PunditGuy — Home

Day: February 22, 2006

Ohio Democrats: Laws? We Don’t Need No Stinkin Laws!

The Democrats best hope to hold onto a key House seat from Ohio couldn’t collect enough signatures to qualify for the party primary. You need 50 signatures for qualification. Sen. Charlie Wilson could only get 46.

“I am obviously disappointed with this decision today,” Wilson said. “I am exploring a number of options and am confident that, in November, I will be on the ballot and I will win the privilege and responsibility of representing Ohio families in Congress.”

The state Democratic party said it would back any number of potential legal or procedural challenges Wilson might pursue.

“He was a very strong, formidable candidate and there are options that would make him a strong candidate even if he doesn’t succeed legally,” state party spokesman Brian Rothenberg said. “This is not the last chapter of this story.”

And there’s just another example of what’s wrong with politics today. To Ohio State Democrats, it doesn’t matter that Wilson couldn’t get enough signatures (essentially, endorsements) to qualify. It doesn’t matter if the electorate doesn’t want Wilson. The Democrats will simply seek out and take advantage of whatever legal loopholes exist in order to get their guy on the ballot. And even if legal maneuvers don’t work, there are other “options”.

I wonder who will play the role of Fredo?

Milbank’s Obsession with Alito

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post files a column today about Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s first day on the bench, which was yesterday. Instead of learning more about the intricacies of the cases themselves, Milbank decides it is more newsworthy to focus on Alito’s mannerisms. The piece is extremely condescending, to say the least. Here’s a sample:

– It was Samuel Alito’s first day of school yesterday, and the new Supreme Court justice demonstrated himself to be a precocious, if sometimes too enthusiastic, pupil.”

– In his first day on the bench, Alito laughed obligingly at Justice Antonin Scalia’s joke about river discharge. He stroked his chin thoughtfully and rocked in his chair, just as the more senior justices do.”

– He (Alito) tried to talk at the same time as 85-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens, then quickly backed down.”

– He forgot the rules of seniority and stepped in front of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; the 72-year-old Clinton appointee was uninjured.”

And Milbank didn’t stop there. He continued with this second-by-second analysis of Alito’s movements.

As oral arguments started, Alito adopted a studious frown as the lawyer for a shopping-mall developer explained why the Clean Water Act didn’t apply to him. Within seconds, Scalia interrupted to declare his agreement with the builder. Ginsburg broke in to make clear her opposition. Then, without waiting for the other six, Alito jumped in.

“Does it make sense,” he wondered, that “a tributary that leads into navigable water is not necessarily covered?” Souter quickly agreed with Alito’s line of questioning, suggesting “evil polluters” were trying to evade the law.

It might have been an anxious moment for the new justice’s supporters. Was Alito, so recently championed by the right wing, siding with Ginsburg and Souter against Scalia? Or was he merely playing the devil’s advocate, as justices often do? Alito, resting his face in his left hand, his pinky on his lips, gave no further clues. For the next hour, he sat silently while his colleagues debated fiercely.

Stevens called an argument made by the property owners “sort of foolish.” Alito reached for his silver coffee mug. Scalia ridiculed the government argument that land “becomes water of the United States because there are puddles on it.” Alito scratched his head.

Alito found his voice in the second hearing, a less important dispute about discharge from dams. He shared a private joke with Ginsburg, apparently at the expense of a clearly nervous petitioner. After Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts asked questions, Alito piped up with a question — but quickly silenced himself when he discovered Stevens had the floor. He sipped from his mug, rested chin in hand, and bided his time — finally seizing the floor after a Breyer soliloquy.

Most people are interested in the Supreme Court for the decisions that are made regarding the specific cases that are brought before the judicial branch. Not Dana Milbank. He’s got one thing on his mind. It’s Sam Alito. How Sam looks. What Sam says. How Sam sits. How Sam stands.

What’s next Dana? A critique of Alito’s hygienic practices? Will we read about an errant nose hair or will it be a column focusing on the varied shapes of lint clinging to the Justice’s robe?

Nice work, Milbank. Now go get a life.

Yahoo!: Allah is Akbar

Just when we thought society was on the brink of disaster, Yahoo! liberates Allah.

Yahoo! has reversed its decision to stop people registering Yahoo! IDs which include the letters “allah”.

The Reg was contacted yesterday by a reader – Ed Callahan – who was having trouble registering his mum – Linda Callahan – for a Verizon email address – provided through a Yahoo! portal.

But Yahoo! got in touch with us this morning to say it is now accepting Yahoo! identities which contain the letters “allah”. The Callahans will be overjoyed.

Yahoo! said in a statement: “We continuously evaluate abuse patterns in registration usernames to help prevent spam, fraud and other inappropriate behavior. A small number of people registered for IDs using specific terms with the sole purpose of promoting hate, and then used those IDs to post content that was harmful or threatening to others, thus violating Yahoo!’s Terms of Service.

“‘Allah’ was one word being used for these purposes, with instances tied to defamatory language. We took steps to help protect our users by prohibiting use of the term in Yahoo! usernames. We recently re-evaluated the term ‘Allah’ and users can now register for IDs with this word because it is no longer a significant target for abuse. We regularly evaluate this type of activity and will continue to make adjustments to our registration process to help foster a positive customer experience.”

The ‘two minutes to midnight’ clock has stopped ticking, for now.

Previously: Yahoo! bans Allah

The Port Deal: It’s Question Time

Since yesterday, more information has become available concerning the port deal, yet many questions remain about just how, when and why the deal was approved by the Bush administration. And the pressure continues, as Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, and the right and left sides of the blogosphere take part in the mob effect we’ve come to know so well. The pitchforks and flaming torches are marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. 

Today we learn something more – Bush wasn’t aware of the deal prior to the approval by his administration. One would believe that this information was released by White House PR people in the hopes that it might deflect attention from the president, and thereby divert the mob and quell discontent. But here’s the problem with that – Bush’s statement yesterday defending the deal and threatening to VETO any legislation brought to kill it. Combine the words of the president’s statement with the passion in which it was delivered, throw in a heavy dose of media-made theatrics, and one can’t help but walk away with the impression that Bush was fully engaged in the decision. It’s almost as if he was at the negotiation table, pushing the pen in front of representatives of Dubai Ports World.

It’s strange.

If I could ask Bush one question, it would be this: If the decision to contract with Dubai Ports World was made without your knowledge by members of your administration more than a month ago, how can you, as well as the American people, be sure that the deal was completely and thoroughly vetted from a national security perspective?

OK, one more general question: Why is Bush so adamant that this deal go through? Why threaten a VETO? He’s not used that pen at all during his presidency, even though there have been many opportunities for him to do so. Yet now, we’re supposed to believe that this deal is soooo important that Bush is willing to use his VETO powers for the first time to kill anything that attempts to block it. Why is the port deal such a critical issue for the president?

It’s strange.

Is this matter really just another example of poor communication within the Bush administration, or is there something more?