UPDATE: Nuns strike back.

Okay. I didn't know there dib rules here. GySgt 0 Stuart 1.

Off topic KT. But could you follow up on why Clinton had to loan her campaign so much money if they got such a hit on donations the day after she won PA. I think she actually did raise the money, but something does not click. Did the money some how dry up right when she was claiming momentum or what?

KT here--

I think the answer is, they spent it. Plus, a big chunk of those donations went toward paying back her previous $5-million loan. In this week's dead-tree, I have a story on Clinton's Five Big Mistakes. Will post tomorrow.

Much as I'd like to see this continue, if one side doesn't change its costume soon I'm going to lose track of who's who.

Samuel J. Alito, prepare thyself for a thorough de-frocking!

KT: Yes. I agree they spent it. But that's really not my point. I guess I wasn't clear and maybe I don't know how to. She was however, claiming momentum and I not saying she shouldn't have but, shouldn't there have been more money coming in after the first day big total so at least she could have started staying even if not going over the top? I guess what I'm asking is why wasn't there more money pouring in?

KT. By the way thanks for answering.

KT: Dang!! And I look forward to reading your article.

So Uncle Clarence Tom is a Catholic, huh? Who knew?

Meanwhile, back on earth, Asian and African children are starving while limo liberals ride around Hollywood and the Beltway in their corn-fed hunkering hybrids.

= PAROCHIAL ACCOMPLISHED =

Recall a simpler time when republicans were against "Big Government" infringing on individual rights?
Me either.

Posted by Karen Tumulty May 7, 2008 8:22:

A reminder to commenters: Fellow Swamper Stuart Zechman already has dibs on "Disenfranchised Nuns" as the name of a new rock band.

YESSSSS!!!!

And STAR REPORTER Tumulty comes through with the follow up to the story!

I guess that I can never fault you and Cox for trivia pieces now that I'm the biggest cheerleader for this one...crap! I can't be judgmental all the time! Rats! How will media criticism propagate and flourish at this site when I've been compelled to flush my credibility down the tabloid toilet!

Perhaps Sister Sandy Schwartz may include me and Antonin Scalia in her prayers, such that we may recover judicial temper appropriate to our stations in life (and the cross).

Thank you for responding to commentary, Karen.

Uncle Clarence Tom?

Hey!
There's no need for that...

Perhaps it is all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy... nuns would likely have a progressive bent, and as a result, would likely vote democratic in the fall...

Hanging chads... disenfranchised nuns... seems likely

It is no fair that Stuart Zechman, who is a rock star in real life, gets to lay claim to the name "Disenfranchised Nuns."

Share the wealth, Stu!

Here's what I posted on the original story, and it still stands:

A real reporter, when faced with this story, would immediately think, "who's pushing this story in order to push their agenda?"

Unfortunately, no one else seems to have read through the rest of the article, and no one else appears to be intellectually honest enough to wonder what exactly those pushing this story could be getting at.

You mean the people who are eligible to vote should be able to vote? That agenda?

> A reminder to commenters: Fellow Swamper Stuart Zechman already has dibs on "Disenfranchised Nuns" as the name of a new rock band.

Hey, Stu, man, I'll, like, wash your car if you let me play drums in this new band of yours, man... It's not country, is it...?

@Paul-NNTO: "Recall a simpler time when republicans were against "Big Government" infringing on individual rights?
Me either."
It's right there next to a Supreme Court that is adamant about States' Rights, except when those rights get in the way of dictating what the entire country should do.

NoMoreBlather: I suspect since you're being utterly cryptic that your complaint is about advocacy groups. Well, whatever. It's just as likely, if not more likely, that the state is pushing its own agenda with the story that Everyone Is Happy and Nothing To See Here.

I suggest you drop it. When you talk about voting as an "agenda" you sound really creepy.

> in their corn-fed hunkering hybrids

Yeah. Yeah, you got us. Meanwhile, maintaining their long tradition, Repugs "ride dirty." That's just how they roll...

Hey, QH, are you and Crusty twins? Victims of some grotesque lab experiment gone wrong? Or are you just archetypes of the Repugnant sub-species?

Mr. Nice Guy I assumed QH's "corn-fed" was a reference to her cooking book career.

And it's helpful to remember that the problem this law is supposed to address -- in person voter fraud -- is close to nonexistent (absentee ballot fraud is another matter, but it is not affected by ID laws).

KT here--
I think the answer is, they spent it. Plus, a big chunk of those donations went toward paying back her previous $5-million loan. In this week's dead-tree, I have a story on Clinton's Five Big Mistakes. Will post tomorrow.

Oh, nice, take a bunch of small donations from a bunch of old women and pay yourself back?

Were you on the Obama plane last night?

@ Mr Nice Guy: Re: Twins. You got that right!
Did you see the slip in Rustydog's comments yesterday:
www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/polling_place_story_of_the_day.html#comments
"...it is time that a universal identification system IS put into place"
The capital IS IS QH's tell. ;-)

OT: My goodness, those fine fellows in the Executive branch certainly could use some help managing their information technology systems. First, they lose millions of e-mails - oopsie, hope they didn't contain any incriminating evidence of wrong-doing on the part of Bush and Cheney... - and now, they've lost hundreds of laptops, possibly with sensitive national security information, from the State Department.

Linky

Tsk, tsk... But that's no reason not to have complete, unquestionable faith in our Republican leadership, now, is it, QH & Crusty?

I think the answer is, they spent it. Plus, a big chunk of those donations went toward paying back her previous $5-million loan.

Karen, I'm a bit confused then. If she paid herself back for the first $5 million loan, or even only a portion of it, then the $6.5 million she just loaned herself could have come entirely out of her "own" money, based on what we know of what she made off of her book. So if that's the case, why has the gaggling press gossip all day been about how she MUST have dipped in to Bill's money for this loan, and ooo, wouldn't you just LOVE to know where that money came from and blah, blah, blah?

As somebody who doesn't engage in that kind of nonsense, can you decipher what seems to be a contradiction to me?

Posted by Mike M. | May 7, 2008 9:56 PM:

It is no fair that Stuart Zechman, who is a rock star in real life...

Was a rock star...was a minor rock star...was a minor rock star who should have just spent my time and energy listening to Duane Denison of The Jesus Lizard...instead of trying to make art for Columbia Records to sell.

Share the wealth, Stu!

I can no more turn Disenfranchised Nuns into five thousand loaves of bread than William Seward Burroughs could have prevented the Ugly Spirit from shooting his wife instead of the empty glass above her forehead...

Posted by Mr. Nice Guy | May 7, 2008 10:27 PM:

Hey, Stu, man, I'll, like, wash your car if you let me play drums in this new band of yours, man... It's not country, is it...?

I'm sorry to inform you that Disenfranchised Nuns is, in fact, a country music act, the mission of which is to be featured at least once on the small stage during the National Gospel and Harvest Celebration at Dollywood, Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, USA.

You suck, Stu. And I'm so totally not washing your car, man...

Sister Sandy Schwartz?

Sounds like a Mel Brooks script.

Sister Sandy Schwartz? A rather improbable (and suspiciously alliterative) name for a Franciscan Sister of Mary, no?

Am I the only one whose b.s. detector is going off?

The virtual Iowans must think Tom Harkin has their back?

= MASS STARVATION ACCOMPLISHED =

"...they've lost hundreds of laptops, possibly with sensitive national security information, from the State Department..."

STOP PICKING ON MADDIE HALFBRIGHT.

it's helpful to remember that the problem this law is supposed to address -- in person voter fraud -- is close to nonexistent

...

Outside of Chicago, Little Rock, and LBJ's south Texas anyways.

One bit of Good News for you today, libtards: Ran Dather IS re-suing his old media managers at CBS again, for calling him out on his lies about Bush 43.

Now if he could only get Walter Crankcrap to sue too, for letting Katie Coolchick apply her own thick eyeliner at 5:29 Central Time every nightly...

In a statement, CBS said: "Mr. Rather is trying to put forth fraud complaints that the court has already determined to be legally unfounded. We believe he will fail a second time. We will find an appropriate motion to dismiss."

CBS was served with the amended complaint Tuesday; it was to be filed in a New York court Wednesday.

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter on Monday (May 5) before the filing, Rather said the reason he is going through the legal proceedings is to find out what happened in the wake of the 2004 "60 Minutes II" report on President Bush's military service during the Vietnam War.

"The story was true. What we said in the report was true, despite what others have tried to have you believe about the documents, which were one, and only one, part of the story," Rather said.

Rather claims in the lawsuit that CBS forced him to keep silent when he wanted to defend the report and himself after bloggers and others questioned the documents. An independent report didn't rule on whether the documents were faked.

CBS News has hit back hard against its former anchor, something that hasn't been lost on Rather.

"I've never lost sight of the fact that this is a long, hard, expensive road and the odds are against," he said. "I knew that going in. I've known that every hour I've been in it. I'm in this alone. I bear the whole, total expense, which comes out of my pocket."

CBS' defense is funded by CBS Corp., Rather noted. "What they sought to do is get it all dismissed," he said. "Now what they want to do is string it out for as long as they can, hoping to wear me out and run me out of money."

...

On the plus side, Dan will now always have a seat ready & waiting on the vital Chris Matthews Show.

At least until he takes over NOW, for the next Reverend Wrong interview.

stu!!!
in real life (not this virtual one) I am a professional songwriter (a title that sounds cooler than it really is) and musician. I can play, guitar, dobro, mandolin, bass, pedal steel, harmonica, and can fumble my way around a drum set. Any room in the disenfranchised nuns for me?? I will even write a song called
"hanging Chad". oh the possibilities, chad as a reference to 2000...chad as a person...the thought of a frocked lead singer belting out a tune about voter fraud and capital punishment is sure to be a big hit!!

stuart, good luck at Dollywood.

"I guess what I'm asking is why wasn't there more money pouring in?" - GySgt213, I suppose part of the answer is that their online fundraising network is not at the same level as Obama's. But I have to think that the lower average income of her supporters also played a role. Everyone keeps taking about the power of small donors in Obama's campaign, but even a small amount of money is a real expenditure that's not going to food, prescription drugs, gas, etc. Sure, $50 is way less than old 90s style large donations, but it's still real money. Also I imagine that the Obama low-income supporters are concentrated among the young, and we just don't usually have the same financial obligations, even with student loan debt. We're not usually on expensive cholesterol medications, or trying to pay for day-care. Two of Clinton's most committed demographics - working-class voters and seniors - often have very little discretionary money.

So while it's obvious that she should have done better at raising money, it was probably never possible to match Obama's fundraising totals under the new campaign finance rules. The old rules favored the big business candidates - they still do of course; being the hedge fund managers' favorite candidate certainly hasn't hurt Obama - and the new rules also favor the candidates who win the support of the upper-middle class and other demographics with significant discretionary income.

If Stu insists on an exclusionary band policy for the Disenfranchised Nuns I suggest the rest of us (dibs on rhythm guitar) form our own group – maybe Electric Swampyland, or Marian McSwampland if we want to go for a jazzy vibe.

One day they'll be sorry they wouldn't let us join.

Mr. Nice Guy: "My goodness, those fine fellows in the Executive branch certainly could use some help managing their information technology systems. First, they lose millions of e-mails - oopsie, hope they didn't contain any incriminating evidence of wrong-doing on the part of Bush and Cheney... - and now, they've lost hundreds of laptops, possibly with sensitive national security information, from the State Department."

They probably learned that one from the Clinton White House, which on several occasions "couldn't find" documents subpoenaed by Congress.

Karen; the Five Screwups of the Clinton Campaign article is dead-on accurate.

Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign and her most ardent supporters remain largely in denial, still spinning fantasies about how winning West Virginia can lead to a Clinton victory. I'm waiting for Mark Penn to be replaced by Baghdad Bob.

They probably learned that one from the Clinton White House

which of course suddenly makes it OK?

I'll never understand the twisted logic that somehow attaches party allegiance to a question as to whether something is right or wrong.

It reminds me that it's time for my favorite link:

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm

That, my friends, is John Ashcroft arguing eloquently and forcefully to protect citizen rights and privacy against unconstitutional overreach by the POTUS.

Paul: "which of course suddenly makes it OK?"

Would you mind showing me where I said, or even suggested, any such thing? I was just pointing out yet another example of the tendency of the regulars here to fixate on Republican wrongdoing while conveniently forgetting about Democratic wrongdoing. Such hypocrisy does not make for a useful discussion of issues.

which on several occasions "couldn't find" documents subpoenaed by Congress.

Although, as I recall, those documents did turn up -- unlike the thousands of deleted e-mails. And many Clinton staff testified before Congress without the endless claims of executive privilege of the Bush administration. I guess I see the fixate on Republican wrongdoing as more a matter of degree.

Good story on the Five Screwups, Karen. Unfortunately, it seemed right on.

And BTW TomintheSwamp, I'm not in denial and have no fantasies that a win in the next primaries will make the difference, I think we have done a lot of good taking this through all the states. For example, there was a lot of excitement in PA and more voters registered Democratic than ever would have happened if our votes had no meaning. I think this has happened in all of the later states. This will be very good for us in the GE.

Digby has an interesting article linked about another race and how it ended.
Few believed that Wilder could ever be persuaded to give up his campaign, and then endorse and vigorously campaign for his longtime rival. But that's just what happened -- the Democratic Party pulled together, long-standing scores were settled, debts paid, and legacies preserved.

to fixate on Republican wrongdoing while conveniently forgetting about Democratic wrongdoing

You don't suppose the fact that the R wrongdoing under discussion is taking place even as we speak and shows no signs of abating might have bearing on that point?

Google "Unitary executive" and then report back to me why you don't think that ongoing lawbreaking by the current President shouldn't be a cause of immediate concern.

ivb: "Although, as I recall, those documents did turn up -- unlike the thousands of deleted e-mails. And many Clinton staff testified before Congress without the endless claims of executive privilege of the Bush administration. I guess I see the fixate on Republican wrongdoing as more a matter of degree."

Some of the documents did turn up - two years later, after the investigations had been concluded. That makes it better? You'll be happy if Bush finds the missing files two years from now? Also, the Clinton White House did invoke executive privilege any number of times - probably not as many as the Bush White House, but then again, I don't seem to recall quite as many Clinton staffers being called to testify.

I don't really see the point in keeping score. Wrong is wrong.

Paul -

Did I say that I was not concerned? I just get tired of partisan hypocrisy. There are very few clean hands in Washington.

I don't really see the point in keeping score. Wrong is wrong.

Well said.....

KT and everybody else - have you considered the fact that our Supreme Court has a majority of Catholics on it may be evidence that they were intending to disenfranchise nuns? Every Catholic school grad I've ever talked to has it in for at least one ruler-wielding penguin.

> Wrong is wrong.

We agree, then. So, while this is happening, shouldn't we say something about it, and hold people accountable?

Mr. Nice Guy -

Yes. What we do not need is to go from there to "those evil Republicans are at it again". If the Republican record is fair game, then so is the Democratic record.

"Sister Sandy Schwartz? A rather improbable (and suspiciously alliterative) name for a Franciscan Sister of Mary, no?

Am I the only one whose b.s. detector is going off?"

I just checked up on that, there are a few Charleston Diocese registries that have her name listed. FSM Magazine Spring/Summer 2007 lists one contribution in honor of "Sandra Jean Schwartz, FSM."

As a derivative of either Saint Alexander (there were a few saints of that name), Saint Alexandra (again, a few different ones), or Saint Sandratus (according to catholic.org, a Benedictine monk in 986 AD), Sandra would be an unusual, though not completely off-base, name for a nun.

> If the Republican record is fair game, then so is the Democratic record.

To the extent that it's relevant. The dems aren't exactly in power, right now, and haven't been for 8 years. And how far are you going to go back? Jefferson vs. Hamilton?

But, out of curiosity, what do you make of the ratio of investigations-to-convictions for Clinton's administration vs the overall number of investigations initiated at all under Bush II?

Robert, I can't speak for everyone, but I'd like to take a shot at answering your question about outrage over wrongdoing.

I think Paul Dirks is largely correct. The fact that the wrongdoing is happening now is a big factor.

Another big factor is the scope of wrongdoing. The bush has doing so many things wrong, it is getting hard to keep track of them all. Many of them have real consequences to people that are easy to figure out. When Clinton loses documents, there is a real effect on people, but it's harder to make the emotional connection than it is when Bush tortures people.

For some, it is partisan. I think for most, the actions of Bush have shocked people out of complacency. Yes, (I would guess) all former presidents have done something ethically wrong. But it hasn't been big enough or clear enough for most people to take much notice. Except for political gain of course. Now people are awake to the consequences, and are more outraged, and paying more attention. I'll bet you that future misdeeds will get more bipartisan attention paid. At least for a while. Can't tell you how soon the effect will wear off, other than it will be far too soon.

Mr. Nice Guy -

"The dems aren't exactly in power, right now, and haven't been for 8 years."

Last time I checked, the Democrats owned both houses of Congress, and have displayed much the same sorts of unethical behaviors about which they had complained so vehemently about when they were in the minority.

"But, out of curiosity, what do you make of the ratio of investigations-to-convictions for Clinton's administration vs the overall number of investigations initiated at all under Bush II?

I haven't kept score, but your suggestion is probably correct. However - while I don't expect anyone to convict on that basis, I subscribe to the belief that where there is smoke, there's (often) fire, and there was no shortage of smoke in the Clinton anministration. My take - and yes, it's just opinion - is simply that Clinton's crooks were a lot smarter than Bush's.

(I've often wondered: why did their friend from their law firm go to jail for a year rather than testify? That seems to be a bit extreme, when all she needed to do is get on the stand and say that they had done nothing wrong.)

KT here--

okay, space, you got me a little worried. but i checked the order's website (an order with a website! something i could never have imagined when i was going to school at holy redeemer) and there does indeed appear to be a sister sandra schwartz, who is a councilor:

http://www.fsmonline.org/contact/

Robert Sullivan:

In your opinion, on balance are the current Democrats being in power in Congress better or worse for the people of this country than as was the case when the Republicans were in control of all three (or at least inarguably two) branches of government prior to that development?

And the fact that their friend _did_ go to jail, rather than testify, means just as much when viewed side-by-side with the fact that Bush has claimed "executive privilege" to prevent his partners-in-crime from testifying?

I'm not saying the Dems were angels - I'm not a big fan of either side; they're both scoundrels - but I am suggesting that Republicans consistently take things to a whole new level. Clinton got a blow job; Bush engaged in torture. They're hardly equal.

And you can honestly say that the current Dem "control" has allowed them wield any real kind of power over government business, lately...?

Stuart (sorry for the slow reply) -

On balance, yes, I'm happier with the Democratic Congress. In part, however, that's because the Republicans still hold the White House. The system's hardly perfect, but "checks and balances" works much better when the same gang isn't running all three branches.

A bit off topic, but I'm particularly optimistic about Pelosi lately. She may turn out to be a statesman (statesperson?) after all.

Mr. Nice Guy (sorry about the slow response): "And you can honestly say that the current Dem "control" has allowed them wield any real kind of power over government business, lately...?"

Yes, but in the negative sense. They haven't accomplished much, but they have managed to keep the Republicans from accomplishing much. That's power too.

I have a question for "Question Hillary": is your computer on 24/7, or does mom come down to the basement and turn it on for you each morning? I can't imagine that you have the intelligence to master that yourself.

Back to the nun story: These nuns were never disenfranchised. They could have voted using provisional ballots, but they refused to do so.

I don't know how provisional ballots work in Indiana, but where I live you vote the provisional ballot, then you have 10 days to go down to the county registrar with appropriate ID.

Since these nuns did not have the required ID in the first place, if it worked similarly in IN, then voting provisional ballots would not have made any difference.

These are stupid laws passed to address a non-existent problem. Last week they had a show about this on Diane Riehm and the people there on the pro-voter-ID side could not come up with one single instance of voter fraud. Not even one. Doesn't that tell you something? It should.