So what does the Rude Pundit think of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts? A lot, and it’s all friggin hysterical. Bottom-line: “Instead, glory be, he presented America with another Harvard-educated white guy, one more privileged D.C. lawyer who was Daddy’s boy once, and a motherfucker. Someone who you can bet was given a list of issues by Rove and asked point blank how he’d rule. Did we really expect anything more?”
How can a person not love Senator John McCain when he makes comments like the following: “[...] McCain told Jay Leno that in Washington he ‘works with boobs every day.’”
Republicans, get this man nominated for president in ‘08! I’ll vote for him!
Colorado Pols ran an interesting interview with Democratic Colorado Gubernatorial hopeful Rutt Bridges last week. Which made me ask the obvious question, “Who the hell is Rutt Bridges?”
The answer is, he’s done a lot in the state of Colorado, including founding the Bighorn Center. And he almost ran for the senate seat that Ken Salazar won last year. So apparently, I need to pay more attention to local political news.
I am a conservative on this issue. I don?t believe that government has the right to dictate the decisions we make in our private lives. I support a woman?s right to choose what is best for her and her family.But choice means choice. We must ensure that women have viable options. I support a more effective and lower-cost adoption process, wider access to nutrition and prenatal care, and emergency contraception for rape victims. I also support sensible sex education so that our young people can make good decisions. As governor, I?ll work hard to ensure that abortion is safe and legal, but, most importantly, also rare.
That, dear readers, is brilliant. And quoteworthy. And probably should be adopted by the Democratic party as part of its official platform.
We all knew that talking on the phone while driving is not a good idea. Now, we have a general idea of how bad it is. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, driver’s talking on a cellphone are “four times as likely to get into a crash that can cause injuries serious enough to send them to the hospital.”
That’s scary stuff! Driving is already a dangerous activity. Making it four times more dangerous is not a good idea.
Be The Change USA’s A CELEBRATION OF DEMOCRACY (http://btc-usa.org) is quickly sneaking up on us. The event is all-day on July 30th at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds here in Denver. It’s going to be a big day, with a ton of liberal/progresive speakers and workshops. Speakers include AM760’s Jay Marvin, progressive talk show host Ed Schultz and author Luis Alberto Urrea. Workshops include the budget reform referenda and communications.
For those of us with a progressive or liberal bent, this is an event not to be missed. I’m gonna try and do the whole event, starting at 7:30 with the breakfast and workshop. If you’re heading out to the Jefferson County fairgrounds on the 30th, let me know! I’d love to meet some of my readers! [grin]
Prices for the event are listed on Be the Change USA’s website (warning: that link is to a PDF file). The all-day pass is $50, which is actually a very good deal considering the activities that are on tap. There are less expensive options, also.
Here’s some news to make you smile (or shake your head in embarrassment): The Pope apparently hates Harry Potter: “‘It is good that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because these are subtle seductions which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly,’ Benedict wrote, according to the excerpt.”
What is it about the mainstream Catholic churches (in general) and the Catholic church (in specific) that makes them so frightened of works of fiction? Let us not forget that, earlier this year, the Catholic church railed against The Da Vinci Code.
Whoa, here’s a big friggin’ surprise: a church has actually come out in support of gay marriage! “The United Church of Christ chose Independence Day to have its general synod vote and affirm the Church’s support for ‘equal marriage rights for couples, regardless of gender.’
It’s the first mainline Christian denomination to support same-sex marriage. The vote was overwhelming and likely won’t lead to the schisms that have rocked the Episcopal Church worldwide for its more ginger steps.”
Hooray for the good guys!
This has been an interesting couple of days for all of my blogs. Unbeknownst to me, my main domain (biffster.org) expired yesterday. Warning emails were going to a non-existent email account, so this caught me totally by surprise. I tried to post a blog entry, and was baffled and horrified when I saw the search page and “This domain has expired!”
Fortunately, I think that I have the domain problem sorted out. And I have my domain set to auto-renew in the future, so this should not happen again.
Also, due to Blogger screwiness, an entry regarding Scott McClellan ended up on my Computer blog instead of my Point Of View blog. Don’t ask me how that happened! But I have since discovered the problem and put the post where it should be. I liked it so much, though, that I had to leave it on the Computer blog, too. [grin]
Anyway, hopefully things will be back to normal around here now!
Really, Scott McClellan had to know that Monday’s press briefing was going to be rough. This was the first chance that the press had to ask about the “shocking” revelation that Karl Rove leaked the identiy of a CIA operative. One would think that the White House should’ve been prepared for questions about rove, and could’ve come up with a better answer than “we are not going to comment about an ongoing criminal investigation.” Especially since they have commented on this in the past.
Anyway, McLellan was grilled hard through the press briefing. Here’s an example:
Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.
Q Excuse me, but I wasn’t actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that’s why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.
Q Scott, if I could — if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, ‘We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation’?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. That’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy.
Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.
Q So could I just ask, when did you change your mind to say that it was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry’s question at the beginning. There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that’s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.
There is also video of the briefing on this page.
