Sorry I have been gone so long. Lots of stuff happening in my world. Not that anyone is reading this or missed me. I'm going to try to get back to something a little more regular here but with the holidays approaching, I don't know if I can make that promise.
Anyway, I wanted to briefly discuss John McCain and what a spineless and hypocritical piece of shit he is. At a recent fundraiser McCain was asked by one of his supporters "How can we beat the bitch?" And McCain made a joke about offering a "translat[ion]." But he didn't admonish the questioner, he didn't say anything like "that kind of talk is why things are so acrimonious in Washington and why we need to work at building a consensus." He didn't say "Senator Clinton is a member of the US Senate, as am I, and I need to say that, as a Senator, I find that comment to be terribly inappropriate." No, he basically endorsed the "joke" made at Hillary Clinton's expense.
What is noteworthy about this is that Mr. Straght Talk Express (R-AZ), who prides himself about being able to work with Democrats essentially excused the "joke" by saying that he didn't control what other people said. True enough, Senator, but didn't you (or don't you now) denounce the comments entirely? I mean, after the Petreaus/Betray Us kerfluffle you called upon all Democrats to denounce MoveOn.org for their almost slanderous comments about the General.
What is the diference here? I mean, you can't mean to suggest that only your supporters have the right to free speech, can you? And you don't mean to suggest that groups like MoveOn DON'T have free speech rights, do you? Is it somehow OK to call a Senator and presidential candidate a bad name but not a general who is shaping our policy in Iraq? I am just at a loss to explain why you don't denounce this woman publicly and call upon all your supporters to assume a tone of civility and respect.
Finally, hereis a suggestion for John Edwards, Barack Obama and Christopher Dodd: Why don't YOU call upon McCain to renounce the comments made by this supporter? It will get you good press, it will help present a united front and it will show that while you are willing to engage Senator Clinton in vigorous debate over her policies and beliefs and that you, too, are sick of the politics of personal attack. Not only does it make you look good, make you look like you are protecting the good name of the Democratic Party, but it might also help you win people by making them think that Senator Clinton can't stand up for herself. I don't want to reinforce gender stereotypes and I am not making this a "boy-girl" thing. I'd say that you should do the same thing if someone called Obama an asshole or Edwards a jagoff. It makes you look like a better person and it makes you look like a better person. It makes you look like the protector of the Democrats. It would make you look like a leader.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
Say Someting if You want, but Stop Staring at Me!
So, the other day I was at a baseball game with the spouse and with a couple who are very dear friends of ours. We are godparents to one of their children. We all have similar political beliefs and I was talking with my friend about a wide range of topics, some of them political. We weren’t being too shy about saying what was on our minds and suddenly we started getting serious stink-eye from one of the dudes in front of us. My friend posed the question about Iraq: “Why are we there, anyway?” He was asking it rhetorically and I responded, perhaps with a smirk, “well, we aren’t there for WMD, we know that much.”
All of a sudden one of the guys in front of us turned around and started staring me down. I pretty much ignored it thinking that I was either imagining things or assuming that if they had something they wanted to say to me, they would go ahead and say it. Well, instead they got up and moved, all three of them, a woman and two men. At that point I noticed that the dude who had been staring me down was wearing a Texas Rangers hat (we were NOT in Texas and Texas was not the visiting team) and I started to wonder if maybe I said something that offended him or them because they moved pretty much after he started staring me down and we started discussing politics. I may have referred to the Current Occupant of the Oval Office as “a fucktard” but I can’t say for sure because I do that a lot and they tend to run together.
Anyway, the end of the game rolled around and these people walked up the aisle right past us and I didn’t even notice but my friend said that they were staring us down and appeared to be looking for us to say something that would give them cause to start an argument. I didn’t even notice them of course, but I have now concluded that they did, in fact, disagree with our political beliefs and chose not to hang around close to us lest our dirty liberal beliefs wash over them and somehow infect them.
Well, on the off chance they are reading this, I would just like to say “FUCK YOU!” Your president is an idiot who is personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. This man has destroyed any aura of bipartisanship and the fact that you would choose to stare at me when I am with my family and friends speaks very badly of you; if you had something on your mind, you should just say it instead of throwing me dirty glances and thinking of how much you hate me. The Constitution gives me the right to say what I want but it doesn’t give you the right to not be offended. You also have the right to get away from me of I am offending you, but tough shit if I do. Leave. In fact, leave the country because I have news for you: A lot more people are starting to agree with me than with you, you faithless, toothless, cowardly scumbag. If you believe something and you ant to engage me on it, grow a set and talk to me instead of staring at me like the punk coward your president has become. I would be more than happy to talk politics with you or anyone else and I have the courage of my convictions so I am not afraid of anything you might say to me, but by giving me the stunk0eye and refusing to actually talk to me, you are showing me what a coward you are and that you lack the courage of your convictions.
All of a sudden one of the guys in front of us turned around and started staring me down. I pretty much ignored it thinking that I was either imagining things or assuming that if they had something they wanted to say to me, they would go ahead and say it. Well, instead they got up and moved, all three of them, a woman and two men. At that point I noticed that the dude who had been staring me down was wearing a Texas Rangers hat (we were NOT in Texas and Texas was not the visiting team) and I started to wonder if maybe I said something that offended him or them because they moved pretty much after he started staring me down and we started discussing politics. I may have referred to the Current Occupant of the Oval Office as “a fucktard” but I can’t say for sure because I do that a lot and they tend to run together.
Anyway, the end of the game rolled around and these people walked up the aisle right past us and I didn’t even notice but my friend said that they were staring us down and appeared to be looking for us to say something that would give them cause to start an argument. I didn’t even notice them of course, but I have now concluded that they did, in fact, disagree with our political beliefs and chose not to hang around close to us lest our dirty liberal beliefs wash over them and somehow infect them.
Well, on the off chance they are reading this, I would just like to say “FUCK YOU!” Your president is an idiot who is personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. This man has destroyed any aura of bipartisanship and the fact that you would choose to stare at me when I am with my family and friends speaks very badly of you; if you had something on your mind, you should just say it instead of throwing me dirty glances and thinking of how much you hate me. The Constitution gives me the right to say what I want but it doesn’t give you the right to not be offended. You also have the right to get away from me of I am offending you, but tough shit if I do. Leave. In fact, leave the country because I have news for you: A lot more people are starting to agree with me than with you, you faithless, toothless, cowardly scumbag. If you believe something and you ant to engage me on it, grow a set and talk to me instead of staring at me like the punk coward your president has become. I would be more than happy to talk politics with you or anyone else and I have the courage of my convictions so I am not afraid of anything you might say to me, but by giving me the stunk0eye and refusing to actually talk to me, you are showing me what a coward you are and that you lack the courage of your convictions.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Larry Craig! Sit! Good Dog.
I have just read that Larry Craig’s lawyer is now leaving room for Craig to stay in the Senate regardless of what happens in his quest to set aside his guilty plea in the alleged Minnesota sex solicitation claim. At first Craig said that he “intended” to resign affective September 30th so that he could “fight like hell” against the injustice of his pleading guilty to a misdemeanor when he was initially charged with a sex crime and he had months to consider his options, consult with counsel before he accepted the plea arrangement he felt compelled to make.
Let’s leave aside for the time being the issue of “injustice” and how many different Republican policies have been enacted with Craig’s support simply to make sure that “justice” was never served. We could talk about illegal renditions, illegal traffic stops, racial profiling, the denial of the right of couples in love to marry, narrowing of the Fifth Amendment and the Patriot Act. We could talk about the sweet, sweet irony that Craig is now being served a big steaming plate of injustice and won’t be allowed to get up from the table until he east every bite. We could discuss the fact that at least Craig wasn’t forced into pleading guilty, that he had the right to counsel and that no one beat him until he gave a confession.
But I am not going to do that. As much as I would like to talk about those things, I am not going to go into any detail on any of them. Why?
Because I want Larry Craig to remain in the Senate. Right now Larry Craig may, possibly, be my favorite Senator. He is almost certainly higher on my appreciation list than is the semi- to fully-traitorous Dianne Feinstein although she does get some points in my book for being a vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader. I don’t like Craig more than I like Robert Byrd, Daniel Inouye, Russ Feingold and a host of others, but I hold Craig in very high esteem nonetheless.
Again, you may ask yourselves “why?”
Because Craig is a huge problem for the Republicans. Mark Foley already exposed the seedy underbelly of closeted and hypocritical “Family Values” legislators. David Vitter has clearly demonstrated that his view of “Family Values” means “I think of prostitutes as members of my family.”
The Republican Party cannot figure out how to handle it’s philanderers, pederasts and cruisers. That fact is evident. When Foley was doing his thing, there were whispers all over Washington and Dennis Hastert did everything is his power to actively prevent himself from hearing those whispers lest he have to do something about it. Apparently, Foley even wanted to quit but he was pressured b the White House to defend his seat (when they should have been defending the seats of all those Congressional pages) so they could maintain their majority without having to reclaim an open seat. Only when it became apparent that Foley was a goner did the Republicans form some half-baked strategy to try and hold on to the seat by urging everyone to vote for Foley so they could name his replacement.
When the Vitter story broke, Republicans everywhere defended with some variation of the “let he who is without sin cast the first stone and by the way, Bill Clinton totally got blown by an intern in the Oval Office and Hillary Clinton might be a dyke so why are we even paying attention to Vitter whose own wife once said she’d cut off his prick if he ever cheated on her?”
Which leads us to Larry “Wide Stance Craig.” It isn’t surprising that, given the very conservative nature of Idaho generally and its Governor particularly, the Republicans would want Craig gone. If he leaves, they get to appoint another conservative to replace him and then, in all likelihood, face a pretty smooth reelection bid. It also isn’t surprising that the Republicans are taking lots of different, and hypocritical, views on these three legislative lotharios. With Foley they worried they couldn’t hold his seat so they ignored the whispers and never investigated the rumors. When he was exposed, they still ran a perverse campaign (although, admittedly, they had no legal choice) that was, essentially designed to re-elect him.
When Vitter was outed as an alleged whoremaster (or is a “whoremaster” a pimp, thereby making Vitter a whore enthusiast?), they rallied behind him lst he resign and be replaced by a Democratic Governor.
And now with Larry Craig they are nothing but against him. They want him gone yesterday. But Craig, apparently having grown accustomed to the life of privilege and perks, has decided that he doesn’t want to leave yet and I love it. Every day he spends in office is a day the Republican leadership has to answer questions about why they haven’t opened an ethics investigation on him. Every day with Craig is a day they have to justify having a man who, by all accounts but his own, tried to get an anonymous stranger to blow him in a public toilet. This keeps the Republican off message and destroys their credibility. If they really cared about these family values, wouldn’t they have opened up an ethics investigation, had a hearing and expelled him already? I understand that there are a lot of procedural reasons this can’t happen, but I don’t think the average voter does and I think it makes for tougher sledding for that Party.
And I am also hopeful that Craig makes it to the end of his terms and decides to run for reelection. I think the chances of him making it through a primary are quite slim, but he does have name recognition and he can point to a lot of votes, if not his own personal lifestyle, that would appear to possibly indicate a support of the values Idahoans ostensibly value. Who knows, maybe he could pull out the primary and if he were to accomplish that it would have to be a seat the Democrats would be obligated to take and that the Republicans could not take for granted.
Most likely, if he stays there will be a Republican contesting the nomination and there will be a primary battle; even in that case, I am happy because more dirty Republican laundry gets aired and more Republican resources are spent trying to drag down Craig so that the seat is safely Republican.
So, all I have to say is “Hurray for Larry Craig!” I love this man. I don’t love him like he apparently loves other men, but I am, at a minimum, one of his biggest fans.
Let’s leave aside for the time being the issue of “injustice” and how many different Republican policies have been enacted with Craig’s support simply to make sure that “justice” was never served. We could talk about illegal renditions, illegal traffic stops, racial profiling, the denial of the right of couples in love to marry, narrowing of the Fifth Amendment and the Patriot Act. We could talk about the sweet, sweet irony that Craig is now being served a big steaming plate of injustice and won’t be allowed to get up from the table until he east every bite. We could discuss the fact that at least Craig wasn’t forced into pleading guilty, that he had the right to counsel and that no one beat him until he gave a confession.
But I am not going to do that. As much as I would like to talk about those things, I am not going to go into any detail on any of them. Why?
Because I want Larry Craig to remain in the Senate. Right now Larry Craig may, possibly, be my favorite Senator. He is almost certainly higher on my appreciation list than is the semi- to fully-traitorous Dianne Feinstein although she does get some points in my book for being a vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader. I don’t like Craig more than I like Robert Byrd, Daniel Inouye, Russ Feingold and a host of others, but I hold Craig in very high esteem nonetheless.
Again, you may ask yourselves “why?”
Because Craig is a huge problem for the Republicans. Mark Foley already exposed the seedy underbelly of closeted and hypocritical “Family Values” legislators. David Vitter has clearly demonstrated that his view of “Family Values” means “I think of prostitutes as members of my family.”
The Republican Party cannot figure out how to handle it’s philanderers, pederasts and cruisers. That fact is evident. When Foley was doing his thing, there were whispers all over Washington and Dennis Hastert did everything is his power to actively prevent himself from hearing those whispers lest he have to do something about it. Apparently, Foley even wanted to quit but he was pressured b the White House to defend his seat (when they should have been defending the seats of all those Congressional pages) so they could maintain their majority without having to reclaim an open seat. Only when it became apparent that Foley was a goner did the Republicans form some half-baked strategy to try and hold on to the seat by urging everyone to vote for Foley so they could name his replacement.
When the Vitter story broke, Republicans everywhere defended with some variation of the “let he who is without sin cast the first stone and by the way, Bill Clinton totally got blown by an intern in the Oval Office and Hillary Clinton might be a dyke so why are we even paying attention to Vitter whose own wife once said she’d cut off his prick if he ever cheated on her?”
Which leads us to Larry “Wide Stance Craig.” It isn’t surprising that, given the very conservative nature of Idaho generally and its Governor particularly, the Republicans would want Craig gone. If he leaves, they get to appoint another conservative to replace him and then, in all likelihood, face a pretty smooth reelection bid. It also isn’t surprising that the Republicans are taking lots of different, and hypocritical, views on these three legislative lotharios. With Foley they worried they couldn’t hold his seat so they ignored the whispers and never investigated the rumors. When he was exposed, they still ran a perverse campaign (although, admittedly, they had no legal choice) that was, essentially designed to re-elect him.
When Vitter was outed as an alleged whoremaster (or is a “whoremaster” a pimp, thereby making Vitter a whore enthusiast?), they rallied behind him lst he resign and be replaced by a Democratic Governor.
And now with Larry Craig they are nothing but against him. They want him gone yesterday. But Craig, apparently having grown accustomed to the life of privilege and perks, has decided that he doesn’t want to leave yet and I love it. Every day he spends in office is a day the Republican leadership has to answer questions about why they haven’t opened an ethics investigation on him. Every day with Craig is a day they have to justify having a man who, by all accounts but his own, tried to get an anonymous stranger to blow him in a public toilet. This keeps the Republican off message and destroys their credibility. If they really cared about these family values, wouldn’t they have opened up an ethics investigation, had a hearing and expelled him already? I understand that there are a lot of procedural reasons this can’t happen, but I don’t think the average voter does and I think it makes for tougher sledding for that Party.
And I am also hopeful that Craig makes it to the end of his terms and decides to run for reelection. I think the chances of him making it through a primary are quite slim, but he does have name recognition and he can point to a lot of votes, if not his own personal lifestyle, that would appear to possibly indicate a support of the values Idahoans ostensibly value. Who knows, maybe he could pull out the primary and if he were to accomplish that it would have to be a seat the Democrats would be obligated to take and that the Republicans could not take for granted.
Most likely, if he stays there will be a Republican contesting the nomination and there will be a primary battle; even in that case, I am happy because more dirty Republican laundry gets aired and more Republican resources are spent trying to drag down Craig so that the seat is safely Republican.
So, all I have to say is “Hurray for Larry Craig!” I love this man. I don’t love him like he apparently loves other men, but I am, at a minimum, one of his biggest fans.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Petraeus Betray Us? God Save Us.
What the holy fuck is going on with the right wing hypocrisy machine today? Well, duh, it’s hypocrisy. “Yes, Spike” you say “but what kind of hypocrisy?” Well, I’ll tell you. It’s the type of hypocrisy that slams MoveOn for taking out an ad in the New York Times and having that ad say “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”
Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I didn’t care for the wording of this ad. Why? Because it smacks too much of greasy Republican tactics. I am generally in favor of getting down in the mud with Republicans if that’s where they lead us because I think if you fight back you get the weak-willed bully to back down, but I am not sure that this play on words was really necessary. It’s sort of juvenile to make fun of a guy’s name and I am sure that General Petraeus is proud of the name his father gave him, just as I am proud of mine.
That being said, the hypocritical (but typical) hate mongering that is going on from the right in the wake of that ad is amazing. On the sixth anniversary of the brutal attacks of 9/11 Jon Cornyn couldn’t find anything better to do with his time than put forth a resolution condemning MoveOn. And f course it was a political maneuver because what he wants to do is get a bunch of Democrats either on the record as “supporting” MoveOn’s “slander” of this great American who has lived a life of service or to force the Democrats to disavow MoveOn and when they later accept a campaign donation from MoveOn he will no doubt use it as an excuse to call the Democrats a bunch spineless flip-floppers who decry this slanderous organization one day and take dirty money from them the next. It will happen, I promise you. It just figures that this group of Senate Republicans, on the anniversary of the day that finally drew all Americans together would attempt to execute a divisive political strategy designed not to bring anyone together but to give his party some leverage for negative ads in upcoming elections.
And what’s worse is they way the Republicans have started all this handwringing about this “slanderous” attack as if they haven’t done EXACTLY the same fucking thing over and over again in order to get or keep their elected positions. Max Cleland was tragically wounded in the Vietnam war and LOST LIMBS WHILE SERVING YOU FUCKS! But that didn’t stop you from questioning his patriotism. John Kerry was decorated multiple times for valor in Vietnam and in one of the greatest acts of political jujitsu I have ever seen you used it against him and questioned his patriotism publicly. There are right-wing blowhards out there who are in favor of shooting as traitors anyone who is against this war and even the odious Joe Lieberman is now accusing people against the war of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
This is so messed up, but so typical, on two different fronts. First, the Republican Party goes on and on about how this war is being fought to protect and defend “freedom.” Yet the Iraqis aren’t free to speak their mind lest they get kidnapped. And now you call groups like MoveOn, as well as US Senators, traitors for speaking their mind. Or, to put it another way, to exercise these “freedoms” you all say you are trying to protect. Does “freedom” mean that I get to say whatever I want, or that I get to say whatever I want as long as you disingenuous, trashy, sleazy right-wingers aren’t offended?
Aside from the fact that you condemn those who exercise the freedoms you say you are protecting (I can’t wait for you to unveil your newest line of thought, that up is down, black is white and good is bad), this is something your hypocrisy spin machine does every day. It’s perfectly acceptable for you to impugn the “Americanism” of those who don’t agree with you and call them traitors and go after their spouses and family members, but let a group like MoveOn do it publicly in the newspaper (unlike you guys, who do it all through insinuation and whispering campaigns) and you guys get your panties in a wad. Why, it’s almost enough to make me think you are weak-willed sissies the way you get so easily inflamed.
Unfortunately, it isn’t clear that the Democrats have the political willpower to stand up to it once and for all. While I still think the Democratic Party gives us the best hope as a country, not only for the nation as a whole but for this war as well, they had better start exercising some damn authority and start standing up to this bullshit.
Disgustedly,
Spike
Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I didn’t care for the wording of this ad. Why? Because it smacks too much of greasy Republican tactics. I am generally in favor of getting down in the mud with Republicans if that’s where they lead us because I think if you fight back you get the weak-willed bully to back down, but I am not sure that this play on words was really necessary. It’s sort of juvenile to make fun of a guy’s name and I am sure that General Petraeus is proud of the name his father gave him, just as I am proud of mine.
That being said, the hypocritical (but typical) hate mongering that is going on from the right in the wake of that ad is amazing. On the sixth anniversary of the brutal attacks of 9/11 Jon Cornyn couldn’t find anything better to do with his time than put forth a resolution condemning MoveOn. And f course it was a political maneuver because what he wants to do is get a bunch of Democrats either on the record as “supporting” MoveOn’s “slander” of this great American who has lived a life of service or to force the Democrats to disavow MoveOn and when they later accept a campaign donation from MoveOn he will no doubt use it as an excuse to call the Democrats a bunch spineless flip-floppers who decry this slanderous organization one day and take dirty money from them the next. It will happen, I promise you. It just figures that this group of Senate Republicans, on the anniversary of the day that finally drew all Americans together would attempt to execute a divisive political strategy designed not to bring anyone together but to give his party some leverage for negative ads in upcoming elections.
And what’s worse is they way the Republicans have started all this handwringing about this “slanderous” attack as if they haven’t done EXACTLY the same fucking thing over and over again in order to get or keep their elected positions. Max Cleland was tragically wounded in the Vietnam war and LOST LIMBS WHILE SERVING YOU FUCKS! But that didn’t stop you from questioning his patriotism. John Kerry was decorated multiple times for valor in Vietnam and in one of the greatest acts of political jujitsu I have ever seen you used it against him and questioned his patriotism publicly. There are right-wing blowhards out there who are in favor of shooting as traitors anyone who is against this war and even the odious Joe Lieberman is now accusing people against the war of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
This is so messed up, but so typical, on two different fronts. First, the Republican Party goes on and on about how this war is being fought to protect and defend “freedom.” Yet the Iraqis aren’t free to speak their mind lest they get kidnapped. And now you call groups like MoveOn, as well as US Senators, traitors for speaking their mind. Or, to put it another way, to exercise these “freedoms” you all say you are trying to protect. Does “freedom” mean that I get to say whatever I want, or that I get to say whatever I want as long as you disingenuous, trashy, sleazy right-wingers aren’t offended?
Aside from the fact that you condemn those who exercise the freedoms you say you are protecting (I can’t wait for you to unveil your newest line of thought, that up is down, black is white and good is bad), this is something your hypocrisy spin machine does every day. It’s perfectly acceptable for you to impugn the “Americanism” of those who don’t agree with you and call them traitors and go after their spouses and family members, but let a group like MoveOn do it publicly in the newspaper (unlike you guys, who do it all through insinuation and whispering campaigns) and you guys get your panties in a wad. Why, it’s almost enough to make me think you are weak-willed sissies the way you get so easily inflamed.
Unfortunately, it isn’t clear that the Democrats have the political willpower to stand up to it once and for all. While I still think the Democratic Party gives us the best hope as a country, not only for the nation as a whole but for this war as well, they had better start exercising some damn authority and start standing up to this bullshit.
Disgustedly,
Spike
Monday, August 27, 2007
Alberto Gonzalez and Doing the Right Thing
I have to say, I didn’t see this coming. I honestly thought that Alberto Gonzalez would remain attorney general as long as Dubya remained President. I thought that there was no way POTUS could afford to give up the legal protection of the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. I assumed that Gonzalez, who smirked and sneered his way through a fuck you confirmation process and numerous fuck you sessions of testimony before Congress would stay. He was the President’s butt boy and proud to have the honor. He was arrogant and simply bluffed his way through all kinds of lies and obfuscations when Senate Democrats asked him the tough questions. In many cases, it appeared that the Dems were caught flatfooted as if they couldn’t possibly believe that this guy could actually tell these lies and keep a straight face.
I also figured that POTUS would keep Gonzalez around not only as a shield to keep the President’s critics at bay; I thought that Dubya would keep him around because he knew (or someone told him in very small words) that there was no way he could ram through another loyal bushie because the Democratic majority in the Senate would prevent that from happening. The man needs an Attorney General after all and it’s pretty obvious that he needs one who will tell the President and Congress, with a straight face, that the President is not beholden to any constraint, legal or otherwise. He has to be willing to publicly give a rimjob to the President at a moment’s notice and while under oath. This is not an easy guy to locate and in Gonzalez the President had pure gold.
Which is why I am actually quite shocked that Gonzalez is now gone. The good news is that I am obviously very fallible in terms of guessing what will happen in the world of politics so my prior anti-Hillary screed may be entirely worthless.
Now that Gonzalez is gone, the President has a couple of options. The first one is a recess appointment. He can pick another bootlick in the mold of Gonzalez and not even try to have him confirmed. Just name him while Congress is in recess and then the President has effectively named Gonzalez’ successor for the remainder of Bush’s term. The President allegedly already has made a “deal” with Harry Reid whereby the President won’t make any recess appointments and Reid will promise to get some of Bush’s nominees to the floor. Still, the timing of this resignation makes me think that Bush is planning something and that he will name a recess appointment before Reid can do anything about it. Honestly, that has to be tempting. This President has already trashed his credibility with Congress so if he bails out on another promise, it really won’t make anything worse, especially if by doing so he gets to keep his shield in place. I am sure that the calculus going on in the White House is “Well, we might have trouble getting a former KKK Imperial Wizard approved as ambassador to Liberia, but if we are willing to give up on that we can stall any actual investigation until the end of the term when the President will pardon us all and then we go off and enjoy our millions of dollars.”
So, put me on the record as saying I expect a recess appointment. Again, I could be wrong and you would have to get pretty good odds on betting I am way off on this one.
But, if I am wrong and if Dubya decides to actually try to run his nominee through the confirmation process, please consider this a call for the Democrats to finally stand up for themselves and for me. No more rolling over, no more giving the President what he wants. No more listening to Joe Lieberman or any of the “Blue Dog” Democrats. Fuck that and fuck them. America is dying for someone to stand up to the unchecked power of this president and you should all be ashamed of yourselves and the way you have rolled over every time he has commanded it. Show some balls for once and filibuster anyone who won’t actually enforce e the laws and provide some oversight to an administration that has run roughshod over every fucking freedom we hold dear.
Do NOT confirm someone who believes that he is the President’s lawyer. Alberto Gonzalez, an embarrassment to Mexicans everywhere, believed that he was the President’s attorney. The fact of the matter is that he was MY lawyer and he never once gave me the respect I was owed as his client. He roughly fucked me in the ass just to have the pleasure of gently kissing the President’s. How he can sleep at night, how he avoids shame the way he does and how he hasn’t been impeached or disbarred up until now are all mysteries to me.
It cannot be stated too strongly that Democrats in the Senate need to draw the line here. Let him appoint a conservative because that is his prerogative. But there are a lot of conservative lawyers out there who believe that his is a nation of laws and not of men. Force him to pick one of THEM. Just for once stand up for the principles and ideals that make you a Democrat. There is still time for you to do some good before this President leaves office. Don’t squander this one as you have so many others.
I also figured that POTUS would keep Gonzalez around not only as a shield to keep the President’s critics at bay; I thought that Dubya would keep him around because he knew (or someone told him in very small words) that there was no way he could ram through another loyal bushie because the Democratic majority in the Senate would prevent that from happening. The man needs an Attorney General after all and it’s pretty obvious that he needs one who will tell the President and Congress, with a straight face, that the President is not beholden to any constraint, legal or otherwise. He has to be willing to publicly give a rimjob to the President at a moment’s notice and while under oath. This is not an easy guy to locate and in Gonzalez the President had pure gold.
Which is why I am actually quite shocked that Gonzalez is now gone. The good news is that I am obviously very fallible in terms of guessing what will happen in the world of politics so my prior anti-Hillary screed may be entirely worthless.
Now that Gonzalez is gone, the President has a couple of options. The first one is a recess appointment. He can pick another bootlick in the mold of Gonzalez and not even try to have him confirmed. Just name him while Congress is in recess and then the President has effectively named Gonzalez’ successor for the remainder of Bush’s term. The President allegedly already has made a “deal” with Harry Reid whereby the President won’t make any recess appointments and Reid will promise to get some of Bush’s nominees to the floor. Still, the timing of this resignation makes me think that Bush is planning something and that he will name a recess appointment before Reid can do anything about it. Honestly, that has to be tempting. This President has already trashed his credibility with Congress so if he bails out on another promise, it really won’t make anything worse, especially if by doing so he gets to keep his shield in place. I am sure that the calculus going on in the White House is “Well, we might have trouble getting a former KKK Imperial Wizard approved as ambassador to Liberia, but if we are willing to give up on that we can stall any actual investigation until the end of the term when the President will pardon us all and then we go off and enjoy our millions of dollars.”
So, put me on the record as saying I expect a recess appointment. Again, I could be wrong and you would have to get pretty good odds on betting I am way off on this one.
But, if I am wrong and if Dubya decides to actually try to run his nominee through the confirmation process, please consider this a call for the Democrats to finally stand up for themselves and for me. No more rolling over, no more giving the President what he wants. No more listening to Joe Lieberman or any of the “Blue Dog” Democrats. Fuck that and fuck them. America is dying for someone to stand up to the unchecked power of this president and you should all be ashamed of yourselves and the way you have rolled over every time he has commanded it. Show some balls for once and filibuster anyone who won’t actually enforce e the laws and provide some oversight to an administration that has run roughshod over every fucking freedom we hold dear.
Do NOT confirm someone who believes that he is the President’s lawyer. Alberto Gonzalez, an embarrassment to Mexicans everywhere, believed that he was the President’s attorney. The fact of the matter is that he was MY lawyer and he never once gave me the respect I was owed as his client. He roughly fucked me in the ass just to have the pleasure of gently kissing the President’s. How he can sleep at night, how he avoids shame the way he does and how he hasn’t been impeached or disbarred up until now are all mysteries to me.
It cannot be stated too strongly that Democrats in the Senate need to draw the line here. Let him appoint a conservative because that is his prerogative. But there are a lot of conservative lawyers out there who believe that his is a nation of laws and not of men. Force him to pick one of THEM. Just for once stand up for the principles and ideals that make you a Democrat. There is still time for you to do some good before this President leaves office. Don’t squander this one as you have so many others.
Monday, August 20, 2007
The Thing About Hillary Clinton
I worry about Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. If you have been reading up until now (and based on the lack if feedback I have thus far received, you haven’t) you can pretty much tell I am a Democrat. And quite a liberal one at that. I am what I suppose Rush Limbaugh would generically refer to as a knee-jerk-tax-and-spend-reactionary-bleeding-heart-big-government liberal. And I am pretty proud of that too.
So, even though her husband wasn’t as liberal as I am, I am a huge fan of the Clintons. My dream is that they amend the Constitution to allow a person to serve more than two terms and that Bubba and Dubya get in the ring for a no-holds-barred steel cage match. I’ll take Bubba and you neocon fucks can have whoever you want and Karl Rove can use his incantations to get Lee Atwater back among the living and they can run your guy’s campaign. Throw in Howard Hunt and Donald Segretti. I am confident my guy will win.
And I think that Senator Clinton would make an excellent president as well. While she is a bit too triangulating for my tastes and, again, she is not as liberal as I would like her to be, I would get behind her in a second. I think that she can overcome that thing that she does that makes it feel like every answer she gives to any question, right down to "Hillary, have you fed the dog?" has been focus-grouped by three different independent pollsters.
And I am not worried because she is a woman, either. I think the country has long been ready for a woman president and I think the fact that we haven’t had one says more about the lack of credible candidates that have run for the office than it does about sexism. Pakistan, a Muslim state for the love of god, has had a women prime minister. If Pakistan can be led by a woman, so can the US of fucking A.
No, my problems with Senator Clinton aren’t that I don’t like her, aren’t because she is a woman, aren’t because she triangulates too much and aren’t because she is too conservative.
My problem is because I have serious doubts that she can win. Look, this country is poised to give the Democratic Party a stranglehold on both the White House and Congress. Poll after poll shows that the voting public are disenchanted with Dubya and the Republicans in Congress. Now, I have serious issues with what the Democrats have done, and more importantly, failed to do since they took back Congress in 2006. It is my hope and belief that Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi will look at these polls and decide that they have been too easy on this president. Take away some of this Supreme Executive Power he insists he is wielding. But that’s for another day. Right now, what concerns me is that Hillary Clinton is the only person running as a Democrat who can possibly give the Republicans the jolt of energy they need to mobilize themselves.
As it stands right now, the Republican nominees are a bunch of flip-floppers who have suddenly seen the light and are now reaching out to give a reacharound to any ultraconservative they happen to meet. Either that or they are a bunch of loony whackjobs who believe that Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs. Suddenly Giuliani is willing to be flexible (which is to say inflexibly against) on abortion and Romney now forswears everything he ever did that was good for Planned Parenthood. John McCain is so addlebrained that he can’t even remember whose bunghole he is supposed to be frenching at any given time and was last seen giving a tongue bath to the corpse of Jerry Falwell. Fred Thompson hasn’t seen fit to enter the race and why should he when he is damn near winning the fight from the sidelines? Nope, this bunch of serial marriers, cheaters, crazies, idiots, inbreds, mental defectives and waterboarders couldn’t hope to beat any “normal” candidate.
But Hillary Clinton is not “normal” even by the lax standards of presidential politics. She induces an atavistic and reflexive hatred in Republicans. She is the ONE candidate who could rouse the Republican base to show up and vote. As it stands right now, a lot of right-wing zealots are looking like they might just sit this one out and that is a plus for the Democrats because no matter what faults the religious right may have, a lack of discipline in voting is none of them. Had it not been for God-Gay wedge issue-laden campaigns, it is almost certain that George “The Accidental President” might never have been [s]elected.
Hillary Clinton will force the right to mobilize. And, when you combine that with their minority voter suppression tactics, their post-election storm troopers and the fact that Democrats aren’t always the most disciplined voting bloc, you have a recipe for another Republican win. She may end up being the most popular Democrat and god knows that if she wins the election I will work for her and give her money. And maybe I am wrong; during the first Gulf War I was certain that Bush the Elder would win a second term, so that goes to show what I know.
But I will tell you that none of the other Dems induce such a reactionary response as does Senator Clinton. Of all the people in this country, she may be the only one about whom everyone else has an opinion. Put another way, if you were to ask 10,000 people whether they had a favorable, unfavorable or no opinion about her, I think you could really get a “zero” next to the “no opinion” line. She is the one candidate who could rouse the great but dormant Falwellbeast.
So, even though her husband wasn’t as liberal as I am, I am a huge fan of the Clintons. My dream is that they amend the Constitution to allow a person to serve more than two terms and that Bubba and Dubya get in the ring for a no-holds-barred steel cage match. I’ll take Bubba and you neocon fucks can have whoever you want and Karl Rove can use his incantations to get Lee Atwater back among the living and they can run your guy’s campaign. Throw in Howard Hunt and Donald Segretti. I am confident my guy will win.
And I think that Senator Clinton would make an excellent president as well. While she is a bit too triangulating for my tastes and, again, she is not as liberal as I would like her to be, I would get behind her in a second. I think that she can overcome that thing that she does that makes it feel like every answer she gives to any question, right down to "Hillary, have you fed the dog?" has been focus-grouped by three different independent pollsters.
And I am not worried because she is a woman, either. I think the country has long been ready for a woman president and I think the fact that we haven’t had one says more about the lack of credible candidates that have run for the office than it does about sexism. Pakistan, a Muslim state for the love of god, has had a women prime minister. If Pakistan can be led by a woman, so can the US of fucking A.
No, my problems with Senator Clinton aren’t that I don’t like her, aren’t because she is a woman, aren’t because she triangulates too much and aren’t because she is too conservative.
My problem is because I have serious doubts that she can win. Look, this country is poised to give the Democratic Party a stranglehold on both the White House and Congress. Poll after poll shows that the voting public are disenchanted with Dubya and the Republicans in Congress. Now, I have serious issues with what the Democrats have done, and more importantly, failed to do since they took back Congress in 2006. It is my hope and belief that Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi will look at these polls and decide that they have been too easy on this president. Take away some of this Supreme Executive Power he insists he is wielding. But that’s for another day. Right now, what concerns me is that Hillary Clinton is the only person running as a Democrat who can possibly give the Republicans the jolt of energy they need to mobilize themselves.
As it stands right now, the Republican nominees are a bunch of flip-floppers who have suddenly seen the light and are now reaching out to give a reacharound to any ultraconservative they happen to meet. Either that or they are a bunch of loony whackjobs who believe that Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs. Suddenly Giuliani is willing to be flexible (which is to say inflexibly against) on abortion and Romney now forswears everything he ever did that was good for Planned Parenthood. John McCain is so addlebrained that he can’t even remember whose bunghole he is supposed to be frenching at any given time and was last seen giving a tongue bath to the corpse of Jerry Falwell. Fred Thompson hasn’t seen fit to enter the race and why should he when he is damn near winning the fight from the sidelines? Nope, this bunch of serial marriers, cheaters, crazies, idiots, inbreds, mental defectives and waterboarders couldn’t hope to beat any “normal” candidate.
But Hillary Clinton is not “normal” even by the lax standards of presidential politics. She induces an atavistic and reflexive hatred in Republicans. She is the ONE candidate who could rouse the Republican base to show up and vote. As it stands right now, a lot of right-wing zealots are looking like they might just sit this one out and that is a plus for the Democrats because no matter what faults the religious right may have, a lack of discipline in voting is none of them. Had it not been for God-Gay wedge issue-laden campaigns, it is almost certain that George “The Accidental President” might never have been [s]elected.
Hillary Clinton will force the right to mobilize. And, when you combine that with their minority voter suppression tactics, their post-election storm troopers and the fact that Democrats aren’t always the most disciplined voting bloc, you have a recipe for another Republican win. She may end up being the most popular Democrat and god knows that if she wins the election I will work for her and give her money. And maybe I am wrong; during the first Gulf War I was certain that Bush the Elder would win a second term, so that goes to show what I know.
But I will tell you that none of the other Dems induce such a reactionary response as does Senator Clinton. Of all the people in this country, she may be the only one about whom everyone else has an opinion. Put another way, if you were to ask 10,000 people whether they had a favorable, unfavorable or no opinion about her, I think you could really get a “zero” next to the “no opinion” line. She is the one candidate who could rouse the great but dormant Falwellbeast.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Rudy CAN Fail
Anyone recall when Rudy Giuliani was bragging about having spent as much time at Ground Zero as the police and firemen who were there? Rudy said that all of his time down there made him "one of them." Not too long after that some firefighters and police registered some concern that perhaps the mayor was... overstating his own involvement at that scene of horror. Rudy later went on to "clarify" his remarks by stating that he "empathized with them because [he] feel[s] like [he has] that same risk."
Pretty soon thereafter some people started examining his mayoral archive (revised after trying to acount for scheduling changes and such) and they have learned that His Honor actually spent a total of 29 hours at Ground Zero between September 17 and December 16, 2001. By contrast, a Mount Sinai study of 1,138 rescue workers, debris removal workers and recovery personnel found that they h ad spent a median of 962 hours at the site. That is an average of 120 eight-hour days.
You know, I thought that Giuliani did a pretty good job on 9/11 and immediately thereafter. I am now starting to hear things that are suggesting that I revisit that opinion and maybe I will. But I think that most Americans have a pretty positive view of Giuliani and think he handled himself admirably on that horrible day. God knows our President and Vice-President were nowhere to be found. Why on Earth would Giuliani feel the need to infalte his own importance on that day and invite this type of scrutiny? I mean, I understand the desire to make your own accomplishments even more significant and I understand that he is running for President, but what kind of mouth-breathing drunk do you have to be to say something like this and think that no one is going to look into it? Right after 9/11 Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas, said that when she was driving in Missouri, a state famed for bad roads, she felt as if the terrorists had attacked there. And people went after her. And she apologized, which was entirely approrpaite. DId Rudy really think that he was going to get a pass to claim the mantle of hero on that sacred day? Does he not know that there are groups of firefighters and police who are making it their mission to "swift boat" him about his work that day?
Even though I thought Rudy did a pretty good job on 9/11/2001, I have never really been a fan of his. I had a law school professor who knew him from both of them being in the New York US Attorney's office and he said that Rudy was always too proud of himself, too happy to take credit and and too thin-skinned. I am hopeful that this will provide more ammunition to Rudy's enemies. It's the perfect Republican attack- go after his boggests trength and make it a weakness. It worked to perfection on John Kerry and I think it will be really cool to see this little bit of jiujitsu used on "America's" mayor.
Pretty soon thereafter some people started examining his mayoral archive (revised after trying to acount for scheduling changes and such) and they have learned that His Honor actually spent a total of 29 hours at Ground Zero between September 17 and December 16, 2001. By contrast, a Mount Sinai study of 1,138 rescue workers, debris removal workers and recovery personnel found that they h ad spent a median of 962 hours at the site. That is an average of 120 eight-hour days.
You know, I thought that Giuliani did a pretty good job on 9/11 and immediately thereafter. I am now starting to hear things that are suggesting that I revisit that opinion and maybe I will. But I think that most Americans have a pretty positive view of Giuliani and think he handled himself admirably on that horrible day. God knows our President and Vice-President were nowhere to be found. Why on Earth would Giuliani feel the need to infalte his own importance on that day and invite this type of scrutiny? I mean, I understand the desire to make your own accomplishments even more significant and I understand that he is running for President, but what kind of mouth-breathing drunk do you have to be to say something like this and think that no one is going to look into it? Right after 9/11 Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas, said that when she was driving in Missouri, a state famed for bad roads, she felt as if the terrorists had attacked there. And people went after her. And she apologized, which was entirely approrpaite. DId Rudy really think that he was going to get a pass to claim the mantle of hero on that sacred day? Does he not know that there are groups of firefighters and police who are making it their mission to "swift boat" him about his work that day?
Even though I thought Rudy did a pretty good job on 9/11/2001, I have never really been a fan of his. I had a law school professor who knew him from both of them being in the New York US Attorney's office and he said that Rudy was always too proud of himself, too happy to take credit and and too thin-skinned. I am hopeful that this will provide more ammunition to Rudy's enemies. It's the perfect Republican attack- go after his boggests trength and make it a weakness. It worked to perfection on John Kerry and I think it will be really cool to see this little bit of jiujitsu used on "America's" mayor.
Monday, August 6, 2007
And Now For Something Completely Different...
Sorry. I don't even know if anyone is reading this, but I haven't posted anything for awhile. I've been out of town, been busy, been tired, etc. Anyway, I am taking a short break from politics and I am going to write about Neifi Perez of the Detroit Tigers. This really has nothing to do with politics, but I just love this story so much.
As you may know, Neifi Perez recently had his third positive test for banned substances. This test occurred while he was serving his suspension for his second violation. So, like I was saying, he just had his third positive test. For amphetamines. Speed, in other words. As you may know, pro sports, especially baseball and football, have been using speed for decades. Some say it’s been a much bigger problem than steroids. They may be right.
Anyway, Neifi tested positive for speed. Again, his third positive test came while he was serving his suspension for his SECOND positive test. But that’s not why I think this story is so fucking awesome. Neifi noticed he was having some problems concentrating so he saw a sports psychologist. So far so good. His shrink decided that Perez had ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). Still, no problem, it’s a real condition. My kid has ADD which is the same thing but without the hyperactivity. Weirdly, the thing they give you when you have ADD or ADHD is amphetamines. I don't know exactly why it works because I would think that the last thing you need when you have an attention deficit and/or hyperactivity is some kind of stimulant. You’d think they’d prescribe some sort of tranquilizer, right? But no. They prescribe amphetamines and it works. My kid's on them and it has made a huge difference, I don’t give a fuck WHAT Tom Cruise says. There are several different types of amphetamines but one of the most popular is called “Adderall.” It’s a very good drug but, because it is speed, it is possible to abuse it and it is a highly controlled drug. When we get it for our kid, we have to get a written prescription every month. It’s against federal law to accept a phoned-in prescription so you have to physically go to a doctor’s office and get a written prescription and you take that straight to the drug store. And you can only get a one-month supply at a time.
Anyway, am I boring you? Because I haven’t gotten to the awesome part yet.
Neifi takes his Adderall and it works really well for him, or so he says. But then he says that after he has taken it for a month or two, his drugstore refused to fill his prescription anymore. Now, given everything I described about how you have to get a written script, etc., I think that what really happened is that he didn’t see why he should have to get a written script and go through all that hoopla. I doubt that they said “We’re sorry, Mr. Perez, but we refuse to sell you any more Adderall.” So I will give him the benefit of the doubt and just say that he got a little confused about why he was having trouble gtting his meds. I can believe that because I have been through similar issues.
Here’s where it gets awesome: One of Neifi’s teammates tells Neifi “you don’t need Adderall. You can take any kind of amphetamine you want and it will work just as well.” So what does Neifi do? He buys black market speed, in god knows what form, and takes that. And now he is trying to say that he took it under a doctor’s orders and he is going to protest his suspension. Because one of his teammates (I am not aware that there are ANY ballplayers who are also MDs, but I am almost certain that there are no medical doctors on the Detroit Tigers roster. That being said, I do believe that the Tigers have a team physician that Neifi could have asked if he didn’t fel like taking the opinion of Kenny Rogers or Pudge Rodriguez.) said that he could take any kind of speed he wanted to treat his medical condition.
Let’s apply that reasoning in another context, shall we? “You don’t need to take that physician-prescribed Vicodin to manage your pain after that surgery. You can take heroin!” Or “Your doctor said that you should take a topical cortical steroid for that skin inflammation, but they key is “steroid” and you could take dianabol instead.” Or “I know that the police and your pediatrician say that you have to bring home your newborn baby in an approved child seat in a car, but the important thing is the child seat and that you get him home, so you should be able to mount the child’s seat on the back of your motorcycle!”
I just love this so much, I wanna take it behind the middle school and get it pregnant.
As you may know, Neifi Perez recently had his third positive test for banned substances. This test occurred while he was serving his suspension for his second violation. So, like I was saying, he just had his third positive test. For amphetamines. Speed, in other words. As you may know, pro sports, especially baseball and football, have been using speed for decades. Some say it’s been a much bigger problem than steroids. They may be right.
Anyway, Neifi tested positive for speed. Again, his third positive test came while he was serving his suspension for his SECOND positive test. But that’s not why I think this story is so fucking awesome. Neifi noticed he was having some problems concentrating so he saw a sports psychologist. So far so good. His shrink decided that Perez had ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). Still, no problem, it’s a real condition. My kid has ADD which is the same thing but without the hyperactivity. Weirdly, the thing they give you when you have ADD or ADHD is amphetamines. I don't know exactly why it works because I would think that the last thing you need when you have an attention deficit and/or hyperactivity is some kind of stimulant. You’d think they’d prescribe some sort of tranquilizer, right? But no. They prescribe amphetamines and it works. My kid's on them and it has made a huge difference, I don’t give a fuck WHAT Tom Cruise says. There are several different types of amphetamines but one of the most popular is called “Adderall.” It’s a very good drug but, because it is speed, it is possible to abuse it and it is a highly controlled drug. When we get it for our kid, we have to get a written prescription every month. It’s against federal law to accept a phoned-in prescription so you have to physically go to a doctor’s office and get a written prescription and you take that straight to the drug store. And you can only get a one-month supply at a time.
Anyway, am I boring you? Because I haven’t gotten to the awesome part yet.
Neifi takes his Adderall and it works really well for him, or so he says. But then he says that after he has taken it for a month or two, his drugstore refused to fill his prescription anymore. Now, given everything I described about how you have to get a written script, etc., I think that what really happened is that he didn’t see why he should have to get a written script and go through all that hoopla. I doubt that they said “We’re sorry, Mr. Perez, but we refuse to sell you any more Adderall.” So I will give him the benefit of the doubt and just say that he got a little confused about why he was having trouble gtting his meds. I can believe that because I have been through similar issues.
Here’s where it gets awesome: One of Neifi’s teammates tells Neifi “you don’t need Adderall. You can take any kind of amphetamine you want and it will work just as well.” So what does Neifi do? He buys black market speed, in god knows what form, and takes that. And now he is trying to say that he took it under a doctor’s orders and he is going to protest his suspension. Because one of his teammates (I am not aware that there are ANY ballplayers who are also MDs, but I am almost certain that there are no medical doctors on the Detroit Tigers roster. That being said, I do believe that the Tigers have a team physician that Neifi could have asked if he didn’t fel like taking the opinion of Kenny Rogers or Pudge Rodriguez.) said that he could take any kind of speed he wanted to treat his medical condition.
Let’s apply that reasoning in another context, shall we? “You don’t need to take that physician-prescribed Vicodin to manage your pain after that surgery. You can take heroin!” Or “Your doctor said that you should take a topical cortical steroid for that skin inflammation, but they key is “steroid” and you could take dianabol instead.” Or “I know that the police and your pediatrician say that you have to bring home your newborn baby in an approved child seat in a car, but the important thing is the child seat and that you get him home, so you should be able to mount the child’s seat on the back of your motorcycle!”
I just love this so much, I wanna take it behind the middle school and get it pregnant.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Why Can't Republicans Feel Shame?
To all conservatives, Republicans and other defenders of the current administration:
I have a question and it’s a serious one. I honestly want to know how you can continue to defend the antics of the Republican Party.
I am not talking about your beliefs on abortion, Iraq, gun control, the death penalty or any other policy-specific beliefs. For the most part I think I understand your positions on these issues and, while I don’t necessarily agree with you on most of them, I get it. I am pro-choice but my father and stepmother are adamantly anti-abortion. I know I am not going to change their minds and while I suspect that they hope for me to have a change of mind, our disagreement doesn’t stop me from loving them and having a very good relationship. I like to think things could be similar with you and me. While I may disagree with your beliefs, that doesn’t mean I can’t be respectful of you.
But seriously, how the fuck can you continue to defend this administration and the actions of the party to which you belong? You spent eight years bitching and whining about how Bill Clinton was just so evil because he was a philanderer. You supported impeachment of the President because he lied about an affair and you cackled with delight when he had to defend himself against charges that had nothing to do with the prosecution of his duties. But now David Vitter comes out and sets himself up as a holier-than-thou, bible-thumping champion of old fashioned anti-gay family values and you people sit idly by as he outs himself as being involved with at least one, possibly more, prostitution ring. You don’t even demand an explanation and he is only too happy to not provide you one. You defend his conduct with the most hypocritical arguments. Now, I know that he isn’t a part of the administration, but his stance on “family values” is one you agree with and you don’t even bat an eyelash, let alone pick up a telephone to demand his resignation. “But Clinton committed a crime,” you say. “He was a perjurer.” True enough, but do you not think hat Vitter also committed a crime? Where is your moral superiority and outrage now?
You continue to beat the traditional marriage drum, all the while countenancing and supporting the candidacy of serial groom Rudy Giuliani. You bitch and moan about Clinton’s “sham” marriage but you are more than happy to accept a guy who has been through three marriages. And not just ANY guy either: A Roman Catholic. Why aren’t you people ashamed of your party and actually trying to do something to change it?
And your hypocrisy doesn’t stop with “family values.” You argue that our brave troops are fighting “for freedom” but you refused to support Clinton when he was trying to end genocides and oppressive warlord regimes in Africa. You bitch about The Dixie Chicks expressing their own negative opinions about George W. Bush but you are more than happy to have a member of the congressional Republican leadership call Bill Clinton a “scumbag” on the floor of the house.
You stand by while John Kerry’s service in Vietnam is slandered. You buy books from junk-toting stick figure Ann Coulter whom you laugh with when she insults the memory of the dead son of a Senator and you think it’s just the funniest goddamn thing in the world when she calls that same senator a faggot.
You support the impeachment of a President for lying about a consensual affair with another adult woman but you cannot bring yourself to condemn a president who makes assertions of executive privilege that are astonishingly broad, mind-numbingly vague and breathtakingly arrogant. That’s quite a hat trick.
You are adopting a short-sighted scorched Earth policy and you will no doubt do more bitching and complaining if a Democratic president ever dares to make a similar assertion.
You spend the first six years of the Bush presidency whining about how the Democratic Party is the party of obstruction and how their use of the filibuster is antithetical to democracy. You demand up-or-down votes on all the President’s judicial nominees blithely forgetting how many of Bill Clinton’s nominations you scuttled when Clinton was in the White House and you were in the majority. You feel no cognitive dissonance when your own Republicans, now in the minority, filibuster perhaps the most important issue of the last or next ten years.
To borrow a phrase from Jerry Falwell, You caused this to happen. You are to blame. Not for electing the man or the party to office; I will give you the benefit of the doubt in having pure intentions. But you are causing this to happen every day when you fail to engage your own party. You are each and all of you hypocrites. You have no principals and you are godless. You believe only what is convenient and you are not willing to make any sacrifices for the betterment of this country. You have placed your party on a pedestal higher than that of the country you purport to love but seek to destroy. You clearly are beyond shame and any recrimination is wasted on you.
Even though you will not see yourself in this rant, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Spike.
I have a question and it’s a serious one. I honestly want to know how you can continue to defend the antics of the Republican Party.
I am not talking about your beliefs on abortion, Iraq, gun control, the death penalty or any other policy-specific beliefs. For the most part I think I understand your positions on these issues and, while I don’t necessarily agree with you on most of them, I get it. I am pro-choice but my father and stepmother are adamantly anti-abortion. I know I am not going to change their minds and while I suspect that they hope for me to have a change of mind, our disagreement doesn’t stop me from loving them and having a very good relationship. I like to think things could be similar with you and me. While I may disagree with your beliefs, that doesn’t mean I can’t be respectful of you.
But seriously, how the fuck can you continue to defend this administration and the actions of the party to which you belong? You spent eight years bitching and whining about how Bill Clinton was just so evil because he was a philanderer. You supported impeachment of the President because he lied about an affair and you cackled with delight when he had to defend himself against charges that had nothing to do with the prosecution of his duties. But now David Vitter comes out and sets himself up as a holier-than-thou, bible-thumping champion of old fashioned anti-gay family values and you people sit idly by as he outs himself as being involved with at least one, possibly more, prostitution ring. You don’t even demand an explanation and he is only too happy to not provide you one. You defend his conduct with the most hypocritical arguments. Now, I know that he isn’t a part of the administration, but his stance on “family values” is one you agree with and you don’t even bat an eyelash, let alone pick up a telephone to demand his resignation. “But Clinton committed a crime,” you say. “He was a perjurer.” True enough, but do you not think hat Vitter also committed a crime? Where is your moral superiority and outrage now?
You continue to beat the traditional marriage drum, all the while countenancing and supporting the candidacy of serial groom Rudy Giuliani. You bitch and moan about Clinton’s “sham” marriage but you are more than happy to accept a guy who has been through three marriages. And not just ANY guy either: A Roman Catholic. Why aren’t you people ashamed of your party and actually trying to do something to change it?
And your hypocrisy doesn’t stop with “family values.” You argue that our brave troops are fighting “for freedom” but you refused to support Clinton when he was trying to end genocides and oppressive warlord regimes in Africa. You bitch about The Dixie Chicks expressing their own negative opinions about George W. Bush but you are more than happy to have a member of the congressional Republican leadership call Bill Clinton a “scumbag” on the floor of the house.
You stand by while John Kerry’s service in Vietnam is slandered. You buy books from junk-toting stick figure Ann Coulter whom you laugh with when she insults the memory of the dead son of a Senator and you think it’s just the funniest goddamn thing in the world when she calls that same senator a faggot.
You support the impeachment of a President for lying about a consensual affair with another adult woman but you cannot bring yourself to condemn a president who makes assertions of executive privilege that are astonishingly broad, mind-numbingly vague and breathtakingly arrogant. That’s quite a hat trick.
You are adopting a short-sighted scorched Earth policy and you will no doubt do more bitching and complaining if a Democratic president ever dares to make a similar assertion.
You spend the first six years of the Bush presidency whining about how the Democratic Party is the party of obstruction and how their use of the filibuster is antithetical to democracy. You demand up-or-down votes on all the President’s judicial nominees blithely forgetting how many of Bill Clinton’s nominations you scuttled when Clinton was in the White House and you were in the majority. You feel no cognitive dissonance when your own Republicans, now in the minority, filibuster perhaps the most important issue of the last or next ten years.
To borrow a phrase from Jerry Falwell, You caused this to happen. You are to blame. Not for electing the man or the party to office; I will give you the benefit of the doubt in having pure intentions. But you are causing this to happen every day when you fail to engage your own party. You are each and all of you hypocrites. You have no principals and you are godless. You believe only what is convenient and you are not willing to make any sacrifices for the betterment of this country. You have placed your party on a pedestal higher than that of the country you purport to love but seek to destroy. You clearly are beyond shame and any recrimination is wasted on you.
Even though you will not see yourself in this rant, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Spike.
Perhaps the Most Astonishing Abuse of Executive Power and Privilege Ever (Nixon Included)
Oh. My. God.
I apologize for that little cliché. Normally I don’t really care for it when people make a three word sentence into three one-word sentences. But I had to do it. My jaw was on my chest as I said the words and I had to physically lift my jaw, this the periods.
What could have invoked such paroxysms, you might ask? The Bush administration has just said that if Congress cites anyone for contempt of Congress for refusing to testify and the administration has invoked executive privilege, well, then the Justice Department will not be allowed to prosecute those individuals thereby cited. In shot, if Congress cites Harriet Miers or Josh Bolten or, frankly, anyone for contempt, the arm of the federal government charged with law enforcement will not be allowed to actually prosecute the cases. The Bush administration is giving immunity and a pre-prosecution pardon at the same time.
This is truly the administration’s biggest “fuck you” yet to Congress and you and me. If you want to know what really happened with regard to the US Attorney firings and think/hope that Congress might actually force some answers, well, you’re screwed. Congress can’t force people to testify unless it can actually charge them with contempt. The Bush administration cannot really “instruct” people not to testify but it can’t make its feelings known. Given the propensity for this administration to only hire loyalists, it seems pretty obvious what will happen here: The administration will tell people “we don’t want you to testify and we will rig the system to prevent you from being prosecuted if you do what we want you to do.
This is yet another stunning abuse of a President who places himself and his cronies above the rule of law. What do you want to bet that the Republicans in Congress just sit around and let this abuse go on?
What possible checks in the check and balances system our founding fathers devised can remain if the President says that he refuses to answer questions and invokes executive privilege. He refuses to allow anyone else to testify and, just in case someone might be prosecuted for breaking the law, he then enjoins his butt-boy Alberto Gonzales from prosecuting anyone. Even Nixon had people who would resign before stooping to this kind of behavior.
I love America, I really do. But why are people not angrier with this president? Why are people not calling their Congressmen and Senators and telling them to do something, anything, to mitigate the damages this President has created?
People tend to get the government they deserve, I guess, but I can’t for the life of me think of what I did to deserve this.
I apologize for that little cliché. Normally I don’t really care for it when people make a three word sentence into three one-word sentences. But I had to do it. My jaw was on my chest as I said the words and I had to physically lift my jaw, this the periods.
What could have invoked such paroxysms, you might ask? The Bush administration has just said that if Congress cites anyone for contempt of Congress for refusing to testify and the administration has invoked executive privilege, well, then the Justice Department will not be allowed to prosecute those individuals thereby cited. In shot, if Congress cites Harriet Miers or Josh Bolten or, frankly, anyone for contempt, the arm of the federal government charged with law enforcement will not be allowed to actually prosecute the cases. The Bush administration is giving immunity and a pre-prosecution pardon at the same time.
This is truly the administration’s biggest “fuck you” yet to Congress and you and me. If you want to know what really happened with regard to the US Attorney firings and think/hope that Congress might actually force some answers, well, you’re screwed. Congress can’t force people to testify unless it can actually charge them with contempt. The Bush administration cannot really “instruct” people not to testify but it can’t make its feelings known. Given the propensity for this administration to only hire loyalists, it seems pretty obvious what will happen here: The administration will tell people “we don’t want you to testify and we will rig the system to prevent you from being prosecuted if you do what we want you to do.
This is yet another stunning abuse of a President who places himself and his cronies above the rule of law. What do you want to bet that the Republicans in Congress just sit around and let this abuse go on?
What possible checks in the check and balances system our founding fathers devised can remain if the President says that he refuses to answer questions and invokes executive privilege. He refuses to allow anyone else to testify and, just in case someone might be prosecuted for breaking the law, he then enjoins his butt-boy Alberto Gonzales from prosecuting anyone. Even Nixon had people who would resign before stooping to this kind of behavior.
I love America, I really do. But why are people not angrier with this president? Why are people not calling their Congressmen and Senators and telling them to do something, anything, to mitigate the damages this President has created?
People tend to get the government they deserve, I guess, but I can’t for the life of me think of what I did to deserve this.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
A Few Key Phrases Intended to Increase Page Views
I do not have any phtographs of Paris Hilton undergoing her body cavity search when she was going to jail. Do you hear me? No nude photographs and nothing to do with Paris Hilton's possible body cavity search.
I am the father of Nicole Richie's baby. Except that I am not.
Finally, proof of Simon Cowell's sexual orientation! Elsewhere.
Would you like to see free streaming porn at your office and not get caught? So would I.
It could be worse. It could have been your boss that caught you masturbating in the sink in the men's room instead of the janitor. (Borrowed from Brunching Shuttlecocks)
Do you need a spanking you bad little boy? Then you should find somebody who is into that.
What is the most disgusting, filthy sex act you have ever done? Wait. I don't want to know.
I apologize to people who have been hoping for some sort of reasoned critique or intelligent dialogue. (Fans of George W. Bush: I know you weren't looking for any such thing. Youre here for the prison film shot of Paris Hilton that do not exist as far as I know.)
I am the father of Nicole Richie's baby. Except that I am not.
Finally, proof of Simon Cowell's sexual orientation! Elsewhere.
Would you like to see free streaming porn at your office and not get caught? So would I.
It could be worse. It could have been your boss that caught you masturbating in the sink in the men's room instead of the janitor. (Borrowed from Brunching Shuttlecocks)
Do you need a spanking you bad little boy? Then you should find somebody who is into that.
What is the most disgusting, filthy sex act you have ever done? Wait. I don't want to know.
I apologize to people who have been hoping for some sort of reasoned critique or intelligent dialogue. (Fans of George W. Bush: I know you weren't looking for any such thing. Youre here for the prison film shot of Paris Hilton that do not exist as far as I know.)
An Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan
Cindy Sheehan, I love you. I can only imagine the pain of the loss you have suffered in the name of this war started by this false president. While I can only imagine the pain you feel, I have to tell you that I hope that the loss you have suffered might, in some small way, reduce the chances that I will ever feel a similar pain. It may be that the death of your beloved son is one of the things that will help keep my own children safe and out of harm’s way. Maybe if people realize that the death of your son is our collective responsibility as Americans, they will be less likely to send off my own kids to war.
And I am grateful that you gave the anti-war effort something around which it could coalesce. If it hadn’t been for you trying to get an audience with the President to have him explain to you why your loss was necessary, it may well be that the anti-war effort would only now be in its infancy instead of the far more advanced wave it has become. You did the Lord’s work that summer.
And don’t think that I have anything against impeaching George W. Bush. I am truly in favor of drafting articles of impeachment and I will do so now if I am asked.
But Cindy, and I say this with as much love and affection as I can muster for someone I have never met, you have to stop. You have to be quiet. You have to go away. You are on the verge of marginalizing yourself and the sacrifices you have made. You have gone from a poster child for ending this stupid war of terror to giving the appearance of being truly unhinged. Not that anyone would blame you if you did become unhinged but I don’t know if you want to display it quite so publicly.
First you sign off from public life with so many admonitions about America not being the country you wanted it to be. This is after you were seen partying with true America-haters like Hugo Chavez. I get it: You wanted to embarrass the president and you thought that hangin’ with Hugo might do the trick. And I understand wanting to leave public life as you must have been exhausted. I didn’t even mind when you admonished America, and by extension me, my wife and lots of people I care about, for not being what you want us to be.
But after all of that you have decided to threaten Nancy Pelosi with an insurgent (word used intentionally) candidacy. You will run for Nancy Pelosi’s seat in Congress if the Speaker doesn’t introduce articles of impeachment against President Bush within the next two weeks.
Now, I will be the first to admit that this Congress has been something of a disappointment to liberals like me. They haven’t shown nearly enough spine or been willing to go toe-to-toe with this very unpopular president and have been too scared of the White House saying that they don’t support the troops. But do you really think Nancy Pelosi is the ENEMY here?! Really? Why aren’t you running against a Republican? Nancy Pelosi hasn’t done everything correctly and she has been selected to play Den Mother to a fractious Cub Scout troop of congressmen, but I do believe she is doing the best she can. And you are threatening her? If anything, you might be actually HELPING her at this point given how loony you have been acting the past several months. She might use your candidacy to prove that she isn’t the crazy-eyed fire-breathing liberal everyone says.
You candidacy reminds me of Ralph Nader. Think about that. If Ralph Nader hadn’t run for President in 2000, Al Gore almost certainly would have been President. I know that is uncertain, but I believe it as do a lot of people a lot smarter than me. If Nader doesn’t run and Gore is President, we don’t get into this disastrous war. If we don’t get in this war, your son doesn’t get sent to Iraq.
If I sound mean, I apologize. But I am tired of the left eating itself. You are on the left. Way left and on the fringe, but you are on the left, and you are trying to hurt people who are on your side, Cindy. And hurting Nancy Pelosi does not help anyone. Your candidacy has about as much chance of succeeding as did Ralph Nader’s in 2000. And Ralph Nader destroyed his own brilliant legacy because of his pigheadedness and he the fact that he helped get Dubya selected President. Everything is related, Cindy, and while I don’t think that Nader meant for his actions to cause the harm they did, he is also on he hook for this tragedy in Iraq.
What unintended consequences will you create when you run for Congress against Nancy Pelosi? Think about it and then back out of the race. Do it in the memory of your son.
Affectionately,
Spike
And I am grateful that you gave the anti-war effort something around which it could coalesce. If it hadn’t been for you trying to get an audience with the President to have him explain to you why your loss was necessary, it may well be that the anti-war effort would only now be in its infancy instead of the far more advanced wave it has become. You did the Lord’s work that summer.
And don’t think that I have anything against impeaching George W. Bush. I am truly in favor of drafting articles of impeachment and I will do so now if I am asked.
But Cindy, and I say this with as much love and affection as I can muster for someone I have never met, you have to stop. You have to be quiet. You have to go away. You are on the verge of marginalizing yourself and the sacrifices you have made. You have gone from a poster child for ending this stupid war of terror to giving the appearance of being truly unhinged. Not that anyone would blame you if you did become unhinged but I don’t know if you want to display it quite so publicly.
First you sign off from public life with so many admonitions about America not being the country you wanted it to be. This is after you were seen partying with true America-haters like Hugo Chavez. I get it: You wanted to embarrass the president and you thought that hangin’ with Hugo might do the trick. And I understand wanting to leave public life as you must have been exhausted. I didn’t even mind when you admonished America, and by extension me, my wife and lots of people I care about, for not being what you want us to be.
But after all of that you have decided to threaten Nancy Pelosi with an insurgent (word used intentionally) candidacy. You will run for Nancy Pelosi’s seat in Congress if the Speaker doesn’t introduce articles of impeachment against President Bush within the next two weeks.
Now, I will be the first to admit that this Congress has been something of a disappointment to liberals like me. They haven’t shown nearly enough spine or been willing to go toe-to-toe with this very unpopular president and have been too scared of the White House saying that they don’t support the troops. But do you really think Nancy Pelosi is the ENEMY here?! Really? Why aren’t you running against a Republican? Nancy Pelosi hasn’t done everything correctly and she has been selected to play Den Mother to a fractious Cub Scout troop of congressmen, but I do believe she is doing the best she can. And you are threatening her? If anything, you might be actually HELPING her at this point given how loony you have been acting the past several months. She might use your candidacy to prove that she isn’t the crazy-eyed fire-breathing liberal everyone says.
You candidacy reminds me of Ralph Nader. Think about that. If Ralph Nader hadn’t run for President in 2000, Al Gore almost certainly would have been President. I know that is uncertain, but I believe it as do a lot of people a lot smarter than me. If Nader doesn’t run and Gore is President, we don’t get into this disastrous war. If we don’t get in this war, your son doesn’t get sent to Iraq.
If I sound mean, I apologize. But I am tired of the left eating itself. You are on the left. Way left and on the fringe, but you are on the left, and you are trying to hurt people who are on your side, Cindy. And hurting Nancy Pelosi does not help anyone. Your candidacy has about as much chance of succeeding as did Ralph Nader’s in 2000. And Ralph Nader destroyed his own brilliant legacy because of his pigheadedness and he the fact that he helped get Dubya selected President. Everything is related, Cindy, and while I don’t think that Nader meant for his actions to cause the harm they did, he is also on he hook for this tragedy in Iraq.
What unintended consequences will you create when you run for Congress against Nancy Pelosi? Think about it and then back out of the race. Do it in the memory of your son.
Affectionately,
Spike
Friday, July 6, 2007
Does McCain Have Regrets and Does Bill Clinton Also Justify Anything Bush Wants to do Ever?
I am not sure I can think of a significant politician in recent memory who has had a stranger journey than John McCain. It was McCain who was one of the “Keating Five” and despite the fact that McCain was at least tangentially connected to the saving & loan debacle, he worked his way back from that particular ignominy.
With a combination of charisma, war-related heroism and a willingness to not always say what had been focus-grouped within an inch of its life, McCain, despite some pretty conservative positions, actually positioned himself as a Republican that Democrats could get behind if he ever won the presidency. Admittedly, a lot of those Democrats only saw McCain saying he disagreed with President Bush and conveniently forgot all those times McCain supported him. People saw McCain leading the charge for necessary campaign finance reform and they extended that ostensibly liberal position into an assumption that McCain was one of those old-school fiscal conservatives who was more a Libertarian when it came to “social” issues” and would be an acceptable candidate, at least as far as Republican go.
McCain burnished his reputation by being a “maverick” and having his “Straight Talk Express” and pretty much positioning himself as the anti-establishment Republican. He helped for m the Gang of Fourteen to avoid the administration using the “nuclear option” when it came time to confirm the President’s Supreme Court appointees. He did a lot of stuff that gave him some measure of regard and goodwill with independents and some Democrats.
Most importantly, though, he allowed George W. Bush and Karl Rove to put him into a position where he thought he needed to kiss the President’s ass if he wanted to be President. McCain pretty much sold out everything he believed and he kissed the ring of the President because he thought that he needed to shore up the right-wing base having now done so well to make himself palatable with everyone who isn’t a Republican. There is little doubt that McCain could actually win the general election if he gets the nomination.
Unfortunately, there is even less doubt that McCain will never get the nomination. He is so estranged from the hard-right wing, despite the fact that he is pretty damn conservative, that he isn’t getting any money and he isn’t getting any support. Again, he cannot win the Republican Party’s nomination. To his credit, McCain realized what he had to do and he did it. He went to Lynchburg, Virginia and he kissed Jerry Falwell’s now-decaying ass. He has supported the President through this entire disastrous war and he is showing no sign of letting up. He has campaigned for the President. He acted like he was taking the tough position regarding torture of prisoners captured while waging the “War on Terror” but caved at the last minute and enable the President to get everything he wanted.
I wonder if it was worth it? Now that McCain is clearly not a factor for the Presidency, do you suppose he regrets kissing Falwell’s ass? Do you suppose he regrets not hitting Bush in the face for allowing Karl Rove to start an awful whispering campaign against McCain’s daughter in South Carolina? Do you think McCain wishes he had stood on his principles when the issue of torture of detainees came around? Or do you think that McCain instead regrets his attempts at campaign finance reform and would do it differently if given another chance? I would like to know what John McCain regrets doing and I would like to remind him that even though he will never be President, there is plenty of time left for him to do the right thing for the right reasons and that he can still make a difference in the lives of people all around the world.
* * *
Why is Bill Clinton an excuse for George W. Bush to do anything he wants? I am so SICK of people defending the President’s “commutation” of Scooter Libby’s sentence by reminding us that Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich and scores of other people. The fact of the matter is that every President has pardoned people that a segment of the population wishes would get sentenced to a week in the electric chair. We all need to get over it. I was mad about Bush the Elder giving a pass to Cap Weinberger. Some people were mad about Marc Rich. I am FURIOUS about Scooter Libby.
When Clinton pardoned Rich, I had a hard time defending Clinton. I still do. I am a big fan of Bubba Clinton but there is no way to say that it smells good when the President, as one of his final official acts, pardons the wealthy husband of one of his biggest financial backers. It just looks bad.
Why can’t the right wing make that same admission? Why can’t they just admit that Bush effectively pardoning Scooter stinks to high heaven and get on with it? Why do they need to justify it by saying that Clinton did pretty much the same thing? I keep hearing people raise this defense and I keep wondering if their mothers (assuming they all HAVE mothers) ever actually taught them that two wrongs don’t make a right. But the real issue is, now that Dubya has done it and the only defense that you right-wing nutjobs can raise is that Clinton did it too, I want to ask you this: Does this mean that you are OK with what Clinton did in pardoning Marc Rich? The way you keep referring to it as some sort of justification suggests to me that you are now giving your assent to what Clinton did.
So, answer the question: Do you approve of Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich? Yes or no. Because if you do not, then you can’t excuse Bush commuting Scooter’s sentence. And if you are OK with the way Shrub treated Scooter, then you have to give Bubba a pass for his handling of Marc Rich. There is no middle ground here unless you are a hypocrite and if you are admitting to hypocrisy, then I think that tells us a lot about what you truly believe and what you have at your core.
Spike.
With a combination of charisma, war-related heroism and a willingness to not always say what had been focus-grouped within an inch of its life, McCain, despite some pretty conservative positions, actually positioned himself as a Republican that Democrats could get behind if he ever won the presidency. Admittedly, a lot of those Democrats only saw McCain saying he disagreed with President Bush and conveniently forgot all those times McCain supported him. People saw McCain leading the charge for necessary campaign finance reform and they extended that ostensibly liberal position into an assumption that McCain was one of those old-school fiscal conservatives who was more a Libertarian when it came to “social” issues” and would be an acceptable candidate, at least as far as Republican go.
McCain burnished his reputation by being a “maverick” and having his “Straight Talk Express” and pretty much positioning himself as the anti-establishment Republican. He helped for m the Gang of Fourteen to avoid the administration using the “nuclear option” when it came time to confirm the President’s Supreme Court appointees. He did a lot of stuff that gave him some measure of regard and goodwill with independents and some Democrats.
Most importantly, though, he allowed George W. Bush and Karl Rove to put him into a position where he thought he needed to kiss the President’s ass if he wanted to be President. McCain pretty much sold out everything he believed and he kissed the ring of the President because he thought that he needed to shore up the right-wing base having now done so well to make himself palatable with everyone who isn’t a Republican. There is little doubt that McCain could actually win the general election if he gets the nomination.
Unfortunately, there is even less doubt that McCain will never get the nomination. He is so estranged from the hard-right wing, despite the fact that he is pretty damn conservative, that he isn’t getting any money and he isn’t getting any support. Again, he cannot win the Republican Party’s nomination. To his credit, McCain realized what he had to do and he did it. He went to Lynchburg, Virginia and he kissed Jerry Falwell’s now-decaying ass. He has supported the President through this entire disastrous war and he is showing no sign of letting up. He has campaigned for the President. He acted like he was taking the tough position regarding torture of prisoners captured while waging the “War on Terror” but caved at the last minute and enable the President to get everything he wanted.
I wonder if it was worth it? Now that McCain is clearly not a factor for the Presidency, do you suppose he regrets kissing Falwell’s ass? Do you suppose he regrets not hitting Bush in the face for allowing Karl Rove to start an awful whispering campaign against McCain’s daughter in South Carolina? Do you think McCain wishes he had stood on his principles when the issue of torture of detainees came around? Or do you think that McCain instead regrets his attempts at campaign finance reform and would do it differently if given another chance? I would like to know what John McCain regrets doing and I would like to remind him that even though he will never be President, there is plenty of time left for him to do the right thing for the right reasons and that he can still make a difference in the lives of people all around the world.
* * *
Why is Bill Clinton an excuse for George W. Bush to do anything he wants? I am so SICK of people defending the President’s “commutation” of Scooter Libby’s sentence by reminding us that Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich and scores of other people. The fact of the matter is that every President has pardoned people that a segment of the population wishes would get sentenced to a week in the electric chair. We all need to get over it. I was mad about Bush the Elder giving a pass to Cap Weinberger. Some people were mad about Marc Rich. I am FURIOUS about Scooter Libby.
When Clinton pardoned Rich, I had a hard time defending Clinton. I still do. I am a big fan of Bubba Clinton but there is no way to say that it smells good when the President, as one of his final official acts, pardons the wealthy husband of one of his biggest financial backers. It just looks bad.
Why can’t the right wing make that same admission? Why can’t they just admit that Bush effectively pardoning Scooter stinks to high heaven and get on with it? Why do they need to justify it by saying that Clinton did pretty much the same thing? I keep hearing people raise this defense and I keep wondering if their mothers (assuming they all HAVE mothers) ever actually taught them that two wrongs don’t make a right. But the real issue is, now that Dubya has done it and the only defense that you right-wing nutjobs can raise is that Clinton did it too, I want to ask you this: Does this mean that you are OK with what Clinton did in pardoning Marc Rich? The way you keep referring to it as some sort of justification suggests to me that you are now giving your assent to what Clinton did.
So, answer the question: Do you approve of Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich? Yes or no. Because if you do not, then you can’t excuse Bush commuting Scooter’s sentence. And if you are OK with the way Shrub treated Scooter, then you have to give Bubba a pass for his handling of Marc Rich. There is no middle ground here unless you are a hypocrite and if you are admitting to hypocrisy, then I think that tells us a lot about what you truly believe and what you have at your core.
Spike.
Monday, July 2, 2007
The Right-Wing Hypocrisy Machine Spins Away
I love it. L-O-V-E it. I want to marry it. The hypocrisy shown by the right wing has, perhaps, provided the most delicious fruits of its own tree ever.
OK, that was a bad metaphor. But I am just so crazy with the president freeing Scooter libby that I cannot think straight.
When Bill Clinton pardoned about a kajillion people just before he left office, Marc Rich chief among them, Arlen Specter and the idiot wing of the Republican Party started bitching like there was no tomorrow. He whined wnd whinged for weeks about how there needed to be some sort of Congressional oversight whenever the President exercised his power to pardon. Now George W. Bush has gone out and "commuted" the prison sentence of Scooter Libby. the President decided that the sentence was "excessive" and so he is giving Scooter a get out of jail free card.
Where are you now, Arlen? Where is the tough talk about how the Congress should have some kind of review power when the President grants a pardon? I can't hear you, Senator Specter. Is it because Dubya and Vice-President Shooter have you in the back room while The Gimp watches them slap you silly and asking "Whose bitch are you? Are you our bitch? Are you MY bitch, Arlen?!"
And what about you, Mister President? I hope you will forgive all of the people who mistakenly refer to your actions today as a "pardon" and I am sure you will vociferously argue that this wasn't a "pardon" but was the commutation of an excessive jail sentence. But when those people refer to your abominable actions as a "pardon" they aren't mistaken; they are just accurately predicting the future. Anyone who really thinks that Scooter Libby won't end up pardoned by the Current Occupant of the Oval Office is so naive, so obvlivious and so unburdened by reality that all I know is that I want that person to invest in my business venture involving bringing home water from Mars so that we can irrigate the deserts.
Dubya has done something I didn't think was possible: He made me realize that I had some small smidgen of respect for him. I know this because as soon as I heard about the libby sentence commutation, I felt that last gauzy thread of respect disintegrate. I know I had it because I know it's gone.
So, we have a President who has promised stiff consequences for anyone in his administration who is found to have broken a law. We also have someone in his administration who is convicted of multiple felonies. And the "stiff consequences" the President promised? A commutation of the sentence. Wow. All of this from a President who couldn't even commute the sentence of Karla Faye Tucker. 30 months is "excessive" for Scooter Libby but death was too lenient for a woman who made a prison conversion to Christianity?
Disgustedly,
Spike
OK, that was a bad metaphor. But I am just so crazy with the president freeing Scooter libby that I cannot think straight.
When Bill Clinton pardoned about a kajillion people just before he left office, Marc Rich chief among them, Arlen Specter and the idiot wing of the Republican Party started bitching like there was no tomorrow. He whined wnd whinged for weeks about how there needed to be some sort of Congressional oversight whenever the President exercised his power to pardon. Now George W. Bush has gone out and "commuted" the prison sentence of Scooter Libby. the President decided that the sentence was "excessive" and so he is giving Scooter a get out of jail free card.
Where are you now, Arlen? Where is the tough talk about how the Congress should have some kind of review power when the President grants a pardon? I can't hear you, Senator Specter. Is it because Dubya and Vice-President Shooter have you in the back room while The Gimp watches them slap you silly and asking "Whose bitch are you? Are you our bitch? Are you MY bitch, Arlen?!"
And what about you, Mister President? I hope you will forgive all of the people who mistakenly refer to your actions today as a "pardon" and I am sure you will vociferously argue that this wasn't a "pardon" but was the commutation of an excessive jail sentence. But when those people refer to your abominable actions as a "pardon" they aren't mistaken; they are just accurately predicting the future. Anyone who really thinks that Scooter Libby won't end up pardoned by the Current Occupant of the Oval Office is so naive, so obvlivious and so unburdened by reality that all I know is that I want that person to invest in my business venture involving bringing home water from Mars so that we can irrigate the deserts.
Dubya has done something I didn't think was possible: He made me realize that I had some small smidgen of respect for him. I know this because as soon as I heard about the libby sentence commutation, I felt that last gauzy thread of respect disintegrate. I know I had it because I know it's gone.
So, we have a President who has promised stiff consequences for anyone in his administration who is found to have broken a law. We also have someone in his administration who is convicted of multiple felonies. And the "stiff consequences" the President promised? A commutation of the sentence. Wow. All of this from a President who couldn't even commute the sentence of Karla Faye Tucker. 30 months is "excessive" for Scooter Libby but death was too lenient for a woman who made a prison conversion to Christianity?
Disgustedly,
Spike
It's About Time This Idiot Posted Something!
I know, I know. It's been a long time since I started this blog and I have done nothing since then. Well, I am going to do nothing for awhile longer. At least a few hours. Sorry. Life takes precedence and you really don't care that much about my ramblings yet anyway. Maybe you will care someday. I just wanted to put something on "paper" because this tabula rasa thing is killing me.
For now, you can call me Spike. If I start writing lots of stuff that might offend people or get death threats for me or my family, I will probably keep the nom de guerre. If I write about puppies and trips to the beach, I'll let you know who I really am. Since I have no idea what I am going to write about, let's just keep things anonymous for now, eh?
First, a few things:
1) I am a really bad typist. I will do my best to proofread but please forgive my stubby, sausage-like fingers. Do not mistake bad typing for a lack of intelligence or assume that I don't know how to spell.
2) I am profane. I swear, a lot sometimes. If this offends you, you may wish to move along.
3) I am a liberal, trapped in red-state hell. You may wish to move along if this bothers you but you are welcome to stay and to state any agreements or disagreements with me, no matter how vehement.
4) I am a sports fan. Over time, I imagine my favorite teams will give away some personal knowledge of me but for now, I will keep that a secret too. I intend to write about sports, at least a few times here and there.
5) I am not sure how narcissistic I must be to assume that my blog will be of any interest to you, but thank you for catering to my vanity, at least in increasing my page views.
6) I make no promises that this will be a daily blog. Ideally, I will try to post daily, but I know myself well enough to know that this will not happen. I have a family, I take vacations, I am frequently a fundamentally lazy person, so I just don't see a daily entry anywhere in the long-term future. Perhaps if the government incentivizes blogging I could be persuaded, but I don't see that happening.
For now, you can call me Spike. If I start writing lots of stuff that might offend people or get death threats for me or my family, I will probably keep the nom de guerre. If I write about puppies and trips to the beach, I'll let you know who I really am. Since I have no idea what I am going to write about, let's just keep things anonymous for now, eh?
First, a few things:
1) I am a really bad typist. I will do my best to proofread but please forgive my stubby, sausage-like fingers. Do not mistake bad typing for a lack of intelligence or assume that I don't know how to spell.
2) I am profane. I swear, a lot sometimes. If this offends you, you may wish to move along.
3) I am a liberal, trapped in red-state hell. You may wish to move along if this bothers you but you are welcome to stay and to state any agreements or disagreements with me, no matter how vehement.
4) I am a sports fan. Over time, I imagine my favorite teams will give away some personal knowledge of me but for now, I will keep that a secret too. I intend to write about sports, at least a few times here and there.
5) I am not sure how narcissistic I must be to assume that my blog will be of any interest to you, but thank you for catering to my vanity, at least in increasing my page views.
6) I make no promises that this will be a daily blog. Ideally, I will try to post daily, but I know myself well enough to know that this will not happen. I have a family, I take vacations, I am frequently a fundamentally lazy person, so I just don't see a daily entry anywhere in the long-term future. Perhaps if the government incentivizes blogging I could be persuaded, but I don't see that happening.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
