Meet Pamela Gorman, Arizonan for Congress

Another smash commercial, but this time from a candidate to represent the Arizona 3. Her name is Pamela Gorman, and she does have quite a shot. Although they never do show her actually hitting a target (?).

Advertisements

Morning Constitutional – Wednesday, 30 June 2010

Good morning, everybody. Could there really be a Lego movie? Now, your morning constitutional:

Legendary broadcaster Larry King will leave his show this fall after 25 years.

Hurricane Alex, the first June hurricane since 1995, is moving westward through the Gulf of Mexico and is on course to hit Mexico and southern Texas, but nowhere near the oil spill cleanup efforts.

The German presidential election goes into a second round today, as Christian Wulff won the first round, but not by a large enough margin to secure victory. The voting takes place in an electoral college by secret ballot.

Withdrawing stimulus spending now a dangerous bet.

Be prepared for upcoming public sector job cuts, which could swell unemployment rolls by as much as five percent.

FIFA President Sepp Blatter apologizes to England and Mexico for refereeing errors.

Why ebooks will never replace real books.

Report shows that teen girls drink more than boys; girls drink to relieve stress, while boys drink for fun.

Sharron Angle talks to a reporter.

While Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was in town to visit President Obama, he sent two women on his staff to a local D.C. record store to pick up some Duke Ellington and B.B. King on vinyl. Sadly, the store was fresh out of Ellington, but was able to sell the women three Hendrix records, two B.B. King, plus some by Gil Evans, Blossom Dearie and Mark Murphy.

Barry Wong, a Republican candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission, an elected body that regulates public utilities, wants to require utilities to check the immigration status of customers.

Finally, a Texas Tech professor gave a lecture via teleconference, but forgot to shut down the video feed after class and started looking for porn.

Sharron Angle and "God's Plan"

No wonder she’s trying to avoid the news-folk. Sharron Angle may have spouted some radically conservative ideas and convictions since becoming a candidate for Senate, but this has to take the cake:

In a segment that has gone unnoticed since it first aired, the Tea Party-backed candidate told the Bill Manders show — a favorable platform for Republican candidates — that she opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest. A pregnancy under those circumstances, she said, was “God’s plan.”

Okay, sure, her opponent Harry Reid is pro-life as well, so maybe it doesn’t seem like such an issue. But, as you can see here, his stance is quite a bit more…nuanced. And, while not acceptable to most who actually defend women’s reproductive rights (or myself), is a hell of a lot better than his alternative. And don’t forget: Sharron Angle wants the government to force women to give birth and then ignore the child and mother once the baby’s born if they need help.

Doctor Who, "Vincent and the Doctor"

Doctor: “Is this how time normally passes? Really slowly, and in the proper order?”

“Vincent and the Doctor” was a lovely episode, full of great moments, and the tone felt appropriate after last week’s loss of Rory. Amy is in mourning though she doesn’t even realize it, and she finally makes a human connection with Vincent that I think has been lacking for her all season. As the Doctor joked, a child produced by Amy and Vincent would have been the ultimate ginger…

Continue reading Doctor Who, "Vincent and the Doctor"

Kagan Changes Her Mind on Hearings

Back when Elena Kagan was first nominated for the Supreme Court, I mentioned her 1995 critique of confirmation hearings– she said they had become “a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis.”  I was optimistic that Kagan would adhere to that viewpoint and approach her own hearing with more candor, but it doesn’t appear that that will be the case.

In fact, during Kagan’s confirmation for Solicitor General last year, she took a step towards disavowing her earlier analysis: ““I am . . . less convinced than I was in 1995 that substantive discussions of legal issues and views, in the context of nomination hearings, provide the great public benefits I suggested.”

And sure enough, as her SC confirmation hearings began yesterday, she explained that it wouldn’t be appropriate to answer questions about a) pending cases, b) cases that may come before the court in the future, or c) past cases, which could come up again.  Oh, and it also wouldn’t be appropriate to answer any “veiled” attempts to get her to address such issues.  So what will she answer?  Not much, it would seem, though we have the next few days of questioning to find out for sure.

Interestingly, in her 1995 comments, Kagan seemed to place the blame for the lack of “seriousness and substance” on the Senate rather than the nominees themselves:

When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.

Any questions you wish the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would ask Kagan?

New York Times Columnist Line of the Day

If you’re one of the four-or-so frequent readers of this here blog, chances are you also occasionally check out the New York Times op-ed page. You may even know the names: Thomas “Friedman’s Just Another Word For Nothing Left to Lose” Friedman, Gail “The Colander” Collins, Nicholas “The Dark Crystal” Kristof, &c. Well, I’ve decided to devote a daily feature to these folks, by daily pointing out one line that is either awesome, funny, insightful, intelligent, ridiculous, or utterly divorced from reality. I hope you enjoy.

Today’s is from Roger “Life of the Party” Cohen, who in his column “The Black and the White of It,” writes:

If the powerful steal with front companies, why should the weak not steal with guns?