HorsesAss.Org

Drinking Liberally — Seattle

by — ,

It’s Tuesday. Please join us for an evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking liberally.

We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00 pm; a few folks will show up earlier for dinner.

This may be remembered as “The week that Republicans went for the Newtclear Option.” Here are a few clips to commemorate:







Can’t make it to Seattle? The Tri-Cities chapter of Drinking liberally meets every Tuesday night. Drinking Liberally Tacoma meets this Thursday. And next Monday there are meetings of the Woodinville chapter the Olympia chapter, and the Shelton chapter.

With 227 chapters of Living Liberally, including twelve in Washington state and six more in Oregon, chances are excellent there’s one near you.

Comments

  1. 1

    The Economist, a conservative and business-friendly U.K.-based news and opinion magazine, draws upon the insights of academic and think tanker John McWhorter to enlighten us about just how seriously we should (not) take Newt:

    “This is getting comical. … Newt Gingrich, PhD, now reigns supreme (in some polls), lending some support to the proposition that hot air rises.

    “Now he’ll be able to say for the rest of his life that for a time in 2011 he led the race for the GOP nomination, and, oh boy, he will. I hope he enjoys the moment. It won’t last.

    “About the worst thing that could happen to Newt Gingrich’s candidacy is a good, close look from the opposition, the press, and primary voters [and] that’s what he’ll get this week.

    “John McWhorter … steps up to take a … whack at the Gingrich piñata (which takes the shape of the side of a barn). …

    “Mr Gingrich is a talker … but that does not mean he knows what he is talking about. … Gingrich is sometimes so pleased with his uninterrupted stream of words, that he mistakes it for an actual flow of ideas. … McWhorter … use[s] Mr Gingrich as a perfect illustration of the sociolinguistic observation that … fancy, impressive-sounding smooth-talk may be as empty as Kim Kardashian’s gaze. …”

    http://www.economist.com/blogs.....mneyphobia

    Roger Rabbit Summary: Erudition does not equate with elucidation. Which is a fancy way of saying Professor Newt doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

  4. 4

    Regardless of party, when your winning guy can only sway 24-26% of the base, you’re going to have a hard time winning an election.

  5. 5

    While I do think Bloomberg was overly heavily handed in removing the OWS’ers and that the media blackout was complete bull shit, I can see where he’s coming from. At some point the city has to be able to run as usual and everyone that wants to use a park should be able to use it.

    There’s been a little scuttlebutt about Bloomberg running for president as an independent and I’d like to support that, but I think the way he’s handled the OWS’ers has made that impossible for me to do.

  7. 7

    @2 That’s like owning a penny stock — if it splits 3 more times he’ll have something.

  8. 8

    Lovely!

    Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case

    (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)
    November 14, 2011|By James Oliphant
    The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court.

  9. 9

    That Republicans would raise a vacuous windbag like Gingrich to be their champion of the moment speaks much to their own vacuousness.. or their desperation.

  10. 10

    Kagen should recuse–

    Here are the facts on Kagan: She was the administration’s solicitor general when ObamaCare became law last year. She has acknowledged that she was at a meeting in which state litigation against ObamaCare was discussed, though she said she was not involved in any legal responses concerning the states’ litigation. We also know that Kagan enthusiastically supported ObamaCare. This is made clear in emails released last week by the Justice Department. “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan wrote on the day ObamaCare passed the House in an email to Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor who was working at that time in the Obama Justice Department. On the same day that note was sent, an associate attorney general emailed Justice Department lawyers to organize a health care litigation meeting. A Kagan deputy later emailed her suggesting that she attend.

  11. 11

    10, nice how you omit your source. Was it Faux News or Drudge?

    But tell you what, I’ll spot you Kagan for a possible conflict of interest, though not proven, if you spot me Scalia and Thomas for partying with the law firm who will be arguing against the healthcare law.

  15. 15

    @10 What’s your excuse for omitting Scalia and Thomas from your recusal argument? Ignorance? Intellectual dishonesty? Blatant partisanship? C’mon, fess up now.

    “The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....94648.html

  16. 16

    @10 (continued) Tell you what, in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, we’ll offer you a compromise. If Scalia and Thomas recuse, Kagan will recuse. How about it? Do we have a deal?

  18. 18

    To #17: Did you seriously just cite fox news as a source??? I was under the impression that was forbidden on this website!

  19. 19

    If Scalia and Thomas recuse

    For what Roger DOPEY Rabbit? Eating dinner? You know damn well the leftist have spies ready to pounce on those two if something was discussed.

    But you guys know Kagan has real baggage on this one. So it will be very interesting few months and this has the leftists all scrambling for any “angle”.

  20. 20

    # 19: And you know perfectly well (or should) that attending a dinner hosted by a law firm which is party to litigation currently before the court (or likely to be so in the near future) is a blatant violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct, which prohibit actions which create an apparant conflict of interest, whether real or not.

    The purpose behind such rules, of course, is to promote respect for the independency and honesty of the judicial system.

    But Clarence Thomas, in particular, has made a point of asserting that the Rules of Judicial Conduct are not binding upon the U.S. Supreme Court, and he flouts them openly.

    It would be different if this was a dinner hosted by a bar association or similar organization where the justices and the lawyers stand on equal footing as attendees or speakers.

    And the fine art of lobbying, as you know perfectly well, doesn’t involve something so crass as having the parties involved engage in a public discussion which involves a quid-pro-quo bargain. The lobbiest simply hosts an enjoyable event which an official on a government salary couldn’t afford to attend regularly on his own. They have an opportunity to present their views on a subject, in an indirect manner (the speaker at this event might talk about the how the high cost of government regulation is hurting health care). Then they give the official a warm greeting, tell him what a great guy they think he is, and how more people like him are needed on the court (or on the commission, etc.). They are left feeling like these guys are their best buddies, and they want to treat them well in the future. That’s the essence of how lobbying works, if the lobbyist wants to stay out of jail.

  21. 21

    # 21: You might also be aware that Presidents who rely upon the previous ideology of Supreme Court nominees have often been dissapointed with their votes once they are on the Supreme Court. One glaring example is Earl Warren. As a conservative Republican governor of California, he was a reliable party man. But as a Supreme Court justice (appointed by Eisenhower), he gave Republicans fits.

  22. 22

    @19 Typical rightwing bargaining tactic: “Give us Kagan’s recusal, and in return we’ll give you nothing.” Go fuck yourself, pussybutt. That’s not how I do business. If we don’t get Scalia and Thomas off the court for this case, then you don’t get Kagan off the court for this case, either. That’s non-negotiable.

  23. 23

    You bargain Roger DOPEY Rabbit? I’ve never seen it on this blog. It’s all or nothing from your mouth.

  24. 24

    Wow rhp6033,

    You attack Clarence Thomas and you give a pass to Ruth Bader Ginsberg and her 20+ cases where her husband owned stock in litigating companies before the court. Seems to me Clarence is your favorite “whipping boy”.

    You attack Clarence Thomas and you give a pass to Sonia Sotomayor and her Belizean Grove membership. Her comments of

    “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

    and her comments of

    “The wide coalition of groups that joined forces to elect America’s first Afro-American President was awe inspiring in both the passion the members of the coalition exhibited in their efforts and the discipline they showed in the execution of their goals… Our challenge as lawyers and court related professionals and staff, as citizens of the world is to keep the spirit of the common joy we shared on November 4 alive in our everyday existence.”

    I thought judges were to stay out of the political arena rhp6033.

    You see your incessant focus on Clarence Thomas means one thing and one thing only…

    You figger it out!

  25. 25

    @23 All or nothing? Really? I just offered one of our gals in return for two of your guys. She’s easily worth any four of your guys, so that’s a generous offer.

  26. 26

    @24 Wow. You think those remarks are disqualifying? Wow. You’re even dumber than I thought.

    “I thought judges were to stay out of the political arena rhp6033.”

    Um, pussybutt, they’re all in the political arena before they become judges. That’s the only way you become a judge. Nobody ever gets appointed to SCOTUS because they’re good at writing wills.

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.