2008 Woodie Awards
The infamous lobbyist who was featured on the cover of Time magazine as “the man who bought Washington” is set to begin his nearly six year sentence on November 15. Although Jack Abramoff’s new title – Federal inmate 27593-112 – is decidedly less arresting (pun intended) than the one that Time bestowed, it is doubtful that this influential public figure will fade away and become just another number in America’s prison system. It should come as no surprise that Abramoff’s notoriety exerted a tangible effect on several midterm elections (chief among them, Montana’s senate race) and it is likely that his criminal activities ultimately played a key role in tipping the congressional balance of power. But despite everything that has happened, Abramoff is not without friends in the political sphere. Over 100 prominent political allies wrote to the sentencing judge asking for leniency on Abramoff’s behalf. Their efforts were not in vain as the 5 year 10 month sentence that Abramoff received was the minimum amount permitted under the law. During the upcoming jail time, the ex-lobbyist will likely continue to play an important role in political affairs given that he is expected to testify in more investigations pertaining to federal lobbying. One has to wonder if some politicians are afraid that new information will give rise to further scandals that could play a similar role in 2008.
I hate to be the immature one to bring up Cheney’s mishap with bird bullets, but it’s frankly a bit irresistible. And what I honestly fail to understand is why there are approximately “less than 150-200″ pellets in Cheney’s lawyer friend–I’m no bird hunting expert, but do you really fire off that many rounds when attempting to shoot a bird? (Well, I guess we can assume Cheney didn’t mistake 78 yr old Whittington as a bird, anyway. But really–why so many pellets in the poor man’s body?!)
After failing to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to Big Oil’s drilling ambitions, Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens remarked, “This is the saddest day of my life.” In that case, Stevens must not care about 9/11 victims, and must hate America, since 9/11 should be the saddest day of every good Americans’ life.
What? Just conservative logic for ya.
I do seriously think the argument that you can somehow suspend basic Fourth Amendment protections for American citizens under the rubric of ‘national security’ is an unpatriotic one. That’s because there is nothing in the text of the Constitution that allows one to do that. Why? Because our Constitution has no emergency clause that would allow for its suspension during wartime. None. This is something that former Stanford Law dean Kathleen Sullivan has been emphasizing recently, and did so at Princeton earlier this year.
More here, in light of NYT article today. Shorter CAP: best not to let too many minorities and women in to Princeton, lest they poison the historically white and male alumni body. Does Alito believe that?
Can somebody please tell Barry Caro? Honestly, the so-called liberals are becoming more noxiously offensive in their defense of ’staying the course’ than the Administration.
The Liebermanization of Princetonian columnists is very depressing. There’s now by my count no significant withdrawal voice on the Prince op-ed page. Those columnists really are stuck in a bubble, out of touch with the rest of America.
Where have we heard that one before? Wanting to skewer Islam in every way possible (since, like most media commentators, the Corner writers are racist anti-Muslims), Andrew Stuttaford is pushed into the strange position of condemning (rightfully) Iran’s draconian and horrific death sentence against homosexuals. Of course, though, it’s all good and well for the NRO to employ self-described homophobes, just so long as they don’t kill anybody.
One of those rare moments when I actually agree with the Family Research Council. In today’s “Washington Update,” Tony Perkins writes:
The pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign sees “a hopeful sign” in a 1972 document pulled from a file at Princeton University, where Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was a 21-year-old undergraduate student at the time. A student “Conference on the Boundaries of Privacy in American Society,” chaired by Alito, issued a seven-page report that included a single, four-sentence paragraph on homosexuality. It recommended “that no private sexual act between consenting adults should be forbidden,” but that “[d]iscrimination against homosexuals in hiring should be forbidden.”
Family Research Council certainly disagrees with these two policy prescriptions. Sodomy laws, which were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003, restricted behavior that (especially in the age of AIDS) can be deadly. This is a legitimate public purpose. And homosexual behavior is utterly unlike race or sex, the type of characteristics usually protected by anti-discrimination laws. But the key information in judging a Supreme Court nominee should be the overall judicial philosophy that he has shown–in Judge Alito’s case, in his 15 years as a federal judge. In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Clarence Thomas said he would oppose sodomy laws as a legislator–but that nothing in the Constitution prevents states from enacting them. We are looking for a similar measure of judicial restraint in the record of Judge Alito.
Yes, don’t go by what Alito may have had his name on as an undergrad. As for the alleged danger of homosexuality to society, of course, I disagree. But I do agree with the FRC on at least this small matter!
The anti-grunge and anti-”art class” bias probably came from a bad Oberlin experience. Too bad. Just shows you can’t judge people as deterministic products of their schools.
Just another WordPress weblog
RSS 2.0
