Disqus - Friends of nicrivera

Re: Comments moving to Disqus

AustinRoth — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:33:42 -0000

Hmm, this will be interesting.

Re: Clinton Wins in New Hampshire: Egg on My Face…for Now

AustinRoth — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:22:09 -0000

From Scrappleface:

(2008-01-08) — In the wake of the unexpected outcome of the New Hampshire Democrat primary Tuesday, sources at the Democrat National Committee (DNC) said they’re still trying to figure out whom to sue amid a flurry of allegations of fraud, malfunctioning electronic voting machines and voter intimidation.

“It’s a forgone conclusion that if the race outcome defies the pollster predictions, there must have been corruption,” said an unnamed DNC source. “Just because it’s an intra-party contest, doesn’t mean we’ll subject the results to less scrutiny.”

The DNC source added that “Americans need to have faith in the electoral process, but the New Hampshire Democrat primary has the smell of Bush-Gore 2000 all over it. We’re determined to follow the facts where they lead.”

Re: Huckabee & A Tale of Two Prisoners

AustinRoth — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:13:18 -0000

Another view. Having learned from his earlier mistake concerning 'jailhouse religious conversions' with Dumond, Huckabee refrained from repeating it with Parker.

But that narrative doesn't allow Shaun to tar a Republican, and unsurprisingly does not appear to have been considered.

Re: Mike Huckabee: “Easier to change the Constitution”

AustinRoth — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:19:31 -0000

Also, separation of Church and State was NOT in the Constitution originally.

It is of course in the First Amendment, but it IS an Amendment, which the proscribed method for changing or updating the Constitution (rather than, say Judicial fiat).

I have no desire to see Huckabee or his ilk get their way on these issues, but let's at least present the facts correctly.

Re: Huckabee & A Tale of Two Prisoners

AustinRoth — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:39:14 -0000

Shaun - your point is conceded, and I should have seen it.

I do suffer from SDS, I must admit, but that is no excuse.

Re: Which Of These Men Are Heroes?

AustinRoth — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:59:59 -0000

"Were the women heroes?"

Only someone who equates Al Qaeda with the South Vietnamese rather than the North would even think to ask that. You always seem to find a way to express things in as anti-American a position as you can.

If someone had caught the bastards who blew those Iraqi women up, and shot them point blank and it was caught on film as this was, my guess is you would lead the parade to have them branded as villains as well.

"Said to be a Viet Cong captain". Jeez - he was caught just after he shot three Americans. I cannot label him the poor victim as you can Shaun.

Re: Pro Clinton Push Poll Reported In California

AustinRoth — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 16:12:28 -0000

Slightly unrelated question.

Where have all the TMV commentators gone? It used to be that less than 10 - 15 comments was 'light' commenting, and that 40 or 50, or even more, wasn't uncommon.

With each passing week, the number of 0 comment posts, or those with 5 or less, seems to be increasing dramatically.

Thoughts?

Re: The Most Important Election of My Lifetime

AustinRoth — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:00:09 -0000

But Shaun, here is a sobering question for Democrats right now. Does you primary vote really count this year?

This article - Super Delegates To Determine Nominee, by Chris Bowers (hat tip:Instapundit) seems to lay out a strong case for a brokered Democratic convention.

I am no expert on the Democratic Party nomination process, but his article seem on the surface to raise some very good points.

Despite our philosophic differences, I do respect your analytical skills (even if I don't often agree with the results!). I am curious what you think of the proposition Chris has put forth, and if you agree with the likelyhood of his scenario, how does it affect the ultimate chances for Hillary and Obama?

My take is if this comes to pass, the Clintons currently own the the Party and the levers of power, and Obama gets shut out.

Thought?

Re: A Clinton Supporter Asks: If Obama Wins it All, What Then?

AustinRoth — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:22:35 -0000

It is amusing to me to observe the sudden discovery by Democrats about just how duplicitous and craven the Clinton's are, and also the expressed shock at the 'big lie' strategy they and their supporters wage against their opponents.

Republicans have known if for years. But then again, really, so have Democrats. They just treated that behavior the same way NOW treated Bill and Monica. It doesn't count when we don't want it to count.

Re: That Mighty Wave of Electoral Change & Why Hillary Clinton Never Saw It Coming

AustinRoth — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:00:56 -0000

Boy - talk about missed the boat.

The whole argument about policy positions, talking points, etc., is not really relevant to Obama's success. He is riding, as Shaun put so well, a wave for change, and an attitude.

Same thing caused me to vote for Clinton (the first time), same thing swept Kennedy and Reagan into office.

Argue in the trenches all you want - he will win (excepting some MAJOR gaffe or revelation) based on personality.

IMO

p.s. - Shaun, I think that was the single best post I have ever seen from you.

Re: Website Set Up By Clinton Campaign To Seek Democratic Convention Delegate Rules Changes

AustinRoth — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:48:19 -0000

I am shocked that no one has blamed Rove for her tactics yet.

Re: McCain: To be, not to be…

AustinRoth — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:39:13 -0000

Wait, wait, wait. OK, let me get this straight.

Blow-jobs and cigars shoved up the twat of a young intern by the sitting President in the Oval Office are a-ok (when it is a Democrat), but we are now supposed to get our knickers twisted in a tizzy over an 'appearance of impropriety' by a Republican candidate?

Move along you looky-loos. No double standards to see here.

Re: McCain: To be, not to be…

AustinRoth — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:04:46 -0000

I was commenting on the press, not the comments here. And the point is valid. Does someone want to argue the position that what Clinton did was not ethical impropriety, but if McCain has had an affair, that is?

The argument put forth during the Clinton sex scandal(s) was that sexual scandals are soooo passe and American, and say nothing about whether a person is fit to govern. We were told to be so much more like the French about such things, oui?

So, please tell me how this is not a double standard? Actually, I think if he DID do something, it DOES say something about his character and fitness, just as I thought it did for Clinton. Maybe that is just me

Re: Obamacans

AustinRoth — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:37:51 -0000

"after the Republican party collapses and the U.S. becomes a one party state"

Gosh, I heard the same fears expressed back when it looked like the Republicans were going to be in office forever. It was no more true then than now, although it does let people like SD get their alarmist rocks off.

Any party that manages to gather enough of the levers of national government here in the US eventually (and actually, usually pretty quickly), succumbs to hubris and corruption.

If there is one thing I can count on from our national elected officials as a whole, it is that eventually their attitudes of superiority and entitlement will hoist them by their own petards.

Re: Shameless Slimeball of the Millennium

AustinRoth — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:25:47 -0000

The fact that Drudge did not 'break' this story is not relevant to you, is it Shaun. Another inconvenient truth for you. I guess you are just another MSM full of jealously that you couldn't make the transition to the new world of media (at least not in a manner that pays the bills).

I love the remark about what if it was CBS that broke it. Then we would be hearing about journalist duty and integrity to run the story. Ans why is it 'slimy' to report on this, but it is not 'slimy' to expose legal (but distasteful to the liberal-left media) government programs that attempt to stop terrorism?

Re: Shameless Slimeball of the Millennium

AustinRoth — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:05:06 -0000

My thought is replace 'Matt Drudge' with 'NY Times', and then make Cernig's thought experiment. They would be up for Pulitzer prizes.

And again, this is just Drudge-bashing for fun and sport. He did not break the story, he just repeated it. But it isn't as much to bash someone else, is it?

Re: Palestinians Abandoned By Arabs, America and World

AustinRoth — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:50:47 -0000

"First and foremost the Palestinians have abandoned themselves."

Brilliantly phrased, and spot on. It doesn't matter what side of the fence you are on in this issue. The current crisis and situation is almost self-immolation by the Palestinians, as a whole, or at least the current leadership, which after all was elected.

Re: Is Hillary Clinton Poised For Comeback In Ohio And Texas Primaries?

AustinRoth — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:01:50 -0000

Bu Joe got it right - there is a long way to go.

Clinton is still in a tight spot after Tuesday, IMO.

If she 'loses', the pressure brought to bare on her to drop out will be enormous. But the overall race will still be too close, and I cannot see her doing that. At the least, she would wait until the convention so she and her team could be power brokers.

If she 'wins', it could re-ignite the Obama support. His support is young and personality-based. Those types tend to not vote if they perceive their guy is in good shape, then rally strongly if they feel he is threatened.

This is also assuming that under all circumstances, the vote is overall close. either side getting a huge win (very unlikely) would change the calculus.

Re: In Texas, an Ivins-fulfilling prophecy

AustinRoth — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:09:29 -0000

I hated her 'nails on a chalkboard' writing, and maybe agreed with 5 or 6 columns over the years.

However, as with Shaun here, poking with sticks at columnists you disagree with is a long-time American tradition, and while i can't stand most of eithers content, I give them their just dues as very talented columnists.

That said, Molly did have a way of seeing through BS. She also had a VERY low tolerance for style over substance or cult of personalities.

That said, I am not so sure she would have been as big a Obama supporter as some of you think. There is a good chance her BS meter may have gone off in his presence.

IMHO

Re: Palestinians Abandoned By Arabs, America and World

AustinRoth — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:46:14 -0000

"(T)he international community removed every bit of financial and technical support."

We are the sum total of the 'international community"? Hmm, I don't buy that argument.

And yep, we can pull our support when leaders like Chavez, or Hamas, or whomever get elected. We have no moral obligation to support our enemies. What a silly statement on your part.

And gee, I kind of remember Hamas lobbing rockets at Israel (and other acts of aggression) long before they were in power. Back then, people such as yourself claimed it was their only course of action because they were cut out of the political process.

That position having been shown to be a lie, now new justifications have to be brought forth. Because God forbid the Palestinians themselves ever be held accountable for their own actions.

Re: Mukasey’s Paradox & Other Mischief

AustinRoth — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:35:53 -0000

Shaun - I agree that the 'Mukasey Paradox' is very troubling. Circular logic such as this to avoid accountability (even if I don't agree that all the issues being discussed have criminal aspects) is the hallmark of tyrannical and corrupt governance. And these precedents, left unchecked and unchallenged, could reverberate for decades to come, and across party and ideological lines.

That conceded, I still fail to see the why behind the sturm und drang over the US Attorney firings. I have yet to read a legal analysis that states anything other than they serve at the President's pleasure, and unless the firings violated traditional protected class rules, no crime could have been committed.

Re: Mukasey’s Paradox & Other Mischief

AustinRoth — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:18:49 -0000

"But if truthful testimony was to be elicited from Bolton and Miers (and pigs will fly before that happens) they should leave no doubt that the firings, in the aggregate, were because these U.S. attorneys were not cooperative enough in the White House's desire to use them as Republican Party functionaries."

But Shaun, again, if no one is even suggesting that a criminal act has occurred (as none has), what right does Congress have to pry into the Executive Branch's legal decision making?

To me, the fact of Congress trying to use subpoena power for a purely political act, over an area that Constitutionally they have NO oversight, is more egregious that the firings. The President was within his rights (even if you don't like the why), but Congress was out of bounds.

I can't see SCOTUS ruling any other way, if it ever gets there, and I say it is a 8-1 or 7-2 ruling, maybe even unanimous.

Re: Mukasey’s Paradox & Other Mischief

AustinRoth — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:35:00 -0000

kritt - how can you have obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence when no crime was committed?

Re: Mukasey’s Paradox & Other Mischief

AustinRoth — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:36:11 -0000

Destruction of records and information, even to evade an investigation, does not rise to the level of a crime unless said destruction was to avoid prosecution, and the investigation was one intending to lead to potential charges.

Avoiding embarrassment, even from Congress, in the absence of any underlying criminal action that is being covered up is not of itself a crime.

So again, as no one has claimed that the firings were illegal, just perhaps unethical, destroying evidence of non-criminal activity, in the face of a non-criminal (and likely un-Constitutional) investigation, is not a crime.

We should take this discussion over to Volokh, see what the pros think.

Re: Mukasey’s Paradox & Other Mischief

AustinRoth — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 20:32:38 -0000

No, I have made no such argument, and wouldn't. My argument is there is no crime because by the Constitution, they serve at the President's desire.

As I clearly have said, unless someone is advancing the argument that they were fired under protected class violations (race, creed, etc.), which absolutely no one has even hinted at, then no crime CAN have occurred.

It just is not and cannot be a crime of any nature for the President to fire them for purely political reasons. Hell, he could fire them because he doesn't like their wife/husband/dog. He doesn't NEED a reason, and any reason other than race, creed, etc., simply cannot be illegal.

Therefore, it cannot be the case that covering up evidence prevents us from knowing if a crime occurred.

And quite clearly, you seem to want to willfully misrepresent what I have said.