Coming Attractions


Promo200x200_2On Sunday I am interviewing Alex Rodriguez (Note: WMV on front page), who is running for the Democratic nomination in CD8. The transcript of the interview and my impressions of the candidate will probably be online 7-10 days following.

I’m considering gathering some ideas to provide more entertainment/information for Drinking Liberally meetings and possibly taking a poll to see what sorts of ideas appeal to potential Drinkers. If you come to DL gatherings, or are interested in doing so, drop me a line with your suggestions.

Finally, I have finished "Dying to Win" and plan on providing a brief synopsis of Pape’s very important and iconoclastic thesis.

Previous articleFriday Dog Blogging: Bottie
Next articleConservatism and Deficit Spending
Michael founded BlogForArizona as the Howard Dean campaign blog for Arizona in 2003, and has been blogging ever since. Michael is an attorney living in Tucson with his wife Lauren Murata. In 2008, following some health issues and new time constraints, Michael stepped back from regular blogging and began remaking BlogForArizona into a collaborative project. Michael now contributes occasionally to the blog and provides editorial and publishing direction. Also if you want to keep up with the latest Arizona and National political news that Mike finds important, check out the BlogForArizona twitter feed, which he curates.


  1. I didn’t let him sit like a potted plant, Dwight. In fact, I declared my candidacy on November 7, about 2 weeks before he stepped down. When I speak, I always make note of that fact and suggest that there is a cause and effect relationship.

  2. Forgive the editor in me: “Feingold has given even Democrat poltical cover” – i think “even” was meant to be every. 🙂

  3. I know a lot more about impeaching a President than censure. There has only been one Presidential censure in US history, that of Andy Jackson over the US Bank, unless you count the West Wing’s censure of President Bartlett for lying about his MS 🙂

    Frankly, as cesure is just an expression of the sentiment of Congress and has no formal legal consequences, I think it is really a purely political issue, not a legal one. I’m actually not even sure that censure would have to come out of the judiciary committee, though. It could come out of any committee which feels it has enough of a jurisdictional hook, or be introduced directly to the floor without referral from a committee, if the leadership so desired.

    That said, I don’t think Democrats advocating censure is at all futile. It frames the issue and give the media a hook to hang the dirty laundry on. The more Democrats talk about censure and the reasons for it, the more they get to explain to voters why the NSA program is almost certainly illegal and how the Administration is stonewalling on providing more information, and the GOP is preventing full hearings. Feingold has given even Democrat poltical cover to discuss this issue, and they should take it.

  4. I have a suggestion: I think discussion of the process of censuring the President would be very good – and you could do a great job leading/supporting and providing technical information for how the process would work. I support Feingold’s call for hearings on FISA – I would very much like to see hearings on this nonsense of a signing statement that says I’m signing the law but I don’t have to do it if I don’t want to. What kind of crap is that? We are a nation of laws, not of men. The idea of the “Unitary Executive” is nonsense in a democrary. Now, comes the $64,000 question: given that the only way you are going to have hearings is to get support from Arlen Specter, chair of the Judiciary Committee – what would be the process and procedure by which this could be done? We have to remember each and every day that the Democrats do not have the simple ability to force a hearing. So, you’re a lawyer, help to educate us on how the process would work. I am not interested in anything that would be futile and – worse than that – would fuel the miserable cloud of acrimony and mistrust under which we are living.