Journalism in Britain is a blood sport, twenty minutes visiting newspaper websites on a busy day would make this clear to most people. That said, what this young "journo" said to cover her ass on this was ridiculous: "Is that how you do it in the States?" Jesus, what a crock. Like the US was something she'd only heard vague travelers' tales about until she was assigned to cover it. Elle est un voyou, to be rude in French about it. Wonder if she's ever been to France?...

If S. Powers, the victim of this career-damaging little stunt by that ink-stained wretch, was herself a journalist, there is no excuse for her not knowing that she was in the room with the journalistic equivalent, by boring old American standards at least, of a scorpion, and she needed to preface remarks like this with, "This is off the record"--and then wait for the British reporter to nod or blink or something to indicate that this journalistic aegis has been extended to the subject.

Did I mention she was disingenuous to a breathtaking degree?

Posted at March 9, 2008 4:07 PM in response to The Reporter Who Launched The "Monster" Story Speaks...

Actually, Independence Day is March 2nd...

But March 4th was when they used to inaugurate new presidents, so that's gotta be worth something.

Posted at February 27, 2008 9:05 PM in response to Texas, A Perplexing And Complex State, Is Anybody's Ball Game

Hey, Ad,

I'm old enough to remember when Bill Clinton organized McGovern's campaign in Texas...

As a Tx-Ex, I remember when all the judges ran unopposed on the Democratic ticket. I was a liberal activist when the conservatives ran the state party, in the 70s/80s. We had maybe a third of the delegates at StateCon, less sometimes. The powerhungry (and more conservative) ones who hadn't peeled off because of racism after LBJ and '64-'65 jumped ship in the 80s when Reagan made it fashionable to convert to Republicanism publicly. After Ann Richards the party proved unable to elect a governor, and when Bob Bullock finally went to heaven, the party's influence went with him.

Somewhere in there--I wasn't paying attention--all the judges flipped. So they're really the same people, they're just being appointed to fill unexpired terms by guvs with R not D after their name in the paper, the idea still bein' that they'll coast when the seat comes up next for election. It's really the same system, Jacksonian-democracy judicial elections turned into life tenure.

Posted at February 27, 2008 9:03 PM in response to Texas, A Perplexing And Complex State, Is Anybody's Ball Game

Yes, by God and by damn, I voted for her in 2000 to represent *us*, New Yorkers, in the Senate, and for seven years going on eight, she has voted like a Tory. She's a Tory Democrat, like Nunn and Scoop Jackson used to be; she supposedly has all this Armed Services Committee experience but no one knows what it is, or at least no one talks about it; she voted for that stupid Flag-Burning Amendment, she's Out to Lunch on the Bill of Rights, she voted for the "Patriot" Act and for Lieberman's torture-is-okay-if language he tried to add to McCain's torture-is-not-okay bill, back when he still believed it wasn't. 06, I think.

And I haven't mentioned the You-Know-What. She's my Senator-- don't vote for her! Her "experience" really consists of learning how to butter up other senators, even get them to agree to do things, sort of like Lyndon used to do (I'm from Texas, originally). She might make a good Majority Leader, but, jesus, please, please if everyone would just accept what happened, we were supposed to just have a couple of elections then beat up on Hillary for eleven months, which believe me is what they had planned--but there was an outbreak of democracy in the Democratic Party, as happens periodically, and people chose something different.

And: used to, every State Senate District had three national delegates to apportion, always two to the winner and one to the loser, each district, you could phone it in and the rest of the delegation was chosen at the State Convention--and anyone who wanders in Tuesday night at 7:30 and hangs around long enough can get elected to their county or district convention and from there to the State Convention; but the extra delegates for districts that poll high proportions in votes for president or governor, really everything over three, is added on from the delegation so that there are fewer at-larges chosen at the StateCon.
It is to make it more of an incentive to vote again in the Dem Primary, give more of a voice, and also even a losing candidate can get an extra delegate or two out of a district with six or eight more easily than one with just three or four. This is what Obama did in NYS, it is what Clinton should do in Texas; I don't understand why they're complaining about the way the TDP selects its delegation.

Posted at February 26, 2008 4:41 PM in response to New Camp Hillary Claim: The Media Want Her To Lose

TO repeat for those unfamiliar with the process: Delegates in Texas are apportioned by State Senate district, not Cong. district. DeLay may not go to heaven, but this is a result of a GOP legislature packing black voters into a few districts; this is why the vote will run up so high.

Posted at February 18, 2008 11:18 AM in response to Hillary Camp Only Recently Learned About Texas Delegate Rules

I think it's clear that even if a candidate were to win a majority of votes in Texas in the Democratic primary, that person is not necessarily going to win Texas in a general election. So to even have an election in Texas seems more like a shallow gambit by the Obama camp to grab more delegates and thus subvert the will of the American people who are voting for Hillary. If the DNC wanted to act with prudence and reason, they would call off this retched sham in Texas that purports to represent democracy and instead give the delegates to the candidate who currently leads in super-delegates, since they are the ones who truly know what is best for the party and the country.

Spoken like a Republican. Obviously, we should only elect delegates from states we're sure we can win. How else can we ensure the Party will continue to lose the presidency?

Actually, the Texas Primary didn't exist before 1976. Texas used to choose all its delegates in precinct conventions. Used to be 3 to a Senate District, but for decades now the Democratic Party has used an allocation formula that rewards districts and states that vote Democratic more reliably. Would the Clintonistas be happier if those delegates were chosen at the Pct. Conv. instead? Didn't think so.

I don't like Hillary (she is my Senator), but before New Year's I at least assumed her staff knew how to run a campaign; apparently after Feb. 5 they pursued a Oh Holy S*** strategy, which requires the campaign to open offices in a state two weeks before the primary and then act surprised at the Delegate Selection Plan (which has been available for six months now and does not differ significantly from those used for the last two decades, but of course how would they know that?). But you're right, why let Democrats elect delegates in Texas? They might end up--horrors!--being represented at the National Convention. And of course, regular delegates aren't supposed to matter anymore anyway; it was all supposed to be a TV show, right?

Posted at February 18, 2008 11:13 AM in response to Hillary Camp Only Recently Learned About Texas Delegate Rules