that matters to you except your concern about women’s health care issues.
You proudly announced you are a single issue voter, and I wished you the best success with that and made it clear that all of your complaints about Obama and ANY OTHER ISSUE were now just examples of your stupidity, that you no longer had any moral or logical cause for outrage about Obama’s behavior since your sole announced criteria is Planned Parenthood endorsement.
And I said the best way to get progress on all these issues was to make sure the Democratic Party couldn’t assume our votes were their’s because we have no place to go, To vote for third parties, to stop issuing dire warnings of doom and gloom if a Republican is elected, and to stop bullying people over their legitimate choices.
And the response to that was MISOGYNY MISOGYNY MISOGYNY.
http://votewithyourvagina.com/
“Honey, keep these cocks out of your box”
“Get your Mitts off my hooha”
“V – The right box”
“Be a man – grow a pair of labia”
“Use #VoteWithYourVagina when posting on the Tweeter.”
Katie says “Vote with your vagina”
http://vimeo.com/41112657
Marianne Williamson, noted feminist and author appears on Daily Cafe, a daily live show with Retirement Living TV (www.rl.tv). She explains that she is voting for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton as she says, “I’m not gonna vote with my vagina.”
http://www.vday.org/archive/vote/ideas
Wear your “Value Your Vagina—Vote!” shirt to work or school. Explain the vagina vote to everyone you meet.
Monitor poling places to guard against voter intimidation. Wear your “Value Your Vagina—Vote!” t-shirt.
Throw a house party in the evening and watch Election Day coverage with your V-Posse.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Vagina%20vote
A term used in the 2008 American Presidential election for former Hillary supporters who voted for McCain/Palin tandem on November 4, based on the fact that Palin is a woman.
Hillarite: “Onooz, Hillary lost the primaries. But there’s this chick from Alaska. She is against everything I stand for, but I will vote for her anyways. She is a woman after all.”
Informed voter: “So you are voting with your vagina? Vagina vote is unfeminist!”
http://www.salon.com/2004/06/11/ensler_3/
Vote your vagina!
Eve Ensler, the vulva-friendly playwright, hosts a fundraiser in New York in the hopes of getting young women to vote with their … well, you know.
By Rebecca Traister
Playwright Eve Ensler was in New York on Monday night. And you know what that means.
Yup. The vaginas were flying.
http://pinterest.com/pin/67413325642324781/
“I’m voting with my vagina” bumper stickers.
http://www.zazzle.com/voting_with_my_vagina_navy_shirt-235269898041755601
Voting with my Vagina, Navy Shirt
Also:
Ladies Petite T-Shirt
$20.95
Best value
Ladies Long Sleeve
$23.95
Ladies Destroyed T-Shirt
$30.95
Ladies Twofer Sheer (Fitted)
Voting with my Vagina, Tee in White
VOting with my Vagina Tee in black
HONEY BADGER DON’T CARE TEE SHIRT
So, if I decide to vote for Romney am I still a vagina voter? After all, he would love to look into every aspect of my Vagina, from birth to death. No right to privacy under good ol’ Mitt. He is an expert at ruling over the Vagina, as are all good GOP members as well as the Teabaggers.
The majority of Hillary supporters hated Sarah Palin. With a passion. Maybe a tiny minority voted for McCain out of spite, but most thought it was a dirty disgusting trick to think any one woman would be interchangeable with any other woman. Palin is the Queen of Right to Lifers, the Vagina inspection team.
So, no, you still remain a misogynist when you think a woman who is a single issue voter is voting with her Vagina.
Unless you also think a man who votes with the NRA is voting with his penis.
http://392390.spreadshirt.com/
Vagina I have one and I vote
T shirts, tote bags, water bottles, purses, coffee cups
“So, no, you still remain a misogynist when you think a woman who is a single issue voter is voting with her Vagina.”
Don’t be ridiculous. SwM tells us every chance she gets that Planned Parenthood endorsement is in her own words a dealbreaker for her.
This makes her a single issue vagina voter, as endorsed by Eve Ensler herself.
Noting she is a single issue voter, a single issue vagina voter, something encouraged by feminists, does not make me a misogynist.
Repeat after me:
Metonymy is not misogyny.
Metonymy is not misogyny.
Metonymy is not misogyny.
Find some actual examples of hatred of women or stop your idiotic bullying.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/04/11/im-voting-with-my-vagina/
Don’t feel your voice is being heard at the moment? This bumper sticker is hard to ignore. Details on getting one here.
Anon, we don’t have to stop our idiotic bullying.
We can bully you all we like even if you tell us to stop.
We don’t have to find any examples of hatred of women to give us the right to bully you, because we can bully you WITHOUT having the right to bully you.
Because We’re the Mommy.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/17/sexism/
Sexism: Are Mormons The American Taliban?
June 17, 2012
By Kimberley Johnson
…
As for me, I’m going to rock the Slut AND Vagina vote this November.
My vagina approves this message.
This is what they call an “adjustment reaction.”
http://www.etsy.com/listing/102164433/vagina-and-vote-pin-back-button
I have a vagina and I vote
Just a reminder to politicians that women have won the right to vote. This is a specially priced listing and $.50 of each one sold is going to Planned Parenthood.
Watermark does not appear on item.
Button Facts:
Measures 2.125” x 3.125”
Metal shell
Mylar/UV protecting cover
Pin Back
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0608-03.htm
V-Day Launches ‘V Is For Vote’ Campaign to Rally The Vagina Vote Towards Ending Violence Against Women and Girls
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ovaries-for-Obama/371802799497045
Ovaries for Obama
http://vaginaverite.com/featured/featured20.html
In urban and rural centers around the country, street teams of young women will provide outreach in public spaces; video and audio equipment will be used to capture,’on the spot’ rants and be on hand to register young women to vote. These teams will also provide outreach in major convening places like nightclubs, concerts, health clubs, hair and nail salons.
http://twitter.ie/#!/rocktheslutvote
twitter.ie/rocktheslutvote
Jun 14, 2012 – Vaginas will remember this November. Go Forth, Raise Hell & Rock The Vagina Vote in 2012!
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vaginas-vote-chicks-rock-to-take-place-monday-september-13-at-the-apollo-theater-71662527.html
Vaginas Vote, Chicks Rock’ to Take Place Monday, September 13 at The Apollo Theater
Metonymy is not Misogyny
Metonymy is not Misogyny
Metonymy is not Misogyny
Well I’m convinced! How dare groups of people with interests in common get together and try and influence politicians and other people to support issues they think are important! What’s next, gun owners? Business owners?! Environmentalists?!!
Or worse, what if some of these groups whose goals seem to align formed alliances, and supported candidates that agreed with their platforms.
Oh, you mean that’s the system we currently have, and you only seem to be complaining about one particular group working in it’s own (perceived) self interest? Hmmmm, well no evidence that you’re biased against that group at all.
Bob,
I don’t know, I was remind of this song:
He’s not a misogynist, he’s just cutting an onion for a lasagna, for one….
“Oh, you mean that’s the system we currently have, and you only seem to be complaining about one particular group working in it’s own (perceived) self interest? Hmmmm, well no evidence that you’re biased against that group at all.”
Right, thank you for misrepresenting me.
I’ve never held out just one group to this criticism. Look up and down this thread and others where it is single issue groups that come under criticism.
What SwM is being criticized for is her stupidity or hypocrisy. Pretending to give a shit about anything other vaginas as she did in a thread about Obama using drones to target civilians but then stating over and over she will only vote based on her vagina.
The other criticism is for those that claim the term “vagina voter” is de facto misogynistic. It’s clearly not. It’s clearly a term that’s been embraced by everyone except thread bullies trying to score some points but unable to do so with logical argument or fact.
Also, if you want to present any evidence I am biased against women, you just go right ahead and do that.
Gyges,
Nice. Never heard the song before. I see you focused on meaning instead of the simple rhythm of the words. My second choice was “You Don’t Win Friends With Salad” from the Simpsons.
Veddy interestink.
You are now spending as much time insisting you aren’t a misogynist as you are telling women that they vote with their vagina and trying to hide it behind the excuse “I’m using a rhetorical device.” Well . . .I’ve heard about enough of that. It’s not as if you are fooling anyone anyway.
Technically speaking, what you are doing when you talk about women as “vagina voters” you wouldn’t be using metonymy (where one word or phrase is substituted for another closely associated word) but synecdoche (using a part to refer to the whole) – which is a very specific kind of metonymy. Such as when Shakespeare said in Macbeth, “Take thy face hence.” If you’re going to blame your misogynistic tendencies on rhetoric or rhetorical devices, you should at least be precise. Also, while we are speaking technically about language, using a rhetorical device such as “vagina voter” does not preclude that usage from being both a rhetorical device and misogynistic at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.
If you are having problems with the basic difference (and I suspect you are), consider the phrase “The hand that rocks the cradle.” In that phrase, “hand” is used synecdotally for parent while “the cradle” is used metonymically for the child. To further put this in proper linguistic context, while “you vote with your vagina” is synecdochal, “you vote with your bra” would be metonymical.
The array of things you think you understand but actually don’t never ceases to impress, anon.
Sure Gene, I just listed several dozen (gross estimate) examples of feminists using the term metonym, “vagina vote” in a mostly endorsing manner, and yet you still would claim the term is defacto misogynist.
And my use of metonymy versus synecdouche conforms well to the wikipedia description.
Go pound your lap some more Gene Howington.
“I’ve never held out just one group to this criticism. Look up and down this thread and others where it is single issue groups that come under criticism.
What SwM is being criticized for is her stupidity or hypocrisy. Pretending to give a shit about anything other vaginas as she did in a thread about Obama using drones to target civilians but then stating over and over she will only vote based on her vagina.”
Anon,
Fully 75% of your comments cast aspersions on women one way or another. The hysteria evident in your thought processes as you commented 23 times between 5:42 and 7:18 pm, endlessly droning on about women voting with their vagina’s is the mark of a disturbed man who feels women have done him wrong. Sometimes men do get screwed in marriage, but most times they get exactly what they deserve. The only problem being that they don’t have enough insight into themselves to accept any responsibility for getting screwed. Frankly I don’t give a damn how unfair your divorce was, because you have chosen to turn your hate into a crusade against women.
Now I don’t have a vagina, but as I stated way above, women’s rights ranks very high in my reasons for voting for Obama. I’m not gay either but LBGT rights also rank high. When you have had attacks on women’s rights stemming from the vote in Roe v. Wade, that want to roll back women’s roles and enforce patriarchy, an intelligent woman should damn well vote with her vagina. Just as a Black Person would vote against a candidate who wants the return of Jim Crow. Here’s what show how demented you really are though when it comes to women and vagina’s. Voting with one’s vagina is a metaphor Anon and because of your hatred for women, you are too obtuse to get it. The metaphor simply means that women should vote in their own self-interests and actually takes in a much wider range then simply women’s rights.
Women are also Mothers and women are Daughters and yes some women are Wives and Lovers. Health care is a vagina vote issue, as is war, the economy and much else that is contended with in our political system. It just so happens that the forces aligned against all of those things are particularly aligned against women’s right also. Now you particularly attacked SwM as a “single-issue” voter and since all the time you answer charges regarding your obvious misogyny with look at my record, perhaps you should go back and look at her record of taking positions on many issues.
Finally though, your single issue voter diatribe is merely the flotsam with which you unsuccessfully try to hide the overriding single issue of your life, your hatred of women, all women, except perhaps for the woman who would be unfortunate enough to think you were someone worthwhile to spend time with, woe to her for she will learn better.
“Go pound your lap some more Gene Howington.”
Anon,
I suspect lap pounding is your only means of gratification.
Really? Because if in Wiki You Trust, it says:
“Synecdoche (play /sɪˈnɛkdəkiː/, si-NEK-də-kee; from Greek synekdoche (συνεκδοχή), meaning “simultaneous understanding”, is a figure of speech[1] in which a term is used in one of the following ways:
Part of something is used to refer to the whole thing (pars pro toto),”
Which conforms with what I learned as an English major and a professionally trained rhetorician and with what I said above to differentiate the two concepts. None of which negates that rhetorical devices can be used to misogynistic ends.
mi·sog·y·ny \mə-ˈsä-jə-nē\, n.,
: a hatred of women
And as most people reading your scribblings have noted, you’ve clearly got issues, dude. The claims of misogyny lay not in the device, but in your application and thinly disguised contempt for things female.
You’ve also mistaken me for someone who doesn’t think you’re totally ridiculous, anon. You know. Ridiculous. As in:
ri·dic·u·lous \rə-ˈdi-kyə-ləs\, adj.,
: arousing or deserving ridicule : extremely silly or unreasonable : absurd, preposterous
So I’ll just add English and rhetoric to the long list of things you think you understand but don’t and have a hearty laugh at your expense.
“:Fully 75% of your comments cast aspersions on women one way or another. The hysteria evident in your thought processes as you commented 23 times between 5:42 and 7:18 pm, endlessly droning on about women voting with their vagina’s is the mark of a disturbed man who feels women have done him wrong.”
Spoken with the authority, confidence, ignorance and nonsense of a true the rapist.
It is clear why I commented 23 times, each with an example of a feminist using the metonym “vagina vote”, that was to counter your original uninformed bullshit claim that the metonym “vagina vote” was defacto misogyny.
“Sometimes men do get screwed in marriage, but most times they get exactly what they deserve. The only problem being that they don’t have enough insight into themselves to accept any responsibility for getting screwed. ”
And this speaks to your bias, your self-loathing, why you would be dangerous to license as the rapist.
“Frankly I don’t give a damn how unfair your divorce was, because you have chosen to turn your hate into a crusade against women.”"
You toss these words around, but you’ve shown no ability when asked to demonstrate any of this. My crusade against women? Where is that?
Noting that SwM is a vagina voter, pointing out her many proud statements of that, describing why that is a poor strategy for her to take if she holds the views towards Obama’s behavior re: civil liberties that she claims to hardly amounts to a war on women, Mikey.
Your problem is that SwM says repeatedly in no uncertain terms that she is a vagina voter in every sense of the way that Eve Ensler and others call for it, and you’re all annoyed that someone else would note that too.
As I’ve said, if SwM wants to vote her vagina, that’s her business. But it’s wrong for her and you to bully others by saying if we don’t place PP endorsement as #1 on our list, that makes us misogynists. And it robs her of any moral standing to complain about other issues of the President’s behavior, and empowers the President to abuse her and us on those issues.
If you could point to misogyny, you would, but repeatedly, time and again, you throw that label out, impotently, and never with any proof.
Anon,
“I’ve never held out just one group to this criticism. Look up and down this thread and others where it is single issue groups that come under criticism. ”
I’ll call your bluff. Here are the groups you’ve discussed in your comments.
Post @ 3:15:Planned parenthood
Post @ 3:39:Feminists
Post @ 4:50: “vagina voters” (Or something, it’s not really clear what group you’re calling rapists, maybe you’re really talking about rapists)
Post @ 1:36: The Democratic party, but because they bully people with racism and… wait for it… feminist issues.
Post @ 3:28: Feminsitas
Then there’s a whole slew of posts about people who are voting about a single issues, which are all (shockingly) aimed at women.
So, yeah, I’d say you only seem to be complaining about one group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
Metonymy ( /mɨˈtɒnɨmi/ mi-TONN-ə-mee) [1] is a figure of speech used in rhetoric in which a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept. Metonyms can be either real or fictional concepts representing other concepts real or fictional, but they must serve as an effective and widely understood second name for what they represent.
For instance, “Hollywood” is used as a metonym (an instance of metonymy) for U.S. cinema, because of the fame and cultural identity of Hollywood, a district of the city of Los Angeles, California as the historical center of movie studios and movie stars. Another example is “Westminster,” which is used as a metonym for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, because it is located there.
…
Synecdoche
Synecdoche, wherein a specific part of something is used to refer to the whole, usually is understood as a specific kind of metonymy. Sometimes, however, people make an absolute distinction between a metonymy and a synecdoche, treating metonymy as different from, rather than inclusive of, synecdoche. There is a similar problem with the use of simile and metaphor.
When the distinction is made, it is the following: when “A” is used to refer to “B”, it is a synecdoche if A is a component of B and a metonym if A is commonly associated with B, but not part of its whole.
As I said my use of it conforms quite nicely. If you want to restrict it further, that’s your business, but my use of it is clearly well within the common understanding (using the wiki metric).
If you want to be inaccurate, be my guest. Like I said, I find your perpetual errors amusing.
Gyges,
” Look up and down this thread and others ”
And in this thread:
Thanks Mark, the other way we the people aid and abet this is because we allow the Democratic Party to assume they can count on our votes, because “who else are you going to vote for”, and “if Romney gets in it’s DOOM DOOM DOOM DOOM”. As well as all the bullying that goes on, even/especially at sites like this: “All women and good men should vote for Planned Parenthood candidates or else MISOGYNY”, “You like Ron Paul, YOU ARE A RACIST!”, “You are a white Democrat considering someone other than Obama? RACISM!”
Support proportional voting, and if you don’t see a candidate you like, vote for the most viable third party candidate to encourage other alternative party runs in the future.
But you’re perceptive, after Spindell claimed I was a misogynist for using the phrase “vagina voter”, I made clear there was nothing misogynistic about that phrase.
And you’re doubly perceptive because after a year or so here and however you’re long you’ve been here, you’ve picked up that I do have criticisms of modern feminism.
BUT critiquing modern feminism is not misogynistic. That’s another fallacy that modern feminists would love people to believe.
But given how many feminists have their own beefs with modern feminism (from Camille Paglia to Wendy Kaminer) and how many other women have beefs with feminism in general there is no way to claim that to criticise modern feminism is misogynistic.
That’s just a bullying ploy.
But if that’s your claim, then just state it.
“If you want to be inaccurate, be my guest. Like I said, I find your perpetual errors amusing.”
Well then Gene, I encourage you to correct the wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metonymy&action=edit
Why? There is nothing technically wrong with Wiki, but rather the error lies in your lack of ability to properly understand both it and what I said about synecdoche as it relates to metonymy. That you used a word without fully understanding it is your fault. And I can’t correct that. I’m not that kind of doctor.
Okay, so I’m using a word in precisely the way that the Wikipedia entry for that word says is the way the word is used, and you call that an error.
In the meantime, when you are invited to correct the Wikipedia entry, you admit it’s correct, but then pound your lap some more.
Fine, book it. done.
LOL, what with all us “vagina voters” this year those voting machine manufacturers are going to have to start making those machines closer to the ground; even on my tip-toes and my best day….
Do we now get to start calling people who vote for candidates that have or vote anti-women policies “dickhead voters”? Seems appropriate to me.
Ya know anon, even on the interwebs people give off a ‘vibe’. Maybe the reason people call you a misogynist is your vibe. It always strikes me when you get on one of your rants that while you may be using the word vagina, you’re actually want to use the word c**t. I don’t get that vibe from any other poster here. You’re an angry man. It shows.
LOL, that’s right, my vagina reads minds, votes, makes small household repairs and can program a VCR.
Lotta,
“LOL, that’s right, my vagina reads minds, votes, makes small household repairs and can program a VCR.
”
But can it get you banned from speaking to the Michigan State House?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/06/14/155059849/michigan-state-rep-barred-from-speaking-after-vagina-comments
Malisha; “I have this on good authority from the Uterod”
****
What! Are you still getting their e-newsletter? I haven’t heard from them in a couple of months, I better check my e-checkbook and make sure I’m current in my dues. Thanks for reminding me, girlfriend.
.
.
.
.
(You crack me up.)
Gene,
Just what kind of doctor are you?
well.
this looks like pure un-adulterated vagina envy.
sorry guys, you don’t have one.
you can be angry about it, or you can accept what G*d gave you graciously.
I find it exeedingly ugly that so many gripe about what the other sex has when none of us would be here if it weren’t for that essential contribution.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgEXRKIZRvc&w=560&h=315%5D
“Okay, so I’m using a word in imprecisely the way that the Wikipedia entry for that word says is the way the word is used, and you call that an error.”
Since imprecision is a form of error, yes, I am. Again, the problem isn’t the device, anon, but rather your superficial and incomplete understanding of it.
raff,
Gyges, LOL, I would hope for nothing else.
Her inference with “no means no” which the Speaker said was the objectionable part of her comment, was a very well turned rhetorical flourish with a deep socio-political resonance; rape is not about sex, it’s about power. The Michigan House was hoist on its own Petard.
““Okay, so I’m using a word in imprecisely the way that the Wikipedia entry for that word says is the way the word is used, and you call that an error.”
Since imprecision is a form of error, yes, I am. Again, the problem isn’t the device, anon, but rather your superficial and incomplete understanding of it.”
Of course, the Wikipedia doesn’t say it’s imprecise to use it how I use it.
It doesn’t say the way I use it is informal, non-standard, colloquial, or vulgar.
No, it gives the way I use it AS its definition and then goes on to state
” Sometimes, however, people make an absolute distinction between a metonymy and a synecdoche, treating metonymy as different from, rather than inclusive of, synecdoche. ”
We call such people synecdouches.
LK
yes, but can it play a piano?
Of course, you’re going to try to rationalize away that you said metonymy when you should have said synecdoche, anon.
” Sometimes, however, people make an absolute distinction between a metonymy and a synecdoche, treating metonymy as different from, rather than inclusive of, synecdoche. ”
We call such people precise and professionally trained rhetoricians.
Tell the truth, anon. You’re a legacy from Harrisburg, aren’t you?
I think this is the first time I have seen the word ‘synecdoche’ used in a conversation since I was in graduate school. That was, um….mumble, mumble…years ago.
“Of course, you’re going to try to rationalize away that you said metonymy when you should have said synecdoche, anon.
” Sometimes, however, people make an absolute distinction between a metonymy and a synecdoche, treating metonymy as different from, rather than inclusive of, synecdoche. ”
We call such people precise and professionally trained rhetoricians.”
Instead of pounding your lap about this Gene, all you have to do is edit the Wikipedia and change:
“Sometimes, however, people make an absolute distinction between a metonymy and a synecdoche, treating metonymy as different from, rather than inclusive of, synecdoche. ”
to:
“Precise and correct usage of metonymy differentiates it from synecdouche, and excludes synecdouche from metonymy [citation]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metonymy&action=edit§ion=5
Pete, actually, the clarinet was my instrument when I was younger and my fingers more nimble.
==========
The vids are outstanding guys! Thanks for the entertainment.
Such an easy edit to make to.
I encourage you to correct the wikipedia entry for metonymy, generations will thank you.
“Post @ 3:28: Feminsitas” anon
This is the secret code, the ‘tell’ as it were.
All Uterati can de-code this language.
Sucks to be you, anon.
And Romney sucks a billion times worse than Obama,
for any (sane) single issue voter, no doubt about that either.
anon,
Lap pounding and hating on women . . . you really don’t know how transparent you are, do you? That or you have anosognosia.
Go on.
Look it up and fail to understand that word as well.
““Post @ 3:28: Feminsitas” anon
This is the secret code, the ‘tell’ as it were.”
What are you talking about?
https://www.google.com/search?q=feminista
urbandictionary: define.php?term=feminista
1. feminista 129 up, 51 down
A modern feminist. One that shows traits belonging to nu and old school feminist thought while exhibiting a hipster-like fashion consciousness that was not present in the last generation of feminists.
She is such a feminista.
2. feminista 16 up, 7 down
A third wave feminist. A woman (or man) who actively supports the rights of women in all arenas, regardless of multiple definitions or stereotypes of femininity. Supporting women’s right to choose to be whatever it is that they desire, whether that is a mother, banker, artist, doctor, teacher, lawyer – or all of the above. A feminista is not necessarily “that girl from women’s studies who can’t get a date” or inherently unattractive in any way. She (or he!) is many things or anything, so long as that person actively supports a woman’s right to have the opportunity to do anything she imagines, without societal, cultural, religious and especially political laws or preconceptions limiting her potential. A feminista also supports women’s reproductive rights.
http://ukfeminista.org.uk/
Our Vision
UK Feminista’s vision is a world where women enjoy all the rights enshrined in CEDAW – the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women – otherwise known as the ‘women’s bill of rights’.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-kelley/erica-kennedy_b_1607663.html
Erica Kennedy: RIP, Feminista
I was shocked and saddened this weekend when I clicked on an email telling me that Erica Kennedy had died. How I wished I could unclick it-the email, and the news. Today is no better: my head feels clouded, like I’m thinking through mud. My gut feels heavy, as though I ate a bowling ball for breakfast.
http://www.depauw.edu/orgs/feminista/
Welcome to the fierce, feisty, and fabulous Feminista! page!
We the womyn of Feminista! aim to bring about positive reform to the world starting at DePauw University. We are usually busy trying to stomp down intersecting oppression of all kinds and empowHER other womyn to do the same. On our free time we are the life of the party! We are just like you and you are just like us so let’s get together and make this world a better place!
About Feminista!
All women and women lovers welcome!
Mission:
Feminista! was founded upon the principle that women’s right are human rights! A non-hierarchical organization that explores member’s individual feminisms! Feminista! is a multicultural activist organization dedicated to social justice for ALL that works at transforming DePauw’s campus to become a more safe pro-women space by bring women’s issues and concerns to the forefront.
Shano, “Feminista” is my tell? My tell of what?
http://community.feministing.com/2010/05/21/feminista-of-the-week/
bibliofeminista.com post/9416145006/feministing-wrote-today-about-thatsnotcool-com
Musings on the book industry, technology, women’s issues and other important news in my world.
cherchezlafeminista.wordpress – La revolucion est chic
“anon,
Lap pounding and hating on women . . . you really don’t know how transparent you are, do you? That or you have anosognosia.
Go on.
Look it up and fail to understand that word as well.”
Seriously Gene, it’s an easy edit, and Jimmy Wales is always looking for more active contributors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metonymy&action=edit§ion=5
Just cut
Sometimes, however, people make an absolute distinction between a metonymy and a synecdoche, treating metonymy as different from, rather than inclusive of, synecdoche.
And paste
Precise and correct usage of metonymy differentiates it from synecdoche, and excludes synecdoche from metonymy[citation]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metonymy&action=edit§ion=5
Easy peasy!
yea, but like n*gger, this is a word that can only be used correctly by the Uterati.
Rush Limpballs has also wrecked the usage. Just stop trying to defend yourself.
Any American who understands how Planned Parenthood helps all women would not be against it. What happened? Did some woman have a D&C without your permission? oh boo hoo for you. boo hoo. get over it.
Once more
“Any American who understands how Planned Parenthood helps all women would not be against it. ”
Where did I say I was against Planned Parenthood?
And I think the word that Rush Limbug ruined famously is feminazi, not feminista, which is a hip edgy word feminists used in reference to themselves to portray themselves as urban fighters against the man.
You can show this to yourself by comparing the google search of
https://www.google.com/search?q=rush+limbaugh+feminazi
with
http://www.google.com search?q=rush+limbaugh+feminista
(sorry, trying to avoid the spam filter)
But just do the search and compare.
Also there’s a 400 history behind why the n word is a word mostly reserved towards usage by Blacks. If you’re going to suggest that for the word feminista, I’m going to have to ask you for a citation on that one.
Come on Shano, stop flailing, you and Gene are going to give each other a black eye.
Whatever you want to try to think, Flounder.
If you had the facts or the law on your side Gene, you’d pound the law and make the edit.
If you had any integrity, you’d pound the table and acknowledge your mistake.
Since you are reduced to name calling, we can see you’re pounding your lap (again.)
No. If I was interested in editing Wikipedia, I’d make the edit, Flounder. The bottom line is there is nothing substantively wrong with the Wiki its not substantively different from what I am saying. The flaw is in your understanding which led you to use an imprecise term in trying to rationalize the behavior everyone but you seems to recognize as misogynistic. Had you used the precise and more accurate term – synecdoche – you wouldn’t have had the wiggle room for claims of your innocence a broader term provided. You tried a semantic argument to justify the valid criticism that your statements were misogynistic and it failed because 1) it was a ridiculous and blatant attempt at evasion and 2) it wasn’t a precisely correct semantic argument so when the precise term was applied it served to highlight your misogyny.
Yep.
It sucks to be you, Flounder.
No. If I was interested in editing Wikipedia, I’d make the edit, Flounder. The bottom line is there is nothing substantively wrong with the Wiki its not substantively different from what I am saying. The flaw is in your understanding which led you to use an imprecise term in trying to rationalize the behavior everyone but you seems to recognize as misogynistic. Had you used the precise and more accurate term – synecdoche – you wouldn’t have had the wiggle room for claims of your innocence a broader term provided. You tried a semantic argument to justify the valid criticism that your statements were misogynistic and it failed because 1) it was a ridiculous and blatant attempt at evasion and 2) it wasn’t a precisely correct semantic argument so when the precise term was applied it served to highlight your misogyny.
Bah.
You won’t make the edit because you know you’re wrong.
You won’t acknowledge you’re wrong because you’re an arrogant lawyer.
And all that aside,
Synecdoche is not misogyny either.
Vagina voter is a term that feminists wave proudly.
SwarthmoreMom over and over and over tells us that her one deal breaker, the one thing she demands of a candidate is a Planned Parenthood endorsement.
This clearly makes her a single issue vagina voter.
There is no misogyny in noting that, just as there is no anti-semitism in noting someone demands a candidate support Israel, no anti-gunism in noting a person demands an NRA endorsement.
And the other fact is that Mike Swindell, the rapist, had nothing when he called my noting of SwarthmoreMom’s single issue vagina vote misogyny.
None of you can find any actual examples of misogny, instead you talk of vibes and emanations that you state you can pick up across the Internet.
If you had any guts or confidence in your position you would make the wikipedia edit that you insist is correct, but you’re a coward and a liar Gene.
Metonymy is not misogyny
Synecdoche is not misogyny
SwarthmoreMom should wave her vagina vote proudly and buy any of those t shirts, bumper stickers, coffee cups, purses that I found so quickly.
If you can find some evidence of misogyny that isn’t a clear parody of feminist cant, you just feel free to point that out.
You got nothing, kiddo.
In all truthfulness, I won’t make the edit simply because you want me to, Flounder. Call it an exercise in spite.
And thanks for again displaying that you have no idea what the difference between a rhetorical device and the intent behind it, which in your case is misogynistic raving. Saying it is parody is sadly no better defense either. Parody is a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule. You aren’t funny (at least not intentionally) and ridiculing women because they are women is exactly what misogynists do so once again you are hoist upon your own ignorant petard.
Anyone caring to research beyond Wiki into the distinction between motonymy and senecdoche can verify what I say is true and I invite them to do so. Anyone paying attention can tell you are a misogynist, no special skills or research required. It’s what we call “manifest”.
Gene,
Or should I say Dr. Love? Great Flounder clip. I love that movie!
Saying something dickish and dick headed and then typing & cutting & pasting endless screeds of essentially, ‘see, they do it too’ is one annoying thing misogynists do.
nanananana, just like kindergarden. Do gay men have to put up with a version of this?
Obama, deliberative or evasive? Both, because Issa is being a dickish dickhead.
“Also there’s a 400 history behind why the n word is a word mostly reserved towards usage by Blacks. If you’re going to suggest that for the word feminista, I’m going to have to ask you for a citation on that one.”
Huh?
Phallus, please!
And thus anon provides ammunition to the censorship inclined. Sigh. I got through the first half of the posts, and there were great comments, if some disagreements between the usual crowds of Gene H., Mike S., rafflaw, and Jill, and Malisha, and so on. Then anon posts. Gah. Made me completley lose my train of thought.
But…. as to the original post, Prof. Turley makes an outstanding point regarding abuse of executive powers. The fact that the Viper salesman is a douchebag is tangential to the message that abuse of executive authority is abuse of executive authority, regardless of which party is in power. What makes this so frustrating is that it’s been delegated to party lines, instead of constitutional lines, or even idealogical lines. It’s all about winning the next election. What I find particularly sickening is that as much as I despise Holder and Obama, Mitt Romney would be just as bad. Do we pick a president who has no problem whatsoever with manipulating his “position” to accrue popular favor? Or do we elect… the other guy doing the exact same thing? I’m moving to Australia. If I’m going to have personal freedoms curtailed, I want to do it in a place where they make good beer.
CLH, when you only have one axe, you grind it.
CLH & Malisha, my father was a really smart guy who was an astute observer of people. He used parables, aphorisms and proverbs a lot when commenting about the foibles of those around him. One of his favorites was, “He would argue with a signpost he painted himself.”
Does that sound like anyone we know? Never mind….that was a rhetorical question.
I’ve read some pretty ludicrous stuff written here…..the responses well…. Do it if you feel the need too…..
CLH,
You might want to reconsider that Australia thing. They have their own homegrown brand of authoritarian issues causing trouble.
OS, I hear you.
Sometimes I do this stuff just like a person flexes a muscle.
I’m not gonna say which muscle, of course.
HuffPo is reporting the following case of “He Said, She Said”. The saddest part is that both of them are right (although the “He Said” is not right for the reasons he gives and “She Said” is missing the blatant hypocrisy of her statements following her “Impeachment is off the table” screw up).
He Said:
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) called House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) “mind-numbingly stupid” for suggesting that Republicans are attacking Attorney General Eric Holder in order to advance an agenda of voter suppression.
“It’s really beneath the office of a member of Congress to say something that outrageous, and the fact that she was once the Speaker is mind numbing,” Gowdy told Fox News on Thursday. “So I don’t know what was wrong with her yesterday or today or whenever she said that, but I would schedule an appointment with my doctor if she thinks that we are doing this to suppress votes this fall. That is mind-numbingly stupid,” he said.
No, Trey. She got the politics behind the move about right. She’s mind-numbingly stupid for not putting Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al. in the docket so the Senate and the courts could have done their job and put them in the pokey for a very long time for their assorting crimes which arguably include treason.
She Said:
“I’m telling you, this is connected,” Pelosi said during a news conference Thursday. “It is no accident. It is a decision and it is as clear as can be. It’s not only to monopolize his time, it’s to undermine his name … as he goes forward to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
No, Nancy. You don’t get to get all preachy about defending the Constitution when you’ve done such a shit job of it yourself.
A pox upon both of your houses.