Saturday, May 07, 2005
SO BET ON MICHAEL JACKSON BEING CONVICTED, THEN:
P O’Neill follows up on a typically dropped Sullivan thread, about Prince Albert of Monaco, and finds it’s not what he would have led you to believe at that time.
Also, a hint broadly dropped by Sullivan here about what might have been.
posted by Sully 5/07/2005 12:00:00 PM
CHEAP DOUBLE ENTENDRE JOKE DEPT.:(I sleep and hang with the BF)
posted by Sully 5/07/2005 11:48:00 AM
JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE BEING HUNTED DOESN’T MEAN YOU AIN’T A WITCH:I don’t like the witch-hunts of these conflicted, desperate, if often malicious people.Oh, can it, Sully. It’s always about this, isn’t it? Bed. Made. Lie. (especially “Lie”).
And in this instance, Sullivan, you might want to consider what this guy did in his past when you defend him again (thanks Steve).For a quarter century, the man who is now Spokane’s mayor has used positions of public trust – as a sheriff’s deputy, Boy Scout leader and powerful politician – to develop sexual relationships with boys and young men.
One man, Robert J. Galliher, claims in a court deposition that Jim West molested him in the mid-1970s when he was a boy and West was a Spokane County sheriff's deputy and Boy Scout leader.
A second man, Michael G. Grant Jr., also accuses West of sexual abuse during the same era, including an incident at Camp Cowles, a Boy Scout camp on Diamond Lake.
While Galliher and Grant struggled with drug addiction and incarceration as adults, West moved on to become one of the most influential Republicans in the state – even talking privately to aides and fellow politicians about running for governor one day.
Galliher said he’s “not really sure” why he hasn’t publicly talked about West until now. In a June 2003 story in The Spokesman-Review, Galliher accused Hahn of molesting him at least 40 times, sometimes in the deputy's patrol car. Since that 2003 interview, Galliher joined the suit against the county.
“I see a cop, and I run,” he said. “I see cops, they’re no good. To me, that’s the way I’ve thought my whole life because if one cop will do that to you, who says the next one won’t?”
“Now I’m big enough to stand up for my own self and there ain’t nobody going to touch me like that again,” he said. “Ain’t nobody gonna touch my kids, ain’t nobody going to touch none of them.”
In other words, the classic Catholic-priest scenario. Only these guys have a chance at a smidgen of justice.
We shed no tears whatsoever for their privacy.
posted by Sully 5/07/2005 11:37:00 AM
SEEMS LIKE OLD TIMES AROUND HERE, REALLY IT DOES III:
Jo Fish takes Smalltown Boy to town on the filibuster:I have to say I’m underwhelmed by Sullivan’s lack of understanding of fundamental constitutionally delineated powers. Seems that he forgets that the Senate is charged with the role of “advice and consent” on these nominees. They have already allowed virtually all of Beloved Leader's nominees to come to a vote and be appointed. These nominees have already been rejected once by the Senate (most of them I believe) when the Senate was in Democratic control. Because Beloved Leader and Kitty-killer want to change the rules to accomodate the very Christo-Fascists even Sully dislikes ought to give him pause from running his pie-hole for even a few minutes.
posted by Sully 5/07/2005 11:34:00 AM
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
SEEMS LIKE OLD TIMES AROUND HERE, REALLY IT DOES II:
Sullivan’s back of the hand to the arguments for the filibuster again reminded us of how he used to be, and the emailer makes some of the same points we wanted to about protecting minority rights. Basically, if you want to get rid of the filibuster, get 60 votes. It’s that simple.
But even taking dalythoughts’ data straight up, there are still some missed points. Most notable among them is the changes Republicans made to the Senate customs surrounding judicial nominations in the last few years.
First, the elimination of the blue-slip rule, as noted by Sullivan, the informal custom under which both of the home-state Senators had to give their assent to a judge (discussed extensively at p. 15 of this .PDF). Second, the decision by the Bush administration to disregard the judicial assessments made by the American Bar Association. We’d submit that one cannot change too many of these customs without expecting repercussions.
And, naturally, what’s the solution to that now? Change the rules again.
posted by Sully 5/03/2005 08:30:00 PM
Monday, May 02, 2005
SEEMS LIKE OLD TIMES AROUND HERE, REALLY IT DOES:
In the vein (ahem) of the previous post, Sully’s Krugman-bashing comes out of hibernation (although he lacks the courage or the awareness to do what he did in even his most virulent moments in the past and actually link to the column in question), much less capitalize Social Security.
What ensued this time that really makes us glow is that Big Media Matt, really living up to the nick this week by pinch-hitting for the honeymooning Josh Marshall, gave Sullivan a good ol’-fashioned wrist-slapping for it:And when congress voted to cut Medicaid and food stamps Andrew said . . . well . . . well he didn’t say anything about it, did he? And that’s the point. I don’t know if he thinks cutting Medicaid and food stamps while piling on tax cuts for the rich is a good idea or not. More likely, he’s just a bit indifferent to it. Which is just the way these things go. Once a program becomes the narrow concern of a minority of the population — and not just any minority, but a minority that can't afford lobbysists, doesn’t enjoy access to the media, is socially isolated from the American elite, etc. — it gets squeezed out in favor of programs whose constituents do enjoy those things. There’s no flailing here.God it makes us feel good ...
posted by Sully 5/02/2005 11:29:00 PM
IT TOOK HIM A LONG TIME THIS TIME, BUT WE KNEW HE’D EVENTUALLY GIVE US ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS:My only concern is with the “Penis Monologues.” I’m more into dialogues myself.Oh, really?
Is that what this was really all about, then?
posted by Sully 5/02/2005 11:26:00 PM
TO CUT A LONG TORY SHORT ...:
P O’Neill adds some clarification Sully may have missed in the post we were responding to below about just why Mr. Boles is running:The latter Nick is only there because Tory leader Michael Howard canned the incumbent MP Howard Flight for telling an off-the-record meeting that the Tories had secret plans to slash government spending far more than they were saying on the campaign trail.There’s also some further remarks about the similar phenomenon where The Sage of East Grimstead defensively invokes his Englishness when his American critics distress him too much.
Also, the other half of BoBW, R Morgernstern, reports that Sullivan looked awful at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, if that was indeed him.
posted by Sully 5/02/2005 11:14:00 PM