Patterico's Pontifications



Filed under: 2004 Election — Patterico @ 10:44 pm

Mark Steyn has this amusing anecdote about a short conversation he had with pretty-boy John Edwards about Iraq (via Pejmanesque):

In the crush as he was leaving, I asked him what he would do about Iraq.

“We need to get the UN in there,” he said.

“But they were in there. They pulled out because it was too dangerous.”

“We need to get NATO in there,” he said.

“But 21 out of the 34 countries with troops on the ground are, in fact, NATO members.”

“Hey, that’s what I love about these town hall meetings,” he said, shaking my hand. “You get to hear from the people.” If Edwards were in a presidential debate with Bush, there wouldn’t be a lot of questions on Visa card rates but there would be one or two on Iraq, and his platitudes wouldn’t pass muster.

Ouch! Reminds you a little of Edwards’s well-known fumble on the Defense of Marriage Act:

[PETER] JENNINGS: Senator Edwards, President Bush, as you know, is worried. He said it again in the State of the Union address the other night that the Defense of Marriage Act is not strong enough, as he says, to protect the institution of marriage.

You were not in the Senate in 1996 when it passed overwhelmingly. Senator Kerry was one of only 14 senators who voted against it. I’d like to know from you whether or not you think he was right or wrong, and why?

EDWARDS: I think he was right. I think he was right because what happened with the Defense of Marriage Act is it took away the power of states, like Vermont, to be able to do what they chose to do about civil unions, about these kinds of marriage issues.

These are issues that should be left — Massachusetts, for example, has just made a decision, the supreme court at least has made a decision, that embraces the notion of gay marriage.

I think these are decisions that the states should have the power to make. And the Defense of Marriage Act, as I understand it — you’re right, I wasn’t there when it was passed — but as I understand it, it would have taken away that power. And I think that’s wrong. That power should not be taken away from the states.

JENNINGS: Do you believe that other states, for example, should be obliged to honor and recognize the civil union which Governor Dean signed? Should other states be obliged to recognize what happens in another state?

EDWARDS: I think it’s a decision that should be made on a state-by-state basis. I think each state should be able to make its own decision about what they embrace.

. . . .

[BRIT] HUME: I just want to follow up with on the Defense of Marriage Act, which of course is the law of the land.


HUME: Does not the Defense of Marriage Act specifically say that the court rulings in one state, which might, for example, recognize a gay marriage, may not be imposed on another state? In other words, doesn’t the Defense of Marriage go to the very position which you yourself take? [Patterico notes: the correct answer to this question is “Yes.” Now let’s hear Edwards’s answer.]

EDWARDS: No, the Defense of Marriage — first of all, I wasn’t in the Congress, I don’t claim to be an expert on this. [No kidding! — Patterico.] But as I understand the Defense of Marriage Act, it would take away the power of some states to choose whether they would recognize or not recognize gay marriages. That’s my understanding of it.

What a maroon.

This guy may look good — and that counts for a lot to our shallow electorate, especially for the women — but he ain’t really ready for prime time, is he?


Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 10:23 pm

Howard Bashman knows the Art of the Tease. In this post, he certainly makes the case that we should all look forward to his upcoming “20 Questions” feature with Stephen Reinhardt — the intelligent, articulate, unprincipled wild-eyed ideologue that conservatives like me love to hate.

I can’t wait.

UPDATE: I’d like to take advantage of the fact that I have some visitors coming here from How Appealing. (Thanks, Howard!) I have just posted something about the Scalia/Cheney recusal controversy. Since people who read How Appealing tend to be high-caliber lawyers, I would like to solicit your comments on the topic. If you are interested, please click here to go to my post — and please leave a comment!


Filed under: Politics — Patterico @ 8:03 pm

The Sacramento Bee reports:

The lawyer who sued Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger over his $4.5 million campaign loans charged Wednesday that Schwarzenegger lied when he told reporters he had always intended to repay the loan out of his own pocket.

(Via Weintraub.)

No kidding! Here I thought that he fought that lawsuit because he wanted to lose it. That’s usually why people spend money on lawyers, isn’t it?

Arnold’s contempt for the intelligence of the electorate appears to know no bounds.

(Don’t blame me — I voted for Tom!)


Filed under: Watcher's Council — Patterico @ 7:50 pm

The Watcher’s Council has announced the winners of the weekly Council vote. Congratulations to AlphaPatriot for the winning Council entry, The Heart of Change, and to Dean Esmay for the winning non-Council entry, Dean’s World: Saddam Lied, People Died.


Filed under: Politics — Patterico @ 7:46 pm

Power Line reports that the Bush Administration is announcing increased support for the National Endowment for the Arts. This, from the same federal government that can’t get an updated and unified terrorism watch list together.

You gotta love a government that understands its priorities.


Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 6:24 am

Check out the Commissar’s Top Ten Rules for Blogging. I love the commentary to #1, especially.

I follow most of these, though I plead guilty to the occasional long essay.


Filed under: Miscellaneous — Patterico @ 5:52 am

I have been working on something very exciting. I can’t tell you what it is just yet, but I should be able to tell you all about it in the early part of next week. It should bring a big smile to your face.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1963 secs.