« WSJ and the AP Finally Get Their Windmill! | Main | The Two Redacted Pages »

June 29, 2007


Has there been a paradigm shift in this past week? I really think I blinked and everything has changed. Is it just me, being the optimist that I am?

Even USA Scott Schools is going home and leaving us here in N CA to deal with our own neighborhood.


Do you have a link for that? Has a replacement been named?

Boo creepy MI 7th district representative
Hooray plucky reporter!^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HBEER!

quick google search:


Scott Schools - articles re: Departure from US Atty Position:




also here...

OK last post:
Re - paradigm shift...
I told the wife yesterday that we needed to circle yesterday's date on the calendar (probably could do the whole week). I just had this weird feeling reading the news yesterday that something has changed with people and their perspectives on this administration.

Bush looked defeated in that statement over the immigration bill. The Cheney expose laid bare just how he has been destroying the country....and the WaPo did a good job of putting it into terms that everyone can see and cannot deny. The expose also showed how many people that were loyal rethugs are turning on cheney and the administration in an effort to save some face. The Bruce Fein piece in Salon was a pretty good read about impeaching cheney. Also Fein was excellent on the Lehrer report yesterday...he did a good job of shooting down the pepperdine talking head kmeck(?) on air. Then to top it all off, Fox news revealed that their loaded questioning cannot even show the republican party in a good light. There were a bunch of other things that stood out yesterday, but cant remember off the top of my head. (Oh yea, the Senate and House Judiciary looking to have the balls to stand up to the administration over the subpoenas....and they are continuing to stand up today). I guess you can also say that even though the SCOTUS news was bad, it also revealed to all just how far right they have shifted with Alito and Roberts. The SCOTUS is only going to look worse in the future because their decisions will likely counter the prevailing public opinion on the cases.

The CBS evening news story last night also referred to Bush as a "dead duck, not a lame duck" in the piece about the death of the immigration bill, and it rightly pined that death on the GOP Senators, 37 of whom voted against closing debate, including, apparently, some who had been involved in negotiating the bill. Reporter said Bush had no clout at all, in part because of the war.

well, I guess that's how it's done in polite company

If I was the editor of the paper in question, the congressman in question would always be refered to as "Pedophile protecting Congressman Tim Walberg", and his name and title would appear in at least ONE HEADLINE per week, often on the front page

if this fucker wants to play hardball, I'll teach him about hardball

I always throw at the head when I'm playing hardball (and YES, I'd throw at my own mother, if she was crowding the plate ...)

I'm not trying to hurt you, I'm trying to kill you

but that's just me ...

now you know why I don't hang out with the "polite company" much

My Representitive in FL-24 (Tom Feeney) doesn't talk to my local paper and hasn't for years. I wonder how many more Congressman don't speak to their local press?

Hmm - I think I agree with you about this one. But - without wanting to be trollish - haven't all of the progblogs recently been praising Obama et al for 'freezing out' Fox as a punishment for critical coverage?

I don't think its difficult to make out some significant differences between the two cases - but I do think that a nod in the direction of pointing them out might be appropriate.


That's no doubt why they're calling for tough investigation of Feeney, don't you think?


Yeah, I was thinking of that--plus the debate coverage. Still, what this does is call attention back to Walberg's ethically challenged decisions, whereas Obama calls attention to really shitty coverage. I guess to Walberg's base, that still works out fine, but his base isn't going to get him reelected in this district, whereas Obama can--will need to--win without Fox, particularly since Hillary is getting all cuddly with Murdoch.

Yup - fair enough.

Incidentally - on Hillary getting cuddly with Murdoch: I think its interesting for 2 reasons. First, its evidence that the seriously rich reckon the Republicans will lose in 08. Second, Murdoch's got a history of getting to be a kingmaker for non-right wing parties when the right is tanking - I'd say it was endorsements from Murdoch papers (esp the Times - the Sun was more relevant to the general election in 1997) that won Blair the labour party leadership in Britain in 1994. Progressives beware - at least if the British experience is anything to go by.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad