They told Glenn that if he voted for McCain we'd have the FBI sifting through our data bases and our trash - and they were right!
F.B.I. Agents Get Leeway to Push Privacy Bounds
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.
The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.
The F.B.I. recently briefed several privacy advocates about the coming changes. Among them, Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent who is now a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that it was unwise to further ease restrictions on agents’ power to use potentially intrusive techniques, especially if they lacked a firm reason to suspect someone of wrongdoing.
The last lib would have leapt from a ledge if this were happening under Evil BushCo.
A bit of detail:
Some of the most notable changes apply to the lowest category of investigations, called an “assessment.” The category, created in December 2008, allows agents to look into people and organizations “proactively” and without firm evidence for suspecting criminal or terrorist activity.
Under current rules, agents must open such an inquiry before they can search for information about a person in a commercial or law enforcement database. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search such databases without making a record about their decision.
Mr. German said the change would make it harder to detect and deter inappropriate use of databases for personal purposes. But Ms. Caproni said it was too cumbersome to require agents to open formal inquiries before running quick checks. She also said agents could not put information uncovered from such searches into F.B.I. files unless they later opened an assessment.
Don't know how it copied wrong, but in the actual email, it's "giving Alaskans the ol' ", etc. IOW, she knows where to put apostrophes, amazingly enough.
Ex, I don't have a link to it, but I noted in one email that she had correctly used "whomever", a grammatical point that I have some trouble with to this day.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 13, 2011 at 02:00 PM
Notice the timestamps. On June 4, 2008, she sent out 26 emails between 7:24AM and around 9:30AM, on a whole host of different subjects. All throughout the day, more emails come in and go out, into the evening. The lady was not just sitting around goofing off, that's for sure.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 02:03 PM
Well I'd sure love to see a side-by-side comparison of her unedited emails with the Harvard Man's. Even using a BlackBerry, she writes very clearly and, except for typos, almost error-free.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 02:07 PM
bold off
Posted by: peter | June 13, 2011 at 02:11 PM
Notice the timestamps. On June 4, 2008, she sent out 26 emails between 7:24AM and around 9:30AM, on a whole host of different subjects. All throughout the day, more emails come in and go out, into the evening. The lady was not just sitting around goofing off, that's for sure.
You mean she wasn't tweeting her junk?
Posted by: peter | June 13, 2011 at 02:12 PM
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 02:21 PM
Six days before Trig is born...
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 02:27 PM
She mentioned in "Going Rogue' hoe traumatic
this hacking was for her contacts with her
family, her staff, et al. And you see how
this is illustrated.
Posted by: narciso | June 13, 2011 at 02:29 PM
Ooops, sorry. This database suddenly went to 2007.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 02:29 PM
--Larry Kudlow (pronounced KUDD-low) is with CNBC and Kudlow & Company.--
I think Kudlow's show is where I first saw Palin and on several occasions.
He was quite impressed with her as was I.
Posted by: Ignatz | June 13, 2011 at 02:33 PM
Did anyone seriously doubt that a woman with so many children was a good executive and a deft time manager? Really? why?
Posted by: Clarice | June 13, 2011 at 02:44 PM
I'm waiting for someone to posit that she, obviously, wrote almost none of her e-mails.
Maybe Bristol, even.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | June 13, 2011 at 02:47 PM
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 02:49 PM
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 02:52 PM
Would someone please put 'cleo out of our misery?
I suggest that if we're going to talk about this person at all, we at least pay her the courtesy of addressing her by the name she's chosen for herself, "Holocaust Denier".
Posted by: bgates | June 13, 2011 at 02:53 PM
The database search issue appears to be mostly a matter of cost. The current manual allows searches without an assessment, but only if the data is free:
It gives further examples of what they mean by commercial databases:The difference with the new rules is that they allow the use of things like Lexis-Nexis or Choicepoint without opening an assessment. However, that list is not all-inclusive, and the oversight issue is real. Supervisors are required to review assessments at 30/90 day intervals, so avoiding an assessment effectively avoids supervisory review.Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 13, 2011 at 03:01 PM
why Sarah Palin used multiple email IDs:
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 03:04 PM
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 03:14 PM
Palin obviously doesn't meet Obama's high standards of leadership. There are no golf outings that I see. Just real work as Governor and family matters.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | June 13, 2011 at 03:23 PM
Who's Erika Fagerstrom, you ask?
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 03:27 PM
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 03:31 PM
I suggest that if we're going to talk about this person at all, we at least pay her the courtesy of addressing her by the name she's chosen for herself, "Holocaust Denier".
The goofiest thing on this thread was the longwinded diatribe about the need for more stimulus spending and how the evil GOP was standing in the way.
The really impressive thing was the unstated assumption that everyone agrees more stimulus is necessary (as if Obama's jobless spending spree hadn't debunked that theory beyond repair), and the evil GOPers wanted to block it to make the economy tank further as an election ploy.
With apologies to Darth Vader: The crazy is strong with this one.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 13, 2011 at 03:32 PM
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 03:36 PM
It gives further examples of what they mean by commercial databases:
The difference with the new rules is that they allow the use of things like Lexis-Nexis or Choicepoint without opening an assessment. However, that list is not all-inclusive, and the oversight issue is real. Supervisors are required to review assessments at 30/90 day intervals, so avoiding an assessment effectively avoids supervisory review.
What a great concept! When a few quick on-line checks might resolve a possible issue, instead lets
1) open a file, with all the attendant administrative processes by several different employees, and
2) require supervisory review, including supervisory approval and review of every Google inquiry.
That'll really help us thwart potential terrorists!
For anyone's info who cares, a top level street Special Agent is a GS-13, and a Supervisory Special Agent is a GS-14. You can get some idea of their salaries from this GS Pay Scale, but you have to add in 25% for overtime as well as locality pay, which varies by Metropolitan area. Then, of course, there are retirement and insurance contributions on the part of the Government, i.e., the taxpayers.
Leave it to JOMers to find the most efficient use of Government (= taxpayer) resources, and to find the potential for abuse: some FBI agent somewhere might spend his days doing on-line searches and never open an assessment, and his supervisor would never wonder how the agent was spending his time with no results to show. Uh, yeah.
Go ahead, tie the whole investigative process up in administrative knots--if you want to multiply costs and guarantee another 9/11. Pure genius, of course, on the part of those who want to justify more foreign adventures.
Posted by: anduril | June 13, 2011 at 03:37 PM
On the final passage of AGIA (Alaska Gasline Inducement Act):
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 03:43 PM
Taranto BOTW, comes through again:
"On what basis does one posit that there is "something deeper going on"? To explain what motivated his actions, it is sufficient to observe that he seems to have a healthy male libido--indeed, perhaps a bit too healthy. Of course, "I'm sick" is just the latest in a string of Weiner excuses: "I was hacked," "I take full responsibility," etc. But it is also an example of his feminist hypocrisy. It is as if a family-values conservative were caught in gay sex chats and announced that he was entering therapy to overcome his "sick" homosexual impulses.
Contemporary feminism's formula for "equality" is to treat male ambition as the norm for both sexes but male sexuality as abnormal--either immoral or pathological, depending on the context. A fascinating example appeared over the weekend in the New York Times, in a Week in Review article pondering the mystery of why "female politicians rarely get caught up in sex scandals."
The explanation is actually quite simple if you accept the sexual differences between men and women. The Times piece hints at the obvious explanation, only to change the subject:
It would be easy to file this under the category of "men behaving badly," to dismiss it as a testosterone-induced, hard-wired connection between sex and power (powerful men attract women, powerful women repel men). . . . But there may be something else at work: Research points to a substantial gender gap in the way women and men approach running for office.
We then get an extended lecture on the superior virtue of the fairer sex. Whereas male politicians are mere careerists, women run for office "because there is some public issue that they care about," according to one academic. "Once elected, women feel pressure to work harder," another expert claims. "Female politicians are punished more harshly than men for misbehavior," says a Democratic operative. Another adds that "male politicians feel invincible" and thus are prone to reckless acts.
But let's extract the truth from that antithesis paragraph, particularly the parenthetical observation. "Powerful men attract women," the Times observes. That reflects a truism about female sexuality: Woman are attracted to status.
What about "powerful women repel men"? That generalization about male sexuality has an element of truth, but it doesn't go to the heart of the matter. It's like saying "girls don't date nice guys"--an expression of the frustration of those who think the opposite sex should find them more attractive, but one that casts little light on the other sex's actual preferences.
If powerful men attract women, what kind of women attract men? Beautiful ones--which usually means young ones (the exception that proves the rule: Sarah Palin). Successful politicians accrue status, which makes male ones more attractive to the opposite sex but confers no such benefit on women. They also become older, as do we all do (alas), which diminishes women's attractiveness more quickly than men's.
The Times story includes another antithesis paragraph that points in this direction and argues strongly against the notion that the difference between the sexes consists of women's superior virtue:
Of course, it is a big leap to suggest that voter expectations and an "extra level of seriousness" among women in public office translate into an absence of sexual peccadilloes. Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers, said her studies on adultery show that, at least under the age of 40, women are equally as [sic] likely to engage in it as men. She theorizes that perhaps women are simply more clever about not getting caught.
If we're talking about politicians, that theory is unnecessary. Roughly 95% of Congress (94% of the House, 100% of the Senate) is over 40. Only two women under 40 currently serve in Congress. Male politicians are more likely than female ones to get into sex scandals for the simple reason that their sexual opportunities are far greater."
Posted by: Clarice | June 13, 2011 at 03:44 PM
Here's the one the left was touting as Palin giving kudos to Obama over an energy speech. Heh.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 03:49 PM
as if Obama's jobless spending spree hadn't debunked that theory beyond repair
Going back to the previous thread, there's that old definition of insanity: doing the same thing again and again in the same situation but expecting a different outcome. This seems apt for the advocates of QE3, or stimulus 2, or for those like Krugman who say the problem with the stimulus is that it wasn't big enough.
Posted by: jimmyk | June 13, 2011 at 03:50 PM
I apologize for the length of that Taranto quote. It did not appear that long in the version I clipped it from.
Posted by: Clarice | June 13, 2011 at 04:00 PM
JimmyK, I don't think the advocates for QE3 expect a different outcome. I think they want to continue to protect their friends at our expense.
Posted by: sbw | June 13, 2011 at 04:07 PM
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 04:10 PM
I apologize for the length of that Taranto quote. It did not appear that long in the version I clipped it from.
Sheesh. Quit spamming the thread, Clarice.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 04:11 PM
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 04:13 PM
And now she's the VP candidate.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 04:24 PM
Taranto on Weener: he seems to have a healthy male libido.
I'd say Weener has a twisted caricature of a male libido. If Taranto thinks healthy males day dream about sexting and phone sex, that says a lot more about Taranto than it does about most men.
Posted by: anduril | June 13, 2011 at 04:28 PM
The onslaught is already into high gear.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 04:31 PM
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 04:35 PM
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 04:37 PM
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 04:40 PM
Still working into early October. But, of course...
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 04:45 PM
We need to start pelting the Capital Building with the new toxic lightbulbs until they repeal the ban on incandescent bulbs!!!
Republicans are stinking on this too.
Posted by: Janet | June 13, 2011 at 04:49 PM
Mid-October. Remember, this is the "Executive Residence Manager."
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 04:52 PM
Ooops, wrong year. This database switched back to 2007 on me.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 04:53 PM
The End.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 05:03 PM
Janet, I just called Upton's office and was assured hearings on the proposed legislature to ban the switch will be scheduled for later this month or sometime next month.
Posted by: Clarice | June 13, 2011 at 05:04 PM
I think the point of the piece, is we can come up with plenty of reasons why this authority, may be over broad, but Mike German, is not the right person to voice
them. In fact. he sounds like exactly the sort which might have composed the infamous
DHS memo.
Posted by: narciso | June 13, 2011 at 05:13 PM
After reading through these emails, many of which I skipped, I'm even more pissed at McCain for his handling of this woman's introduction to the national stage.
During the time period of the emails, Governor Palin very obviously worked day and night on Alaskan issues. She would have had very little time following national issues, as she was spending all of her time on local ones, and she shouldn't have been expected to.
McCain should have made it crystal clear from the get-go: that he chose her for her obviously excellent executive abilities, her qualities as a person, and her thorough understanding of both energy and land/wilderness management.
He should have advised her to say this just as clearly, too.
"Senator McCain has asked me to focus and provide guidance on energy and land-use issues. At this point, I don't claim any expertise on foreign policy or national domestic policy issues. But I'm a quick study and will devote myself to becoming a valued member of his team as he transitions into the presidency."
Simple and honest.
All McCain had to do was to say "I expect to survive long enough for Mrs. Palin to become as expert on national issues as she is on Alaskan ones."
Why he didn't take this tack will forever be a black mark on his ability to foresee what came to pass during his candidacy for president.
He left a good woman out there, virtually alone, to defend herself against the media onslaught that he should have easily anticipated.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 05:24 PM
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | June 13, 2011 at 02:47 PM
I'm waiting for that also.
Posted by: Elliott | June 13, 2011 at 05:30 PM
Ex-
I think he was expecting the media to vet her and got the Flounder Treatment instead (aka the D-Day excuse).
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | June 13, 2011 at 05:34 PM
Worse, he let his staff cut her up behind her back 24/7, Ext.
There'snow a Weiner action figure for those of you so inclined.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/offbeat/toy-company-introduces-anthony-weiner-action-figure-061311#ixzz1PAOydfSr
Posted by: Clarice | June 13, 2011 at 05:36 PM
[ed note- That would be the Otter excuse. My apologies.]
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | June 13, 2011 at 05:39 PM
I am thrilled that the Left came up empty-handed wrt palin's e-mails. I will watch the debate tonight just so I can get an idea of the CNN opposition and the tactics they intend to use to discredit the repub candidates. Today on Dylan Ratigan-they were trashing Mitt so they are right on schedule
One of my greatest campaign of 2008 experiences was seeing Sarah in person at Lakewood Park.McCain also came to Rocky River Memorial Hall but Sarah's message was stronger.
Posted by: maryrose | June 13, 2011 at 05:43 PM
I'm so glad that Williams and co, vetted this guy, we 'really dodged a bullet' there:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/13/soooo-funny-obama-jokes-about-shovel-ready-projects/
Posted by: narciso | June 13, 2011 at 06:03 PM
Worse, he let his staff cut her up behind her back 24/7, Ext.
He's a fool. The probable main reason they did that was to set up excuses for themselves, after seeing how vicious the onslaught was. It could have been largely avoided with a simple statement from McCain, such as the one I suggested above.
At which point, she could have easily handled the MSM interviews.
To Gibson re: "The Bush Doctrine": "I'm not sure what you mean, but I'll say again that I haven't followed foreign policy very closely, as I've been focused on Alaskan issues until now."
To Couric re: reading materials: "I've been focused on Alaskan issues, and haven't read the national press very closely. I'd be happy to respond to any questions you have about Alaskan issues."
F*ck McCain. I'll never look at the fool again without anger over his stupid handling of this relatively simple strategic matter. He had a diamond in the rough, and completely blew it.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 06:03 PM
It's a wonder there ratings aren't higher:
http://theothermccain.com/2011/06/13/joe-scarborough-to-mika-brzezinski-its-just-stupid-seriously-just-shut-up/
Posted by: narciso | June 13, 2011 at 06:09 PM
"He (McCain) left a good woman out there, virtually alone, to defend herself against the media onslaught that he should have easily anticipated."
Indeed Ex, but there are many *near* and far who will never read the emails, Palin's own writing in the media or on Facebook. For them, she remains a "bitter and divisive caricature" (the media created.) In a recent newspaper article, she was quoted in print using "gonna" and "ridin'" etc., whereas when I heard her lengthy TV interview with Wallace, I caught only two examples near the end. Barry is never quoted accurately.
Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | June 13, 2011 at 06:17 PM
"a Weiner action figure"
A Sitzpinkler model? Does it dribble, clarice?
Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | June 13, 2011 at 06:21 PM
What a question, frau.....There are two versions, apparently, a kiddy ken doll type and an "anatomically correct" one .
Posted by: Clarice | June 13, 2011 at 06:27 PM
I started to mistrust the FBI after they sent 900 Republican personal files to the Clinton White House--and no one was punished that I heard of.
Posted by: Ralph L | June 13, 2011 at 06:28 PM
Sue,Gmax,Porchlight et al Congrats on the Mavs win. I watched the last ten minutes so I wouldn't jinx it and was jumping up and down with happiness at the results
LeBron took us to the promised land and choked but I still say a winning team is not a motley crew of a few good players. The Mavs had a team effort with 27 points scored by the shortest guy.A classy trophy ceremony and a very exciting game. Kudos to all and yes we will also have a parade in Cleveland.
Posted by: maryrose | June 13, 2011 at 06:29 PM
Saw a bumpersticker: Obamacare will make you shovel-ready
Ex, in Going Rogue, Palin said Couric asked some questions several times (which were edited out), so her responses became "huh?"
Every conservative should have his own camera crew when being interviewed by MSM. The McCain campaign should have known that, but thought they were "my friends."
Posted by: Ralph L | June 13, 2011 at 06:36 PM
clarice..
I also have a couple of posts on facebook from a Larry Lynn..they were almost weiner-like...unless he turns out to be Hit(cannot believe that) I am blocking him..1st time I received any message from him at all.--I enjoy links and photos of friends, but don't suffer fools or liars well.
Posted by: glenda | June 13, 2011 at 06:44 PM
glenda, Clarice, etc. about Larry Lynn and Facebook. My sister was warning over the weekend that many (innocent) FB user's names are attached to links that are actually porn, and they are unaware of it. Just a head's up. Larry may be innocent.
Posted by: centralcal | June 13, 2011 at 06:53 PM
This is the post my sister had on FB - looks like several are posting it and it is making the rounds:
ATTENTION FB* applications are sending porno messages under some of YOUR names. Don't get in trouble with your friends,copy paste this message! If you receive a nasty message, video clip or a post saying xx answered a question about you, I'm NOT the one who sent it... DON'T GO TO THE SITE! Re-post this to your status to let others know
Posted by: centralcal | June 13, 2011 at 06:55 PM
Yeah cc, Larry participated in our Operation Airlift Soylent....
Posted by: Janet | June 13, 2011 at 06:56 PM
Larry is a JOMer.
He posts as . . . larry.
He's in the Florida panhandle and last we heard he was recuperating in a hospital.
I tried to carve out time to go see him on our spring break a couple of months ago,but was unable.
Wish I could have shot the bull with him for a while.
Posted by: hit and run | June 13, 2011 at 07:06 PM
Well. I can't vouch for any links of his coming through FB.
But Larry is swell.
Posted by: hit and run | June 13, 2011 at 07:09 PM
that is why I never link to the "someone answered a question about you" or carp like that, even if it's from someone I know.I've had a couple of friend requests that were blatanly fraudulent months ago, i.e....Lois Lucious wants to be friends...
extraneus...excellent work today :)
Posted by: glenda | June 13, 2011 at 07:12 PM
Tonight's debate will start before I get home from work. Are you all watching? Commenting about it?
Posted by: centralcal | June 13, 2011 at 07:18 PM
If someone posts weird videos on your wall, or information about diet plans, or a promise that you can see who views your profile....assume its a hack. It won't hurt you if you don't click on it.
Posted by: MayBee | June 13, 2011 at 07:18 PM
Centralcal,
I'm watching, sucker that I am.
Posted by: Jane | June 13, 2011 at 07:22 PM
Most of the following, I knew, except the Leon Panetta part! From a commenter called Nevadabob over at Althouse:
Posted by: centralcal | June 13, 2011 at 07:23 PM
Dana Bash and John King are pretty fair, though.
Posted by: MayBee | June 13, 2011 at 07:25 PM
What Perot did to Adm. Stockdale was infinitely worse than what McCain did, or didn't do, to Palin.
Stockdale declined the offer to be Perot's running mate, but Perot said "well, I'm in a bind because I've got to have a name to put on the ticket right now or I can't enter this primary. Let me use your name, and when I settle on my choice I'll replace you with him."
Stockdale, who felt indebted because of Prot's efforts on behalf of POW's, reluctantly accepted. From that point on, he heard nothing. He had no staff, no support, and no political ambition of any kind. As the scheduled VP debate approached, Stockdale tried to get Perot to act, and kept getting put off with further assurances.
He went into that debate without even having been provided with a briefing book, and of course he had a serious hearing problem as a result of his abuse in Hanoi. The result was the destruction of a singularly fine man's reputation, all brought on by his loyalty to his "friend." In his final years he was not an admirer of Ross Perot, I can assure you.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 13, 2011 at 07:36 PM
Great Jane - I know you will have pithy comments to help me catch up on events once I make it home.
MayBee: I was a CNN junkie for years, and am quite familiar with Dana Bash and John King and their past reportage. Haven't watched them since switching to Fox News.
Posted by: centralcal | June 13, 2011 at 07:39 PM
Via Twitter: Weiner's request for 2 weeks leave of absence was just read on the House floor.
What can he "cure" in two weeks?
Posted by: centralcal | June 13, 2011 at 07:41 PM
anduril:
"Finally, following a few links, we find that the 'misuse' of national security letters, was almost exclusively the result of clerical errors."
Not in the article you linked to, we don't -- a rather embarrassing error in a post nitpicking TM for accuracy, I should think.
Aside from your unsupported leap, the fact that you could actually consider clerical errors a plausible explanation is risible -- especially in light of the stats which follow:"The misuse of the word "misuse" by those who know better undoubtedly could lead many who don't know better to believe that intentional, deliberate abuse of national security letter powers had been occurring on a widespread basis."
And then there are those who know that abuse is not necessarily the product of "criminal or malicious intent." Patriot Act powers were on law enforcement wish lists long before 9/11, of course. It's also hard to imagine what it might take for you to consider a practice widespread, but the numbers above aren't even the sum total:
Indeed, one is even left wondering about your own grasp of the term "misuse."
I'll resist the temptation to indulge in a little wordplay on the subject of your knowing no better.
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 13, 2011 at 07:42 PM
An Am Thinker article wonders - Why are we paying for a gym for Congressmen?
Rahm attacked someone in there, right?...& now Weiner is using it for photo spreads.
Let them pay for memberships at gyms in their home districts.
Posted by: Janet | June 13, 2011 at 07:48 PM
I totally agree, Janet.
Well, the House approved A. Weiner's leave request. 2 weeks leave, 2 weeks in recess, so he won't return until July. (Unless, he resigns, which I doubt.) pheh!
Posted by: centralcal | June 13, 2011 at 07:51 PM
Full disclosure. I've mentioned it here once before, but I have a retarded daughter, who'll be 18 in a few weeks. She's lower functioning than Trig is likely to be, but I emailed Sarah Palin's beautiful "Letter from God," which apparently wasn't meant for public consumption, and can report that it elicited tears from both mother and father.
Whatever you think of Sarah Palin, only a good person could have written that.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 07:52 PM
Come on, Janet. We need our Congressmen in tip-top shape!
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 07:52 PM
OT: Okay, after much hassle, travel, l food and lots of travel we have finally installed the latest on Frederick's blog. LUN
Janet,
We are going to Dulles for the Air and Space Annex Museum tomorrow, so we can't make Johnny Rockets. My SIL says that is the better place for aviation history and installations. We will return and then we can have a real meet up.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | June 13, 2011 at 07:53 PM
supposed to have read "after much travel and turnpike food..."
Posted by: Jack is Back! | June 13, 2011 at 07:54 PM
Cain, Pawlenty, Bachman, Snatorum, Newt Mitt and Paul present and accounted for.
Posted by: Jane | June 13, 2011 at 07:54 PM
Taking a bit of a break here...
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 13, 2011 at 07:56 PM
I'm not sure I can endure david gergan and gloria borgia drooling over Obama for the republican debate.
Posted by: Jane | June 13, 2011 at 07:56 PM
Gee Dot, I love those roving martini's. It's a perfect signature.
Posted by: Jane | June 13, 2011 at 07:57 PM
Gloria borger does not understand the tea party. good
Posted by: Jane | June 13, 2011 at 07:58 PM
I saw this last night on TV and thought of you DoT.
A Lobstertini
Posted by: Rocco | June 13, 2011 at 08:02 PM
Cain, Pawlenty, Bachman, Snatorum, Newt Mitt and Paul present and accounted for.
What do these guys have in common? I can't imagine voting for any of 'em. So how can they possibly be "electable"?
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 13, 2011 at 08:11 PM
Newt's still on vacation?
Posted by: Extraneus | June 13, 2011 at 08:12 PM
Introduce yourself in 5 seconds.
I just realized Tim pawlenty (who I like very much) looks like a basset hound. (At least thru the eyes)
1. Question from a retired professor - what are your plans to create jobs?
Cain - boost the economy, the train is stalled nd the president is putting everything in the caboose. We need certainty to rev up the private sector.
Santorum, is 5% growth a realistic?
This is an oppressive administration, taxation, regulation, energy Obamacare, this president has put a stop sign on all growth.
Pawlenty: Is 5% unrealistic and why does cutting taxes alone work.
I want to cut taxes, reduce regulation. If China can get 5% growth we can too. Cut taxes and cut spending.
Romney: is 5% overly optimistic?
Tim has the right instincts. The president slowed the economy and failed when the American people relied on him. Card check cap n trade etc. John King interrupts.
Newt: Higher taxes ok? I participated in the reagan economy. Obama is anti jobs, business, energy, congress should repeal Dood-Frank, Sarbanes oxley
Bachmann: Dodd Frank will cost jobs and I filed my papers today to run for president.
Paul: What has Obama done right on the economy?
"That's a tough question. I can't think of anything" 5 % is okay if you get out of the Keynesian way of thinking.
Posted by: Jane | June 13, 2011 at 08:13 PM
Ditto, Cecil.
Posted by: Barbara | June 13, 2011 at 08:13 PM
I made a mistake and I hope to save you guys. I watched O'Reilly dissect Pawlenty.
Pawlenty's big problem is he does not know how to connect with the "average American".
To back up Bore-illy's claim, he goes to "average American" expert Karl Rove.
So much for making Monday my sober night. Good grief.
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 13, 2011 at 08:15 PM
I love you more than ever, extraneus..God bless your family...:)
hit, thanks for info, I hope larry gets well soon :)
go, jane, go !
Posted by: glenda | June 13, 2011 at 08:20 PM
OMG Sylvia Smith a healthcare journalist is concerned with the overreach. What 3 steps would you take to reveal.
Bachmann: I was first to introduce repeal of Obamacare. It's a job killer 800,000 jobs.
Romeny: talk about Obamneycare. I will repeal Obamacare, and give a waiver to all 50 states. Obamacare costs a trillion dollars, lots of jobs and Romneycare isn't all that bad.
Pawlenty: Healthcare is important.
(John King has that Chritian Amanpour hhappid of groaning while the speaker is talking.)
Why did you choose the Obamney care words? King is an ass.
Romney: the president will eat his words, and if he called me I would have told him it wouldn't work.
Newt: Should the individual mandate be the central issue? Yes.
This campaign cannot only be about the presidency,but COngress.
Posted by: Jane | June 13, 2011 at 08:21 PM
Anybody in need of good humor and spiky comments then go to the AOSHQ for live blogging comments from the New Hampshire debate. They are on a roll.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | June 13, 2011 at 08:22 PM
Abe Lincoln would look like a goofball in one of those fora. Quit participating in them, candidates, and quit watching and judging people on the basis of them, folks. Really They are designed to elicit gotcha errors and well-rehearsed inoffensive, meaningless pabulum.
Posted by: Clarice | June 13, 2011 at 08:25 PM
How will you convince me, not a libertarian on tea party, that you will not be torn by a faction and have a balanced approach to gvt?
Santorum - look at my record. I drafted the contract with America.
Bachmann: The tea party is being wrongly portrayed by the media. It's a wide swarth and the media is scared silly. This election will be about the economy and jobs. We are going to win. Obama is a one term president.
Cain: The tea party is not too negative and not too critical. Cain then goes off with what sounds like a canned answer. (bummer)
How will the candiates return manufactoring jobs to the US:
Paul; you have to invite capital and that requires strong capital. Stop printing money, detax, deregulate, stop weakening the ccurrency.
Pawlenty: I was in a union in a meat packing town. We need fair trade, now we are being stupid. we need to lower costs and burdens of manufacturers - especially Obamacare. Taxes too high, permitting too stupid, more
Bachmann: We need to lower corporate tax rate. we need to pass the mother of all repeal bills and I would start with the EPA.
Santorum: we need to cut capital gains tax in 1/2 with a 5 year window of zero for manufacturers.
Posted by: Jane | June 13, 2011 at 08:29 PM
Clarice is right. Watch the hockey game instead. Then you can come back here and find out who won the debate.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | June 13, 2011 at 08:29 PM