Yeah, it’s all Katie’s fault that Palin couldn’t find her own ass with both hands and a flashlight.

To Violet and the TNAers, any criticism of Palin is sexist criticism of Palin.  It’s a nice way to stay perpetually outraged.

Violet is also guilty of saying the rape kit brouhaha was debunked, when all said debunking was was conservatives and PUMAs saying “it’s not true”.  Debunking FAIL.

Apparently now, too, Couric will receive a “prestigious” award for what she did to Palin.

Does that prestigious award come with the Italian word fragile printed on the packing crate?

Does that prestigious award come with the Italian word fragile printed on the packing crate?

From moron John Ziegler at FoxForum:

It is obvious that Couric is being rewarded for the political result of her interview –the shooting down of a conservative superstar just in time to save the Obama campaign. It’s not about the “journalism” at all. But even that truth is not the most outrageous aspect of this absurdity. What’s even more absurd is that not only shouldn’t Couric be getting rewarded for her Palin interview, if we lived in a world where journalistic standards still mattered at all, she would have been roundly condemned for it.

No, you idiot.  She’s being rewarded because she gave Palin all the rope she needed to reveal herself as intellectually shallow, uninformed about anything outside of Alaska and not very interested either.  If Palin really was a “conservative superstar” she would have blown Couric away, not the reverse.

So, I’m going to be at the protest here in my town. It is what our Founding Fathers did and I want to remember their memory and support my country.
By Kaitlyn on Apr 9, 2009 | Reply

Umm, considering I smoke and the weed I smoke is fucking awesome, if any of you happen to run into my memories (no peeking) could you please send them to me in a self-addressed stamped envelope, there is a reward.

OK, when you think Couric is in the tank for the Lieberuls, you’re one tinfoil hat away from a room with nice soft walls.

2) Say these words, “I understand the way you feel, and I know that alot of people have felt that way, but you know, I did some looking around, and I discovered that Sarah Palin is a fucking idiot whose vindictiveness, abject stupidity and lack of any intellectual heft have made her a laughingstock outside of the crackhead cocoons inhabited by the likes of me, Hannity, Sacrface Van Susteren and umm, Wasilla.

“But you have to make sure to read all the way to the fine print on your little card, which says it’s okay to bash Caroline Kennedy, Michelle Obama, Donna Brazile, or any woman who isn’t named ‘Hillary’ or ‘Sarah.’ Because fuck those other bitches! And the bitches who would defend them!”

Feminists for McCain/Palin. Kinda like “Jews for Jesus,” but crazier and more obnoxious.

Cello—Does Obama personally have possession of the memos or is it the justic department that is dragging its feet?  If it is the justice department then do we want Obama (like Bush) to order the justice department around?  They really are supposed to operate independently of the White House.

If I’m wrong about this, let me know.

Glix, I think you may be wrong.  Eric Holder was already planning to release the memos, but he was stopped by the White House. Speculation is that Leon Panetta or John Brennan are causing the hold-up, because release of the documents might hurt morale within the CIA.

Cello, I think a lot of us are watching this closely.

With regard to the wiretapping civil case, it’s been observed by cooler heads than Greenwald, Hamsher, Sirota et al that when someone sues the government, it’s the Justice Department’s JOB to defend the government by making what it believes to be its best arguments, to call for the case to be dismissed, etc.  So I’m not particularly concerned about that. 

The memos are also reputedly part of the scheme by which Republicans are holding key Obama nominees hostage, especially Koh and Johnsen, whose written record shows them to be outspoken critics of the Bush administration’s fondness for torture.

I say the court will either rule with the Justice department or laugh them out of court, and the memos will come out sooner or later, but quite possibly not until Obama gets his appointees approved.

Allan, Sirota’s a tool, but I respect Greenwald’s take on this one.  Robert Gibbs was asked the following question today:

Last Friday, the Justice Department invoked the state secrets privilege in asking a judge to dismiss a civil suit filed against the National Security Administration regarding its domestic surveillance program. And in its brief, the Justice Department argued that Americans have no right to sue the government for alleged illegal surveillance. Does the President support the Justice Department’s positions in that case?

You imply the Justice Department is merely “doing its job” by advancing arguments that Obama doesn’t actually believe in. If that’s the case, then why would Gibbs say this:

Yes, absolutely. It’s the—absolutely does. Obviously, these are programs that have been debated and discussed, but the President does support that viewpoint.

That’s Bush’s viewpoint that Obama is supporting. Is this the kind of change we voted for?

Cello—I don’t mean to imply that.  But it is impractical to say that anyone who thinks they might have been spied on (allegedly) can sue the government.  That would open a can of worms.

I think the law regarding this needs to be clarified.  If the government has spied on someone and then used that information against them in any way, then of course the person should be able to sue. 

The grey area is for example—What if I suddenly get audited by the IRS?  I might decide that this audit was motivated by something the government overheard when (if) they were spying on me.  Should I be able to sue?  What if I just forgot to put the shiny side out on my hat?  We know there are lots of those types running around.  Can they all sue just because they think they are being spied on?

Glix, the Bill of Rights often makes things “impractical” for the government.  Or it should.  That’s what it’s there for: to protect our rights, regardless of the will of the government.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration is now channeling Dick Cheney by arguing that the government should be granted complete immunity to spy on Americans in contravention of the law and the Constitution.  And it’s saying there’s not a single thing we should be able to do to stop it. Just think how extreme a position that is.  Secret, illegal surveillance that cannot be monitored by the courts or Congress, with absolutely no checks or balances. That’s the “unitary executive” theory on steroids. And it’s tyrannical.

How would you have reacted if this was the Bush DOJ advancing these arguments? Now, ask yourself why you’re reacting any differently when the Obama DOJ does it.

Meh.

I think the Obama team is playing chess.  Just keep watching.

I may have missed it, but have any of the Rumproasters commented on Obama’s recent turn to the dark side with respect to secrecy and warrantless surveillance?

Cello, how ya doing? I’m not happy about it (Allan, it had better be one really good game of chess), but when the big-timers like the Olbermanns, Greenwalds and FDLs of the world are already on it, having this small snarky blog, regardless of how many prestigious awards we’ve won (*titter*), join in the condemnation won’t really make much of a difference. About the only purpose it would serve would be to get the you-know-whos pointing our way and yelling “we told you so!” regardless of the fact that Hillary wouldn’t have done any of this better and/or differently.

As I said to another person who wanted to know why I wasn’t writing about something they thought I should: “I’ll never be your Chris Bowers.”

Violet reposted her anti-Fey screed at her own blog with this subhead:

Originally posted at The New Agenda. Yes, I AM still pissed off about what happened last year. Why do you ask?

Umm, because it’s, like, April.

I think the Obama team is playing chess.

I think that’s a large part of it.

Look, the Bushies basically trashed the DOJ beyond recognition. It’s going to take years to untangle the mess they’ve left, so I think you have to give Holder and company a little more time to figure the best way to clean things up while protecting the government’s interests. It ain’t going to be pretty, but I have faith that they’ll get it done.

Cello, I lack the legal expertise to add much to the debate on this issue, but from what I’ve read on the topic, I find the Obama administration’s actions extremely troublesome too.

Look, the Bushies basically trashed the DOJ beyond recognition. It’s going to take years to untangle the mess they’ve left, so I think you have to give Holder and company a little more time to figure the best way to clean things up while protecting the government’s interests. It ain’t going to be pretty, but I have faith that they’ll get it done.

I guess that’s a good way to look at it, but I don’t understand why they had to tack on protections for the government as well as the TelCos.

My take is that political calculations came into play (shocking, I know).  If they stripped a lot of it back and America was hit with an attack, it would have been devastating to the Democratic “brand” (we are not safer under them).

I don’t like the situation any more than anyone else, but this is just an example of what happens when a new administration runs into an established bureaucracy, less the one that is responsible for much of our national security.

Reforming a bureaucracy like the CIA or NSA is the equivalent of performing interior cruciate ligament surgery on a runner half way through a marathon.

Back to the TNA post: commenter Jillian will almost certainly be disappeared shortly. She keeps asking questions and making relevant points.

@cello:  Obama continuing the Bush policy on wireless surveillance is very very bad and completely his fault.  The OLC memos, however, are another story.  Republican Senators are currently trying to bargain acceptance of Obama’s DOJ picks with a promise not to release them.  I don’t think he’ll fold (at least I hope he doesn’t), but that’s what the hold up currently is.

The trouble with talking honestly about your disagreements with the president is that there are always several crazy bitters who will quickly shout “Oh, I love it how the Obots are now coming to terms with him not being perfect” as though we all thought Obama was a god and we expected to agree with him 100% all the time.  I don’t know about the rest of you, but I was always under the impression that he was a human being and while I didn’t support all of his views, I still found him to be the best candidate and a lot more inspiring and interesting than we had any right to expect after the last eight years.

I really would like to hope that Obama is playing chess here, but I’m just not that hopeful or optimistic in general.

I agree 100%, October Mermaid. The candidate who most closely represented my views was Dennis Kucinich, who didn’t have a snowflake’s chance in hell, of course. I accept that most of this country—including Obama—is not as liberal as I am. 

As for honestly discussing agreements, I have and will continue to do so when the inspiration strikes (Rick Warren, for example). I don’t really give a shit what conclusions the PUMAs draw from it. They’re morons anyway. I just don’t feel particularly qualified to take on this particular topic.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I was always under the impression that he was a human being and while I didn’t support all of his views, I still found him to be the best candidate and a lot more inspiring and interesting than we had any right to expect after the last eight years.

Exactly.  I held off on picking anyone until it was down to essentially three left and I chose him for those reasons.  The main reason I picked him was because I thought he was the most electable of the viable candidates.  I flat-out didn’t think Hillary was (and still don’t) and Edwards always struck me as a bit of a phony. I never thought he was a messiah.  I never drank any fucking kool-aid. I did think he was really smart and I personally liked him. I also agreed with him on a majority of issues. I picked a candidate to support, just like every Hillary supporter did.

The PUMAS though Hillary was the Messiah-ette, which is why they have fucking clue how to do political activism that isn’t just flat-out dumb or insane. Their world view was always:
1) Elect Hillary.
2) ?
3) Profit!

I’m not thrilled about the surveillance thing either, but getting better people (i.e., non-Regent University Christianist assholes) in at DOJ will help.