Pardoning Scooter Libby?

[GenuineRisk]

Interesting article by John W Dean (of Nixon fame) on the problems with a Libby pardon. Pretty entertaining, for a law article:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070601.html

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Interesting article by John W Dean (of Nixon fame) on the problems with a Libby pardon. Pretty entertaining, for a law article:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070601.html

interesting.











ok...i didn't read it. i really just wanted to say thanks for distinguising this john dean from all the other famous john deans.


























-spiro agnew (of nixon fame)

[hi_im_god]

i want to apologise for my previous post.

it's possible someone might have thought he made breakfast meats. or be closely related to such a person.

i usually don't worry about people that easily confused.

i think you may be a better person than me.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i want to apologise for my previous post.

it's possible someone might have thought he made breakfast meats. or be closely related to such a person.

i usually don't worry about people that easily confused.

i think you may be a better person than me.

Well, at least a more truthful person, since I don't claim to read articles I haven't read and also don't claim additional insults are apologies.

Seeing as how more Americans can list the finalists on "American Idol" than can name the current Supreme Court judges, I think it's well worth a paranthetical on someone who achieved his notoriety over 30 years ago. In American terms, that's an aeon.

Read it yet, h_i_ggie, w_i_ggie?

[GenuineRisk]

Speaking of Nixon, interesting link on reconsidering his legacy- looking at a number of books on him- gets good around the 2nd page:

http://salon.com/books/feature/2007/...richard_nixon/

(not to hijack my own thread....)

Very interesting article... thanks.
Of course John Dean is the Conservative Turncoat. So his word means nothing with many older conservatives.

Frankly, I am not only stunned that Fred Thompson has taken up the "Free Scooter" campaign, but by the crude and thoughtless tactics he has employed. He has either lied or could not be troubled to inform himself of the facts before he attacked Special Counsel Fitzgerald.

This does not stun me. This is Thompson's attempt to sure up the staunch conservative base that will always vote Republican. When a guy goes on TV to do a series, he might be thought of as a leftist from Hollywood immediately. To me it seems like Thompson has to prove how conservative he is first, just to get the Republican nomination.
Then if he happens to get the nomination, he will go for the middle ground. My take.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by pgardn

When a guy goes on TV to do a series, he might be thought of as a leftist from Hollywood immediately. To me it seems like Thompson has to prove how conservative he is first, just to get the Republican nomination.
Then if he happens to get the nomination, he will go for the middle ground. My take.

Won't that likely be the MO for any of the candidates? It tends to be the more devout Repubs or Dems who vote in the primaries, and then the general election brings out the moderates.

I think the conundrum the Republicans may find themselves in is that if they pander to the base in the primaries and then are perceived as moving too far to the middle the extreme right-wing voters may stay home Election Day. A lot can happen between now and then, but I think after the Bush years the Dems are more motivated than the 'Pubs to vote for their party's candidate, regardless of who it is.

The big wild card I could see is our mayor, Bloomberg, stepping in as an independent, simply because we've never had an independent candiate with the financial resources he has. He spent $150 million of his own money over his two campaigns here. I don't know that he will, but it sure would make for an interesting campaign, and leave this Dem in a bit of a quandry as to what to do, as I like Bloomie.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Won't that likely be the MO for any of the candidates? It tends to be the more devout Repubs or Dems who vote in the primaries, and then the general election brings out the moderates.

Yes.
But I think Thompson may actually have to do this to get rid of a Hollywood stigma. I think its that bad... Ooops maybe not. I forgot about Ronald and liberal California.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Yes.
But I think Thompson may actually have to do this to get rid of a Hollywood stigma. I think its that bad... Ooops maybe not. I forgot about Ronald and liberal California.

Since Thompson has already served as a Republican Senator (he was a Senator, right? Not a Representative?) I would think people would disregard the Hollywood stigma. I would think he would have more trouble overcoming the reputation that when he was a Senator he didn't do much of anything.

California was once staunchly Republican, as I'm sure you know. It went for the Republican candidate in 9 of the 10 elections between 1952 and 1988. The shift to the Dems didn't really hit until 1992. Reagan's success there wasn't unusual.

And if anything, I think working in Hollywood is helpful to a candidate- look at Gopher, Clint, Sonny Bono, Ah-nuld, etc. Name recognition is name recognition. I don't buy people turning away from someone because he's a TV or movie star- I think they're more likely to be star-struck and vote for the person. Not to mention the candidate comes with charisma and is camera-savvy.

I hope Fred Thompson doesn't run because I would feel for all the actors who get residuals from "L&O" reruns. It's likely the episodes he's in would all be pulled because it could be considered free advertising for Thompson!

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Won't that likely be the MO for any of the candidates? It tends to be the more devout Repubs or Dems who vote in the primaries, and then the general election brings out the moderates.

I think the conundrum the Republicans may find themselves in is that if they pander to the base in the primaries and then are perceived as moving too far to the middle the extreme right-wing voters may stay home Election Day. A lot can happen between now and then, but I think after the Bush years the Dems are more motivated than the 'Pubs to vote for their party's candidate, regardless of who it is.

The big wild card I could see is our mayor, Bloomberg, stepping in as an independent, simply because we've never had an independent candiate with the financial resources he has. He spent $150 million of his own money over his two campaigns here. I don't know that he will, but it sure would make for an interesting campaign, and leave this Dem in a bit of a quandry as to what to do, as I like Bloomie.

My how the price of poker has gone up. Perot spent $65 Million in 1992 and got 19% of the popular vote. I think I've read Bloomberg is worth $5 Billion. Maybe he can spend $500 Million to run. Sounds like a nice, round number.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Since Thompson has already served as a Republican Senator (he was a Senator, right? Not a Representative?) I would think people would disregard the Hollywood stigma. I would think he would have more trouble overcoming the reputation that when he was a Senator he didn't do much of anything.

California was once staunchly Republican, as I'm sure you know. It went for the Republican candidate in 9 of the 10 elections between 1952 and 1988. The shift to the Dems didn't really hit until 1992. Reagan's success there wasn't unusual.

And if anything, I think working in Hollywood is helpful to a candidate- look at Gopher, Clint, Sonny Bono, Ah-nuld, etc. Name recognition is name recognition. I don't buy people turning away from someone because he's a TV or movie star- I think they're more likely to be star-struck and vote for the person. Not to mention the candidate comes with charisma and is camera-savvy.

I hope Fred Thompson doesn't run because I would feel for all the actors who get residuals from "L&O" reruns. It's likely the episodes he's in would all be pulled because it could be considered free advertising for Thompson!

Your right on this one. Maybe you just have to make the right friends deep in the party. I don't see the great injustice done to Libby from what I have read. And I dont particularly trust madam CIA either.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Interesting article by John W Dean (of Nixon fame) on the problems with a Libby pardon. Pretty entertaining, for a law article:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070601.html

Interesting article.
There doesn't seem to be much doubt as to who is taking the fall for Cheney.
Maybe Scooter will share a cell with Paris in the new coed prison (not listed).
Hopefully, he'll develop crotch crickets and pass them on to Condi.
Then fratboy will get 'em for sure. Bring 'em on!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

My how the price of poker has gone up. Perot spent $65 Million in 1992 and got 19% of the popular vote. I think I've read Bloomberg is worth $5 Billion. Maybe he can spend $500 Million to run. Sounds like a nice, round number.

Well, Bloomie has one advantage over Perot- he's not out of his gourd.

How much did the major candidates spend in '04? Does anyone know?