Labor Day Weekend Blogging and Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:25:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Labor Day weekend is fast approaching. Blog traffic will be down with so many people taking advantage of the outdoors and symbolic end of summer.

I'll be blogging on a curtailed basis, and I'm not sure about Big Tent. TChris is on vacation. LNILR is free to chime in as always, but I don't know his plans either.

I'd like to see if diaries can fill the void. The problem is that they don't get enough attention. To correct that, what I'll do starting tonight (if there are any) is a "Diary Rescue" post like Daily Kos does. I'll read the diaries and then, in a blog post every night through Sunday, post links to those I think TalkLeft readers would enjoy reading.

If you blog elsewhere, you're welcome to cross-post here in a diary. Just note that it's been cross-posted at your site and hot-link your site. Hopefully, you'll get some extra traffic.

On diary topics, please make them relevant to the issues on TalkLeft -- elections, politics of crime, crime in politics, war, civil liberties, etc. The economy and environment, while important, are not TalkLeft topics. Yes, they should represent a progressive point of view. Conservatives have their own sites to post on.

More...

Also, no profanity, potentially libelous accusations or nasty personal attacks please. Your diary should add, not detract, from the level of political discourse on the site.

Last note: If you want to write a diary, you have to send me an email so that I can change your permissions to diarist. It's not necessary that you be a lawyer to be a diarist.

Okay, this could be fun or it could flop, in which case, post-labor day blogging will be here soon enough. If it works, we'll keep it going after Labor Day.

This is also an open thread for comments on all topics.

< Representing | Obama to Keep Norman Hsu's Money >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Labor Day Weekend Blogging and Open Thread | 37 comments (37 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Good grief (1.00 / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 03:33:11 PM EST

The paper had a 5 month investigation and interviewed 300 people?

And that isn't a crusade??

LOL.

The paper had an agenda.

Look, the guy pled to a misdemeanor.

Maybe he should had $90,000 in cold cash in his safe...

Maybe he should have been picked up for DUI at 2AM in DC

Maybe he should have had a friend who was running a male prostitution ring out of his apartment..

Maybe he should have ran off and shown up 15 years later as a Demo Fund raiser...

Maybe he should have said, "All right...How much money we talking about?"

etc, etc, etc

That's (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by squeaky on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 04:27:02 PM EST

What happens when you support anti-gay legislation while living a life in the closet. Had he been open about his sexuality and supportive of gay rights, none of this would have happened.

That is if he did not do anything illegal.


Oh grow up (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:30:35 PM EST

No, that's what you get when something that buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton and who is edited by a Demo from Minneapolis decides to attack you.


: Lay off Jim (none / 0) (#35)
by jondee on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:22:14 PM EST

he's had a rough week. And to top it off, they're watching all the airport mens rooms now.

Craig (none / 0) (#16)
by tnthorpe on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:38:07 PM EST

is just a Roy Cohn type bag of bile. He's been a blight on the political scene for ages and if this is how he goes down, so much the better. Cying about being attacked by a newspaper, poor poor Senator, boo hoo.


It is difficult to defend someone I disagree with (1.00 / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 09:05:36 PM EST

yet I must.

Craid's crimes were political. He is guilty of nothing more than representing that the majority in his state wanted, and if that be bad, why does BTD condemn one who (he claims) does not do so?

The Left in general has been up in arms over FISA, over almost any transgression of what they see as an attack on he 4th Amendement, yet they deem that the police's actions here are okay... The ends justify the means.

What difference then is there between the Far Left and the Far Right beyond the Right's ability to claim that their sins are for National Defense while the Left's sins are obviously for Political Gain??

If I must choose I will chose for defense with the full knowledge of what I may have chosen, and the understanding that at some point I may have to say, "That reason has became and excuse. Go away."

Both leave me with a bitter taste. Perhaps yours are more jaded than mine.


34% Approval (5.00 / 0) (#23)
by squeaky on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:09:17 PM EST

Craid's crimes were political. He is guilty of nothing more than representing that the majority in his state wanted, and if that be bad

Actually he is not only guilty of hypocricy but not representing the majority of his constituitancy.

55 percent:
Number of Idaho voters who want Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) to resign, according to a new poll taken yesterday. Just 34 percent approve of the job Craig is doing as senator.

think progress


Caught you again. (none / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:25:22 AM EST

55 per cent:

If we are to believe the various comments floating around over the last few days, the call for him to resign is over his failure to represent their views.

I mean, didn't you tell me that all Repubs hate gays?

Why yes. Yes you did.

lol


ppj Lying Again (none / 0) (#26)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:30:44 AM EST

I never would say that all Republicans hate gays, in fact I provided you a link about the log cabin republicans, who are disgusted with the Republican party platform which is most decidedly anti gay.They withdrew their support from GWB because he hates gays.

Craig has 34% job aproval rating. He is clearly not representing his constituents.


: Okay You didn't say "all" (none / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:46:41 AM EST

What you said was:
It Is True (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by squeaky on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:29:14 PM EST THat the Official Republican position is to hate gays.There may be some deviant republicans who stray from that stance but those are certainly a vast minority.

amended to correct a mistake (none / 0) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:16:51 PM EST

I mean, didn't you tell me that THat the Official Republican position is to hate gays.There may be some deviant republicans who stray from that stance but those are certainly a vast minority.

Yes. Yes you did.


And You (none / 0) (#34)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:09:37 PM EST

Mister supposed defender of GLBT rights disputes that the GOP position is anti gay?

And as far as numbers go this is quite small:

Since 1977, Log Cabin has expanded across the United States and has 47 chapters and 39 organizing committee in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.[19] It claims to have thousands of members but does not release membership figures. .....
Some believe the group has been diminished in recent years as the 2004 Republican Party Platform made "defense of marriage" a political hot button issue similar to the Cold War and National security in the '50s and '60s, the Panama Canal in the '70s, the Iranian hostages in the '80s, and the budget deficit in the '90s.

The rest of the Republicans who are gay are actually not gay, just like Larry Craig, so their numbers are inconsequential.


Why do Republicans hate gay persons? (none / 0) (#36)
by glanton on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:24:21 PM EST

: Because they dont (none / 0) (#37)
by jondee on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:38:36 PM EST

know enough to keep it in a locked, blocked, public mens room.

"Craig's crimes were political" (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:42:21 PM EST

LOL

Um, it isn't "the Left" that's desperately trying to make Craig go away.

Dems would be absolutely delighted if he sticks around for the next 15 months.

Defend away, Jim! Give it your best shot!


Can you seriously (none / 0) (#19)
by tnthorpe on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 09:41:38 PM EST

be comparing the secret and illegal surveillance of citizens by the Bush Administration to policing toilets in airports?

Is wiggling your fingers under the stall a 4th amendment issue?

Cruising on a public john isn't protected, though the very hysteria over such acts has been fueled by Craig himself--Mr. Family Values in Idaho.

Point is, Craig has a history of such behaviour. He made his political career in part from catering to the homophobes in his state. He made the issue political and he lost his political career over the issue. He has only himself to blame.

Importantly, the arresting officer was not out to get Craig in particular, but anyone who in that bathroom was looking for a "handout." So, the comment about ends justifying the means is just baffling. Are you arguing against toilet patrols because they might catch reactionary senators in the very acts they fulminate against and that's just unfair, or worse, political?

I love this. (1.00 / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:23:52 PM EST

Here you are explaining that someone doesn't have a right to privacy in committing an act that, at its worst, could be classified as poor judgement and (gasp!) bothersome to someone's taste.

Yet you complain about the government's actions in trying to protect its citizens from attacks that have been demonstrated as deadly and unpredictable.

Quite a double standard there.


: Public restrooms (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by tnthorpe on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:46:32 PM EST

aren't private places, figure it out. Neither you nor Craig seem to have managed that.
Your second claim is simply bizarre since the argument isn't about whether to defend the country, but how to do so lawfully. I prefer law to authoritarian nonsense, but feel free to think that you protect the law by shredding it.
If you saw clearly, you wouldn't be seeing double.

: Hypocrisy Double Standard (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by squeaky on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:47:24 PM EST

It is the anti-gay Republican's who have a double standard here. You might want to focus your critisicm on them instead of defending the Republican party's anti gay platform:

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN): "Senator Craig pled guilty to a crime involving conduct unbecoming a senator. He should resign."
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): "I believe that he -- that he pled guilty and he had the opportunity to plead innocent. So I think he should resign."
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI): "However, he also represents the Republican Party, and I believe that he should step down as his conduct throughout this matter has been inappropriate for a U.S. senator."
Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN): "While additional concerns are being raised, Senator Craig already demonstrated that he is unfit to serve in the U.S. Congress when he pled guilty. I believe that he needs to step down."
Reps. Jeff Miller (R-FL), Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), Bobby Jindal (R-LA), and Ron Lewis (R-KY): [A handful of Republicans] urged Craig to step down...including Jeff Miller and Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mark Souder of Indiana, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Ron Lewis of Kentucky.
In contrast, none of these nine lawmakers reprimanded Vitter after he admitted to soliciting a prostitute. He even received "`thunderous applause` from Senate GOP colleagues during a policy lunch held a few days after his admission." Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force explains the hypocrisy:

Let's see - one Republican senator is involved in soliciting sex from a man and the Republican leadership calls for a Senate investigation and yanks the rug from underneath him. Another Republican senator admits to soliciting the services of a female prostitute and there's not only no investigation but the senator is greeted with a standing ovation by his Republican peers. What explains the starkly different responses? I'd say rank and homophobic hypocrisy.
think progress
I am sure that Craig had joined in the applause for Vitter. Had another congressman been caught in a gay sting Craig would have no doubt called for him to resign.

tnthorpe (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:02:38 AM EST

As you noted time and again in Padilla, you weren't defending what he had done, but how he was treated by the government.

Now it is my understanding that Craig was inside a locked bathroom stall in an airport, with his luggage blocking the door, further obstructing the view from outside the stall.

And you don't have an expectation of privacy?? Wow.


HahahahahahAAHAHA (none / 0) (#28)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:08:13 AM EST

Craig was allegedly peeping through the crack into the stall where the cop was for three minutes before he got into his own private stall.

From his own account Craig had no expectation of privacy once in his own stall, in fact he engouraged the breach of it from the cop next to him.


You're a riot (none / 0) (#29)
by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:11:16 AM EST

Yeah, when I'm on the john in a public restroom I expect to have so much privacy that I can have sex with the guy in the next stall over.


tnthorpe (none / 0) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:37:50 PM EST

What you do in private is your business.


: And a public toilet is private? (none / 0) (#33)
by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:54:02 PM EST

it must be one of your up is down and black is white days.

Why shouldn't (5.00 / 0) (#13)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 04:32:42 PM EST

the major newspaper in his state "crusade" against a Senator whose private conduct belies his public pronouncements?

As for the rest of your post it sounds a lot like that lame "moral equivalency" argument you properly poitrd out is a transaprent BS when you were confrontedwith it in a different thread.


: Congratulations (1.00 / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:43:23 PM EST

You are exactly right, and the only one here who could zap the moral equivalency defense because you don't use it.
But I do wish you would have given Squeaky, Jondee and Glanton a wee bit more time to take the bait.
And I really wish that I thought the "Statesman" was really interested in exposing a hypocrite who happened to be a Repub rather than a Repub who happened to be a hypocrite.
Alas, I can not take that step. The Demos of the Left have proven time and again their disinterest in wrong doing by Demos/Lefties as evidenced by the lack of interest/response in the list of wrong doings that I so thoughtfully provided.

Twelve million dollars to a dog... (none / 0) (#1)
by Dadler on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:40:11 AM EST

...nothing to the grandchildren.

You gotta love the real life Cruella D'Ville. Rest in discomfort, Leona.

And the others need to visit their father 's grave (none / 0) (#5)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:01:06 PM EST

every year and sign an affidavit/guest book that they did so in order to get their dough. Kookoo.


Free money (none / 0) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:28:55 PM EST

Just because I'm blood related to someone? Where do we go to visit and where do I sign?


: I wish I would have been her grandchild (none / 0) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:30:03 PM EST

Not kidding. I have 5 dogs.......there has to be one of them she would have loved ;)

dadler (none / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 03:12:32 PM EST

Maybe the dog came to visit more often...


: that's what one gets for being (none / 0) (#14)
by scribe on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 04:42:56 PM EST

a lapdog

Report up on "New FISA" (none / 0) (#2)
by scribe on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:53:40 PM EST

by Congressional Research Service, here. (23 page .pdf).

Notable conclusions:
"One provision `could conceivably be interpreted' to apply to parties within the United States. Another provision `might be seen to be susceptible of two possible interpretations.' Still others `appear to' or `would seem to' or `may also' have one uncertain consequence or another."

One commenter at the FAS put it, "it bears the hallmarks of it's hasty, poorly-considered origins."

The problem with that conclusion is, though, that McConnell admitted he had twenty lawyers working on this for two years, and every proposed amendment or change wound up getting the same thumbs-down, because they couldn't predict what the changes would do in affecting other statutes.

This statute did not have "hasty, poorly-considered origins" Rather, it was a carefully thought-out, well-planned power grab gotten via the bum's rush.

Let's all go read the report and tear into this statute.

Craig's lie-fest spiralling out of control (none / 0) (#3)
by Ellie on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:30:13 PM EST

The Statesman is tearing away Craig's web of deceit as fast as he can spin it:

Sen. Larry Craig insisted today [Aug 28 2007] "I am not gay" and lashed out at the Idaho Statesman for a "witchhunt" that led him to plead guilty to a disorderly conduct charge -- a plea he hoped would make the charge go away.
Meanwhile, newly released police records of the bathroom incident that led to Craig's arrest show that Craig revisited the Minneapolis airport 11 days later to complain about how he had been treated by police. He said he wanted information so his lawyer could speak to someone, according to a police report.
Craig said Monday that he did not seek legal counsel before deciding to plead guilty to disorderly conduct. Today, Craig said he has hired a lawyer to advise him what to do next. (Craig insists 'I am not gay,' police say he sought information for lawyer by Idaho Statesman Staff, Aug 28, 2007

via dKos

the Statesman is printing old news, again (none / 0) (#4)
by scribe on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:39:32 PM EST

re this part of the quote above:

Meanwhile, newly released police records of the bathroom incident that led to Craig's arrest show that Craig revisited the Minneapolis airport 11 days later to complain about how he had been treated by police. He said he wanted information so his lawyer could speak to someone, according to a police report.

The part he had about going back to get contact information for his lawyers, etc., was highlighted on Olbermann Monday night. Again, the Statesman is late and dishonest about it.

This part, is just a lie (by Craig):

Craig said Monday that he did not seek legal counsel before deciding to plead guilty to disorderly conduct.

How many US Senators don't have a lawyer readily available, if not actually on retainer, to consult with as needed? I'd say "zero" is the most likely answer.

Now, one more thing - how many cops do you think would not gossip about busting a Senator? And how many court clerks, onlookers, etc. would refrain from gossiping about the Senator as defendant? Having spent too much time hanging around courthouses, I'm compelled to conclude that "The Hill" and Rove probably knew about this within days of the arrest, and held the story close for a rainy day - like the day Gonzo left. I mean, we haven't talked at all about Gonzo since, oh, 3 pm Monday, right?


: The fact roundup is being updated for new readers (5.00 / 0) (#8)
by Ellie on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:37:20 PM EST

Because Craig tried to make the Statesman part of the story by blaming their investigation for his haste in pleading guilty (and the spin about being deprived of legal counsel), the paper pretty much has to present this kind of A-B-C roundup with continual updates.
It's necessary when a regional story taking on a national audience, and here seems to have the additional function of being a neutral smackdown of Craig's claims about persecution.
It's really the only practical way of continuing to report without caving to a questionable accusation from Craig. (Note that the byline / link is for the Statesman staff)
Olbermann didn't break this part of the story Monday though he probably increased traffic to the site, being one big media source among many sending new traffic to the Statesman site and making this kind of format virtually necessary. (npi)

Before You Bail for the Weekend ... (none / 0) (#10)
by burnspbesq on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 03:12:49 PM EST

I'd be interested in your thoughts (if you have any) on the District Court opinion in Textron (the IRS summons case) that came down yesterday.

After one reading, I think the IRS has to appeal, and I think they will probably win if they do. The opinion is really weak on why disclosing the tax accrual workpapers to the auditors isn't a waiver, and I also think it's arguably wrong in its application of the Adlman test for determining whether the workpapers were prepared in anticipation of litigation.