June 28, 2007

Something or Nothing Open Thread

Yeah, I know that the amnesty Bill has gone down in flames and that other things of importance are happening in the world, but I'm attempting to run something down that may either be nothing, or something, and don't have time to really get into too much else at the moment.

As I'm going to be a slacker, enjoy yourself: I this is going to be the first open thread here, ever (at least as far as I recall).

Touch gloves, come out swinging, and please keep all punches above the belt.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at June 28, 2007 12:33 PM

Anybody wanna guess what I've go in my pocket?

Posted by: phin at June 28, 2007 12:42 PM

The heck with what's in your pocket, put up your dukes! Mike Tyson rules and to paraphrase Chuck Wepner 'My three best punches are the choke hold, the rabbit punch and the head butt.'

Posted by: Dusty at June 28, 2007 01:33 PM

Slate has an interesting article by Reagan deputy AG Bruce Fein on why Cheney should be impeached. I can't link to the article because the spam filter apparently doesn't like the mention of that web site.

The individual examples of malfeasance are compelling, but I can't say the same for his last sentence, in which he summarizes the charges:

Cheney is impeachable for his overweening power and his sneering contempt of the Constitution and the rule of law.

This is a pretty lame restatement of a lot of serious problems.

Cheney seems like a very, very bad man to me, based on his penchant for absurd secrecy and his repeated attempts to exempt himself and Bush from accountability.

Sadly, No! mentioned a rumor that Cheney is going to step down, be replaced by Fred!, thus making Thompson the heir-apparent. Has anyone else heard anything along these lines?

Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 28, 2007 02:01 PM

Anybody wanna guess...

A toad? I was always carrying around a toad when I was a kid...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 28, 2007 02:08 PM

This is a good story about Los Angeles anti-gun efforts.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 28, 2007 02:10 PM

Doc I've heard the same thing, but don't think its any more credible than the rumor several months back that Cheney was stepping down so they could bring in Dr. Rice as a serious contender.

I doubt that Fred! would want to take it. He'd be joining part of a lame duck administration, that just tried to muscle through a bill that a overwhelming majority of their base didn't want. Instead of actually help Fred! it'd destroy his chances.

I kind of look at it this way. If the current administration was batting around a 50 - 60+ percentage approval rating, it'd be a winning proposition. But with the approval ratings at a low point and him being unable to bring about any significant change he's nothing to gain and everything to loose.

It'd be kind of like jumping on the Titanic to rearrange the seats hoping to earn the captains chair.

Posted by: phin at June 28, 2007 03:26 PM

still believe those mission accomplished sign excuses?

Posted by: mac at June 28, 2007 06:58 PM

Here's some bare-knuckle street fighting from a surprising Corner:


A key moment was last night when the Baucus amendment on REAL ID wasn't tabled. The Bargainers had been running through the clay pigeon, tabling amendments to get them out of the way so they could get to the Graham-Kyl-Martinez "apprehend and deport" amendment. Then, the plan was, that amendment wouldn't be tabled, signaling that it would pass and giving some cat-nip to on-the-fence Republicans to vote for cloture. But Baucus wasn't tabled, stopping the process before it got to Lindsey "Deportation" Graham's creation. That helped blow away a big piece of the political strategy of the Bargainers.

A few shrewd conservatives had seen the potential here and voted against tabling Baucusóeven though they didn't support the amendmentóbecause they knew it would throw a monkey wrench in the process. When Baucus wasn't tabled because of those surprise conservative votes, a desperate Reid moved to vote on it right away to try to get it out of the way. But he couldn't because he couldn't get unanimous consent from opponents of the bill. Procedurally, he had been check-mated; politically, the cover of the Graham-Kyl-Martinez amendment wouldn't be available; and it was downhill from there.

Posted by: capitano at June 28, 2007 07:34 PM