Hard News: Go Us
638 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 26 Newer→ Last
-
Just a point of order, Mr Ranapia, Ambassadors also require Senate approval.
Quite true, Matthew, but I think it would be fair comment to say ambassadorial appointments are, as a rule, pretty uncontentious and confirmation hearings wouldn't draw the kind of media attention - and political heat - as those for a State secretary or Supreme Court justice.
-
How many other second-bests might be foisted upon the US people, and the world, if McCain's elected?
He couldn't get a better VP because the Republicans don't think he can win. If he somehow got elected, that would change pretty quickly.
-
Ah sagenz, why does Todd Palin hate America so much?
Todd Palin, husband of Sarah, was a member of the secessionist Alaska Independence Party from 1995 through 2002.
-
What kind of power-mad wackaloon asks a librarian to sign a loyalty oath?
To be fair, it's well known they are sleeper agents for Al Qaeda. They opposed the Patriot Act and fought attempts by Homeland Security to gain blanket access to people's library records.
Yeah, I can imagine a lot of things when I'm on acid too. It's a hell of a drug.
Acid? Uh ...yeah ... it was the acid ... that makes me imagine being in bed with both Michelle and Cindy ... oh and who dat? Sarah?
</stands.in.corner.without.waiting.to.be.told> -
It is about character.
uhhh, we're looking at a VPOTUS not a candidate for the PTA...oh wait on...
Far from winding you lot up I've woken up to find a series of pretty calmly and reasonably argued posts that deal to your points pretty well. It's the PA style....
Remind me...which candidate is on film singing 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran'?
I'm confused as to how an aging warrior stuck in a time past cold war mentality, who has largely voted with the neo-con current POTUS, with an evangelical twist to his ticket is something new? Or is change? It's an odd equation to make.
His impulsive hot headed pronouncements on Georgia were anything but considered and caused some disquiet not only in Republican circles but within allied ranks.
-
Dirty campaigns are more fun to watch, this is going to be a fun 2 months.
-
News, at least to me, of the odds on Palin withdrawing from the VEEP slot at 18 per cent and rising.
She doesn't seem to me to be the kind of person who'd withdraw but would McCain replace her? I can't see it, it'd be fatal surely?
-
Hi all! I wrote a post before I took the boy out to see some hackers -- and I lost it!
But anyway: this morning's further installments of the Palin meltdown:
Palin's "visit" to Ireland -- touted by the Republicans to talk up her foreign policy credentials -- was actually a refuelling stop. But she did get to do some shopping at the airport, so that'll be her grounding in European trade issues.
Palin has her own crazy pastor, who told his flock that anyone who voted for John Kerry would go to Hell. The same link includes a video in which Palin, this year, returned to the church and gave a speech describing the war in Iraq as "a task from God".
Time magazine wades in with a backgrounder, revealing, among other things, that she ran for the Wasilla (pop. less than 5000) mayoralty in part on a gun rights and pro-life platform, with assistance from a national anti-abortion lobby group.
And about that librarian she tried to fire:
Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.
Fascinating account by a Wasilla local:
Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State’s top cop (see below).
As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla’s Police Chief because he “intimidated” her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it ... She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn’t like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.
This visceral preference for loyalty over competence does, I confess, make her well suited to any modern Republican administration.
Aaaand the New York Post gets on Levi's MySpace profile:
On his MySpace page, Johnston boasts, "I'm a f - - -in' redneck" who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes.
"But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some s- - - and just f - - -in' chillin' I guess."
"Ya f - - - with me I'll kick [your] ass," he added.
He also claims to be "in a relationship," but states, "I don't want kids."
Stay tuned. I'm sure there'll be more.
-
Just a point of order, Mr Ranapia, Ambassadors also require Senate approval. For some bizarre reason the Constitution wants elected representatives to conduct cursory examinations into appointees who have the authority to declare war in their country's name.
Ambassadorial appointments don't bother me so much, but it would be A Good Thing if the New Zealand Government decided that treaties are the business of the house, rather than the prerogative of an unelected executive. Like the ability to set an election date, this is another anti-democratic FPP hang-up that both Labour and National are quite happy to hold on to.
-
This guy is saying that the Alaska convention delegates underwent four hours of media training on Sunday night, and claims to have the memo:
> INTERNAL DOCUMENT - NOT TO BE EMAILED BEYOND CURRENT
> DISTRIBUTION LIST
>
> Please see the following points on Gov. Palin's family.
>
> * Governor Palin and her husband Todd have a loving family
> and their children mean everything to them. When their
> oldest daughter Bristol came to them with news that she was
> expecting a child they embraced her and gave her nothing but
> unconditional love and support.
>
> * This is a very personal matter for the family. We should
> all respect the love they have for the child and the desire
> all parents would have for their children's privacy.
>
> * The media should respect Bristol's privacy.
> That's always been the tradition and practice when it
> comes to the children of candidates.
>
> * (If pressed) The children of candidates do not choose to
> run for office and be thrust into the spotlight.You gotta love the dark arts of PR. Why use the word 'pregnant' when 'expecting a child' creates a more wholesome image? One word can create negative images of unwed teen mothers (hitherto a drain on your taxes), whilst the other focuses attention on images of cute adorable newborn babies (baby jebus, even?).
Whilst I'm glad the Republicans have rallied around their VP candidate and given their wise Ian Grant smiles with a gentle 'It's an American story' soundbites for the media; I'm glad too that attention is now being focused on the GOP's record on teen mothers and sex ed
John McCain, whose running mate disclosed that her unmarried 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, has opposed proposals to spend federal money on teen-pregnancy prevention programs and voted to require poor teen mothers to stay in school or lose their benefits.
-
Aaaand the New York Post gets on Levi's MySpace profile:
Like much of this distasteful business, I don't want to know about it. A week ago he was a kid who had knocked up his girlfriend, who happened to be the daughter of a local politician. He's still the same, just that local politician is now in the national spotlight.
-
Like much of this distasteful business, I don't want to know about it.
Sure, and what do we know about Levi that's actually surprising -- oh, apart from the fact he's a teenager (i.e. a big sack of hormones untempered by tact or the brain-mouth filter most of us grow with experience) who is going to be a father in a couple of months whether he wants to or not. Like that's never happened before in the history of the world. And, as George said, if his prospective mother-in-law's name wasn't Sarah Palin nobody would care.
Still, here's an object lesson for any political aspirant with kids. 1) Stuff em back up your cooter, and ask God for a refund. 2) If that doesn't work, lock 'em in an attic. 3) Become a neo-Luddite -- your child and social networking site is a recipe for political humiliation. Wasn't the New York Post the same outlet that revealed (shock horror!) Caroline Giuliani's Facebook profile indicated she's an Obama supporter. Then, just to add insult to injury, we had the stunning revelation that brother Andrew really loathes his father and stepmother -- which shouldn't be much of a shock considering his parent's very nasty, very public divorce.
-
Ambassadorial appointments don't bother me so much, but it would be A Good Thing if the New Zealand Government decided that treaties are the business of the house, rather than the prerogative of an unelected executive. Like the ability to set an election date, this is another anti-democratic FPP hang-up that both Labour and National are quite happy to hold on to.
You mean like in Australia, where even a trade treaty as utterly ruthless and devastating as AUS-FTA can be rammed through over the top of objections from elected representatives? Yeah, fuck that.
The counter to giving the entire Legislature power over concluding things like trade treaties is that you end up like the Yanks, with FTAs getting shot down because they don't pander adequately to the needs of the lesser weevil farmers of Lower Bumfuck, or they pander too much to the lesser weevil farmers but not enough to the greater weevil farmers. Fuck that, too.
Speaking of the gummint of the day setting election dates, can you point me to a country that has proportional representation and has a fixed election date? A quick look at the likes of the UK, Australia, and Germany, shows that they all have government-set election dates. The Italians and the Japanese obviously do, because they like changing governments as often as they change their underwear. The US looks to be the anomaly, not the rule, and that's helped by their strong two-party, non-proportional system of government. As soon as you have to achieve coalitions to form a government you're vulnerable to losing motions of confidence. That means that you cannot have a fixed election date and a proportional system of representation, unless you're prepared to have a powerless government hanging on for, potentially, years until the next election date is reached. And fuck that, too.
-
When you see a New York Times editorial headed Let’s Hear It for New Zealand, you just have to find out what that's about. Has the Times joined the Conchords fan club? No. We're part of an "admirable band" of countries holding the line against American attempts to reopen nuclear technology sales to India, a nuclear weapons state.
Really cannot see what is admirable here. India has 100 - 200 nuclear warheads and a more than adequate delivery system. Horse, gate, bolted.
All that NZ and others in the "admirable band" are doing is standing on principle to hold back the development of Indian Nuclear industry. One follow on effect is that Indian Nuclear power stations remain less efficient and they are forced to rely even more on coal fired thermal stations - more global warming. Yay for us - we're abetting an unnecessary increase in Indian CO2 emissions.
-
That means that you cannot have a fixed election date and a proportional system of representation, unless you're prepared to have a powerless government hanging on for, potentially, years until the next election date is reached.
That's absolute nonsense, Angus, and I think you're conflating two quite separate questions. There's no practical or constitutional barrier to fixing the election date, as opposed to leaving it up to the whims of the Prime Minister of the day. We've had one snap election called under MMP - that was in 2002 -- and with all due respect, I don't think even Helen Clark was pushing her rationale that Parliament had someone become 'unmanagable' with much conviction. The more pragmatic reason was that the Alliance had just imploded, National's polling was in the toilet and there was no reason to hang around. Not exactly a constitutional crisis.
And if the Government actually lost a matter of confidence or supply, well isn't that democracy? Either form another coalition, or dissolve Parliament and seek a new mandate. I thought the whole rationale behind MMP was to break up the cosy "elected dictatorship" duopoly where successive National and Labour governments could ram through legislative agenda without popular mandates, or any effective breaks.
-
That's absolute nonsense, Angus
I'm called Angus now? :P
And if the Government actually lost a matter of confidence or supply, well isn't that democracy? Either form another coalition, or dissolve Parliament and seek a new mandate.
umm, let's see. If the election date is fixed, how can Parliament be dissolved in order to seek a new mandate prior to the fixed date? What happens to the previously-fixed date? Seeing the problem yet? When it's possible for Parliament to be forced to dissolve early, even if it's not likely, it's possible for that carefully-decided pre-set election date to become totally worthless. Do you force the newly-mandated government to do a short term, and adhere to the fixed date? Do you allow them to do an extended term? What's the equitable solution that doesn't make a nonsense of electoral wishes?
-
I'm called Angus now? :P
Blech... that is why I don't multi-task. It never ends well. :) Sorry, Matthew.
But let me get literal minded and very wordly. George and I are advocate of a uniform date (say, for the sake of argument, the first Saturday following the first Friday in November) every three years for general elections, thereby removing that determination from the hands of the Prime Minister.
We are not advocating that the Government no longer be required to seek (and gain) Parliamentary assent for its expenditure -- which is a pretty crude description of what "supply" means.
Nor are we advocating that the Government of the day no longer face confidence motions -- and just as a matter of interest, when was the last time any government in this country lost the Confidence of the House?
In the end, Andrew, do you really think the last three snap elections (1951, 1984 & 2002) were called for any credible constitutional or governance reasons -- as opposed to the immediate strategic interests of the Prime Minister of the day in trying to gazump the Opposition?
-
<quote>In the end, Andrew,<?quote>
MATTHEW, Idiot!
-
Like much of this distasteful business, I don't want to know about it. A week ago he was a kid who had knocked up his girlfriend, who happened to be the daughter of a local politician. He's still the same, just that local politician is now in the national spotlight.
Yes, your concern for his privacy is undertstandable but I admit to a high degree of fascination in just watching the whole thing unfold on what seems like an hourly basis.
But would it make any difference if you knew that Levi is now going to be presented onstage at the Republican convention?
From my point of view, these people have made certain political representations about the nature of the family and then they've sought to spin those as events have required. It is news.
-
-
Levi is now going to be presented onstage at the Republican convention
Will Fox News be referring to Bristol as Levi's baby mama??
-
But let me get literal minded and very wordly. George and I are advocate of a uniform date (say, for the sake of argument, the first Saturday following the first Friday in November) every three years for general elections, thereby removing that determination from the hands of the Prime Minister.
Be careful what you wish for Craig, there's downsides to fixed terms. Look west, not far west however... just NSW. Disaster.
-
Craig, I don't debate that the scenario of a truly lame government has never arisen in this country. That doesn't mean that it can't. If this crap around Winston First's funding had blown up a year ago, we could be watching the erstwhile Foreign Minister and leader of a coalition partner get hauled away in handcuffs, possibly with his heir-to-the-throne deciding that they don't want to support Labour any longer. It's not an entirely abstract possibility. At which point Labour no longer has a majority. It's the risk of coalition government, and that situation comes from proportional representation.
So, how would you resolve that situation when the electoral term is absolutely fixed? When an election may only be held on some particular date, what happens when a government becomes unable to govern? Ignore the fact that it's never happened before. We've only had PR for 12 years, vs a century of FPP, and we've come pretty close a couple of times to a minority government becoming unable to muster votes for motions on confidence and supply.
Oh, and a slightly related question, what happens in the event that the likes of Rodders gets sent up the river? After all, Act's only in Parliament because he's there. Take him away, and then what? A by-election? Potentially (in fact very probably) it would go to another party, and that could totally change the composition of Parliament.
-
But would it make any difference if you knew that Levi is now going to be presented onstage at the Republican convention?
"Sarah Palin's daughter's baby's father..."
Heh.
-
Wouldn't 'Bristol Palin's babydaddy' roll off the tongue a little more easily? I think they should go with that.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.