Powered by TypePad

« The Malaysia Airlines Crash | Main | Crisis De-Escalated »

March 09, 2014



Interesting dueling headlines at memorandum on the left;

A Rand Paul Rout in CPAC Straw Poll,
followed by;

Leading Republicans Move to Stamp Out Challenges From the Right

I sense a disconnect between "Leading Republicans" and those they seek to lead.


One might call an application of the Foz Butterfield principle, btw went to the Daily Mail, now require neuralization,


Virginia hanging tough against Maryland and the refs.


Leading Republicans Move to Stamp Out Challenges From the Right

But surely there are no such "leading Republicans" who could exert any influence on who might run for office. Unpossible.


Is that your final answer;



Are those the same 'leading republicans' that are wooing the LIVs with their anti-'progressive fascism' message?


Great pieces, Clarice!
Debo Adegbile

The brief filed where he believed the government had the right to control who was appointed as head of Christian churches.


The Discover the Networks page on the far leftist Debo Adegbile.


"While at the NAACP, Adegbile authored a brief to strip members of the Hosanna Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church of the right to practice their faith and appoint ministers of the church as they saw fit. Adegbile argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that Christian churches should not continue to enjoy the same constitutional protections of the “ministerial exception,” as churches had for centuries. Instead, he held that the government should have a say in who could be a minister of a Christian church. The Court rejected Adegbile’s arguments, 9-0."

What ever the original purpose of the case, I believe that Debo Adegbile argued in the brief I have linked that the government had a right to control who was in charge of Christian churches.

The authors of the link I posted last night and the Discover the Networks article clearly
believed that Debo Adegbile said that.

Captain Hate

After every loss I've watched this season I'm glad to finally watch a victory. Good luck to the Hoos the rest of the way.

Tom Maguire
Lying to the FBI or a grand jury are clear reason to indict, even in the absence of an underlying crime. See Bill Clinton impeachment and his settlement with the SpecialCounsel. Lie under oath, you assume the risk.

I am firmly yes and no on that. As to Bill Clinton, the underlying issue was (IIRC, and I am hoping to forget) the civil suit by Paula Jones. Clinton lied, or didn't, during that suit, did or didn't tamper with other witnesses, and did or didn't engage in a similar pattern of conduct with, e.g., Monica L.

So the civil suit was real enough, and the feds had something real to investigate re the lies and witness tampering.

Whereas with Fitz, it was plain from Day One that there would never be an Espionage Act or IIPA charge, starting with the obstacle that no one could come within a mile of showing that anyone even knew the info about Plame was classified, let alone was intended to aid a foreign power.

All that said, lying to the Feds is a terrible strategy, as Libby can tells us.


Sounds like just the guy to force "civil rights" down our throats.

But don't ever say Barry might be a Marxist, anti American nut just because all his friends and acquaintances are.

Danube on iPad

"But surely there are no such 'leading Republicans' who could exert any influence on who might run for office."

Perhaps one day some person smewhere will come forward and say, "I wanted to run for office but was influenced not to do so by leading Republicans," but so far as I am aware that day has not yet arrived.

Beasts of England

I'm on the Eastern cusp of the central time zone and don't really care for DST. If I were in Texas, it would be different.


The Starr perjury/witness tampering grand jury is an easy one to justify-- he asked Reno and the Supervising judicial panel to expand his IC inquiry to include that and they both agreed. (Note Starr stated years later he wished he had referred to matter to a different IC because of 'appearances'.) Fitgerald was a special counsel assigned ( the IC law had lapsed and was not renewed) to investigate the possible criminal release of classified info. Fitz had his answers before, and certainly after, he perjury trapped his prey. Fitz' prosecution was gratuitous and abusive. So? The witness could have politiely declined to talk to the FBI and asserted his 5th Amendment privilege before the grand jury. he chose to lie. he assumed the risk. As TomM says, a terrible strategy.


so far as I am aware that day has not yet arrived.

Because we all know that incumbents can't affect things like redistricting, campaign finance laws, political favors for cronies (implicitly for big donations), or any other measures that might help ensure they get renominated or reelected.

Account Deleted


The probative weight of Agent Bond's notes regarding her interview with Libby should be determined on the basis of the FBI's willingness to record interviews. That would place it somewhere between a small and a large feather. Lying to the Feds is a terrible strategy when contrasted with the efficacy of "I don't recall.", to be sure, but it's a tactical decision, the value of which is diminishing as quickly as the reputation of the FBI/DoJ and the berobed buffoons presiding over circus performances.

Stephanie VIP shhhhh its fight club

DoT, I have several acquaintances who wanted to to run for office and were told the party wouldn't support them as they already had someone lined up for that office. Strongly discouraged from "doing it anyway" and were told they would never get backing in the future if they bucked the system but they would be "kept in mind" for future office openings. One is now on city council, one is in the state legislature and others are either disillusioned or mulling their options.

Happens in every republican/dem committee in every county in the nation. Unless you bring connections or money that will grease them all, your desire to run is shoved aside for someone who can grease them all. Cronies gotta get their fix first.

Danube on iPad

So which of the seven GOP candidates who ran in 2012 had "party support" at the outset?


Apparently anything less than a horse head in one's bed, said horse having been a registered Republican with a Gadsden Flag tattoed on its lip, is insufficient evidence of influence.

Cecil Turner

he chose to lie. he assumed the risk.

For months, reading only what was available Fitz's indictment, I was inclined to that interpretation. After slogging through the actual grand jury transcript, however, I'm less convinced.

Almost every answer starts with some variation of "I don't remember"; and then he goes on to give an account that's clearly flawed (e.g., I'm convinced he conflated the phone conversation with Russert with the one he had with Cooper), but still about as good as every other witness.

It's almost as if they were trying to remember unimportant details of conversations they'd had months earlier.


Uh oh;Steve Irwin's daughter Bindi has run afoul of the animal rights fascists for teaming up with known animal torturers Seaworld.
Hope she's not as principled as Scarlett Johannsen lest she wake up with a sting ray head in her bed; party affiliation optional.


... Almost every answer starts with some variation of "I don't remember" ...

IMO less consistent with coverup than following W's instruction to cooperate and trying too hard to be helpful.

Libby's basic claim "reporters already knew" was not a lie.


"So which of the seven GOP candidates who ran in 2012 had "party support" at the outset?"

Well you got me with 'outset.' This is the closest I could find on short notice:



A better link:



And this:

Q: Do you still consider yourself a member of the GOP? Have you been a Libertarian all along?

A: I've always considered myself a Libertarian. While I was running for governor of New Mexico, the Republicans were totally inclusive of me, the party was open-armed, but they never thought I'd win.I delivered in a really big way, I exceeded their expectations, and think I'm still highly regarded by the GOP in New Mexico. But that was not the environment I saw running for president as a Republican.

Q: What happened?

A: I was able to participate in two debates before they hung me out to dry.If I may give you an example, about halfway through the spring debates, they stopped issuing criteria on who could participate in the debates.CNBC had previously issued two criteria to be included in the debates: A candidate had to be at 4 percent in any national poll and be registered to run for president. I was registered and had 4 percent. But the invitations stopped coming. CNBC would not return our calls to answer why we could not get a seat at the table.

We requested of the RNC (Republican National Committee) that they step in and demand they give us a seat at the table; otherwise, the Republican Party is being dictated to by the media. The party would have nothing to do with helping me out. That was the Republican Party leaving me, not me leaving the Republican Party.


Danube of Thought

insufficient evidence of influence.

I'm waiting for any evidence.

I'm talking about national office. Of course local parties try to find the best candidates for lesser offices; that's what they're for. If a majority don't like the way their party is selecting candidates, they can oust them.

Danube of Thought

I said "at the outset" because the RNC assiduously avoided backing any candidate until it became inevitable that Romney would be the nominee.


"... with Fitz, it was plain from Day One that there would never be an Espionage Act or IIPA charge, starting with the obstacle that no one could come within a mile of showing that anyone even knew the info about Plame was classified ..."

And yet a lot of DC seemed to believe exposing Val was retribution against Joe, a nefarious plot so toxic it required a coverup. Plus it is never a good idea to assume that persecutors on a witch hunt are going to arrive at the one result predicted by objective rational analysis.


Is "inevitable" the criteria?

Danube on iPad

"Is 'inevitable' the criteria?"

Can you think of a better one? The whole idea was to stay out of it until the eventual winner became clear, but not to wait until the very last primary was over out of concern they'd be way too late getting started.


Should we trust polling to make the decision of inevitable?


How much did Romney, outspend his primary opponents 10/1, 20/1


I'm talking about national office.

The article that prompted this discussion was about congressional races. And it wasn't specifically about the RNC. This is mainly about big GOP donors and fundraisers, who, more than some of us would like, protect incumbents and bland mediocrities.


I'm a delegate to my republican convention in 2 weeks. There is last election's candidate, Charlie Baker (for gov) and Tea Party candidate Mark Fisher. Fisher called me the other night and I liked what he said.

It will be interesting to see how much pressure I get to vote for Baker.

On another note I've been in a conversation with MA republicans today that makes me want to leave the party. Their (not all) intolerance over gay marriage (already decided in this state) makes me want to leave the party.


People who believe the relationship called "marriage" comes from nature or God may not accept it is something the state can decide to change.

If something real has a unique property and its own word, it is not "intolerance" to want to preserve the association.

A lot of what gets called "intolerance" would go away if the state simply and fairly claimed "civil union can be something we define; such that traditional marriage is one form of civil union. Therefore what used to be called marriage will now officially be known as civil union and can include both same and opposite sex couples".


Debo Adegbile is Hausa for lying scumsucking son of a swine.


I don't want the state involved at all. I'm talking about rank intolerance. Since I think gays are natural republicans it really pisses me off.



Frau Fragezeichen

"Fitz had his answers before, and certainly after, he perjury trapped his prey. Fitz' prosecution was gratuitous and abusive.

This was how I saw it. The question remains "Why?" and what benefit to Fitz?


Apparently most people want the state to enforce things like paternity, child support, and bigamy laws. Seems to me marriage is part of the package.

State probably shouldn't decide on its own what those words mean.


I just think every church should make its own decision about whether or not it approves of gay marriage and the state should stay out of it. You bring up a good point tho. My first instinct is to say transfer that power too, but I'm pretty sure that's not happening.

Frau Verräter

I will always consider Powell's office to have been the center of deceit and betrayal. Powell's posse of Armitage, Marc Grossman (college buddy of Joe "Surfer Dude" Wilson),and Lawrence Wilkerson willfully ignored Pres. Bush's directive to report to him with any knowledge about Plame.



Miss Marple

Jane, It is fine with me that the state stay out of it, as long as my church isn't sued for not performing gay ceremonies, which is what is already happening in Great Britain.

To some churches marriage is a sacrament with God involved in the union. The idea that a gay couple could demand that my priest marry them is upsetting to me, as the priest wouldn't do it and then we would have lawsuits and clergy in jail.

And I have no doubt this would happen, because Obama is already trying to force nuns to pay for birth control and such.

Frau Standesamt u. Kirche

That is very interesting about Catholic marriages in the UK. My own experience in Germany (during the early Pleiocene) was that a church marriage did *not* replace the civil marriage required by the state.
That marriage, in turn, was no replacement for the religious rites.

Frau Standesamt u. Kirche

How many Catholics will demonstrate in DC over these violations of faith, Miss Marple? Are we all planning on rolling over one more time? I hope not.

Miss Marple

Frau, I think that the reason the churches became "deputized " to officiate in a state sponsored marriage was because in the early days of our country, especially in the frontier of what is now Appalachia and the eastern Midwest (Northwest Territory) there were few government officials but circuit riding preachers did show up in the small settlements from time to time.

It just sort of grew up from there.

Miss Marple

Frau, My church has formed a religious liberty committee and the chairman met with our Congressman this week and asked him to find out how the Catholic chaplains were threatened with dismissal if they performed mass on base during the government shut-down.
(Many are contracted to the Chaplain's office but are not military members.)

Congressman Rokita said he would bring it up before the Armed Services Committee.


I simply assumed that TM used "Dick" as a descriptive reference to the newsperson who bears the same last name rather than a reference to the comedian/activist.

[I don't need to be nudged more than six or seven times... TM]

Jane on Ipad

I agree Miss Marple. Just remember that many gays feel the same way about marriage that you do. But gvt, the courts and everyone else needs to grow up over this flowers thing. Why anyone would want to join a church that doesn't welcome them is beyond me. Once again the liberals have ruined things.

Jeff Dobbs

My own experience in Germany (during the early Pleiocene) was that a church marriage did *not* replace the civil marriage required by the state.
That marriage, in turn, was no replacement for the religious rites.

FTSAH: Frau has celebrated 114 anniversaries.

Miss Marple

I always thought the flowers thing was something ginned up by both sides of the controversy.

When my daughter got married we had a really good florist who does a lot of weddings. We never saw the crew. When we got to the church, the altar was decorated and all of the bouquets were laid out and labeled, as well as the boutonnieres. When we arrived at the site for the reception, they had already left, having done the centerpieces and the large displays for the buffet tables.

And we never saw the wedding cake people either. They delivered the cake and the staff helped them place it in the area for the cake-cutting.

None of these people was required to view the ceremony, meet any of the guests, or have anything to do with it except delivering their goods.

So I am mystified why this became a controversy. Did the gay couple demand an inscription on the cake? Did they demand the cake baker stay and watch the ceremony? I have never gotten an answer over this.

I sell to people on eBay every week. I do not know what weirdo things they do with the antiques they buy from me. It's not my business and I assume they want the items or they wouldn't buy them. I have no idea what their sexual proclivities are, and furthermore I don't want to know.

The whole thing is a mystery to me.

Jane on Ipad

Think about who would care about that issue enough to sue - only an activist. We are hopefully getting to a point where people know a lot more gays who aren't activists than gays who are.


The other question about these services issues... So you force the photographer to take pictures of your wedding. The pictures come back, and every one is blurry and has the peoples' heads cut off. (My parents have only a few black and white portraits of their wedding. The photographer's car was stolen with the color film in it. One take, pictures gone.) Or you walk down the aisle with your stinkweed and thorn bouquet. The gloppy, lopsided wedding cake made with salt rather than sugar.

The trying to force clergy to officiate at gay weddings, I used to think that this was ridiculous, now I'm not so sure. Catholics, for example, do not have any official part of remarriages of divorced people whose ex-spouse still lives unless there is a Church annulment. (Our deacon's son remarried without an annulment. The dad was of course not allowed to officiate, and had a conversation with the bishop as to whether he should even be attending. The bishop encouraged him to attend, but I'm not sure that all bishops would have.) If gays can demand churches marry them, what about polygamists?


--Why anyone would want to join a church that doesn't welcome them is beyond me.--

For the same reason lefties do all things; to force their neighbors to do as they demand.
They are all Little Corporals.

The comments to this entry are closed.