I'm Just Callous Enough To Polticize Elizabeth Edwards

I think this works greatly in favor for Edwards, at least for the time being.

I for one have been a big supporter of Edwards' causes and appreciate the fact that he is the most proposal-oriented candidate. He has announced positions on most issues while the other candidates have used rhetoric.

That said, he's so perfectly manicured, that I find myself questioning his sincerity at times. There is no questioning his sincerity about Elizabeth or about their commitment to making a change. All of a sudden, he seems a lot more earnest than I had given him credit for. Unfortunately, it was this horrible news that made him seem more human. I think other people will be hard pressed not to see him in a different light.

Additionally, if he does it the right way, Elizabeth's suffering can be used to talk about many medical issues that this country wants to discuss: stem cell, cancer research, and universal healthcare. Again, this is an opportunity raised from this bad event.

Paradoxically, I am concerned by the prospect of Elizabeth being mortally ill while Edwards is president. If her health starts to deteriorate, I imagine this concern will occur to many other citizens.

Friedman Says What Now?

I can understand the rationale of saying that setting a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq is dangerous as the factions will just run out the clock until we leave.

I don't agree, I believe the time to get out is now - pulling out of the cities, but I can understand the argument. However, Friedman's argument in this article is incomprehensible (behind a wall if you don't have Times Select). His article says that Pelosi's pressure to set a withdrawal date can give General Petraeus leverage to get the Iraqis to work together.

Did you get that? A threat of a deadline for withdrawal, without a deadline gives him leverage. Wouldn't that mean that a deadline would give him more leverage?

Friedman, why can't you say something? anything?

Anyone Need to Buy a Couch?

Here's my sales pitch!

The Fired US Attorneys

This topic is an interesting nexus of my interest in politics, legal education and, specifically, the class I'm in now, Administrative Law.

The basic story is that someone in the Administration stuck a small change into the Patriot Act at the last minute that expanded the President's right to name Interim United States Attorneys. The effect of this law is that the Bush Administration can replace a sitting US Attorney without any check or balance by either of the other branches of government. The White House has wasted no time in availing themselves of this new law by replacing 8 US Attorneys. Now this is weird enough as it is rare for any administration to replace this many judges in their WHOLE TERM!

The next red flag was that one of the replaced attorneys was Carol Lam, the USA from San Diego who had put Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham in prison for bribery. Her inquiry into the scandal has continued and she is working on a case against the former #3 man in the CIA, Dusty Foggo, a Republican appointee. There is no telling where her inquiries lead as this appears to have been an extensive bribery ring that was focused on delivering government contracts.

Then the USA from New Mexico, David Iglesias said that he believes he was fired for not responding to pressure by two Congresspeople from New Mexico, believed to be Rep. Heather Wilson and Sen. Pete Domenici (Domenici has confirmed they spoke, but denied having pressured him). He is now being subpeonaed by Congress to explain the situation behind his firing.

It looks like the whole thing is beginning to fall apart for them on this front, yet there is nothing that can be done to undo the firings. This situation highlights the basic willlingness of the Bush Administration to push politics to the letter of the law, consequences be damned. They used to do so under the assumption that their spinmachine was so well oiled that they could spin the middle enough that they would be able to maintain public support. Now that Bush is truly a lame duck, he's given up the mantle of public support in defending extreme behavior and has decided to just ignore the question.