I’ll just note for the record that your rhetoric about the state department is very similar to your typical rhetoric about the independent judiciary you’re so happy to “go along with”. As in, “Judges shouldn’t legislate from the bench!”

Jay Tea, could you please provide an example of disloyal behavior by the State Department or an example of the State Department setting policy contrary to the will of the president or both?

Hmm. Disloyalty in the State Department? I’ve heard that somewhere before, haven’t I?

Oh, now I remember!

Perhaps you mean if there were no cops, there would be no law enforcement? That makes a helluva lot more sense.

I’ll go along with an independent judiciary, but NOT an independent State Department. You might recall that it’s a part of the Executive branch, not an independent body.

I’m with you on that. So why the fuck do we have independent contractors at the State Department in the first place?

I’m asking you to define more clearly what you mean by “loyalty to the United States.”

I’ll go along with an independent judiciary, but NOT an independent State Department. You might recall that it’s a part of the Executive branch, not an independent body.

J.

This is a hell of a broad statement and easily reinterpreted to exclude anybody who doesn’t (a) shut up and implement every cockamamie idea the executive or Congress comes up with, or (b) dares say that aforementioned cockamamie idea might not be in the best interests of the United States.

In other words, you want a State Department filled with the Colin Powell who allowed his opinion to be dismissed and undercut and who agreed to go to the UN with his flimsy file of “evidence” that Iraq was mere moments away from unleashing Global Thermonuclear War…and you have no use for the Colin Powell who later realized what a tool he’d been.

OK, I’ve tried parsing that a couple of times and it just doesn’t scan. Your analogy makes no sense.

For it to work one has to accept that, like the State Dept is supposed to practice diplomacy, cops are supposed to practice violent crime.

My feeling–and yes, there’s that “emotion” thing–is that the three candidates would suss out more or less like this in terms of the next four years, using a flight-plan metaphor:

Obama - It’s impossible to bring us completely back on course after eight years of Bush incompetence, but he’d be able to straighten the plane and start climbing to get a better look at the landscape.

Hillary - Can pull us out of the nosedive and understands how to press auto-pilot, but we’ll likely be stuck circling until the fuel runs out.

McCain - Will push you and your grandmother out of the way to get to the last parachute aboard.

Although I should clarify my statement: I wouldn’t mind getting rid of pretty much everyone in the State Department and starting fresh, with new people who understand that their role is to carry out policy, not set it, and understand that their first loyalty is to the United States.

But that STILL doesn’t resolve the question of what happened to Oliver’s blaming the State Department for employing the passport snoops, when it turns out that one of them was an employee of an Obama supporter…

J.

Although, personally, I wouldn’t mind getting rid of the entire State Department, either…

Diplomacy? We don’t need no stinkin’ diplomacy. All we need is a plane full of JDAMs.

My thoughts on both those matters have changed over the last month.

Hillary’s behavior on the campaign trail has been deplorable. Her endorsement of McCain over Obama was sickening; her manipulative emotional swings, between weeping at a campaign stop and shouting “Shame on you, Barack Obama…”, have been embarassing; her campaign’s statements that any state they don’t win as being insignificant/meaningless is a downright shame.

If the superdelegates wind up overturning the expressed will of the people, I will sit on my ass on election night and watch McCain crush Clinton. It will be a bittersweet victory for me and millions of others like me. Regardless of the stated rules and the superdelegates’ roles as the tie-breakers, this scenario would fuck the Democrats in November and would likely fuck up the party for the foreseeable future, as millions of young people that Obama has energized and brought to the political fore will quit. They will take their toys and go home, and I don’t think we’re likely to see them again. This is the fact of the matter.

I still don’t think the superdelegates will overturn the people… but this is the Democratic party here… they could still fuck it up.

(By the way, as awful as Hillary has looked, Obama has shown nothing but poise, confidence, and maturity throughout this campaign. He has stayed above the fray as much as humanly possible. It really has been incredible to watch.)

I suppose that’s why you couldn’t be bothered to get your facts right. At the same time, anyone who thinks it would be a good idea to get rid of the state department shouldn’t be taken seriously about anything. Not checking your facts is one thing, not bothering to think period, is quite another.

Although, personally, I wouldn’t mind getting rid of the entire State Department, either…

J.

I’m just trying to see if there’s any actual consistency behind things, or if the only rule is IOKIYAR (It’s OK If You’re Attacking Republicans).

Oliver tied the passport snooping to Condoleezza Rice when it was generally believed that the snooper was a State Department employee. Now that the snooper is known as an outside contractor employed by an Obama advisor, I’m wondering if the grand conspiracy now will be tied to Obama, if Oliver will say “never mind, I was wrong,” or if it will all get swept under the rug as inconvenient.

My money’s on the last option, but I feel the compunction to take a few pokes at the topic just to see how it comes down.

J.

I’m with Ken on this. I’ve had enough of voting against. I want to vote for and will not settle for the lesser evil. To do so is to accept that nothing will change. It sends the message that it ok to lie and work to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Someone wants my vote, they are going to have to earn it.