Contra Drudge, it’s fairly clear there has been no conspiracy to delay Scott Brown’s seating: http://bit.ly/cHuj83. Now, after previously agreeing to Feb. 11 swearing-in date, he’s asking — for the first time — to be sworn in immediately: http://bit.ly/cOn83M. It will be interesting to see what happens now, but to date, there appears to be no factual basis for “DEMS DELAY.”
From the article Drudge is linking: “The demand reverses Brown’s prior statements on the issue. He has been saying he was content to wait until Feb. 11 for his swearing-in so he could hire a staff and be prepared to assume his duties.”
Nothing linked or stated on the Drudge Report provides any basis whatsoever for the statement “DEMS DELAY” in his headline. Yet, of course, Twitter is buzzing with conservative outrage over this false claim.
Matt Drudge’s war on the truth continues.
See also this earlier article, also being linked by Drudge with the red-text headline “‘WAIT UNTIL FEB 11’…”
Barring further information, it appears that Brown is “demanding” something occur that was going to occur anyway (i.e., that the results be certified today or tomorrow), in a transparent effort to demagogue a non-issue into an issue and stoke conservative outrage over nothing.
Sounds like he’ll fit right in with his new colleagues in Washington.
More from the Globe:
By all indications, Brown never even tried to ask nicely. He went from “Feb. 11 is fine” to “I DEMAND TO BE SEATED NOW!!!!!!!!” with no pause in between.
This is such bullshit. I eagerly await gahrie’s outraged comment, buying into it completely.
Upon further review, it appears Brown isn’t to blame for the demagoguery. His letter to Duval Patrick (which I was unable to read previously) is perfectly straightforward, civil and non-accusatory. It acknowledges that he was previously OK with the February 11 plan, but has now changed his mind, and thus simply wants to ensure the certification occurs by tomorrow morning, as was always the plan. He doesn’t claim otherwise; only Matt Drudge does.
This makes it clear there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for the statement “DEMS DELAY.” Matt Drudge should be ashamed of himself (for this and about 5,000,000 other reasons). He is not merely spinning the facts, or presenting the news in a biased manner. He is LYING, flat-out lying.
Brendan – I’m curious as to your opinion on the other times when a member of Congress was sworn in much more rapidly, without waiting for the exquisitely-precise letter of the law – eg Kennedy, Tsongas, et al ?
Prior to the election, I read an excellent article, written from a pretty neutral perspective, that analyzed the various precedents and explained in detail why, for instance, Kennedy himself was sworn in more quickly. Unfortunately I can’t locate the article now, and don’t remember where I found it. nor do I recall all the details. But basically, as I recall, Kennedy was sworn in almost immediately — notwithstanding the letter of the law — at a time when the Senate wasn’t even in session, so nobody was around to object, and it really didn’t matter anyway since there were no votes occurring, and by the time they returned and started voting, he had been certified anyway. Bottom line, it was a non-issue that nobody seemed to care about at the time. It seems quite likely the GOP would have objected if they’d been around, and the Senate had been in session, and his vote had mattered for something… but that’s a counterfactual and we’ll never know, since those weren’t the actual circumstances. In any event, it seems to have limited precedential value at best, given the factual circumstances.
The more pertinent recent examples would be Roland Burris and Al Franken, both of whom were not seated until they had the proper paperwork. Now, I’ll grant you that Franken was a very different case because the election was so close and disputed, but with Burris, there was no real question about whether he was qualified to serve — although he was appointed under a cloud, nevertheless he was clearly appointed, just as Scott Brown was clearly elected, no doubt or question about it. Yet the Senate leadership insisted on seeing the proper paperwork before swearing Burris in, in accordance with the rules. The GOP didn’t object to this, as I recall.
More broadly, it is somewhat odd to see conservatives demanding that the letter of election laws be circumvented to achieve a desired result (Brown being seated now), since that is usually what the GOP accuses Democrats of doing — cutting corners on election laws to achieve political gain. How can a self-respecting conservative/Republican object to following the letter of the law???
But in any event, that’s all really beside the point here, because the bottom line is, Scott Brown never requested to be seated earlier than February 11, until today. He never asked. He explicitly said he was OK with the agreed timeline. So, there is NO reasonable argument that the Dems “delayed” his seating, or that it’s somehow an outrage against democracy that he hasn’t been seated already. If he wanted to be seated early, and requested it, and was denied, then we could have a discussion about the merits of the delay, but That. Did. Not. Happen.
Will it happen now? We’ll see. (I doubt it.) But it hasn’t happened yet.
P.S. I forgot to say: I don’t know (or remember) anything about the Tsongas precedent. Was that for the House or Senate? If the House, it’s a completely different set of rules, and not relevant to this discussion.
My problem is not that Brown has not been seated yet. (Although I will have a problem the next time a Democrat is seated immediately.)
My problem is that Kirk is still voting. According to the 17th Amendment, Senate rules and Mass. laws, he ceased to be a Senator the moment Brown won the election.
Gahrie, how do you define “the moment Brown won the election”? Evidently you mean “the moment media reports and unofficial returns indicated that Brown was the winner.”
I recognize the election was not close enough for the result to be in doubt, but in no possible legal universe can you justify the position that “Brown won the election” until there is some official proclamation to that effect. Which is exactly what tomorrow’s certification, under Massachusetts law, is.
Now, if you want to say Kirk shouldn’t be voting during the interim period between Brown’s certification and Brown’s swearing-in, you might have a point. But until then, I don’t see how you can possibly defend your position as a matter of law. It simply can’t be the case that, by law (“the 17th Amendment, Senate rules and Mass. laws”), Kirk “ceased to be a Senator” at the inherently indefinable moment when it became clear to the media/the public/gahrie that Brown had unofficially “won.”
P.S. I suppose you’ll say Kirk ceased to be a senator the moment Coakley conceded. But, as we all learned in 2000, concessions are not legally binding — in fact, they are of no legal significance at all. They are purely matters of courtesy and tradition, and are totally unofficial. Again, I simply do not see how it is possible to attach to them the legal significance you wish to attach, such that Kirk “ceased to be a Senator” at the moment Coakley placed a phone call. That may make intuitive sense, but it is not a legally workable rule.
P.P.S. The 17th Amendment says:
“That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”
I fail to see any reference to the results of the election in question becoming binding at any point prior to the official announcement of said results by the governing election authority of the state in question. Maybe I missed the subclause that says “the election is over when gahrie says so,” but I don’t think that’s in there.
P.P.P.S.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/ht04246.pdf
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/54-140.htm
“… the person so appointed shall serve until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill such vacancy…”
This seems fairly straightforwardly to mean that, at a minimum, Brown must win the election and be certified as having won the election. Arguably, “qualification” means he must also be sworn in, but that’s at least debatable. I don’t see any legal argument, though, that Kirk ceased to be a senator on Election Night or any time prior to tomorrow’s certification of the results.
http://www.d1040331.dotsterhost.com/applications/serendipity/index.php?/archives/197-Can-Senator-Kirk-Vote-after-January-19.html
The Senate subcommittee and committee concluded, based on its hearing and review, that “the term of service of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy in an unexpired term ends on the day when his successor is elected by the people.” 1939 Congressional Record, p. 998. There was evidently no controversy among either the subcommittee or full committee regarding this legal conclusion, and the committee then presented a resolution to the Senate for adoption, expressing the view that Berry’s term of service expired on November 8, 1938, the date of the special election. As Senator Connally, a member of the subcommittee, explained to the Senate, the fact that the Tennessee statute purported to extend Berry’s term until the qualification of his successor was of no force because the statute was “plainly in conflict with the provisions of the seventeenth amendment.” Accordingly, the Senate adopted the proposed resolution without dissent. 1939 Congressional Record, p. 1058.
gahrie, he hasn’t been officially elected yet. Until the election is certified its not done and binding. Unless you have access to a time machine and can go back in time to the day he was elected with the certification, then you have to wait til that happens. Deal with it.
Apparently you didn’t read my cite. (shocking I know) The Senate specifically ruled that it is the date of election, regardless of any state certification.
You can make the arguement that Brown does not become a Senator until certification, but Kirk stopped being a Senator the day of the election.
That’s a fascinating link, gahrie, thanks. I think the Senate subcommittee was pretty clearly wrong in its textual interpretation of the 17th Amendment, but the fact that such a precedent exists, even if I feel it’s a wrong-headed one, does lend some credence to your position. Of course, a constitutional interpretation by a Senate subcommittee is not the law of the land (like a constitutional interpretation by SCOTUS would be), and it seems to me the current Senate would not be legally bound to follow it, but at the same time, there’s certainly an argument that they should.
P.S. FWIW, the Senate subcommittee precedent, if followed, most certainly results in states being inevitably deprived of their representation for some time after a special election. You wrote “you can make the arguement that Brown does not become a Senator until certification,” but that drastically understates the case — not only can you make that argument, but CANNOT make the contrary argument; there is no plausible argument that Brown becomes a senator until he is sworn in, and Senate rules clearly say he can’t be sworn in without certification. So this interpretation inevitably creates a gap where there’s no senator. Moreover, although this election was not close, other special elections could be, yet the subcommittee precedent you cite would apply with equal force to those elections, thus guaranteeing a period without representation even if the Senate wanted to act otherwise. Just so we’re clear on that point.
there is no plausible argument that Brown becomes a senator until he is sworn in, and Senate rules clearly say he can’t be sworn in without certification.
Except we have the precedent of Edward Kennedy who was sworn in the day after his special election for this very same seat.
I have been unable to find a cite of the relevant Senate rules. if you have could you provide a link?
I already addressed that issue. Kennedy was sworn in early in derogation of the Senate rules, because the Senate wasn’t in session so nobody was around to object, and it didn’t matter anyway because no votes were being taken.
I don’t have a link to the Senate rules, but they’ve been widely reported, and were followed to the letter in the far more recent precedents of Franken and Burris. The rules are clear: certification is required. Now, can those be rules, however clear, be circumvented or ignored if a majority of the Senate so chooses? Absolutely — but the fact remains that, certainly, a senator chosen by special election must be sworn in before he becomes a senator, which was my main point in the text you quote. Even the Kennedy precedent doesn’t contradict that. Thus, again, there is absolutely no plausible argument that Scott Brown somehow magically became a senator on Election Night, without being sworn in, simply because Coakley conceded or because the media declared him the winner or because gahrie decided that’s what should happen. Unofficial election results do not a senator make. You become a senator when you’re sworn in, and not a moment sooner. If the 1939 precedent is accurate, and Kirk ceased to be a senator that night, then it follows necessarily that Massachusetts has had only one senator from Election Night thru Brown’s swearing in. That point is not disputable.
I already addressed that issue. Kennedy was sworn in early in derogation of the Senate rules, because the Senate wasn’t in session
Impossible. The Senate had to be in session for him to get sworn in.
If the 1939 precedent is accurate, and Kirk ceased to be a senator that night, then it follows necessarily that Massachusetts has had only one senator from Election Night thru Brown’s swearing in. That point is not disputable.
Actually this is my precise point. So why has Kirk been voting?
gahrie – I wonder how many of Kirk’s votes are invalid due to the Senate perecedent you quote …
Impossible. The Senate had to be in session for him to get sworn in.
Perhaps I’m misremembering the details — as I said earlier, I now can’t find the excellent article that discussed this issue in some detail, which I read before the election — but the gist of what I wrote is correct. Kennedy was sworn in early because nobody objected because nobody cared because it had no effect on anything. It was technically a violation of the rules, which have always been followed in all other cases I’m aware of — but by all appearances, that issue was not even considered in the Kennedy case, because again, nobody looked at it, nobody objected, nobody cared. Looking at this from a legal perspective, it’s the equivalent of a court opinion where an issue isn’t analyzed or discussed at all, but appears to be implicitly assumed as being the case, probably because neither the lawyers nor the judge zeroed in on it at all. Such opinions carry virtually no precedential weight. The Kennedy thing doesn’t, either.
Meanwhile, you continue to venerate the 1962 precedent while completely ignoring the 2009 precedents of Franken and Burris. Those are the far more recent precedents, and show that the current Senate leadership has been absolutely consistent in demanding the proper certification paperwork before seating a senator, in keeping with the institution’s clearly stated rules.
Actually this is my precise point.
No, it’s not. Re-read what I wrote. I didn’t say “Kirk wasn’t a senator after the election.” I said IF the 1939 precedent is accurate, THEN it follows necessarily that MA had only one senator — John Kerry — as opposed to having two senators — John Kerry and Scott Brown — which you seemed to be suggesting was a possibility. There’s an argument that MA should’ve had just one senator, Kerry, since the election; and there’s an argument that MA should’ve had two senators, Kerry and Kirk. There IS NO ARGUMENT that it’s had two senators, Kerry and Brown, since the election. Under any interpretation of the governing laws and rules, Brown doesn’t become a senator till today; that’s indisputable. And that was my point.
So why has Kirk been voting?
How about: because no one has raised this as an issue?!? Scott Brown hasn’t objected to Kirk voting; Mitch McConnell hasn’t objected to Kirk voting; there has been no point of order, no resolution that he be ousted, nothing. The Senate GOP has acquiesced in his continuing to serve. Your argument is equivalent to being outraged that a judge hasn’t granted summary judgment when the plaintiff hasn’t even filed suit yet. It’s completely ridiculous to be up in arms about the Democrats’ failure to do something they haven’t even been ASKED to do by the Republicans. If a point of order had been raised, and rejected, then we could have a discussion about whether the Democrats are misbehaving, but again, That. Has. Not. Happened.
Moreover, as I said earlier, a 1938 decision by a Senate committee interpreting the Constitution is not binding legal precedent. It’s not the law of the land. It’s just an opinion. I happen to think it’s a pretty clearly incorrect opinion, textually, but that’s just one man’s view. You perhaps think it’s more important to be consistent than textually correct, or maybe you disagree with my textual reading (though you haven’t really stated why, if so). But again, that, too, is just one man’s view. Anyway, regardless of our subjective opinions of the 1938 decision’s merits, it certainly isn’t some self-actuating black-letter legal principle that automatically transformed Kirk into a non-senator on election night, thus rendering his subsequent votes invalid. That’s just now how the system works. For Kirk to be prevented from voting in the Senate, somebody in the Senate would’ve had to formally challenge his right to vote in the Senate. To my knowledge, NO ONE DID. So this whole discussion is completely academic.
For Kirk to be prevented from voting in the Senate, somebody in the Senate would’ve had to formally challenge his right to vote in the Senate. To my knowledge, NO ONE DID. So this whole discussion is completely academic.
Ok..if we are going to be pedantic:
My issue is wondering why no one has challenged Kirk’s right to vote in the Senate.
(Note to David K., this is an example of me attacking the Republican party)
The best answer I’ve seen so far, is that the Republicans are allowing Kirk to vote to get bills passed that the Senatorial Republicans want passed (like raising the debt ceiling) while providing political cover for them. Just one more example of Congressional Republicans acting Democrat-lite.
The Republican Party better be careful. It came in to being as a third party refuge for people opposed to the Democrats and unhappy with the only opposition. History has a way of repeating.
I didn’t mean to be pedantic, and I did not realize you were taking issue with the failure to challenge, as opposed to the failure to respond properly (in your view) to a challenge that never occurred. I absolutely think you have, at the very least, a potentially valid point re: the failure to challenge Kirk, and I think you may very well be diagnosing the answer correctly when you talk about cynical “political cover” re: the debt ceiling and other issues.
Brendan, dear heart, if your response comment on a blog post is over one screenful of text, you *are* being pedantic … and thorough … and passionate … and even, sometimes, although not this time, right …
(grin)
So is that Ma or Pa Loy traits coming out ?
Alsadair, would you care to explain, rather than merely asserting, how I’m not right?
Well, Berndan, you initially assert, as though factual, “it’s fairly clear there has been no conspiracy to delay Scott Brown’s seating” …
Could the Senate have chosen to seat Senator Brown earlier ? The Kennedy precedent says “Yes” … even you say “Yes, but … ” …
There is considerable House Congressional precedent to support it, in addition to the Kennedy precedent …
The Senate is supposed to be the more gentlemanly of the two Houses …
Look at those who are saying that the certification time has to be allowed to complete … so that the overseas military ballots can be duly counted … ironic, ain’t it ?
Bottom line – are you asserting that the elements necessary for a conspiracy as alleged by Drudge cannot be supported by a Reasonable Person’s understanding of current politics ?
Yes.
Re-read my previous comments, for chrissakes. I’ve been extremely clear in explaining the facts, and you’re just ignoring it all. Neither Scott Brown nor anyone else in the GOP has even asked for any of your cited “precedents” to be applied. No one in a position to object (i.e., any Senate Republican) has objected to anything that’s happened. No one has complained. No one on the Democratic side has obstructed anything. They’ve had nothing to obstruct, as they haven’t been asked to anything differently than the mutually agreed plan! EVERYONE signed on to the agreed certification and swearing-in timeline, until Wednesday, when Brown requested — for the first time ever — to be sworn in the next day … and he was!
Where in the everliving fuck is the “conspiracy” or “delay” on those facts? For God’s sake, pay attention. This is all a bunch of God damn fucking paranoia and propagandistic bullshit nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself for lending it any credence whatsoever, given that YOU CANNOT CITE ANY FACTS to back up your fraudulent belief that these bogus claims of a conspiracy are factually plausible on these facts (not on some hypothetical alternative-universe set of facts that did not occur). Jesus Christ.
P.S. Please, please don’t make some idiotic, pun-filled comment that ignores the substance of everything I’ve just said and instead waxes snarky about how I doth protest too much, and my swearing indicates I worship at the altar of Obama, or whatever. Such a comment may just make my head explode, and nobody wants that; lots of paperwork and so forth. … But seriously, if you don’t have anything to say to rebut the facts of the situation — namely that the Democrats cannot be sensibly accused of conspiracy or delay when they were never asked to accelerate the mutually agreed timeline until Wednesday, at which time THEY DID AS THEY WERE ASKED — then STFU. I’m sick and tired of banging my head against the wall trying to convince you of UNDENIABLE, IRREFUTABLE FACTS. Just fucking pay attention.
Brendan – ask your father about Unions and “work-to-rule” …
I, for one, am not privy to who said what to whom in the Senate in terms of when Senator Brown should be sworn in – you may have better “in” to such details …
When someone or a group has the ability (based upon precedent) to speed up a process, and yet that person or group chooses *this time* to follow the letter of the law and some “mutually agreed plan” which just happens to take longer, it is reasonable to consider that a delay, one which was avoidable, has taken place …
If the Senate had decided to hold off votes where Kirk’s vote was critical until the “mutually agreed plan” could come to fulfilment, no-one would be discussing a delay … given that Kirk voted several times, the delay seems a tad convenient …
As for whether or not there is any conspiracy involved – well, in this very blog, you and your blog-family, are we not conspiring to entertain and challenge and frustrate each other ?
Hey, you doth protest too much, even as you anticipate that someone might say that you protest too much … classic recursion …
As for the “never asked” part, check out your news-streams … one heck of a lot of people were asking that Senator-Elect Brown be sworn in as soon as possible in line with the Kennedy precedent – the folk who voted for Senator Brown – and I doubt if more than a few of ’em, if any, “mutually agreed” to the plan which was followed …
I’m not privy to private Senate conversations either, obviously, but: 1) Scott Brown and his staff are on record as being fine with the agreed timeline, and 2) as for the Senate, I’m saying there was no formal point of order, nor any public stink made by the GOP. Are you seriously suggesting that the Senate Republicans made a private stink, but having been thwarted by conspiratorial Democratic schemers, elected not to go public? Why on God’s green Earth would they do that?!? That makes no goddamn sense and you know it. If there was a conflict between the Senate GOP on the Senate Dems about this issue, we would most certainly know about it.
Beyond that… okay. I’m done. You’re continuing to ignore all contrary facts and just advance your pet theory. Whatever. Arguing with you about this is like arguing with Lyndon LaRouche or a 9/11 Truther. If you want to believe in your totally unfounded and ridiculous conspiracy theory, fine. Be my guest. I’m going to bed.
Our comments cross-posted, so I’m adding one more thing, as to your last point. Don’t be an idiot. I’m not saying no human being in the universe objected. I’m saying no one with the power to make a meaningful objection, objected. Individual voters do not have standing to challenge the Senate’s internal rules; only Senators do. And again, Scott Brown was completely fine with the plan — explicitly, on the record, in published statements by himself and his staff — until Wednesday, when he changed his mind, and his change of heart was 100% accepted by the Democrats, who swore him in on Thursday as requested.
*sigh* Okay, now I’m really going to bed.
Brendan – you are being way too hard on yourself … you are a lot smarter than a Lyndon LaRouche type !
Sleep well !
What’s so surreal about this thread is the following, first, background:
Probably like most not in the Loy circle, I come by this place to get arguments and blowback that helps me expand my perception of things. If you don’t have a personal or professional networking connection to the Loy-o-sphere, it seems to me that you have to be picking up insights or expanding your mindset to justify mixing it up. Otherwise, you’re wasting your time, yes?
Alasdair, you just spent a bunch of time on this thread pushing the argument that Brown’s delay was based on some opaque, manipulative Democratic conspiracy, even though Gahrie on this thread, and – remarkably – you on the Biden thread identified the most likely reason that the Republicans behaved this way (needed Kirk voting to have plausible cover on the debt ceiling). You…argued…this, and by all appearances you are probably right!
If this were some group like the Local Chapter of Republicans-or-Die, there might be some value in throwing stones at the Democrats for some oogedy-boogedy obstructionism that you empirically know is better explained by Republican self-motivation, which you empirically know because a) people generally are self-motivated, and b) in this actual case, the self-motivation is transparently obvious, so transparently obvious, that even you acknowledge it!
In summary, it fascinates me that someone would push a conspiracy theory whose explanation they admitted, elsewhere for no better reason than to throw stones at your enemy in an otherwise-anonymous forum. Don’t you have anything better to do?
for no better reason than to throw stones at your enemy in an otherwise-anonymous forum. Don’t you have anything better to do?
Let me just say as the target of most of the stones thrown in the comments section of this blog, Alasdair is far from the biggest culprit in this regard.
Gahrie,
As someone who has thrown a stone or two in your direction, you bring up an important distinction:
Look, I obviously disagree with you regarding the threat of AGW. That said, my view on the topic is unsettled. So I enjoy arguing with you on AGW (and occasionally throwing stones), because in that process I develop and expand my own thoughts on the topic. This is one of the best aspects of this blog, IMHO.
However, in this thread Alasdair is throwing stones on a speculation that he empirically knows the explanation for, unless the Alasdair over on the Biden thread was some other Alasdair. This would be like me taking shots at you on your AGW skepticism, and then over on some other thread saying “Well, I’m pretty sure that AGW is nothing more than a man-made cottage industry to provide liberals jobs”.
In fact, Gahrie, one of the main reasons I self-identify as a RINO is because I find the knee-jerk sentiment pervading the GOP “If it weren’t for those goddamn liberals everything would be fine” to be inconsistent with true conservatism (though frankly not a problem, in reverse, for liberals).
To my thinking, the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives have an essentially negative or tragic view of the world and human nature, recognizing that we can’t much trust the other, or even really ourselves, to do the right thing, so society should be organized basically around our protection from one another’s “worst demons”. The liberal by contrast sees “better angels” everywhere, that a little tinkering around the edges of social engineering will lead to utopia. I will never ever ever ever be a liberal.
But I also feel that the modern GOP has perverted the conservative’s instinct for “doubt of the other” and reformatted it to “doubt of the goddamn liberal”. IOW, if we could just rid ourselves of those stinking liberals, everything would be fine (Note – I am not accusing you, Gahrie, in particular of this view, just making a general observation). I go back to Palin a lot because she is the queen of this manipulation, unless you believe that people just started sucking a few days ago when Rahm Emanuel surprisingly revealed himself as an asshole.
In the context of politics as war, it makes sense for a party like the GOP to prime this pump and gin up the hatred of the other guy. But it depresses me. Because conservatives (small c) ought generally to be more suspicious than that.
1) I was not thinking of you. You rarely, if ever, resort to personal attacks and .non sequiturs.
2) To my thinking, the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives have an essentially negative or tragic view of the world and human nature, recognizing that we can’t much trust the other, or even really ourselves, to do the right thing, so society should be organized basically around our protection from one another’s “worst demons”.
Have you ever heard of or read John Derbyshire?
http://www.amazon.com/Are-Doomed-Reclaiming-Conservative-Pessimism/dp/0307409589/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265391901&sr=8-1
3) In the context of politics as war, it makes sense for a party like the GOP to prime this pump and gin up the hatred of the other guy. But it depresses me. Because conservatives (small c) ought generally to be more suspicious than that.
I agree.One of my biggest beefs with the Republican Party is that there is little if any inspiration anymore. Politics has become very personal and very nasty, but it does go in cycles. I believe this cycle of nastiness began with the confirmation hearings of Judge Bork, and then has been getting steadily worse as the parties play tit for tat. We haven’t had anyone beaten in Congress yet, but Franken is just crazy enough to do it.
I long for the days when Tip and the Gipper could fight it out all day, and then head to a bar for a nip and a laugh.
We haven’t had anyone beaten in Congress yet, but Franken is just crazy enough to do it.
Heh. “Because I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, YOU’RE PISSING ME OFF, YOU REPUBLICAN SCUMBAG!!!” *smack* *boom* *punch*
Jazz, gahrie was talking about me because I decided to stop putting up with his bullshit and start calling him out as the paritsan fool I think he is.
gahrie, you are plenty guilty of throwing stones. On top of that your propensity for ignoring reality and reason (as evidenced by your responses to Brendan above) is WHY i gave up on trying to be polite towards you, or for that matter even take the time to debate you.
Which brings me to a larger point. Unlike Jazz I know Brendan and its the primary reason I came to his blogs in the first place. The reason I stayed however was I too enjoy a good healthy debate with reasonably minded people. Unfortunately the comments section of this blog has, as of late, become dominated by 3-4 individuals who make such debate hard if not impossible most of the time. Alasdair, gahrie, Sandy Underpants, and to a lesser extent Joe Mama have demonstrated on continuing occasion an inability to consider positions other than the one they have decided is right, despite evidence and argument to the contrary. Attempting to talk to Alasdair or gahrie about issues in politics is damn near impossible because all you get back are right wing talking points about how OMG OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST etc. Sandy is just plain nuts.
However, clearly gahrie feels unfairly targeted, and being a reasonable person I’d like to give him a second (well probably more like 50th) chance to redeem himself. Here’s your opportunity gahrie. Demonstrate an ability to actually respond to arguments without throwing in all the red herrings, ignoring reasonable responses to the contrary and avoiding personal attacks and I’ll do the same towards you. fair enough?
Gahrie,
That was pretty inspired to bring up Derb in the context of this conversation. I hadn’t picked up that new book, but it looks like an interesting one. As a broader point, its voices like John Derbyshire’s that are not nearly loud enough on the Republican side of the aisle. Derbyshire is a writer fearless of CW, but unlike someone like his buddy Steve Sailer, he doesn’t reek of transparently hideous agendas. I love that guy because, like a legitimate conservative icon, it feels to good to hate him when necessary (which is not that often).
Good call though to bring him up in this conversation.
BTW – I obviously have no dog in the fight that David is referring to in #41, but with a guy like me that’s probably just because of an accident of timing and good luck. However, I take issue with the statement that “Sandy is just plain nuts” based, apparently, on the fact that Sandy persists (like a large part of the developed world) in thinking that the moon landing was faked, in spite of David banging his head against the wall several dozen times asserting that it wasn’t.
As a guy who has argued against Sandy’s position, it seems to me that enough evidence to convince him he’s wrong has been put forth, IMHO the most damning argument against Sandy is the need to get a bunch of America-hating Germans, French, British, Montana mountain men, etc, to go along with the scam seven times. To my way of thinking, that puts an end to any possible conspiracy talk.
Which, you know, Sandy hasn’t conceded, making him…nuts? Now I’m racking my brains trying to remember the time David K was presented with irrefutable evidence proving he was wrong and David K said “Yeah, well, I was wrong”. I can’t recall that ever happening. Not that I pay particularly close attention, but I can’t recall that ever happening.
Jazz, there are other reasons I think Sandy is off his rocker, not just the moon thing, although its a good strong part of the argument. He also insists that America would be safer as a nation if we completely got rid of the millitary.
(Working back in time …)
Jazz #43 – David K isn’t wrong, you silly person ! David K is simply verifiability-challenged … for most of us, we endeavour to be verifiable in our posting/commenting … for David K, not so much …
Jazz #42 – it’s not that “voices like John Derbyshire’s that are not nearly loud enough on the Republican side of the aisle”, it’s that there are comparatively few places that talk about him available to most people … again, some of us, being more the political junkies than others, we seek out folk like him … for most folk, well, when was the last time John Derbyshire was a guest on ‘The View’ or ‘The Today Show’ ?
David K #41 – see my reply to Jazz #43 …
Brendan #40 – wasn’t it Sir Wilfrid Laurier that threw up on a Member of the Loyal Opposition in Canadian Parliament ? (I can’t find the reference online yet, amongst all the Google findings)
gahrie #39 – I concur …
Jazz #35 – you seem to have missed my point somewhat … as I said :-
“When someone or a group has the ability (based upon precedent) to speed up a process, and yet that person or group chooses *this time* to follow the letter of the law and some “mutually agreed plan” which just happens to take longer, it is reasonable to consider that a delay, one which was avoidable, has taken place …” – how does that fit with “Alasdair, you just spent a bunch of time on this thread pushing the argument that Brown’s delay was based on some opaque, manipulative Democratic conspiracy” ?
To take your own quoted conspiracy-lite theory about the GOP allowing it to happen to make the Dems look worse, if that was the case, then surely the Dems would have realised that and NOT held the votes until Brown was sworn in ?
Me – I came here, respecting the Loys (although not all the opinions expressed by the Loys) – in confident expectation of some entertaining and informative blog-discussions … mostly, I was/am curious how Brendan and others will respond to the gradual (inexorable) unraveling of AGW as more evidence surfaces of grotesquely unscientific conduct by the principles in AGW …
That, and curiosity about when Brendan will find himself centrist-ly positioned in the middle of the anti-current-Dem-leadership camp muttering and grumbling (as did/does my Lady Wife about her vote for Carter in 1976) “Had I known what he/they were going to do, I would not have made the vote I did that felt so good and right when I made it.” … Ramirez’ cartoon speaks to the current situation most accurately here
And, last yet by no means least, where else can one find folk with a genuine visceral appreciation for the truly awful pun ? (h/t Venerable Elder Loy)
David K isn’t wrong, you silly person ! David K is simply verifiability-challenged … for most of us, we endeavour to be verifiable in our posting/commenting … for David K, not so much …
Alasdair, i’d like to thank you for proving my point about your adding little to nothing to the quality of debate around here.
Alasdair – the reason the Republicans didn’t push for Brown to be seated was because they needed the plausible cover of the Democratic supermajority to raise the debt ceiling. The Republicans, as pigs at the trough of public spending (as bad as the Democrats, probably) are just as in favor of raising the debt ceiling as the Democrats are. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans have this huge tea party constituency that hates the national debt with a special vigor. Thus, letting Kirk vote gives the Republican senators the opportunity to throw up their hands and say there was nothing we could do about the debt ceiling. There *was* something they could do – push their right to have Brown seated – but of course they didn’t want to, because they like the spending trough as much as the Democrats do, while Kirk and the Democratic supermajority gave them the excuse to pretend like they don’t.
David – I guess I didn’t make this clear earlier, but when I say I like this forum for pushing my perceptions of things, I was pretty much specifically referring to guys like Sandy sticking to their guns on issues like the moon landing. I actually really appreciate that from Sandy. Here’s the deal – if we wouldn’t have discussed that, I would have spent the rest of my life thinking “Yeah, the moon landings are probably real, but then conspiracies happen, so maybe they aren’t”.
Having the opportunity to be pushed on your beliefs by a guy like Sandy is a great thing, because it allows you to clarify exactly why you think the moon landings are real, which I wouldn’t have done otherwise. I know it probably won’t impact my future life, but it is kind of fun, in a way. If Sandy wants to push that the military is unnecessary, what’s the problem with that? You think the military is necessary, but why? Just because? You need a better reason than that, maybe if Sandy pushes you you’ll figure out what it is.
In conclusion, Sandy is one of the best contributors to this community, it seems to me. Our objective is not to set a guy like Sandy right, I mean, if we wanted to, how would we do that? Google “Mr. Underpants + California + USC alum” and then go look him up and knock on his door and tell him how it really is? Why in the world would we care? Worst case scenario is it might work and Sandy stopped pushing the envelope! Man would that suck.
Its the people who make your worldview uncomfortable that are extremely valuable back here. As another example, you should be grateful for a guy like Gahrie bothering to provide you with his cites supporting his view that AGW is hogwash. How can you know that AGW is plausible without first understanding why its opponents are wrong, in your mind? And what if its opponents turn out not to be wrong? Wouldn’t that be valuable too?
Jazz, its one thing to question commonly held beliefs, its another to persist in believing them despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, lack of support for your own side, etc. The former is admirable and important, the latter is a waste of time and without lasting value. What is the point of a debate if the opposing side is going to ignore everything and provide the same disinformation over and over. Its not good, its in fact bad, because too often people will buy into it because a given person of authority says it. Take the supposed link between vacinnations and autism. Despite overwhelming evidence against it and no credible supporting evidence for it people continue to believe it and convince others of it, creating an actual negative impact by increasing the number of unvaccinated children and thereby increasing the risk of the spread and growth of the diseases.
Take the supposed link between vacinnations and autism. Despite overwhelming evidence against it and no credible supporting evidence for it people continue to believe it and convince others of it,
Frankly this is a perfect example for me. The case for the link was made by scientists in a “peer reviewed” journal and it took 10 years for the “science” to be refuted.
For us on the skeptic side, the case is exactly the same for AGW. Given what has happened inthe last six months, I’ll be very interested to see what the state of AGW is in ten years from now.
Actually, David, the purported autism/vaccine link is exactly the kind of issue that someone like Sandy (or a scientist) should push broadly to clarify why its wrong.
First of all, your basic comment about the lack of children being vaccinated is highly worrisome. Who is pushing that link? Jenny McCarthy, because her boy got a shot and soon thereafter showed autism-like symptoms? Some lady that was on the Montel Williams show, who reported that her kid got the MMR vaccine, and three days later, boom! autism? Its a meme that gets spread because the notion terrifies every parent, and there isn’t enough exposure to the issue to clarify why the meme is wrong.
See, if there were some equivalent-to-Sandy character pushing the autism/vaccine link nationally, you could have a decent conversation in which you explain that thousands of children (tragically) show signs of autism every year, with virtually all arising spontaneously after no prior indications, and statistically a few, such as Jenny McCarthy’s boy and the child of that lady on Montel, happen to pop up around the time of a vaccine. Such a conversation would be quite helpful, as it would take the conversation out of the realm of the oogedy/boogedy stoking of terrible parent fears and put it on a very reasonable ground, one that most people would easily understand.
Similarly, understanding is our goal back here too. We’re not trying to teach Sandy or Gahrie or Joe Mama or anyone else anything…I’m not, anyway. I’m trying to figure it out for myself, if that’s beneficial to others, great, if not, I guess they’ll eventually ban me. Either way, whether or not Sandy comes to enlightenment, he is an aid for me coming to my own enlightenment, which, selfishly, is what I pretty much care about most from these conversations.
gahrie, you really don’t get it do you?
ONE article got through based on fraudulent science that attempted ot link autism and vaccines. How science worked is that numerous other studies were done that refuted it, and eventually someone came forward and said “yeah the original study was a fraud”.
Global climate change is the exact opposite, mounds of scientific data and numerous, not just one but numerous studies back up the conclusions that humanity is having an affect on the global climate. Yet people like you, the Jenny McCarthy’s of the climate change debate tout outlying instances that you claim support your view, ignoring how little (or in the case of east anglia NO) actually impact they have on the debate. Yet you, and conservatives like you want to dismiss global climate change, for some reason, whcih frankly I can not fathom. Whats with the pathological need to debunk it? How does it offend you so deeply that you have to claim Sandy Underpants style conspiracies about it?
Jazz,
The clarification is out there, the evidence is out there disputing the link between the two. Jenny McCarthy pushing the issue, continuing to push the issue as she has been isn’t helpful, its irresponsible because once the clarification has been given, they continue to ignore it and push their agenda, regardless of the evidence, because they believe they are right and somehow there is a vast conspiracy arrayed against them or something. Just like Sandy and Apollo 11. Just like gahrie and global climate change. These people are dangerous precisely because once the question has been asked and answered and we should move on to either the next step or the next problem we have to continue to waste time and resources because, without credible supporting evidence, without reasonable doubt, they continue to push the issue and get other people to support it. Not in the name of good science or betterment of mankind, but because they have an agenda to push. It provides no benefit whatsoever, its dangerous, careless, and pig headed of them.
Like I said, questioning is good, but questioning with the intent to never change your mind until you get your way, regardless of the evidence or reason. I’ll give you an analogy. Questioning orthodoxy, science, etc. is good in appropriate doses, much like medication. As long as you take a responsible amount its not only not harmful but beneficial. But when you take large amounts of pain killers for example, you lose any benefit and end up with very negative side effects.
Global climate change is the exact opposite, mounds of scientific data and numerous, not just one but numerous studies back up the conclusions that humanity is having an affect on the global climate
Which is why I constantly provide citations to back my claims up, and you never do right?
Which studies? Provide some citations for once.
When have you provided a single peer reviewed journal accepted scientific refutation of climate change? You are the one asserting its not true even though the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence is in favor of it. If you want to disprove it, then you need to be able to back it up instead of yet another red herring like you are trying now.
DavidK:
You haven’t been paying attention.
When have you provided a single peer reviewed journal accepted scientific refutation of climate change?
I have provided widely accepted evidence that the pro-AGW forces have corrupted the peer review process and prevented such papers from being printed in the peer reviewed journals.
You are the one asserting its not true even though the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence is in favor of it.
I have cited widely accepted evidence that:
a) the “overwhelming consensus” was artifically created
b) the “scientific evidence” is largely based on:
i) non-reproducable data (unscientific)
ii) non-functioning models (unscientific)
iii) manipulated data, not directly observable data (unscientific)
iv) propoganda from pro-agw lobbying groups (unscientific)
v) articles written in non-peer reviewed pop science and pop culture magazines (unscientific)
vi) cherry picked data that ignores any data that tends to disprove AGW (unscientific)
vii ) data produced by scientists unwilling to share their data with others (unscientific)
c) I have provided widely accepted evidence that the three most prominent AGW bodies (IPCC, Hadley and NOAA) are behaving in a completely unscientific manner, including the violation FOIA laws,
d) I have provided widely accepted evidence of alternative theories that are much more likely to account for any warming, and that account for previous periods of global warming (which AGW does not)
In conclusion I have provided citations for EVERY SINGLE ONE of my assertions and you have provided none, or virtually none.
Here is great column about the current state of the climate change movement:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/03/credibility-is-what-is-really-melting/
Just to mess up this crazy thread a bit more, for all we’ve talked about the moon landing, I still never made the connection to the most damning piece of evidence. So take that as a reason it is actually good that a guy like Sandy pushes the point as much as he does, because guys like me are slow and take several rounds to arrive at their best argument.
In the summer of 1969, the US and USSR were involved in their only hot war of the cold war, Vietnam, which war was just beginning to turn against the US. That conflict was entered by the US due to the “domino theory”, which held that if one colony fell to communism, and liked it, the rest would move over to communism too. That was largely the way in the Cold War, a campaign between freedom in America and the planned state in the Soviet Union. The battle had a military element (which we lost, in Vietnam), a cultural element, an economic element, and a technological element. The proxy for the technological element was the space race.
All that said, in the summer of 1969, the US – just beginning to lose the military aspect of the Cold War – announced triumphantly to the world that they had just won the technical component of the Cold War, by landing a man on the Sea of Tranquility on the moon. For their part, the Soviets, having a decent – though inferior – space program, trained their high-tech telescopes on the Sea of Tranquility, and…saw nothing…and kept it to themselves?
Then, over the next three years, the US “sent” six more missions at the moon, landed men (and rovers!) on the moon five times, and even though those missions corresponded to the Americans losing the only hot war of the Cold War (Vietnam), the Soviets trained their telescopes on the alleged spot of each faked landing, the Soviets were able to confirm that each landing was faked…and yet…for some reason the Soviets just kept that to themselves?
No way. There’s simply no way you can believe, given the huge PR element of the Cold War, and the fact that the Soviets were winning the military component, that the US claimed victory in the technical side, and the Soviets knew they were lying, and the Soviets just kept that to themselves.
You know the Soviets didn’t sit on your conspiracy, Sandy. You just simply know they didn’t. That, more than anything, should be enough to say that the moon landings are absolutely, positively, undoubtedly, true.
The battle had a military element (which we lost, in Vietnam)
Actually we won the war in Vietnam. In fact we won every battle (including Tet, announcements by Cronkite to the contrary). We destroyed the Viet Cong and wiped out the NVA’s ability to project power.
We lost the peace in Vietnam. After the 1973 peace treaty we stopped supporting South Vietnam and withdrew, while the Chinese and Soviets rebuilt the NVA. The North Vietnamese then conquered South Vietnam while we sat and watched.
Since this blog has evolved into you and I chatting, Gahrie, I wanted to add a thought regarding the Macleans article, and how it relates to the AGW debate in general:
First of all, the sourcing of the Himalayan icecap claim is pretty dismal. Then again, as a guy who was burned as a youth in the late 70s by a US govt report that said that global oil would be gone by 1999, I’d put some pretty serious skepticism in any such claim, even if it legitimately came from (young) climate science.
That said, I don’t think that the Himalayan claim, or the East Anglia bad behavior, proves that AGW is a fraud, because AGW is, really, a moot point. We know that man produces extra CO2. But not a lot in absolute terms. Is it enough in threshhold terms? Who the hell knows?
Which is where I think AGW skeptics such as yourself end up forced in a bit of an argumentative trap. You’re facing off against zealots who believe that OMG AGW IS AWFUL AND THE WORLD WILL SURELY END NEXT YEAR!, to which your natural instinct is to say “no!” and then refute those claims.
Problem is, we in your agnostic audience don’t process your “no!” in the context of your refutation of the wingnuts on the other side, we simply hear you say “AGW is a fraud”, and we think well, how can that be if it is a moot point? I think this unfortunately tends to diminish the impact that the AGW skeptic crowd has on the persuadable public.
Really, because those East Anglia guys behaved badly in response to the bad behavior of those such as Soon and Balunias, because the weird Himalayan claim was poorly sourced, the conclusion is that everyone should be skeptical of the religion of AGW, not that they should join the church of there-is-no-such-thing-as-AGW.
As an example of the distinction, really there are two reasons why we care about AGW: 1) Will the planet die? and 2) Will some sort of crazy legislation be enacted to prevent it from dying? To that second point, the reason why the Himalayan thing matters and the East Anglia thing matters is that we should be wary of too aggressive legislative attempts, especially if they are being pushed by scientists that have shown they can’t fully be trusted. That’s the argument AGW skeptics should be pushing. Not that AGW is a fraud. But rather that its not the slam dunk you think. So let’s proceed in a reasonable manner.
Jazz – folk like gahrie and myself have been busily pushing the facts towards folk for a long time, showing the various ways in which AGW *isn’t* by any means a slam-dunk … and we are met by the David Ks whose major response it “AGW is settled science” and “These people are dangerous precisely because once the question has been asked and answered and we should move on to either the next step or the next problem …” …
Plus, it isn’t so much that AGW is a fraud – it’s more that the major proponents of AGW are frauds … qv Almost-President Gore and, of course, our own David K …
Oh, I’ll also dive in for this one, because it’s not really political, I just get a chance to be pedantic and use my knowledge of Russian history. 🙂
In the summer of 1969, the US and USSR were involved in their only hot war of the cold war, Vietnam, which war was just beginning to turn against the US.
There are several points of clarification I’d like to make. First, while obviously not part of the Cold War, we actually fought the Soviets after WWI, so with that in mind, Vietnam doesn’t seem so “hot.” Secondly, if you are going to consider Vietnam hot, since it was really just a proxy war you’d have to include several other conflicts, most notably Afghanistan, since I think they apply in the same way Afghanistan does.
Anyway, not trying to be a pedant just to be a dick, I’m just a history nerd. 🙂