Tempest in a teapot - what else is new?

Podhoretz in the NY Post today has it all in black and white - all this b.s. about Karl Rove is just a big pile of nothing. It is the latest in a long stream of attempts by Democrats to defeat this president and his agenda through made-up scandal rather than the time tested manner of GETTING MORE VOTES.

Who's Who in American listed the name of Joe Wilson's wife. It was listed on his bio webpage (http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html). Read the email - Rove wasn't "uncovering the name of a covert CIA agent". This is more of Mr. Wilson puffing up his own importance. His wife wasn't covert at the time and hadn't been for five years (which means no law was broken). All this over a law that has been prosecuted exactly once in over twenty years, and that was when it was used as a plea option instead of a stricter law.

Here's a relevant quote from the article:

In the Cooper e-mails just surrendered by Time to the prosecutor looking into the Plame case, "Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a 'big warning' not to 'get too far out on Wilson.' Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by . . . CIA Director George Tenet . . . or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, 'it was, [Rove] said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.' "

There's no mistaking the purpose of this conversation between Cooper and Rove. It wasn't intended to discredit, defame or injure Wilson's wife. It was intended to throw cold water on the import, seriousness and supposedly high level of Wilson's findings.

While some may differ on the fairness of discrediting Joseph Wilson, it sure isn't any kind of crime.

Wilson has lied when he said that his wife did not get him the job, a fact later borne out by internal CIA email records. Rove didn't out his wife, he exposed Wilson as the low level flunky and charlatan that he was.

So...got anything else, guys? Maybe you should find out what your core principles are and sell them well to Americans. That might be a more effective way to achieve your aims.

Just a thought.

BYE BYE Lone Star Times

I don't like to trumpet my accomplishments (stop laughing LoydRight), so I didn't make a big deal about being asked to write for Lone Star Times, a Houston-based blog associated with a large talk station in Texas.

However, I am now going to make a medium-sized deal about how they have treated me and, I assume, a few other "amateur" writers. Several (I think more than six) months ago, they changed the format and the posting template and said they had to work out some technical issues for us "off-site" folks to be able to post again.

I know, yeah right. All you guys just sit up there at the office to post on a blog.

In any case, three emails and several months later and all we've heard is "be patient, we're working on it". Well, what it kind of looks like is that we've all been fired and you guys are too chicken to just send us the kiss-off email. Hey, it's your site and you can keep all the writing to yourself or get whoever you want to write on it, but at least have the common courtesy to be honest and upfront.

First, if there have been ongoing technical issues for this long, you need to fire your IT guys. Also, you need to keep folks who have worked for you for free a little better informed.

Second, if this is just a run-around, you should be adults and just fire me, ok? And a real explanation would be nice (I'm not "local" enough in my focus, for instance, which might be a decent reason), not a reply on this post that says "You are fired" (not that I think that anyone from there is reading this anyway).

Please note that all references and links to Lone Star Times are now gone from this site, never to return. All, like, thirty-five of my readers are never coming back, man! (It feels like an empty threat even as I write it!)

Well, if I got a large bottle of Johnny Walker Blue, they might come back, but I'm not holding my breath.

RMR

The Holy War Begins

The Holy War Begins - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com

For some reason, I just don't believe a word of any of this - nominating Gonzales, nominating a moderate, blah, blah. I just don't think Bush will do what they are expecting. Also add to the mix the flap over Gonzales and torture - he would just be too hard to confirm. For some reason, my money is on Ted Olsen (Olson?). He is a brilliant lawyer, talk show guys like him so he'll do well with the base, and his wife was killed on 9/11 in the plane that struck the pentagon. Callous to say, but this gives him a little bullet protection from real hard line attacks because it will be mentioned in virtually every story about him - it's just too interesting a piece of info for a reporter to not mention.

The thing I find most interesting is the whole "Bush has to nominate a moderate to keep the balance of the court the same" thing. Hello, was an ACLU lawyer a "balanced" replacement? Let's not forget that Ruth Ginsberg is about as liberal a justice as Clinton could have appointed and she SAILED through, not because of consensus, but because Republicans recognized that THE PRESIDENT GETS TO CHOOSE THE CANDIDATE. The Senate makes sure they are competent, and that's it. There is no right to a review of judicial philosophy, and anyone who says otherwise is LYING. But, that's politics.

Here's another thought:

WE WON - that means we get to choose the justices. No more of this "out of the mainstream" stuff. Doesn't the presidency, both houses of congress, a majority of governorships (including four of the most populous states), and a majority of state legislatures sort of make Republicans mainstream?

RMR