WaPo: "A federal judge in Detroit ruled yesterday that the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional, delivering the first decision that the Bush administration's effort to monitor communications without court oversight runs afoul of the Bill of Rights and federal law."
Well done, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor.
There's a lot of commentary on this story in the blogosphere. You can find all the latest at Memeorandum, but make sure to check out, above all, Glenn Greenwald, who in a must-read post with multiple updates declares that this is "extraordinary news -- extraordinarily good news -- on every level".
And it's about time.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Thursday, August 17, 2006
New poll puts Lieberman ahead in Connecticut
A new Quinnipiac poll gives Joe Lieberman a 12-point lead over Ned Lamont -- 53 to 41 -- in Connecticut's Senate race. The Republican candidate, the distinctly lame Alan Schlesinger, lags way behind at four percent.
There's still a long way to go until the election, but Lieberman's strong showing among Republicans could put him over the top unless Lamont is able to eat significantly into his Democratic support. That may yet happen as the election draws near, but the recent Democratic primary showed that Lieberman still has a good deal of support from his own party in his home state. Lamont only won that contest by four points. As well, I suspect that Lieberman will benefit so long as terrorism, an issue that plays to his hawkish bona fides, remains in the news. A key determinant will likely be how much influence external factors -- including terrorism, the Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict, Iraq, Bush's approval ratings, and the relative popularity of the two parties -- have on the heavily nationalized race in Connecticut.
For now, it seems Joe still has some momentum left in the tank.
There's still a long way to go until the election, but Lieberman's strong showing among Republicans could put him over the top unless Lamont is able to eat significantly into his Democratic support. That may yet happen as the election draws near, but the recent Democratic primary showed that Lieberman still has a good deal of support from his own party in his home state. Lamont only won that contest by four points. As well, I suspect that Lieberman will benefit so long as terrorism, an issue that plays to his hawkish bona fides, remains in the news. A key determinant will likely be how much influence external factors -- including terrorism, the Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict, Iraq, Bush's approval ratings, and the relative popularity of the two parties -- have on the heavily nationalized race in Connecticut.
For now, it seems Joe still has some momentum left in the tank.
Orrin Hatch is a dangerous idiot
Yes, yes, I know. There's something quite juvenile about calling prominent public figures dangerous idiots -- indeed, about name-calling in general. Yesterday it was George Allen, whose buffoonery borders on dangerous idiocy, whose intentional bigotry is dangerous idiocy. And today it's Allen's Senate colleague Orrin Hatch, whose flagrant partisanship with respect to the politics of fear also qualifies as dangerous idiocy.
What did Hatch do to qualify? Consider: According to The Salt Lake Tribune, he said recently that terrorists are "waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again". In other words, Bush and the Republicans stand between America and another 9/11. Elect Democrats at your own peril.
How stupid, no? How idiotic, no?
Yet it's hardly the first time Hatch played the terrorism card to attack Democrats as weak and terrorism-friendly. Back in 2004, a couple of months before the presidential election, he said that terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry". In other words, Osama supported Kerry. The only way to stop Osama and his ilk was to re-elect Bush. Democrats, if elected, will (indirectly) kill Americans. Elect them, to repeat, at your own peril.
Utter nonsense, of course, but such divisive rhetoric works. Republicans have successfully spun the narrative that Democrats are weak on national security and cowardly in the war on terror -- unreliable at best, abettors of terrorism at worst. The narrative has stuck.
Republicans, now as desperate as ever given the prospect of defeat ahead, exploit terrorism for partisan purposes at home, while the Democratic plans to deal with such Republican errors as Iraq are largely ignored by news media that have been bullied into providing Republican-friendly "balance" (see Brock, David, The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy).
Dangerous idiots like Orrin Hatch need to be held accountable for what they say and how they say it. It may indeed be rather unbecoming of me to call the Allens and Hatches of the world buffoons and idiots, but I'll continue to call them as I see them.
What did Hatch do to qualify? Consider: According to The Salt Lake Tribune, he said recently that terrorists are "waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again". In other words, Bush and the Republicans stand between America and another 9/11. Elect Democrats at your own peril.
How stupid, no? How idiotic, no?
Yet it's hardly the first time Hatch played the terrorism card to attack Democrats as weak and terrorism-friendly. Back in 2004, a couple of months before the presidential election, he said that terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry". In other words, Osama supported Kerry. The only way to stop Osama and his ilk was to re-elect Bush. Democrats, if elected, will (indirectly) kill Americans. Elect them, to repeat, at your own peril.
Utter nonsense, of course, but such divisive rhetoric works. Republicans have successfully spun the narrative that Democrats are weak on national security and cowardly in the war on terror -- unreliable at best, abettors of terrorism at worst. The narrative has stuck.
Republicans, now as desperate as ever given the prospect of defeat ahead, exploit terrorism for partisan purposes at home, while the Democratic plans to deal with such Republican errors as Iraq are largely ignored by news media that have been bullied into providing Republican-friendly "balance" (see Brock, David, The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy).
Dangerous idiots like Orrin Hatch need to be held accountable for what they say and how they say it. It may indeed be rather unbecoming of me to call the Allens and Hatches of the world buffoons and idiots, but I'll continue to call them as I see them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
