Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Row versus Wade (or sink versus swim)

The irony is how the Dems have destroyed their party over abortion. The US has the least successful left wing political party in the developed world. Every other developed country for example has national health insurance and more support for unions. Paradoxically I think it was Roe versus Wade that caused this. The Dems make a big thing of protecting this ruling and makes it easy for the right to portray them as baby killers. This lets the right get their agenda through. But the paradox is that no other developed country in the world bans abortion. All these other countries collectively have the same ethnic makeup as the US. So why do people want abortion in these other countries and vote against it in the US? The answer is abortion is a choice people vote for in other countries. The right can't make it a campaign issue because they know people won't vote for them if they do. If Roe versus Wade didn't exist then all the states would have abortion today anyway. So if Roe versus Wade goes the status quo will end up the same but the Republicans won't be able to use it as an issue any more. This decision was the best thing to ever happen to the Republican Party. The only way to neutralise this issue is for the Dems to stop supporting it, and agree with the Republicans it is bad law. This calls their bluff. They want to stack the Supreme Court with ideologues, but not enough to overturn Roe. If the Dems support overturning it then they can portray themselves as victims of this ruling like the Republicans do. That will allow many religious voters to vote Dem again which would result in a landslide for the left. Whether Roe is overturned or not is irrelevant, because abortion will be legal like everywhere else. So the Dems are wrecking their party to support an irrelevant law, nothing more.

More on Plame

These new developments fit in well with a post I made yesterday at Next Hurrah. Rove may be flipping on Hadley, since Hadley, if X, may have just testified against Rove. Also Luskin saying it was common knowledge at Time Rove talked to Cooper supports the idea of him setting up Novak.Cooper's email to his editor also supports the idea of Rove not realising outing Plame was a crime, but he was trying to allege nepotism.Also Hadley saying idle chatter to Rove is like X saying idle chatter to Woodward. The email could also have been easily hidden. The subpeoner would have asked for all communications in the WH relevant but did not specify search terms. Rove already knew the email to stay hidden so he simply designed search terms that covered everything but the email. He could test the search criteria beforehand to make sure it didn't find the email.Hadley may not be X but it is a simpler explanation if he is.

Here is the earlier post edited in part:

"Hadley is now also interesting as X. I don't think Fitz would have found this email earlier from Hadley. The search would have been done on one set of email archives which has Hadley's and Rove's emails mixed in it. If he didn't find it for Rove he didn't find it for Hadley.So presumably Hadley would have denied to Fitz about talking to any reporters about Plame. Fitz must have asked Hadley this. We know he didn't mention Woodward otherwise Woodward would have been deposed earlier. He didn't mention any other reporter or there would be another reporter out there fighting being deposed. This is odd though because if Hadley really was expecting to be indicted, what would the indictment be for? It seems that Hadley must have known he perjured himself or obstructed and got caught by Fitz because there is no reporter questioned for him to have leaked to.So if Hadley expected to be indicted and wasn't, then he was either lucky, the indictment was postponed or he flipped. What if Rove and Hadley were both in danger of perjury about this email? (What if they conspired with arranging the search terms to not "find" it?) Then Luskin's play with V Novak saved them both for a time.For example Hadley might have told Fitz he didn't know about any SAO discussing Niger with reporters. (Fitz likely asked Hadley if he knew if anyone else had been leaking Plame's identity or discussing Niger. Hadley though did know because he had an email from Rove) If he had said Rove had sent him this email then Fitz would have gone straight to Cooper and Rove asking them about this conversation. Because Fitz didn't it means Hadley didn't tell him even though Hadley knew about this from the email. So Hadley perjured himself.Fitz was pressuring Cooper to name his source, and all this time Hadley knew from the email the source was Rove. All this time he failed to "remember" the email, and not telling Fitz was obstruction. So Rove and Hadley may have agreed to forget the email and if Rove was outed as the source then the email would be "found" by Luskin, then Rove would "remember" and "remind" Hadley.The timing could be controlled because Luskin was not giving Cooper a waiver but also pretending not to realise this was holding things up. So he was keeping the option in hand of "discovering" the email and "reminding" Rove and Hadley with it. But then the ploy failed suddenly and Cooper took Luskin's comments as a waiver and testified. Then there was no opportunity for either Rove or Hadley to remember the email, one to remind the other and tell Fitz. It was too late because of Cooper testifying to recant.So Luskin may have planned a setup with V Novak by bringing up Rove and Cooper to her at drinks. (He probably knew that the buzz at Time was about Cooper and Rove. He could pretend to V Novak though that he didn't know)He says to Novak "oh by the way isn't it a coincidence us talking about Cooper as I'm Rove's lawyer". By talking around the subject he hooks Novak into being skeptical about Rove and Cooper. Then he says to Novak "oh my you think Rove talked to Cooper?". So now Novak thinks she made Luskin wonder about Rove and Cooper, which gives Luskin motivation to plan the fake search if needed. Later Novak is deposed and "amazingly" finds herself the alibi for Rove and perhaps Hadley.But if Hadley is X there is a big problem. Hadley, Rove and Libby would each have said the nepotism story the same way to a reporter in an off handed way which implies conspiracy. The stories are too similar. Fitz has an email between Rove and Hadley which both claim to have forgotten. (He may also work out the convoluted search terms designed to miss the email) So one would expect Fitz to depose Hadley again to ask why he didn't mention the email, but Fitz has not. If Hadley was X though he has been deposed over Woodward and likely asked about the email then.So if Hadley is X 3 of them (Hadley Rove and Libby) told the same story to reporters. Three of them supposedly forgot they told at least part of the story. In all 3 cases it only came out because the reporters spoke out. This is a lot like conspiracy."

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Roe versus Wade

The irony is how the Dems have destroyed their party over abortion. The US has the least successful left wing political party in the developed world. Every other developed country for example has national health insurance and more support for unions. Paradoxically I think it was Roe versus Wade that caused this. The Dems make a big thing of protecting this ruling and makes it easy for the right to portray them as baby killers. This lets the right get their agenda through. But the paradox is that no other developed country in the world bans abortion. All these other countries collectively have the same ethnic makeup as the US. So why do people want abortion in these other countries and vote against it in the US? The answer is abortion is a choice people vote for in other countries. The right can't make it a campaign issue because they know people won't vote for them if they do. If Roe versus Wade didn't exist then all the states would have abortion today anyway. So if Roe versus Wade goes the status quo will end up the same but the Republicans won't be able to use it as an issue any more. This decision was the best thing to ever happen to the Republican Party. The only way to neutralise this issue is for the Dems to stop supporting it, and agree with the Republicans it is bad law. This calls their bluff. They want to stack the Supreme Court with ideologues, but not enough to overturn Roe. If the Dems support overturning it then they can portray themselves as victims of this ruling like the Republicans do. That will allow many religious voters to vote Dem again which would result in a landslide for the left. Whether Roe is overturned or not is irrelevant, because abortion will be legal like everywhere else. So the Dems are wrecking their party to support an irrelevant law, nothing more.