Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Cassy Fiano has made herself lately into the go-to spot for news on this campaign and all the weirdness in it. Many other bloggers have put more energy into it than I have, and to them, we owe our thanks for news like this.
Fueled by the energy of conservative activists, a solid debate performance and a 24-hour, $1.3 million Internet fundraising haul, Massachusetts state Sen. Scott Brown (R) has thrown a major scare into the Democratic establishment in his bid to win next Tuesday’s special Senate election over once heavily favored Attorney General Martha Coakley.
The intensified activity around the campaign to fill the seat of the late senator Edward M. Kennedy (D) highlights the degree to which the race has taken on national significance. A victory, or even a narrow loss, by Brown in the competition for the symbolically important seat would be interpreted as another sign that voters have turned away from the Democrats at the start of the midterm election year.
More urgently, a Brown win would give Republicans 41 seats in the Senate and the ability to block President Obama’s health-care initiative and much of the Democrats’ 2010 congressional agenda. Strategists on both sides concede that a Brown victory would drastically reshape the calculus of the health-care debate, which is now in its final stages.
Of course, it bears mentioning that this all relies on the use of the filibuster, which I’ve said repeatedly should be done-away-with permanently regardless of “who it helps or hurts.” Somewhere, sometime, I should jot down my latest thoughts about this in light of ObamaCare. Like Bob Dole said once, a filibuster is an awful process unless you’re trying to stop something. I must confess that this made a lot less sense to me at the time I was watching him say it, than it does right now.
This legislation is downright repulsive. If I’m ever going to flip on that position of mine, just once, now would be the time. I’ll certainly admit that much.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“The intensified activity around the campaign to fill the seat of the late senator Edward M. Kennedy”
Oh, the irony is delicious.
Plus, Mary Jo Kopechne is still unavailable for comment.
- tim | 01/13/2010 @ 10:29I was listening to Rush comment on this yesterday, and he played a quote from Brown during the debate. Brown rejected the moderator’s question about “Ted Kennedy’s seat.” He said, “First of all, it’s not Kennedy’s seat, and it’s not the Democrats’ seat. It’s the people’s seat.”
Spot-on. That’s the kind of principled leadership Massachusetts needs right now, not more mealy-mouthed, just-listen-to-your-betters mentality. That’s what’s caused so many problems in that crummy little state…being bought-and-paid-for by the Kennedy family and not having any real say in who governs them. It’s time someone there stood up and rejected this nonsense that the entire state is that family’s personal fiefdom.
- cylarz | 01/13/2010 @ 12:37Morgan, as to the filibuster, if it were still 2005, I’d agree with you. Watching a minority of Senate Democrats hold up Bush’s judicial nominees was maddening. After a few minutes spent debating with some lefty who didn’t have all the facts (surprise, surprise) I was able to bring even her around to the view that they deserved an up or down vote.
This legislation is downright repulsive. If I’m ever going to flip on that position of mine, just once, now would be the time. I’ll certainly admit that much.
Yes. However, now that our party has been marginalized in Washington to the point where it’s a mosquito trying to stop a freight train…you have to recognize that the filibuster is probably our only option for stopping this beast of a bill. And if we fail to win back significant numbers of Senate seats at the end of this year, it will remain our only such option until we can either A) take back the Senate majority or B) get rid of Obama in ’12 or C) take back enough seats in the House to ensure that anything that does get out of the Senate never makes it to the president’s desk.
It’s great that you’re coming around on this one issue, but even if ObamaCare is defeated, remember we’ve got Crap N Trade coming along right behind it, and I can only guess what else. A renewed assault weapons ban, higher taxes, and anything else JugEars can come up with.
- cylarz | 01/13/2010 @ 12:43I’m ok with the filibuster as long as it’s shown on CSPAN. It limits government.
You got crap to say for hours and hours, let the American people pass judgment on it. And it will cost you in the next election if it’s crap.
Ultimately, though, we can’t say it’s right for us, but it’s wrong for them. By the same token, they can’t say it either. We need to do a lot more talking about what’s constitutional, and why it is or isn’t, rather than what or who we intend the bill to help. You wanna help someone, write a check or expend some sweat of your own.
Don’t commission others to do it on your behalf, and if you do, definitely don’t claim credit for it.
- philmon | 01/15/2010 @ 20:42“Commission” was really the wrong word, as it implies compensation.
Should have used “compel”.
- philmon | 01/15/2010 @ 20:43Excellent points, Philmon.
- cylarz | 01/15/2010 @ 22:45