A judge ruled the state can suspend the driver’s license of a man who lost his driving privileges after his doctor reported to police that he drank a six- pack of beer a day. But the judge also said Keith Emerich may obtain restricted driving privileges as long as he uses a device that tests his blood-alcohol content before starting his car. Emerich, 44, a printing company employee, was notified in April he would lose his license, about two months after he disclosed his drinking habit to doctors treating him for an irregular heartbeat.
Be very careful what you tell people, even your doctor. There is no evidence from this story that this guy was ever driving drunk. He might have downed all six of those beers after work and never left his house which, the last I heard, was still legal.
This is where my libertarian leftist tendencies come in to play. Fuck a bunch of moralistic assholes trying to tell people how they should live, in the name of “public safety.” Cops, bureaucrats, do-gooders and religious zealots (and apparently doctors, now) are the very last people on the planet who should have the power to invade your private life because they are the very first in line to do it whenever they get the chance.
Campaign Desk highlights one of the typically egregious Inside Politics bitch fests about Kerry and Bush’s relative machismo as illustrated by how they eat a Cheese steak.
I have one question for all of you Philly homeboys and girls. Unlike Kerry who ordered the wrong kind of cheese and proved he was a eunuch, Bush apparently showed that he had a giant dick by saying:
“A lot of people are wondering why I’m coming so much,” he said. “It ought to be obvious to you. I like my cheese steak ‘Whiz with.'”
I understand that this means he prefers it with Cheez Whiz. But, do real men have to order it “Whiz with” or are you a french pansy if you say “with Whiz?”
Be careful of these folks who travel around the country making all these big promises, and say, oh, don’t worry, we’ll pay for it by taxing the rich. You know how that goes. The rich hires accountants and lawyers and you get stuck with the bill. But we’re not going to let him raise your taxes.
I don’t get it. If “the rich” hire accountants and lawyers to avoid paying taxes, why in the hell did Bush bother to lower their tax rates twice in the last three years? He could have saved himself a lot of grief if he’d just let the rich do what they always do instead of changing the tax code in ways that made it appear that he was granting them a favor. (And think of the economic stimulus all those extra billable hours would have created — and from the private sector, too!)
Are people actually buying this nonsense or is it some kind of a focus group glitch?
President Bush reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to building an antimissile system, accusing opponents of the program of “living in the past.”
Although Bush did not mention his Democratic rival by name on Tuesday, his speech here at a Boeing Co. plant included a thinly veiled attack on John F. Kerry’s stance on missile defense. “I think those who oppose this ballistic missile system don’t understand the threats of the 21st century,” he told 1,400 cheering Boeing employees and supporters.
The guy who invaded a country on the basis of its huge scary cache of unconventional weapons only to find it didn’t even have one is lecturing people about understanding the threats of the 21st century.
Federal prosecutors acknowledged possible flaws yesterday in a major piece of evidence used in their case against two leaders of an Albany mosque on charges that they supported terrorism.
[…]
Prosecutors said they were given information from the Defense Department that a notebook with Mr. Aref’s name and address had been found in what they said was a terrorist training camp in the western Iraqi desert near the Syrian border. They also said that a word in the notebook, written in Arabic, had referred to Mr. Aref as “commander.”
As it turns out, the word is Kurdish, albeit written using the Arabic alphabet, and the translation may be incorrect. “Commander” could be translated as “brother,” according to federal prosecutors.
Nijyar Shemdin, the United States representative for the Kurdistan Regional Government in Washington, reviewed a copy of the page at the request of The New York Times and said he did not see how a translation would have come up with the word “commander.”
Mr. Shemdin said that Mr. Aref is referred to with the common honorific, “kak,” which could mean brother or mister, depending on the level of formality.
[…]
In court last week, Mr. Kindlon did not have access to the note, and he expressed frustration at having to rebut the clearly ominous implications of the word “commander.”
[…]
The judge gave the prosecution seven days to give the defense a copy of the note. The prosecutors asked the Defense Department for a copy, which they received and had the F.B.I. translate independently. That brought the discrepancy to light.
Mr. Kindlon said his client would seek a new bail hearing.
He said that Mr. Aref, a Kurd, had three brothers in northern Iraq and that there was no independent verification that the note had been found in a terrorist training camp. According to court documents, United States soldiers found the document on June 12, 2003, near the town of Rawah.
The sting operation being conducted in Albany was already underway then and was not tied to the discovery of the note, according to court documents.
[…]
However, many of the conversations between the informant and the men were in Urdu, as well as in Arabic and English, and Mr. Kindlon said there might be problems with the translations of those meetings, as well.
In court documents, the government provided only snippets of the conversations already translated.
This case is another one of those travesties in the making, you can tell. It’s a bullshit sting that apparently relies on mistranslated notes the DOD conveniently found in a “terrorist training camp” in Iraq after the sting had already been initiated.
Evidently, they’ve caught all the active terrorists so they are now busy entrapping random people as a test of their loyalty. Good to know.
Josh Marshall has posted an analysis by Charlie Cook that I had also planned to write about which shows that the electoral college count is still tilted slightly to Bush. He says:
A veteran politics watcher like Cook can see through that smoke and take into account the poor quality in some polls and deeper trends at work in given states. For that reason, I put a lot of stock in Cook’s opinion.
I’ve also always found Cook to be very astute and his analysis makes wonder if we Democrats aren’t in the middle of another one of those fugue states in which we start having visions of landslides and certain winners without any data to back it up. Cook writes:
In adding up all the electoral votes that are in the safe and lean columns for each candidate, President Bush has a tight 211 to 207 lead in the Electoral College. Bush also has 120 votes in the toss up column. However, if you pushed each of the 10 toss up states to Kerry — who seems to be ahead by a slight margin — he would come out on top.
I am feeling optimistic about this election, but I don’t see where everyone is getting the idea that it’s a done deal. As much as I’d like it to be so, I still see a race that’s neck and neck where anything could happen.
The crowds on the ground are very encouraging and you can’t dismiss that. But, I don’t think there’s any doubt that the Democratic base is riled up this time and so it’s not all that surprising to me that more people would show up at rallies. And, we really can’t measure the Bush rallies by the same yardstick since they are completely scripted and controlled media events. We don’t know if his crowds would be just as large if he opened them up.
I’m not trying to rain on anyone’s parade and I hope just as fervently as anyone that we win in a huge landslide. But, I’m not seeing any reliable evidence of this so-called new CW that it’s “Kerry’s to lose.” It’s still tied.
Before everybody gets all upset that Kerry condemned the MoveOn ad, think about it for a minute.
Personally, I think it’s too late for this ad — the story was already losing its momentum in the mainstream media. Editorials called Bush out. Even O’Reilly was condemning the swiftboaters. The timing is off.
Mostly, I agree with Chris Bowers at MYDD that the ad itself sucks (particularly in comparison with the SBVT ad.) I think they could have alluded to the Bush guard stuff with visuals and saved the righteously indignant VO to address the swiftboat smear. A little subtlety is called for if you are taking a position from the high road while you are sticking a shiv in someone’s belly.
But, it’s done and since our side demanded that Bush condemn his ad, Kerry has little choice now but to stand with McCain and condemn the MoveOn ad and and try to make Junior look bad by comparison. Kerry refused to distance himself from Admiral Turner and General Clark who are out there as attack dogs every day on the issue, (and explicitly bringing up the Guard) so he’s not making the subject off limits.
Bush may end up looking slimy for being the only one who refuses to explicitly condemn these ads, and maybe just getting the Guard thing out there again in contrast to Kerry’s record is what they are really after. If the ad had been a little bit more clever, that might have worked better. I think the best that can be hoped is that the whole subject looks so muddy now with flying charges and counter charges that people discount the whole thing as politics, no harm no foul to either side.
I honestly think the way to attack back would have been to let the swiftless do their thing and then brutally call into question Bush’s behavior on 9/11. You want to go nuclear on these guys, that’s the way to do it. My Pet Goat, baby. That’s the soft white underbelly.
Judith Miller got another subpoena in the Plame case over the week-end.
Strange, yes? She was, as we know, very well conected on the neocon WMD beat, wasn’t she? The question in my mind is if she was the chicken or the egg.
If the media wanted to make up in some small way for their transgressions in blindly helping Bushco send this country to war based on a neocon wet dream, they should follow the advice of Paul Krugman and finance several different competing exit polling operations for this election.
If the election is anything less than a landslide on either side, the skepticism about touch screen voting machines will hinder any president’s claim to legitimacy. Now, Junior and his kool-aid drinkers don’t really care about that because he found that he could pretty much do anything he wanted without it, but it’s crucial to preserve our democracy, nonetheless.
The Georgia election in 2002 is a good example of what might happen in a number of places if good exit polling isn’t done that validates the returns. The state showed two very surprising upsets that none of the polls had predicted. Going into the election they’d all had Senator Cleland winning by 2 to 5 points and he lost by 7. In the governor’s race the swing was 16 points from the last polls to election day; Barnes had been up by 9 points and he lost by 7.
These things happen and it may very well have been a result of a last minute GOP surge. But, there is also some good evidence that the e-voting machines in Georgia were tampered with. We will never know the truth of that.
This time people on both sides are bound to question the results of these new e-voting machines if the returns show a close race. There will be no paper trail in most of them and the legitimacy of many winners is likely to be in question if there’s no data to suport the tally. Exit polls are one way to do that.
The media should spend some money and get this done, not for predictive purposes on election night, but to validate the actual election returns. Otherwise we are going to be in tin foil hat territory for a long time to come. It’s the least they can do.
Here are the Exit Poll Results for the 2000 election. You might want to bookmark it as we will start seeing more comprehensive polls over the next couple of months and it’s interesting to see where the shifts, if any, are taking place.
[Kerry] needs a much better defense of that Iraq vote of his. It really isn’t so hard. When Bush went to Congress in the fall of 2002 for authorization to go to war in Iraq, he did so after saying he was going to the United Nations to seek international support for a war against Saddam Hussein.
Yes, the congressional resolution empowering Bush to wage war was far broader than it should have been. But when push came to shove, Kerry decided to take the chance in voting “yes” to strengthen Bush’s hand in negotiating with the United Nations. That seeking U.N. support was never really a Bush priority and that he botched the postwar planning is the president’s problem, not Kerry’s. Why can’t Kerry keep it that simple?
Does anyone in their right mind think that is simple? Has E.J. ever heard what Kerry really said? Jesus, by comparison he sounds like Forest Gump compared to that wonky blather:
Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have, but I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.
Now maybe there is a simpler way to say this but it sure isn’t Dionne’s meandering bullshit.
Look, this is a difficult issue for Kerry, there’s no doubt about it. I was very disappointed in him for voting for the resolution because this was entirely predictable. From a tactical standpoint, it was never clear to me why these guys thought that they could win a presidential election by supporting Bush on Iraq. If the war was perceived as a success, Bush would probably be unbeatable. It is because the war has been such a strategic disaster that he’s as vulnerable as he is. This, to me, was the only scenario in which we could win in ’04 and therefore, it was always the smart move politically (much less morally) for Democrats to oppose that goddamned war — and hammer on terrorism, the real threat, hard.
At the end of the day, the Bush people might want to rethink bringing this up everyday. Iraq is Bush’s albatross, not Kerry’s, no matter how hard they try to hang it around his neck. That big old elephant sitting over in the corner is holding a sign that says “where are the WMD?”
As for the much desired “bumper sticker explanation” that even Dionne can understand, The Howler suggests this:
I voted to give President Bush the authority. Then President Bush f*cked it up
