oh, man, Dave! pleeze tour with queens of the stone age, again, pleeze! the Foos are too "light" and we need you to rock it again.....oh, i guess it's not really you

It's nice to see a bi-partisan appreciation for Mr. Kemp's character, political career and enduring intellectual influence. In contrast, there's Mr. Spector.

The mushy headed tributes to Jack Kemp are not surprising but still a little hard to take. Kemp was the arch-typical "reasonable" Republican, who never had a harsh word for those on his left or a kind word for those on the right who disagreed with him. Those he regularly called xenophobes , racists, anti-semties, protectionists, etc. No wonder the liberals loved him. And it was nice he liked to speak nice, empty words about helping poor/working class African American's - but he favored every economic policy that kept them poor. From massive illegal immigration, corporate deregulation, reimposing the Gold Standard to tax cuts for the wealthy, "free Trade" and out-sourcing - Jack loved any policy that kept wages down and profits up. But it was all OK because he went to lunch with Mrs. King. In addition to being a disloyal Republican, Jack was frankly a dangerous Boob. Just smart enough to convincingly parrot any nonsense some 'expert" told him about Iraq, trade deficits, bank deregulation, the laffer curve, et al. Wow, he was Jonah's teenage idol - who would've thunk it.

Charlton Heston was a pretty strong liberal across the board at least through the Sixties, including opposition to the Vietnam War and support of gun control (in the wake of RFK's assasination.) He was a great supporter of civil rights and held to some core beliefs about racial equality, but that wasn't a reflection of the conservatism to which he converted at least a decade later.

Quoting rcocean: The mushy headed tributes to Jack Kemp are not surprising but still a little hard to take. Kemp was the arch-typical "reasonable" Republican, who never had a harsh word for those on his left or a kind word for those on the right who disagreed with him. Those he regularly called xenophobes , racists, anti-semties, protectionists, etc. No wonder the liberals loved him.

And it was nice he liked to speak nice, empty words about helping poor/working class African American's - but he favored every economic policy that kept them poor. From massive illegal immigration, corporate deregulation, reimposing the Gold Standard to tax cuts for the wealthy, "free Trade" and out-sourcing - Jack loved any policy that kept wages down and profits up.

But it was all OK because he went to lunch with Mrs. King.

In addition to being a disloyal Republican, Jack was frankly a dangerous Boob. Just smart enough to convincingly parrot any nonsense some 'expert" told him about Iraq, trade deficits, bank deregulation, the laffer curve, et al.

Wow, he was Jonah's teenage idol - who would've thunk it.

I haven't listened to this diavlog, but I just wanted to say that I pretty much agree with your assessment of Jack Kemp. I'd add

Matt: To your attempt to portray Jeff Sessions as this new reasonable dude, "unfairly maligned" for stuff he has said in the past: please. You're laying it on awfully thick for a guy who made one (1) statement about maybe not using the filibuster to block Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court. Except, of course, in an "extreme case." Isn't it just as easy to see this in two other ways? The first: putting something out there that seeks to push back against the negative attention he's gotten for being pro-KKK in the past (or whatever it was exactly). The second: laying down a marker so that when he does support a filibuster, he's got the "except in an extreme case" groundwork already laid; i.e., if he starts getting all obstructionist, the implication will be that Obama's nominee MUST BE A SECRET EXTREMIST. I know he's on your side and all, but taking at face value any politician's self-portayal as The New Reasonable Guy when he includes an escape clause at the same time as he's making his non-binding pledge makes me think you ought to apply your towel behind your ears. I will bet you right now that

Speaking of reasonable: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Exchange white male for Latina woman and his for her. No difference really, it's still incredibly racist.

The problem with Sotomayor's Ricci ruling is not that it was or wasn't a case of judicial activist, but that she is a giant hypocrite. If it's true that she would have ruled the same way regardless of the skin color of the people discriminated against ("sorry, Charlie, there's nothing in the Constitution that allows federal courts to help you"), then I salute her. Does that seem like at all likely a possibility? If not, that means she actually quite the judicial activist, but has simply decided to demure in this one case.

Quoting bjkeefe: P.P.S. And this is a serious question: Why is Lindsey Graham considered Not A Real Conservative?

The Freepers and Rush are suspect, need anymore be said?
Well, there was the public Address to La Raza, praising Ted Kennedy no less!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sEfrFoAIn4

I agree with Rush, who calls him “Vice President Lindsay Graham” because he was up McCain’s ass during that Supreme Court fiasco a couple of years ago.

7 posted on Thu Feb 5 17:53:14 2009 by Patrick1

Another thing, hes a McCain sockpuppet. When McIdiot comes out hard for something Lyndsey Lohan Grahmnesty comes out for it hard.

Hes a low life backstabber like McCain.

Lindsey Graham Continues Moderate March [of the RINOs]
City Paper, Charleston, SC ^ | 2009-01-16 | Greg Hambrick

Posted on Fri Jan 16 15:13:21 2009 by rabscuttle385

After returning from a world trip with Vice President-elect Joe Biden, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is now coming to the defense of the new administration’s pick for Tresurer Secretary, even in the face of criticism from fellow GOP members like, oh, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).

“These are not the times to think in small political terms,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who … briefly met with reporters on Wednesday alongside Mr. Obama. “I think he is the right guy.”

Mr. Graham thereby validated what the president-elect had just said: That Mr. Geithner, by

Quoting graz: The Freepers and Rush are suspect, need anymore be said?
Well, there was the public Address to La Raza, praising Ted Kennedy no less!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sEfrFoAIn4

[...]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../posts#comment

Thanks. I had suspected part of it was being one of McCain's BFFs, but I wasn't aware of the other stuff.

Quoting Otto Kerner: The problem with Sotomayor's Ricci ruling is not that it was or wasn't a case of judicial activist, but that she is a giant hypocrite. If it's true that she would have ruled the same way regardless of the skin color of the people discriminated against ("sorry, Charlie, there's nothing in the Constitution that allows federal courts to help you"), then I salute her. Does that seem like at all likely a possibility? If not, that means she actually quite the judicial activist, but has simply decided to demure in this one case.

If you reverse the example and Ricci had been promoted than any firefighter of color would likely win the case and her ruling would appear to favor color over law. But that is the wrong way to look at it. The title VII legislation -clearly debatable- is the existing law. So ruling in favor of a person of color in the obverse would again be a case of applying the law and not judicial activism. Excerpt/Ricci:

We affirm, for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion
of the court below. Ricci v. DeStefano, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73277, 2006 WL 2828419 (D.
Conn., Sept. 28, 2006). In this case, the Civil Service

Well, I know very little about the specific legal issues involved, so I'll take your word for it. The main question that I was raising is whether anyone actually believes that Sotomayor has anything resembling a commitment to judicial passivism. To test that, I suppose we would have to find similar examples of cases where she had the opportunity to overrule the legislature, and then observe whether she did or did not on principled or on opportunistic grounds. Personally, I don't think that it makes sense to extend the term "judicial activism" to include cases where a judge strikes down a law on the grounds of it being unconstitutional, negatively preventing the legislature from enacting its policies. "Judicial activism" should refer to cases where a judge positively enacts his or her own policies. (However, I don't suppose that either side tends to use the term very consistently, so I can't really blame anyone for using it differently than I would prefer). To my lights, it would not have been judicial activism for Sotomayor to choose to ignore Title VII in the Ricci case. I think that the "judicial activism" angle here is a red herring.

In many circles (certainly mine), Schumer is as hated as Lieberman, Nelson et al. Mukasey comes to mind, but his biggest sin was soaking up so much media for the US Attorney scandal and then sweeping it under the rug. My approach is that anything Schumer does is deeply suspect unless proven otherwise. I can't believe New Yorkers don't throw the bum out, but then again, here I am in CA with Feinstein so I guess I believe it. The democrat senators, as a group, are now the best weapon of the corrupt corporations in their battle to turn the US into a 3rd world nation. The current equivalents of Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/Gonzales are Baucus, Feinstein, Bayh, Nelson, Schumer, Lincoln, Landrieux, Specter ...

ugh ... I see your point, but he can't be trusted to do ANYTHING - including dying in the next 8 years. His mind is shot to hell, but as long as he has the congressional healthcare plan that he's so determined to deny us, he could go to 100. "Unprincipled turd of a man" - absolutely!

I'm surprised that either of you--you, BJ, and you, rcocean--agree with the criticisms rcocean gave of Kemp's economic policies. I'm certainly open to the claim that things like economic deregulation, free trade, etc., keep African-Americans poor (though I admit, I'm somewhat skeptical that *that*'s the explanation)--but BJ, I thought you were more economically moderate than that, and rc, I thought you were a conservative Republican!

Quoting Bobby G: I'm surprised that either of you--you, BJ, and you, rcocean--agree with the criticisms rcocean gave of Kemp's economic policies. I'm certainly open to the claim that things like economic deregulation, free trade, etc., keep African-Americans poor (though I admit, I'm somewhat skeptical that *that*'s the explanation)--but BJ, I thought you were more economically moderate than that, and rc, I thought you were a conservative Republican!

To the extent that I know what Kemp stood for on economic policy, I see him as one of the worst of the supply-side loons. I am not sure if I am an economic moderate, although I do think of myself as less far left on a number of economic specifics than the stereotypical liberal, but in any case, this nonsense that Kemp pushed doesn't need a political affiliation to call it for what it was.

Wasn't going to comment on this diavlog, but this pushed me too far. 1. The only reason that it hurts you right now to be a Southern Republican is because Republicans have been in charge of everything for too many years, and have screwed everything up monumentally. 2. The reason Southern Republicans are facing the brunt of it is because the Republicans have become a regional party, specifically because they are being punished for having been in charge of everything for too many years and have screwed everything up monumentally. 3. The reason Northern Republicans are also facing the brunt of the backlash is because moderate Northern Republicans have either lost election or have left the party, leaving people like Michelle Bachmann and Peter King as the face of Northern Republicans, and they seem only capable of saying stupid things and reminding everyone that Republicans have been in charge of everything for too many years and have screwed everything up monumentally. 4. To paint this as some sort of anti-Southern backlash is to avoid solving your problems by reconstructing your message based on evidence of the failure of your policies. Deal with it.

First, I'm not a Republican. Second, conservatives differ on economic issues. To me there's nothing "conservative" about trillion dollar budget deficits, massive illegal immigration, $500 billion dollar trade deficits, out-sourcing of jobs, and supporting policies that transfer wealth and income from the bottom 50 percent to the top 5 percent. There's nothing "conservative" about helping your buddies on Wall Street, AIG, and Citibank make billions in profits on phony CDS and then leaving the taxpayers with the bill. Kemp was simply a mouthpiece for the Chamber of Commerce always prescribing tax cuts for every ill. Want to solve poverty? Cut taxes. Reduce unemployment? Cut Taxes. Stop Inflation? Cut taxes. Help the Environment? Cut taxes. Cure Cancer? Cut taxes. Not a conservative - just a boob.

Quoting rcocean: First, I'm not a Republican. Second, conservatives differ on economic issues. To me there's nothing "conservative" about trillion dollar budget deficits, massive illegal immigration, $500 billion dollar trade deficits, out-sourcing of jobs, and supporting policies that transfer wealth and income from the bottom 50 percent to the top 5 percent.

There's nothing "conservative" about helping your buddies on Wall Street, AIG, and Citibank make billions in profits on phony CDS and then leaving the taxpayers with the bill.

Kemp was simply a mouthpiece for the Chamber of Commerce always prescribing tax cuts for every ill. Want to solve poverty? Cut taxes. Reduce unemployment? Cut Taxes. Stop Inflation? Cut taxes. Help the Environment? Cut taxes. Cure Cancer? Cut taxes.

Not a conservative - just a boob.

Not to be too snarky (really) but that sounds like a lot of self-described "conservatives," particularly those vinted during the storybook days of the sainted Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless, the impression of Kemp as an affable guy who could somehow sell a relatively dim idea to people who really wanted to believe (and I think it's fair to call Kemp a true believer) is a pretty plausible way of looking at him.

Not to be too snarky (really) but that sounds like a lot of self-described "conservatives,"

I think Kemp and people like him are more libertarian than "conservative."