January 13, 2007
Yet More Republican Hypocrisy
God, I love croccodile tears.
For years, Republicans and conservatives have made a perverse art form of not just glorifying, but beatifying "marriage" -- and foisting "be fruitful and multiply" upon the country as a matter of governmental policy. They hike the tax burden on single Americans and then pose sanctimoniously about how they've "eliminated the marriage penalty." Talk to an anti-choice jihadist, and you'll likely get a self-righteous screed about how the fact that they've brought children into the world gives them the right, in their mind, to impose that obligation on everyone else. The entire Republican/conservative mindset is built around disliking single people.
Except, of course, when it's one of theirs. Then, they'll stomp their feet and shake their fists and issue sanctimonious proclamations about the right of single people to live their lives free of the same judgements that conservatives have been passing on other singles for years.
Case in point? Witness the wailing and gnashing of teeth going on over Barbara Boxer's statement about Condi Rice -- namely, that someone who doesn't have children, a la Rice, cannot be personaly impacted by the war that Rice is prosecuting on behalf of Zippy the Wonder Chimp.
“In retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that, that the only question is are you making good decisions because you have kids,” Rice said in an interview Friday on Fox News.
For the record, Rice is right - parenthood does not bestow special or privileged superior judgement, nor in my mind does it convey moral superiority to single people. But her reaction -- and that of all the conservative fist-shakers -- is disingenuous in multiple ways. They know that Boxer's statement wasn't intended to impugn all single people; it was specifically directed at situations of war and those who are directing and perpetuating it.
But moreover, for any Republican or conservative to complain with any kind of indignance about the self-righteousness of those with children toward those without. Republicans and conservatives are the ones who initiated that self-righteousness, perpetuated it, and kept it as a popular meme in American society. If Condi Rice or the editors of the New York Post want to blame or cast sanctimonious aspersion at anyone over the superiority of parental types, they ought only look in the mirror.
Posted by Christopher at 10:32 AM | Comments (0)January 03, 2007
Stupid Conservative Tricks
Two pieces of stupid news today from the land of conservatives.
1. Pat Robertson: Horse's Ass Of The Apocolypse That noted pathological liar and idiot, Pat Robertson, after having said that God sicked Katrina on New Orleans as punishment, calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, and proclaimed Ariel Sharon's stroke to be divine retribution, has now publicly stated that God has told him that there will be a "mass killing" of Americans in 2007... probably nuclear.
"I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network. "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."
Okay, wow... what an out-on-a-limb prediction -- that there will be a mass terorrist attack on the US in the coming year. That's so far beyond the pale of realistic possibility that, if it happens, it just must be proof that God talks to Pat Roberston, right? Wait... or not.
Back about a year ago, the History Channel did a special on Nostradamus. In it, Penn Gillette -- speaking as a skeptic and debunker of Nostradamus and his adherents -- argues that there is no trick to retrofitting vague quatrains to fit events after the fact. "Where were the Nostradamians on September 10?" he asks. "Because if I had a book that told me that September 11 was going to happen, that terrorists were going to attack in planes and thousands were going to die... and I didn't warn anybody, or do anything to try and stop it... I don't think you could find a more textbook definition of evil." The same argument applies here. If God's telling Pat Robertson about an upcoming nuclear terrorist attack, and Robertson doesn't give the authorities the details and attempt to stop it... I don't think you could find a more textbook definition of evil.
2. George W. Bush... Despite his father's cronies on the Iraq Study Group telling him that his botched invasion has failed and that he needs to get out... despite the Secretary of Defense telling Congress point blank that we're losing the war... despite being fully rejected by the people and costing his party control of Congress... Zippy the Wonder Chimp has decided to... wait for it... increase the number of troops in Iraq.
Daddy brought in all his wise men to keep junior from permanently screwing up our nation... and junior's intent on doing it anyway. It just goes to show you: you can lead an ass to water, but you can't make him think.
December 29, 2006
American Justice: A Tale Of Two Cities
In Baghdad, one criminal receives "American" justice, executed tonight as George W. Bush gets his final raspberry toward an old enemy of Washington's.
"Saddam Hussein's trial is a milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law... Today, the victims of this regime have received a measure of the justice which many thought would never come." -- George W. Bush
In Washington DC, another criminal receives American "justice," receiving effusive praise from George W. Bush despite having, through treasonous incompetence, decimated Baghdad.
"I'm pleased to join you as we pay tribute to one of America's most skilled, energetic and dedicated public servants, the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld... Over the past six years, I have come to appreciate Don Rumsfeld's professionalism, his dedication, his strategic vision..." -- George W. Bush
Seems to me like one country prosecutes its war criminals... and another rewards its own.
Posted by Christopher at 10:19 PM | Comments (0)December 14, 2006
Get Well, Senator Johnson
Senator Tim Johnson (D-South Daokta) has apparently suffered a stroke, thus throwing control of the Senate into doubt. South Dakota has a Republican governor who is already issuing statements about how nothing says he has to appoint a replacement from the same party, so if Johnson is incapacitated or dies, Republicans will once again control the Senate.
Get Well Soon, Senator Johnson.
Posted by Christopher at 07:06 AM | Comments (0)December 06, 2006
Next We'll Be Expecting Them To Work, Too
In general, I am far more sympathetic to politicians than the bulk of the American people. I've worked with them, I've called some my friends, and for a while I aspired to be one; I know that while some of them really are the charicatures that the media and demagogues like to turn them into, there are others who are good and decent people who really did get into "the game" out of idealism and a desire to make things better. And I hate when people trot out the same, tired, "politicians are just trying to get elected/re-elected" whine... you know what, kids? We all do and say the things we need to do to keep our jobs. Let's not be so high and mighty about someone who's trying to keep theirs. Despite all the garbage that we've seen in the last two decades, I still am idealistic enough to think that politics and public service are, at their core, noble pursuits... and it's the individuals in the system and not the system itself that is corrupt. Call me idealistic, call me naive, call me foolish... but I do still believe it.
Every once in a while, though, a politician will say something that just causes me to roll my eyes and wonder just how far removed from real people and real lives that it's possible to get. Such a statement has been issued now by my early candidate for the Biggest Horse's Ass in the 110th Congress: Represenative Jack Kingston (R-Ga).
See, the incoming House leadership has determined that in the next Congress, the House is going to take the radical step of actually working 5 days a week. The 109th Congress met for fewer days than any Congress in modern history, and got used to a three day work week (Tues-Thurs) plus months and months of recess. In two years, the 109th Congress worked a grand total of 103 days. And the incoming leadership thinks that maybe Congress would get more done if Congress actually, you know, met. So they've sent notice out to lawmakers that Monday and Friday are Congressional work days from now on, and that members of Congress should expect to work a five day week just like the rest of us.
How did Jack Kingston react? "Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."
So working five days a week "eats away at families," does it, Jack? It makes "marriages suffer?" Well then, I expect to see you storming into Congress on January 3 with a bill that mandates that no American can work a five day week. After all, if marriages are suffering, we have to protect the institution of marriage, don't we? And -- I just thought of something, Jack-Ass... you're making $165,200 a year as a member of Congress. What about all those people who make less than that? What about people who are working five (or six, or even seven) days a week on your pathetically anemic minimum wage that Republiucans have refused to increase for nine years? What do you think working all that time does to their marriages? And you say it's Democrats who "could care less about families?" (Nice grammar, by the way, Jack-Ass. I think you meant to say "couldn't care less.")
And yes, politicians have to travel and spend time in DC away from their families, there's no doubt. But guess what, Jack-Ass? So do millions of Americans, every day, in the private sector. I know this for a fact -- I don't even have a family yet to worry about being away from... but while I'm no one special, even I spent more than 75 days in 2006 -- about 1/5 of the year -- on the road somewhere. And I know plenty of people who travel more often than that and have to be away from home for even longer. So I'm sorry, but your little excuse is kaput, Jack-Ass.
So remember, kids... poor Jack-Ass Kingston of Georgia thinks that a five day work week is damaging to families and marriages. He believes that as a Congressman, he is entitled to a three day work week. Perhaps we should contact ol' Jack-Ass and let him know what we think of that.
Posted by Christopher at 07:48 AM | Comments (5)November 08, 2006
Open Letters
Dear America: Thank you for telling George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Ken Mehlman and especially Karl Rove to fork off. You restored my faith last night.
Dear Virginia: Please do the recount right. Whichever candidate legitimately won your Senate seat, Democrat or Republican, please conduct a fair, impartial, accurate and objective recount; let's not see a repeat of Florida 2000. Don't let brownshirted political operatives show up to start pounding on doors and intimidating anyone; don't let partisan state officials from either party start obviously steering and manipulating the results. I realize that there is a lot of power at stake -- but rather than this making it important for either party to force their person into the Senate, it merely makes it all the more important to get it right. Please... get it right.
Dear South Dakota: Thank you for using the sliver of brain you have not been using for so long.
Dear Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid: Congratulations. Now don't mess it up. See, there is no one on the planet who wants to see George W. Bush and Dick Cheney impeached and tried for their crimes more than me. No one. And part of me really, really wants to see you go after these criminals to the fullest extent of the law -- so that the assault that they have waged on the US Constitution and American values can never, ever happen again.
But you know what? Six years of moronic neoconservative rule have broken our nation and our system almost to the point of being beyond repair. The worst president in US history, combined with extremist Christian lackeys in the Congress, have decimated our nation -- and things need to be fixed. We are still a great country; what is perhaps greatest about us is our ability, shown time and time again in history, to rise and meet towering challenges and conquer them. Today, such a massive challenge faces our nation. Things have been horrendously broken in the past six years. If we allow ourselves to be dragged down by the prosecution of those responsible for what's been done to America, we only delay the recovery and the fixing of the problems. And this time, no delay is acceptable -- we are in a crisis, and if someone doesn't fix things in the next two years, the next president -- of either party -- may be faced with a morass that's too deep to fix. America may want revenge against Bush. But what America needs is leadership.
Learn from Republican mistakes -- and frankly, from your own... the ones that led you to lose the Congress in 1994. You cannot become corrupt; you must not engage in bitter, divisive partisanship; and we cannot afford two more years of 'leading' through demagoguery. You must insist upon squeaky clean behavior from the members of the majority party in Congress; no ethical transgressions can be tolerated, and none can be covered up in hopes of holding power. You must reach across the aisle where possible to lead together; six years of neocon madness in the White House and 12 years of vindictive right wing rule on Capitol Hill have shown the ineffectiveness of the battering ram philosophy of government. As a Democrat, I want the Republicans to suffer every ignominy they forced on us since 1995. As an American, I know that won't do the country any good.
You must find a way to get us out of Iraq without contributing further to the chaos and instability caused by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their despicable lies. No, it won't be easy to figure out how to do that; I don't have the answer, actually. But leadership is by definition not easy. You asked me and us for this mantle; we have now given it to you. Rise to the occasion. Lead. The people of the US and of the world are watching.
Our earth, the one we share with the other peoples of the planet, is in dire straits; global warming is real, and is beginning to have potetnially catastrophic consequences. We need to take action to clean up our home. You must lead in that realm too. The world is watching.
Our great nation has serious economic disparities facing us; we need to you to fix them. We put you in office largely as a rejection of what we had until now, despite the fact that neither of you, Nancy or Harry, put forth much of anything in the way of an alternate policy proposition. You will not deserve to be returned to the leadership if you don't begin to solve the problems we face. "We're not Bush" goes great when campaigning. It is not a path to effective governance. Develop a plan that makes sense and that works, and then execute on it. Lead.
We've turned to you because of just how hideously the current administration and congressional leadership have fouled the nest during their time in power. But this power is on loan, not a permanent gift. If you fail to lead, we will take it back and look elsewhere for leaders. 12 years of demonizing and divisive rule is enough. Lead. Please.
Posted by Christopher at 07:18 AM | Comments (1)November 07, 2006
Election Night Live Blogging
I'm going to be live blogging the election night coverage. You ask me, after being away from DC for a decade, do I miss the game? Oh hell yes.
12:50 am Correction: my sleepy eyes read it wrong; McCaskell not leading in Missouri.
12:43 am Couldn't sleep. Holy schnikies... McCaskell takes the lead in Missouri with 74% of the precincts in? Webb ahead in VA before the recount? Tester kicking the snot out of Burns so far? Were these to hold up... it's 48-49 right now if you count Lieberman as a Dem, 47-50 if you don't. (I don't). If this holds, it'd be 51-49 if you count Lieberman as a D, 50-50 with control to the Rs if he switches like I think he will.
11:52 pm My last post on this tonight. 99% of the votes counted in Virginia... 2.3 million votes cast... the candidates are separated by 2,376 votes. Recount is definitely coming. That's 1/10th of a percentage point, kids. 49.48 percent, to 49.38 percent. Holy cow.
It's a work night and it's midnight. I'm signing off. Good night.
11:30 pm 98% of the VA vote in; about 6,000 votes separate the candidates. Please, please get the recount right and make it fair and accurate.
11:16 pm Holy smack. Virginia has 97% of the vote in, more than 2.2 million votes cast, and it's separated by 12,000 votes. That's les than half of a percent.
Meanwhile, Curt Weldon has lost in Pennsylvania to Joe Stesak. And wow -- looks like John Hall might have knocked off Sue Kelly in my home county - Westchester County. SWEET - John Sweeney lost in upstate NY to Kirsten Gillibrand. MSNBC now projects 234-201 for the Dems in the House.
11:09 pm The Senate will not go to the Dems (which sucks, because that means the Evildoers still get to oversee Supreme Court justices, stacking the court with reactionary activists). Missouri is trending toward Talent, and it appears that it's a legit result (at least so far). Tennessee will go to Corker. And Virginia has Allen up by a little more than half a percent. Even if Tester holds on in Montana, it's not going to be enough -- it will be a 51-49 Senate, I think.
11:05 pm Jon Kyl is going to hold on in Arizona. Not a surprise. That makes it either 47-45 or 48-44, depending on how you see Lieberman.
10:57 pm MSNBC just projected the House will end up 231 Dems, 204 Rs. That's +29 for the Dems... which I think you'll see from last night's post, a certain Curmudgeon predicted. To the number.
10:51 pm Clay Shaw lost in Florida, Space beat Padgett in Ohio, and Heath Shuler knocked off Charles Taylor in North Carolina. That's three more for the good guys in the House. I think they're up what, six now so far? Senate looks 46-45 if you count Lieberman as a Dem, 47-44 if you count him as an R.
10:31 pm Wow. Early results have Pederson over Kyl in Arizona. That would be absolutely huge if it held up.
10:22 pm 90% of the vote in, more than 2,000,000 votes cast, and the Virginia race is still separated by 30,000 votes. Looks like we're headed to recount-land. Come on, Virginia -- get this right. If Allen holds on and wins in the count (I can't say fairly" given the dirty tricks his campaign engaged in that's got them being investigated by the FBI), so be it -- but do the recount efficiently, accurately, and objectively... let's not see a repeat of 2000 in Florida. Do it right. Please.
10:08 pm Watching the conservative media spin the results so far is making me ill. On every network, I am watching them puppet the line: the Democrats are winning by having candidates who act like Republicans. No mention of the fact that this election is a huge repudiation and rejection of George W. Bush, his divisive, rudderless policies... if you listen to the talking heads, they're all parroting the conservative line -- you would barely know that Bush is president. Make no mistake, you forking chuckleheads: this election wasn't about Democrats skewing rightward; it was and is a rejection of the piece of garbage you have in the White House, and the moronic policies that he's enacted.
The conservative media is striking again.
10:00 pm Proving that the people of Connecticut haven't lost all their senses, Murphy knocks off Johnson -- another pickup in the House.
9:32 pm This one surprises me: CNN is now projecting that Whitehouse has beaten Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island. I'm sorry to see this, actually -- a moderate voice gone from the Republican party. (Of course they'd say the same about Lieberman.) Anyway, that would be a third pickup in the Senate for the Dems. Also, in the House, Donnelly wins in Indiana -- the third big pickup for the Dems in the House.
Dick Armey was just on MSNBC and looks like he just swallowed a strychnine-laced hornet. His opening line? "It's a pretty grim night." Ha!
9:23 pm CNN and MSNBC projecting that Cardin holds the Democratic Senate seat in Maryland. And YES!!! Yarmuth picks off Northrup in Kentucky, according to CNN. BIG. Senate looks like 44-42-2 according to CNN.
9:15 pm It looks like Jackass Lieberman seems to have returned to the Senate despite being unwilling to respect the will of the people. Memo to Lieberman: You are a piece of garbage and refuse, and I urge you to officially switch to the Republican Party where you've been voting all this time anyway. I don't want you in my party. Even if it costs us the Senate, I don't want you. You're scum and there's no room for you in my party. I can handle differences of opinion. I can't abide quislings.
9:02 pm Okay, the 9:00 pm poll closings are in, and now CNN has the balance at 44-41 R to D so far... MSNBC has it 45 to 41 to 1 independent. So far they're all projecting that basically all the expected holds have held. Klobuchar won in Minnesota, which is cool for my old home state. In VA, with 66% in, 6,000 votes separate Allen over Webb. That one's going to come down to late night counting. Oh - and Michigan's governor (and MILF) Debbie Granholm has been re-elected. Arizona governor Janet Napolitano appears to have held on to her seat as well. It's also fun to see Katherine Harris -- the harpie from hell who delivered the illegal win in Florida to the Bush family in 2000 -- getting her ass handed to her by more than 20 points.
8:57 pm Joe Scarborough is defending himself from Chris Matthews and Howard Dean on MSNBC right now -- and I have to say, I agree with him. I don't agree with his politics, but I do think he's one of the few out there anymore who actually tries to do an objective, down-the-middle assessment of what's happening. He's better than Matthews and Dean give him credit to be, and he deserved better tonight.
8:43 pm Looks like Webb is down 11,000 votes in Virginia with 56% of the vote in so far. Given the despicable tactics we saw there from Republicans trying to supress the vote through intimidation, this may not be a surprise.
8:36 pm NBC is projecting both a Democratic win in Pennsylvania (Casey over idiot Santorum), and in New Jersey (Menendez over Kean), which means another pickup -- Ohio and Pennsylvania. +2 in the Senate. In Virginia, 50% of the vote is in and it's still neck and neck and goosing each other. I'd argue that Hostetler losing in southern Indiana, Northrup being close in KY, and Heath Shuler in striking distance of Charles Taylor in North Carolina could mean a bigger turnover in the House than I'd thought. Still, it's early and I don't trust exit polls or fair vote counting, so let's not count anything yet.
8:17 pm Turnout is reported high all across the country -- especially in key states like Virginia and Ohio. Connecticut too. This bodes very well for the Democrats this year. High turnout means that lots of voters who want change -- in any year -- are highly motivated and are showing up in droves. In past years, like 1994, that worked against the Democrats. Tonight, however, it means that the change voters -- people sick of George W. Bush, his lies, his administration's incompetence, divisiveness and deceit -- are showing up in droves. It bodes very poorly for Republicans if the elections are fair. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove may well be repudiated and rejected tonight.
So far, Democrats picked up the governor's mansion in Ohio, along with electing Senator Sherrod Brown. It appears that Democrats may have picked up a key House seat -- Anne Northrup, Kentucky Republican, seems headed to a defeat. If a strong Republican in a strongly Republican district in a heavily red state has lost, then it's going to be a very long night for the bad guys. Also, Bush's spokesperson has announced that he is going to bed early tonight and will make no statements. Bad sign for the Rs.
Oh - and if the allegations in New Jersey prove true -- if there were voting machines pre-loaded with Democratic votes -- then those responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and then up to 11. We're better than that; we're not Republicans -- we win fairly. If someone pulled that stunt, they should be in jail. End of story.
Posted by Christopher at 08:18 PM | Comments (0)Caught 'Em
The SOB's were so blatant (or so desperate), they got caught this time.
Richmond, VA -- Jean Jensen, Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections, confirms that the FBI is now looking into possible voter intimidation in the US Senate race between Republican incumbent George Allen and Democrat Jim Webb. Jensen says state officials alerted the Justice Department yesterday to several complaints of suspicious phone calls to voters that attempted to misdirect or confuse them about election day. She adds she has now been contacted by FBI agents. The FBI in Richmond refuses to comment.
In a written statement issued by the Webb campaign, state Democratic party counsel Jay Myerson says he believes that Republicans are behind an orchestrated effort to suppress votes for Webb. Republican officials, including the executive director of the Virginia Republican party, say the GOP and the Allen campaign are focused on mobilizing voters and have not discouraged anyone from voting.
Posted by Christopher at 09:38 AM | Comments (0)Vote
Today is Election Day. We are Americans. Please vote.
By now, you know who I hope you vote for -- or more importantly what I hope you vote against. And I don't shy from my convictions, not in this post, not today, not ever. But this post is about simply encouraging you to make use of your rights as an American citizen and casting your ballot.
Sure, the system is not perfect. We're often given an unenviable choice between two poor candidates, and the strangehold that the two major parties have on the system is unfortunate to say the least. Money has corrupted the process in the best analysis, and others might argue that the votes aren't being counted properly or fairly, and that many who should be allowed to vote are not being allowed. Criticisms are accurate and fair. And you should vote anyway.
In our lifetimes we have witnessed other nations throwing off the shackles of oppression and tyranny and being able to exercise their right to vote. We have seen lines of people waiting to vote stretching for miles in South Africa; joyful participation in the voting process in the nations of the former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe. The United States likes to believe ourselves as the pre-eminent democracy in the world... but the hallmark of democracy is that the people get to choose their leadership -- and in too many elections, not even half the people of our democracy choose to do so. That is a shame.
Vote Democratic. Or vote Republican if you really feel you must. Just vote. You're an American, and it does matter.
Posted by Christopher at 07:23 AM | Comments (6)November 06, 2006
Predictions As If The Elections Were Legitimate
In a way, it's foolhardy to even do a predictions post; I honestly, truly, as sure as I am sitting here typing believe that the Republican Party and conservative elements control the voting machines in this country, are engaging in purges of voter rolls, and will engage in their usual dirty tricks in order to prevent a free election. I honestly believe that the people of Saddam's Iraq or Brezhnev's Soviet Union had better odds of an honest, free and fair election than do the citizens of the United States of America under George W. Bush. The Republicans have it rigged, and where they can't rig it they will pull their usual stunts like they've already been caught doing in New Hampshire and Virginia to try and defraud the populace out of voting.
When it's over tomorrow and the Republicans have stolen another one, we'll be treated by the subservient conservative media to more stories about how Karl Rove is a genius and how the polls read everybody wrong... and that this election was another mandate for Bush. Mark my words. But, it's a fun little parlor game to pretend the elections are real and to predict who would win if a real election were happening. So, let's engage in that parlor game, shall we? (I'm only going to predict the "key" races.)
Senate: In Connecticut, Joe Lieberman has proven that he has no respect for either democracy or the will of the people. Despite this, the Nutmeggers will inexplicably return him to the Senate -- where he will defect to the Republicans to officially sit where he's belonged all the while anyway... making the man who doesn't respect the will of the people into the most powerful man in the Senate.
In Maryland, Ben Cardin has run one of the most lackluster campaigns ever... but it's a blue state and he'll hold off Michael Steele. In Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum goes down to the most welcome defeat since Nicolae Ceaucescu was toppled in Romania. Casey's not much better, but at least Santorum's out of there. In New Jersey, Bob Menendez will hold on; NJ is a blue state and the tradition will carry him over. In Rhode Island, Chafee will edge out Whitehouse after a late surge. In Ohio, Brown sends DeWine packing.
In Tennessee, the Republican's shameful race-baiting ads have worked; Corker will beat Ford. Tennesseeans should be ashamed of themselves for allowing that ad to work. In Virginia, Allen will be hurt by revelations of what the Republicans are doing in the state to supress the vote, and it's going to be enough to deliver Webb the upset. In Missouri, Claire McCaskill holds off Jim Talent in the closest election of the night. In Montana, Tester beats Burns. In Arizona, Kyl beats Pederson.
To sum up: the current balance is 55-45 Republicans. Were the elections fair and honest tomorrow, the Democrats would gain seats in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Montana and Missouri; they'll hold seats in New Jersey, Florida, Minnesota, Maryland, and everywhere else they had one. They'll theoretically hold Connecticut, but Joe Lieberman will switch sides officially after the election. The Republicans will hold Tennessee, Rhode Island, and Arizona, plus everywhere else. So... I have that as a five seat gain for the Democrats -- which would tie things at 50-50 -- until Lieberman jumps ship to deliver the Senate back to the Sith Lords. OFFICIAL COUNT WHEN ALL IS SAID & DONE: 51 R votes, 49 D.
The House: Democrats will pick up 29 seats. The current balance is 232 R, 203 D. When it's over, it will be the mirror of that: 232 D, 203 R. The long national nightmare that is a Republican House is over; the long national nightmare of Speaker Pelosi begins, thus ensuring that whatever good might have come from a Democratic victory will quickly be peed away by a directionless "leader" who doesn't seem to stand for anything.
Them's my predictions, kids.
Posted by Christopher at 10:01 PM | Comments (0)Republicans At Work: Dirty Tricks To Steal The Election Post #1
Because honest, free and fair elections that reflect the will of the people are such a threat to the Republican Party and its extremist agenda... here's the first of what I am sure will be many reports on Republican vote fraud and dirty tricks in the 2006 elections.
In New Hampshire, the Republican Party is engaging in "robocalling" to people who have signed up for the do-not-call list -- more than 200,000 calls in all were made. The New Hampshire Attorney General determined that the calls were illegal... and instructed the Republicans to stop doing it. Their response? We're not stopping, and you can't make us. They told the Attorney General they would stop -- and then turned right around and started them up again.
"We have not agreed to stop the calls," said Alex Burgos, a spokesman for the NRCC. "Our calls will continue independently of the Charlie Bass campaign and in compliance with all applicable laws.
In Virginia, a more sinister type of Republican fraud is underway. Courtesy of Daily Kos... here's one of the phone calls being made to voters in Virginia by Republicans tonight.
"This message is for Timothy Daly. This is the Virginia Elections Commission. We've determined you are registered in New York to vote. Therefore, you will not be allowed to cast your vote on Tuesday. If you do show up, you will be charged criminally."
Daly has been registered to vote in Virginia since 1998, and he has voted for the last several cycles with no problem. He has filed a criminal complaint with the Commonwealth's attorney in Arlington.
They're shamless, vile, disgusting people -- but this is the only way conservatives can hold on to power: by lying, misleading, and out and out threatening people with criminal charges. There's more.
a. Norman Cox has been registered to vote in the same location in Arlington since 1972. Someone from a 406 number (in Montana) called to tell him that his polling place has changed. [Note: The Webb Campaign is NOT making any such phone calls.] Cox said he believed that he was being mislead and the caller hung up.
b. Peter Baumann in Cape Charles, VA (North Hampton) got a similar call from a "Webb volunteer" saying his polling location had changed. He said: No, I'm a poll worker and I know where I vote. The girl--who was calling from California--hung up.
The Secretary of the State Board of Elections Jean Jensen has logged dozens of similar calls, finding heavy trends in Accomack County (middle peninsula) and Essex County (outer peninsula) [as reported by the counties' registrars].
This is how Republicans "win" elections, kids -- via fraud. It's happening all over the country, and it will happen again tomorrow. I urge you, if you are an American, if you value democracy and freedom... don't just vote tomorrow, show up with a video camera and document everything that happens while you vote, and stay around to monitor the rest of the day. They're going to try and steal another one from us, like they did in 2000 and 2004. Don't let them.
Posted by Christopher at 09:32 PM | Comments (0)November 04, 2006
Things They Want You To Forget
We all vote on Tuesday. With acknowledgement to Eight And Five, here are a few things the Republicans hope you forget before then.
-- Republicans want you to forget that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- despite George W. Bush's having assured us that there were in his State of the Union address in January 2003.
-- Republicans want you to forget that while the Republican Policy Committee was opposed to the deployment of U.S. Soldiers to Bosnia under President Clinton,they’ll brand you a terrorist if you oppose Bush’s war in Iraq.
-- Republicans want you to forget that under George W. Bush in the United States of America, people are being arrested for simply wearing a t-shirt opposing the current regime.
-- Republicans want you to forget there was no yellow cake uranium -- the documents Bush based his case for war on were forgeries.
-- Republicans want you to forget that before attacking Afghanistan to search for Osama Bin Laden and fight the terrorists, Bush first decided we need to attack Iraq – where there were no terrorists…until he attacked and occupied Iraq, creating what his own government now admits is a hotbed for them.
-- Republicans want you to forget that while they claim themselves to be the only party that can protect you, the "Axis of Evil" that Bush himself proclaimed five years ago has only gotten stronger while Bush has been quagmired in Iraq; North Korea now has nuclear weapons, and Iran is defiantly on their way to getting them.
-- Republicans want you to forget that when the Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki suggested that “several hundred thousand troops”would be needed to stabilize and occupy a country the size of Iraq, President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld both derided the Army Chief of Staff. His reward for his honesty? They undercut him by prematurely leaking the name of his successor, effectively rendering him a lame duck.
-- Republicans want you to forget that neoconservatives had a plan to attack Iraq drawn up long before 9/11.
-- Republicans want you to forget that this administration has dragged America's reputation and American prestige so deeply into the mud that even America's closest allies now believe that George W. Bush is just as dangerous to world peace and stability as Osama bin Laden, and are more concerned about George W. Bush than Kim Jong-Il.
-- Republicans want you to forget that this president and his adminstration were incapable of protecting American citizens in New Orleans from standing water, as Keith Olbermann famously put it. They want you to forget that the Bush government left people to die for days -- abandoning them to their rooftops and the Superdome, failing to get the right help to them, telling ol' Brownie he was doing a "heckuva job" while people were dying, managing to get reconstruction contracts to Republican companies first, and giving the world scenes that made the United States of America look like the Third Wold, unable to help its own people.
-- Republicans want you to forget that they inherited the biggest surplus in the history of the United States when they assumed control of all three branches of the United States government in 2000 when they took power, and turned it into the largest deficit in the history of the United States -- but they want you to believe that liberals are fiscally irresponsible.
-- Republicans want you to forget that fuel costs have nearly doubled since they seized control in 2000, but your income has not.
-- Republicans want you to forget that even though you are not making record profits, oil companies are. And so is Dick Cheney's Halliburton, driven by its work in Iraq (work it was given through no-bid contracts).
-- Republicans want you to forget that if major companies can’t pay their bills, they can declare bankruptcy and get out of their debts by "reorganizing," but you have to pay all of your debts even if you declare bankruptcy.
-- Republicans want you to forget that while the Republican Congress has not voted for an increase in the minimum wage since 1997, they have given themselves nine pay raises since then, for a total of $28,000 -- more than twice the yearly income of someone working 40 hours a week on the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. This is despite the call by 650 economists, including five Nobel Prize winners, to increase the minimum wage because the previous increase has been completely eroded.
-- Republicans want you to forget that conservatives don’t want Social Security to exist; instead, they want to "privatize" it so that you get only whatever money you have managed to save when you retire. Of course, if you're working for minimum wage in Republican America, you're likely not saving much of anything. But they don't mind so much; rich Republican CEOs (who now make, on average, 431 times what the average worker makes) will be able to retire on millions more their way.
-- Republicans want you to forget that, while they claim to be the party that wants government out of your life and out of your business, they have:
1) Tried to enact federal legislation to force Terri Schiavo, who was proven to be brain-dead, to retain her feeding tube -- even "diagnosing" her as alert and aware from their congressional offices 1000 miles away without ever actually examining her.
2) Signed orders allowing for the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens' phone lines by the federal government.
3) Dragged the United States of America to the bottom of international privacy rights rankings.
4. Stacked the Supreme Court with "justices" who believe that it is the federal government's role to tell you that you should have a baby.
-- Republicans want you to forget that they have been systematically involved in ethics controversy... after ethics controversy... after ethics controversy... after ethics controversy... after ethics controversy...
Republicans want you to forget that George W. Bus has been the single worst president in the 230+ year history of the United States of America. Republicans want you to forget that the Republican Congress has mismanaged the country's affairs and become so corrupt that a new ethics scandal seems to break every week. They probably want you to forget to vote on Tuesday too.
Posted by Christopher at 10:25 AM | Comments (5)November 01, 2006
What He Said
It's unfortunate that the Propaganda Ministry is once again trying to distract people from their utter failings with a false uproar and croccodile tears. Not surprising -- nothing the conservative machine does, no matter how low it stoops, would ever surprise me -- just unfortunate.
While I'll concede that John Kerry botched up a joke in an unfortunate way, anyone who's ever written a speech for another person knows that it never comes out as it is written on the page. And for a bunch of gutless pieces of garbage who dodged service altogether (are you listening, Dick Cheney?) or went AWOL during it (Shrub) to try and suggest that a decorated Vietnam veteran intended to disparage the troops just shows how pathetic and desperate they are.
In the aftermath, Kerry showed some fire -- and said something I have been waiting years for a national Democrat to say. Finally, someone stood up to the Propaganda Ministry.
“I’m sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans who will not debate real policy, who won’t take responsibility for their own mistakes, standing up and trying to make other people the butt of those mistakes,” he said. “It disgusts me that a bunch of these Republican hacks who’ve never worn the uniform of our country are willing to lie about those who did.”
About. Damn. Time.
Oh, and by the way... isn't Tony Snow supposed to be a press secretary, and not a partisan hack? Recall the jobs done by some of the best press secertaries of the past: Michael McCurry, Marlin Fitzwater, even Ari Fleischer. They informed the American people. And while there was always an element of "defense of/pro-President" in their briefings, I don't recall any of them engaging in direct partisan attacks from their podium the way Tony Goebbels -- I mean Tony Snow -- did yesterday. Unless the RNC has now chosen to start paying Snow's salary, he's being funded at taxpayer expense. This administration is using taxpayer money to fund partisan attacks and Republican campaigning. Snow should immediately be forced to resign, and Congress should (they won't, though) hold hearings into the misuse of taxpayer funds by this Administration for political purposes.
Posted by Christopher at 06:30 AM | Comments (2)October 31, 2006
Words Worth Remembering
My cousin Jose requested this quote a few days ago... rather than send it to him privately, I thought these words important enough a reminder to us all about what's at stake in this election that I thought I'd respond publicly in a separate post. Cuzin Jose, here's your requested quote from famed Nazi Hermann Goering.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
Remind you of anyone, kids? (To conservatives reading this who want to get all up in arms because of the Nazi comparison, don't get pissed at me; it's not my fault your leaders behave in ways that invite direct parallels to the greatest criminals of the 20th century.)
The longer part of the story is discussed here and excerpted below.
Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Posted by Christopher at 11:24 PM | Comments (1)October 30, 2006
What To Expect
So the conservative corporate media machine has begun dutifully positioning the upcoming elections as the arbiter of Karl Rove's legacy. In the article, the reporter asks a chilling but "duh!" question whose answer is obvious to anyone who's been paying attention since 2000.
There are two questions. Is Rove just acting cocky as a way of lifting GOP morale, or does he really believe it? And, if the latter, is he deluding himself, or does once again he know something that Democrats do not?
The duh! part is simple: Of course he knows something he thinks the rest of us do not. He knows that the Republican/conservative machine still controls the voting apparatus in this country.
Rove and the Republicans got away with massive vote fraud in 2000 (Florida). And in 2004 (Ohio). There wasn't a single consequence, not one person was made to pay for the crimes against democracy committed in order to keep conservatives in power. So why should Rove believe that he can't get away with it again? Exit polls in 2004 showed much the same as what the polls are saying today... and yet we got "treated" to a whole month of articles about "why the exit polls were wrong" the last time. Expect more. Because it's highly unlikely that Rove's going to go down without a fight.
Posted by Christopher at 06:23 AM | Comments (4)October 27, 2006
Desperate HouseRepublicans
If you have the stomach for it, if you think you can read about the most disgusting human beings on the planet, check out this Washington Post article on the despicable, cowardly and disgusting tactics and dirty tricks being used by the Republican Party in a desperate attempt to retain their choke-hold on power.
Rep. Ron Kind pays for sex! Well, that's what the Republican challenger for his Wisconsin congressional seat, Paul R. Nelson, claims in new ads, the ones with "XXX" stamped across Kind's face. It turns out that Kind -- along with more than 200 of his fellow hedonists in the House -- opposed an unsuccessful effort to stop the National Institutes of Health from pursuing peer-reviewed sex studies. According to Nelson's ads, the Democrat also wants to "let illegal aliens burn the American flag" and "allow convicted child molesters to enter this country."
To Nelson, that doesn't even qualify as negative campaigning. "Negative campaigning is vicious personal attacks," he said in an interview. "This isn't personal at all."
That's not the only shameful Republican distortion.
In New York, the NRCC ran an ad accusing Democratic House candidate Michael A. Arcuri, a district attorney, of using taxpayer dollars for phone sex. "Hi, sexy," a dancing woman purrs. "You've reached the live, one-on-one fantasy line." It turns out that one of Arcuri's aides had tried to call the state Division of Criminal Justice, which had a number that was almost identical to that of a p0rn line. The misdial cost taxpayers $1.25.
In Ohio, GOP gubernatorial candidate J. Kenneth Blackwell, trailing by more than 20 points in polls, has accused front-running Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland of protecting a former aide who was convicted in 1994 on a misdemeanor indecency charge. Blackwell's campaign is also warning voters through suggestive "push polls" that Strickland failed to support a resolution condemning sex between adults and children. Strickland, a psychiatrist, objected to a line suggesting that sexually abused children cannot have healthy relationships when they grow up.
The Republican Party of Wisconsin distributed a mailing linking Democratic House candidate Steve Kagen to a convicted serial killer and child rapist. The supposed connection: The "bloodthirsty" attorney for the killer had also done legal work for Kagen.
In two dozen congressional districts, a political action committee supported by a white Indianapolis businessman, J. Patrick Rooney, is running ads saying Democrats want to abort black babies. A voice says, "If you make a little mistake with one of your hos, you'll want to dispose of that problem tout de suite, no questions asked."
The current set of people in charge of the Republican Party are truly the most vile human beings ever produced by our country (and we've seen Joseph McCarthy, Charles Coughlin, and Bull Connor, just to name a few). This is all happening while Ken Mehlman is in charge of the RNC... this is the kind of person Mehlman is.
I cannot believe that they are relfective of Republicans and conservatives in this country. Or maybe I just don't want to believe it. Because that would mean that many of our fellow Americans would endorse this kind of sludge, this kind of distortion and outright lying, this kind of sleaze -- and I want to believe that most of us are better than that.
But if you are a conservative or a Republican, and you've not defected from that party, not chosen to either vote for change or not vote at all this year, then you are endorsing this gutless, cowardly distortion. A vote for a single Republican anywhere in America is an endorsement and an embrace of everything that the Ken Mehlman/Dick Cheney/Karl Rove party stands for. You have a choice to make, conservatives.
Posted by Christopher at 07:12 AM | Comments (1)October 26, 2006
Pot, Meet Kettle
After having been roundly condemned for having accused Michael J. Fox of faking his Parkinson's disease, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative attack dog cowards changed their tune. (Limbaugh didn't apologize, by the way, no matter what the conservative media tell you. The media has been dutifully toeing the conservative line over the incident, carrying the message of Limbaugh's alleged contrition when no such act occurred.) After the public reacted with revulsion to the viciousness of the gutless conservative attack on Fox, Limbaugh shifted and accused Fox of "allowing his illness to be exploited."
First of all, this is such an asinine failure of logic that it barely bears repeating; I'm only reporting it here for the sake of making a point. Let's assume that we live in enough of a la-la world that this inspid argument were accurate. The question we'd then have is, what's worse -- allowing one's illness to be exploited in hopes of electing politicians who will actually workfor cures instead of imposing religious dogma? Or everything else the increasingly desperate Republican/conservative regime is doing in a fanatic attempt to maintain their vise-grip on power?
-- Blatant and repeated race-baiting in the Tennessee Senate contest. No, I'm not just talking about the vulgar "Playb0y" ad in which the Republicans try to play to southereners' traditional "fears" of black men "threatening" the "innocence" of white women. (Remember, RNC head Ken Mehlman defended the ad -- even though the ad's been pulled after public revulsion, Mehlman defended it. He said that having a blonde white woman wink at the camera and telling a black congressman to "call me" wasn't race baiting. Uh huh. And pro wrestling's real.) Conservatives were forced to pull the ad after the public rejected it, it was not the first time the conservative machine has deliberately and blatantly used race in Tennessee.
In the first 24 seconds, the one-minute ad attacking Ford and his father, and paid for by Tennesseans for Truth, uses the word "black" six times and accuses Ford of favoring African-American issues above others. "His daddy handed him his seat in Congress and his seat in the Congressional Black Caucus, an all-black group of congressmen who represent the interests of black people above all others," the narrator says... While the ad was not sanctioned by the Republican Party, it came on the heels of two that were: an RNC television commercial that concludes with a backlit figure of Ford striding into a dark hallway and towards the screen in a manner reminiscent of Willie Horton, and a fund-raising mailer designed by the state Republican Party bearing black-and-white photos of Ford that make him look much darker-skinned than he is and uses phrases including "purports," "pretends," and "passes himself off as" — all terms once used for light-skinned blacks who pretended to be white.
This is the kind of people conservatives are, kids. This is what they stand for: they'll be as divisive as possible and tear our country apart if they have to, just as long as they stay in power. Of course, it's not the only example of conservatives using divisive tactics in campaign ads:
-- In Indiana, Christian Republican John Hostettler is running ads saying that a vote for his opponent will make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker -- and that Pelosi's aim is to push "the homosexual agenda" through Congress. The fact that Hostettler's opponent reflects the socially conservative views of his southern Indiana district doesn't ever seem to enter into Hostettler's ads. It's those darn gays again, Indiana!
-- In Tennessee, after being forced to pull the infamous "Playb0y" ad, the RNC is now running new ads in its place... "In its place is a new spot called “Shaky,” which started airing Sunday in Knoxville but has expanded statewide. It alleges that Ford “took cash from Hollywood's top X-rated p0rn moguls” and that he “wants to give the abortion pill to our schoolchildren.” Wants to give the abortion pill to our schoolchildren? Why not just accuse him of eating babies and performing Black Masses on the Capitol lawn? Disgusting.
-- Of course, we've all grown used to the pathetic and tired "we're better on terrorism, the Democrats will weaken our country" crap we've been hearing from the despicable right wing since September 12, 2001. The thing is... in its zeal to mimic the interrogative tactics of the despotic dictatorships that apparently inspire them (hell, they took power by mimicking dictatorships, so why not exercise power that way?), the Bush Administration has pretty much guaranteed that the 20th hijacker will never be able to stand trial -- all of the evidence against him will be thrown out as having been obtained illegally.
So... the Bush Adminstration has allowed the other "Axis of Evil" countries to obtain nuclear weapons and mock the world community; it has engaged in an ill-advised invasion that was based on deliberate lies and manipulation of intelligence and has now turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists and al Qaeda's home base; and it has utterly botched prosecuting an al Qaeda member who actually was plotting to attack the United States -- he will never be prosecuted for his intended crimes. And yet these chuckleheads want you to believe that they're best equipped to protect America?
The conservative Republican machine, ladies and gentlemen. They'll be here all week; try the veal. What's that you say? They aren't funny?
You're right.
Posted by Christopher at 07:36 AM | Comments (3)October 25, 2006
No Shame
Want to know what kind of people conservatives are? Here's all you need to know.
Possibly worse than making fun of someone's disability is saying that it's imaginary. That is not to mock someone's body, but to challenge a person's guts, integrity, sanity.
To Rush Limbaugh on Monday, Michael J. Fox looked like a faker. The actor, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, has done a series of political ads supporting candidates who favor stem cell research, including Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, who is running against Republican Michael Steele for the Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes.
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."
Given Limbaugh's personal medical history, he's the last person in the world who should be mocking anyone else's conditions. Then again, integrity is something rarely associated with a conservative. Nor is shame.
Posted by Christopher at 07:23 AM | Comments (0)October 17, 2006
Life In George W. Bush's America
The Navy lawyer who successfully challenged Bush's military tribunals at Guantanamo in front of the Supreme Court has been denied a promotion and forced out of the military. This despite an exemplary service record. As one military official put it:
“Charlie has obviously done an exceptional job, a really extraordinary job,” said Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, the Pentagon’s chief defense counsel for Military Commissions. He added it was “quite a coincidence” that Swift was passed over for a promotion “within two weeks of the Supreme Court opinion.”
Quite a coincidence? Somehow, I doubt that. Just how good can the traitorous Bush Administration be at protecting our national security when, instead of providing us with the best and most competent military we could have, it is purging the military of anyone who disagrees with its views. Or kicking out Arabic translators because they're gay? Or trying to discredit former generals and admirals who argue that the administraion's military policies are ill-advised? Far from protecting the United States of America, the Bush Adminstration has weakened America by trying to shape the military into unthinking clones of itself who will merely do the bidding of Herr Rumsfeld without questioning it or bringing their professional experience and opinion to bear.
Meanwhile, in Georgia, people are being issued tickets for having anti-Bush bumper stickers.
Denise Grier, 47, of Athens, Georgia, got a $100 ticket in March after a DeKalb County police officer spotted the bumper sticker, which read "I'm Tired Of All The BUSH**." A DeKalb judge threw out the ticket in April because the state's lewd decal law that formed the basis for the ticket was ruled unconstitutional in 1990.
A law declared unconstitutional 16 years ago is used as the basis for prosecuting someone for not supporting this criminal administration. Yeah, but that wasn't meant to intimidate or send a message or anything. It was just an accident.
This is what conservatives do, kids. Stray from the thoughts, expressions, or actions that they want you to have... face consequences. Whatever it is that you think "could never happen here," you're wrong. It could. It is. And the people currently in power are the ones who do it.
Posted by Christopher at 07:20 AM | Comments (0)October 10, 2006
Naked Admission
From Time Magazine this week:
On conservative commentator Laura Ingraham's show, the longest-serving Republican House speaker in history explained why he would not resign despite a sex scandal that has produced a hail of questions about his failure to stop one of his members from cyberstalking teenage congressional pages.
"If I fold up my tent and leave," Dennis Hastert told her, "then where does that leave us? If the Democrats sweep, then we'd have no ability to fight back and get our message out."
That may have been the most damning admission yet in the unfolding scandal surrounding Florida Congressman Mark Foley: Holding on to power has become not just the means but also the end for the onetime reformers who unseated the calcified Democratic majority that had ruled the House for 40 years.
Hastert wants us to believe that he acted appropriately and in a timely fashion when he learned of Republican Mark Foley's pedophilic actions. And yet he's freely admitting to the world that politics trumps all in this scandal: if he leaves office, then the Democrats might win power back. And so he won't leave office.
Anyone still buying that this man acted with the teenaged pages' best interests first and foremost? As far as I am concerned, Dennis Hastert just confessed to being an accessory after the fact to pedophiia.
Posted by Christopher at 05:56 AM | Comments (0)October 05, 2006
New Levels Of Disgustitude
We have to keep inventing words for what conservatives are doing regarding the Foley scandal, because they continue to sink to new lows in their pathetic attempts to maintain their choke-hold on power.
It wasn't bad enough that conservative pundits earlier this week blamed the teenaged pages for the scandal, calling them "beasts" and saying that the kids were asking to be the prey of a pedophilic predator. No, that wasn't the depth of conservative cowardice on this issue. Now we have desperation so dire that conservatives everywhere -- not just blowhard asshat idiots like Rush Limbaugh, but elected officials and party leaders -- saying that the whole scandal is the Democrats' fault... because despite the fact that Republicans and conservatives control the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and the media... those poor hapless conservatives are still victims of the liberal conspiracy, y'see.
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), fighting for his career amid allegations that he did not respond properly when told of Foley's e-mails, has gone to conservative media outlets to make his case. On Rush Limbaugh's radio show, Hastert agreed when the host said the Foley story was driven by Democrats "in some sort of cooperation with some in the media" to suppress turnout of conservative voters before the Nov. 7 elections.
Limbaugh offered no evidence. But the same accusation was leveled in Hastert's interview with Hugh Hewitt, another prominent conservative radio host and blogger, who said the speaker is a "target right now of the left-wing media machine."
Limbaugh offered no evidence because there is none. And the reaction is telling, because they're desperately trying to shift the focus from a simple fact: conservative leadership was so insanely zealous to hang on to power that they sat on their hands and did nothing to protect children from a pedophile in their midst. Instead of acknowledging that horrific failing, their defense is merely that "the timing of the release of this news was someone else's doing?" They're not even pretending to hide what they did (or failed to do) anymore; they just hope that you'll buy the smokescreen about who leaked it when.
Pathetically, it's working among rank and file conservatives, who once again have proven themselves to be the bleating sheep of the American political system.
“My guess is that some liberal conspired with the liberal media to sit on the evidence for an extended period of time to wait until the revelation would have the most political impact,” a reader posting as jbdjbd wrote on MSNBC.com’s message board.
Similarly, a reader posting as Code3blog implied a conspiracy, criticizing “individuals, mostly smear teams in the employ of Democratic Party interests, [who] held criminally-acquired private communications that also, if their stated belief is true, were in violation of child protection laws.”
How weak and pathetic is conservatism as a philosophy when, even when they control everything, they still need to try and find someone else to blame for problems? This goes beyond the Foley scandal and directly to the heart of why conservatism is a paper tiger of a political philosphy, as soulless as it is gutless. The first reponse of conservatism in any situation -- even one in which a Republican committed wrongdoing and other Republicans chose to cover it up -- is to find someone else to blame. The symbol of conservatism and the Republican Party ought not be an elephant; it ought to be merely a large foam finger pointed at someone else.
This reaction isn't really surprising; no conservative has ever had anything to offer you other than telling you which liberal to blame for the problems they've caused you... but it's really a telling insight into the cowardly, gutless heart of conservatism. I mean, if you have control of the Congress, of the White House, of the federal courts due to six years of stacking them with right-wing extremists, and the media (which conveniently rolled over, went to sleep, and dutifully spread your proaganda during the build up to Iraq)... if you have control of EVERYTHING, how can the minority party still be able to "attack" you?
One of two things is happening here, and conservatives can't have it both ways. If some grand, giant liberal conspiracy is responsible for exposing conservative wrongdoing even as conservatives control every branch of government and the media to boot, then conservative "leadership" is so wretchedly incompetent that it can't even keep its own house or control its own government.
Or, if they want to claim competence, then their actions in the wake of the Foley scandal prove that they routinely engage in Machiavellian, cynical, and pathetic manipulation of the public to mask their criminality and malfesance. Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they'll tell you that the Girl Scouts are to blame for having sold them in the first place.
One or the other. Either way, conservatism is revealed as a gutless collection of cowards and scoundrels who are unworthy of leadership.
Posted by Christopher at 11:29 PM | Comments (1)The Depths Of Depravity
If we ever needed proof that arch-conservative pundits are pretty much disgusting people who should fill you with nothing but revulsion, we got it yesterday. Matt Drudge, that towering bastion of civilization and morality, said that the whole Foley scandal is not the fault of a pedophile in Congress, nor of cowardly Republican leadership that when faced with a problem chose to protect their party's grip on power instead of the children in their charge. No, said Drudge... the blame for this scandal lies squarely at the feet...
Of the teenage pages. Because, he says, they were asking for it.
Don't believe me? Here are Drudge's words verbatim:
"...these kids are less innocent — these 16 and 17 year-old beasts…and I've seen what they're doing on YouTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet — oh yeah — you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven't got the whole story on this."
Yep... it's those darn kids, preying on a poor, defenseless Republican. As MU Hoops and I were joking on IM yesterday, this almost feels like a really bad Scooby-Doo episode, with Drudge in handcuffs off to the side shouting, "And we would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids!" I keep waiting for some Republican -- Tony Snow, maybe? -- to say "Wait a minute! Let's take that mask off Mr. Foley and see who you really are! Why, it's Miz Rodham Clinton, the woman in comfortable shoes who runs that haunted amusement park!"
The depths of the depravity of such a ridiculous and gutless argument are without bounds. Usually, when Republicans engage in their culture wars and attack Hollywood or the "gay culture" or "gay agenda," they paint pictures of predatory gays using movies and music to lure your children into their seemy underworld, on a never-ending recruitment drive for innocent conservative teenage flesh. But lo and behold, when the predator happens to be a Republican, as it turns out it's not the gays who are predatory, but those very same kids, who are now "beasts" who were lying in wait, "egging the Congressman on" and entrapping him in the situation... all part of that darn liberal consipracy, y'see.
I have friends -- liberal ones, even -- who still insist on reading Drudge's sludge; I don't know whether it's for the salacious, Jackass-like tone of some of the pop culture coverage, or why it is. But there can be no justification for continuing to read this vile man's bile. Yes, Doc and MU, I am talking to you now... reading Drudge at this point is like playing in OJ Simpson's golf tournament, or going to see a Tom Cruise movie. You can't justify it anymore. This is a man who blames children for being the targets of a pedophile. If you read him again, you've rewarded him. If anyone reads him again, they're rewarding him.
As Stephen Elliott said at the Huffington Post yesterday,
What we're seeing here, through the prism of this lone sexual predator, is the monster inside the machine. First you have the Republican Congressional leadership, so power hungry, so desperate to hold a seat at any cost, that they cover Mark Foley's tracks for at least a year. The revelation of the coverup is followed almost immediately by the Right Wing Message Machine, with Fox News' Brit Hume comparing Foley to Bill Clinton and John Gibson trying to equate the current scandal to previous House scandals more than 20 years old. Bill O'Reilly tries to make Foley's actions just a by-product of Foley's homosexuality.
Matt Drudge takes all of this to a deeper, darker place, and perhaps it's logical conclusion. Matt Drudge, like the Republican leadership and the Fox News commentators, is so single minded and addicted to power that he's willing to blame the children themselves.
This is how upside down and wretched their world has become. They blame the children for the actions of adults. And it's no different from the mindset that blames other countries for our failure to find weapons of mass destruction, a mindset that cannot ever accept responsibility, it's just more obvious.
Anyone reading Drudge even one more time is an active contributor to this sickness.
Posted by Christopher at 06:37 AM | Comments (1)October 02, 2006
Foley Follies
So the biggest story while I was away was of course the scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley (R-Florida). First of all, let's be clear about something: the reason Foley's behavior is scandalous is because he targeted pages who were underage -- not because they happened to be male. Given Foley's self-identified role in Congress as a protector of exploited children, it's a particularly meaty irony.
The reason the whole situation is a scandal is because the Republican "leadership" knew about Foley's indiscretions, and yet was so desperate to keep power that they tried to look the other way and dismiss the story. Much like the Catholic Church in Boston, Republican leadership was confronted with a situation in which children were the targets of a predator, and their greatest concern (reflected in their actions) was for their own standing and the maintenance of power. Say it again and aloud, in case the heniousness of it didn't sink in the first time: presented with a sexual predator in their midst, Republican leadership chose to protect not the teenagers in their charge, but their own grip on power. They knew about Foley; they did nothing, knowing that control of the House might turn on even one race in November, and not wishing to endanger Foley's re-election and Republican control of that seat.
Rep. Thomas Reynolds, head of the House Republican election effort, said Saturday he told Speaker Dennis Hastert months ago about concerns that a fellow GOP lawmaker had sent inappropriate messages to a teenage boy. Hastert’s office said aides referred the matter to the proper authorities last fall but they were only told the messages were “over-friendly.” (Emphasis mine.)
Reynolds and Hastert are now engaged in a pathetic game of finger-pointing over who said what. But here's the nut: whether it was Reynolds who downplayed the nature of Foley's crimes, or Hastert who wanted them covered up until after the election, Republican leadership chose politics and power over the welfare of children in their care. One or the other -- Hastert or Reynolds -- acting in the interest of the Republican Party's hold on the House, tried to sweep this under the rug.
I'm a Catholic by birth, if not in practice; I obvioulsy understand that the scandals involving church leadership should not tarnish all Catholics. Nor should this scandal be seen as a blight on all Republicans. But these scandals are about not only failure of leadership, nor merely the absence of leadership, but the criminality of leadership. The current "leadership" of the Republican Party in the House, much like their kissing cousins in the White House, has demonstrated one more time that it is megalomaniacally concerned with maintaining power, rather than the welfare of the people -- either individual children in their sphere, or the nation at large. This is a party whose leadership is corrupt, is arrogant, and has fully proven themselves unworthy of the honor or responsibility of leading this country. It's time for a change.
Posted by Christopher at 07:10 AM | Comments (3)September 20, 2006
Curses! Oiled Again!
Dick Cheney gave a speech on Tuesday in which he refused to commit the current US regime to any action that might help the floundering US automotive industry. “Nobody can sit in office in Washington D.C. and decide to create prosperity,” Cheney said.
Oh really, DIck? Seems that you guys sat in an office in Washington from 9/12 onward and decided to create prosperity for your old company and for the oil industry in general. (Speaking of that, don't think that we haven't noticed that, just in time for the election season, gas prices have mysteriously gone down and could possibly drop back to $2 a gallon in parts of the US. Oh, but that's unrelated to the elections and to Dick Cheney being in a position of power and influence and the oil companies' desperate need to keep Republicans in charge, now isn't it?
I'll be the first to acknowledge that the US auto industry has its issues, many of its own making. And the government can't be in the business of propping up businesses that aren't competitive anymore. But the US auto industry does employ hundreds of thousands of people, and is a cornerstone to the economy of one of its largest cities. As the UAW president recently said, if Bush has time to meet with Taylor freaking Hicks, he ought to have time to meet with auto industry representatives to at least discuss the auto industry. And Cheney ought to stop being so transparently disingenuous in his public comments. "Can't decide to create prosperity?" This from the guy who helped design and execute the Halliburton War that's enriched the oil companies while harming our overalll effort against terrorism?
I'd say 'it is to laugh,' except that it's really not.
Posted by Christopher at 06:38 AM | Comments (3)August 22, 2006
Conservatism 101: Their Morals Must Be Yours
I've always thought that one had to be quite "challenged" brain-wise -- you know, just a smidge slow in the head -- to be a social conservative. And now, once again, they've gone and proved it. Apparently, being a social conservative makes you unable to operate a remote control in a hotel room.
A coalition of 13 conservative groups — including the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America — took out full-page ads in some editions of USA Today earlier this month urging the Justice Department and FBI to investigate whether some of the pay-per-view movies widely available in hotels violate federal and state obscenity laws. The coalition also is trying to draw attention to CleanHotels.com, a directory of hotels and motels nationwide that pledge to exclude adult offerings from their in-room entertainment service.
You know, I don't order those movies when I'm in hotels (most every time I am in a hotel, it's for work and I'm on my best behavior)... but I am familiar with how the system works. With a couple of clicks on a remote control, any guest can block this content from reaching their room. And since the adult channels are usually part of the 'tv services' menu, it usually takes at least a handful of deliberate clicks and conscious choices for one of these movies to be beamed to your room, even if you haven't blocked them. You've got to bypass the channel guide, then click on the "movies" feature, then click on "adult," then click your selected title, then click on a confirmation that you want to buy it for your room. That's four deliberate clicks before an adult movie will be delivered to your room.
(Wow... for someone who doesn't order these features when he's on work travel, I sure seem to know how the system works. Stupid vacations.)
But despite the fact that it is entirely possible to surf through all the TV channels your hotel provides without ever even becoming aware that adult features are an option... despite the fact that it is impossible to have these movies playing in your room without you consciously choosing to order them... despite the fact that blocking those channels is more easily achieved than ordering them... and despite the fact that we all as human beings are supposed to have free will and the intellectual capacity to CHANGE THE CHANNEL or to CHOOSE NOT TO WATCH, that's apparently not good enough for the Christian Taliban. No, it's not enough for them that they can choose not to even have the option of seeing them. They want to make that choice for you, since their true agenda is to impose their version of morality on you.
“These are places that you take your family — these are respectable institutions,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “Anything that brings p0rn into the mainstream is a concern. It just desensitizes people.”
That's your choice, Psycho -- and your opinion. How dare you presume to be able to make that kind of a decision or engage in that kind of thought for me?
The leader of the campaign against in-room p0rn is Phil Burress, a self-described former p0rn addict who heads the Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values. Though unable to cite specific cases, Burress contended that the availability of in-room p0rn is making hotels more dangerous. “As more and more of these (hardcore) titles become available, we’re going to have sexual abuse cases coming out of the hotels,” he said. “Hotels are just as dangerous as environments around strip joints and p0rn stores.”
That's one of the most spurious leaps of logic and flat out irresponsible statements since Pat Robertson started calling for the assassination of third world leaders. He can't cite a single case, but he presents as fact that we'e "going" to see cases. You know, because someone could obviously go through that whole four conscious clicks thing against their will. And the cause and effect that this joker tries to draw is facetious at best; I'd counter-argue that if there's someone intent on committing sexual abuse in a hotel room, whatever's on TV just isn't going to matter in their plan.
There are only two possible conclusions about social conservatives' true agenda and thinking. Either they truly believe that you and I are incapable of making decisions about our own morality, and they must do so for us -- which reveals a stunning disrespect for the intelligence of their fellow Americans and reveals a superiority complex that rivals anything they've ever angrily accused of the liberal elite. Or, they simply don't care about your rights, mine, or the principles of democracy and a free society; their aim is a theocratic iron handed state in which the beliefs of a fanatic few adherents to a sect of a religion are forcibly imposed on the rest of the population.
That's been done elsewhere in the world. In Iran, for example. In Afghanistan. They were called the Taliban. And there is NO difference between the Afghani Taliban and the social conservatives of the United States, other than the religion they're using as their excuse for fascism, and the deity they invoke while trying to strangle the freedoms of anyone who doesn't share their beliefs. It's the same devil, just hiding behind different colored robes.
Posted by Christopher at 10:16 PM | Comments (2)August 21, 2006
Erasing History
In yet another example of the pathetic and slavish devotion to hiding things from the American people that is the hallmark of the Bush Administration -- and of their Orwellian attempts to rewrite history to cover their own mistakes (Iraq was invaded because Saddam had WMDs he was going to use to attack America... because Saddam was connected to al Qaeda and 9/11... because we're dedicated to democracy and freedom for the Iraqi people), the BUsh Adminstration is now trying to censor public information about US arsenals... from 20, 30, or in some cases even 35 years ago.
The Bush administration has begun designating as secret some information that the government long provided even to its enemy the former Soviet Union: the numbers of strategic weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal during the Cold War...
In a 1971 appearance before the House Armed Services Committee, for instance, Defense Secretary Melvin R. Laird offered a chart showing, among other things, that the United States had 30 strategic bomber squadrons, 54 Titan intercontinental ballistic missiles and 1,000 Minuteman missiles. Those numbers, made public on March 9, 1971, are redacted in a copy of the chart obtained by the archive's researchers in January as part of a declassified government history of the U.S. air and missile defense system, according to archive officials.
This adminstration is so afraid of truth, so afraid of what Americans might do if given actual information instead of the propagandic slop that spews from Bush, Cheney, and their minions in the administration and the conservative media in this country... so dismissive and disrespectful of the intelligence and ability to think for ourselves of the American people, that they're now re-classifying 35 year old information in order to hide it from you.
This is far and away the most evil and despicable group of human beings ever to have seized power in this country's history. George Orwell, you've got George W on line 3.
Posted by Christopher at 10:24 PM | Comments (0)August 13, 2006
T-Air-orroism
The foled plot in London this past week illustrates with remarkable clarity the Bush Administration's greatest failure -- it's dereliction of duty in chasing down and destroying America's enemies while instead pursuing a foolish, ill-conceived, ill-planned invasion of Iraq (and based on deliberate distortions of intelligence, no less).
Think about it: five years after 9/11, when the United States was attacked on its own soil and George W. Bush promised to hunt down those responsible until they were all brought to justice, al Qaeda not only still exists, but it obviously capable of planning and carrying out massive attacks on a worldwide scale. Doesn't sound like they were brought to "justice" to me. How about you?
Osama bin Laden remains at large, five years after George W. Bush promised to capture him "dead or alive." Hiding out in the remote mountains of Pakistan doesn't sound like "dead or alive" to me. How about you?
What if, after Pearl Harbor, FDR had pursued a limited retaliation against Japan, but had in the summer of 1943 put that campaign on the back burner to direct a US invasion of the Soviet Union? What if he first offered the pretense that the USSR had atomic weapons and were ready to strike the US with them... then under the pretense that the USSR had collaborated with Japan... then, when both of those contentions were definitively proven to be patently and irrefutably false, FDR had settled upon Joe Stalin being a bad guy as the "real" reason for the invasion)? How do you think history would remember him? If he'd ignored the entity that had attacked the US in order to pursue his own war (one that greatly enriched his Vice President and their friends)? I submit to you that FDR would have been considered guilty of dereliction of duty, if not outright treason, for such a course of action.
Geroge W. Bush is similarly guilty of dereliction of duty and outright treason, and should be both impeached and prosecuted for his offenses.
Despite all of Bush & Cheney's promises, despite all the Karl Rovian labeling of anyone who disagrees with this president as a soft-on-terrorism/unpartiotic American, the truth is that you and I are no safer today than we were on September 10, 2001. It's just one more failure and one more lie from an administration noted for its massive failures and systematic lies.
That is the real message behind the London plots.
Posted by Christopher at 02:35 PM | Comments (4)August 09, 2006
Connecticut According To Me
Predictably, the pundits were out in full force today, one day after Joe Lieberman was rejected by the people of Connecticut and then decided that he was entitled to a Senate seat anyway. Here's my analysis of the Lamont's victory and its meaning.
1. Anti-incumbency was a major factor. Tuesday's results reflected anti-incumbency as much as anti-Lieberman sentiment. The Republican-fed "Democrats eating their young" theme was assigned early on, and it's all anyone wanted to talk about today; but there was something else in play: dissatisfaction with the status quo. Perhaps the biggest message yesterday wasn't that Democrats are unhappy with the war; it was that the public is sick of the way things have been run in the last couple of years, and they're in the mood to hold people accountable.
That's not what the Republicans and their lackeys in the media want you to hear. But it just might be the case.
In Michigan, for example, Republican incumbent Joe Schwartz lost to uber-conservative challenger Tim Walberg in the congressional primary in the state's 7th district. Walberg is a pastor who ran on a hard right, social conservative platform. Are we to believe that the voters of Grand Rapids, Michigan -- who have been sending moderate Republicans to Congress since the days that Gerald Ford represented the area -- suddenly tacked to the loony, dangerous right and embraced the Dobson/Robertson/Bauer agenda? Rejected a half-century's worth of their moderate belief system in favor of an extremist Christian agenda? Or rather, were the voters of Grand Rapids doing the same thing as Connecticut's voters were doing yesterday: sending a message? Telling us that they're not happy with how the country's been run lately?
Schwartz was endorsed by Bush, John McCain... even the NRA. If Michigan's Repubiican voters rejected that candidate as not right-wing enough, then whose party, exactly, is tacking to the extreme end of the spectrum?
You won't hear the conservative-controlled media talk about this... they'd rather bury Democratic chances and use Lamont's win as an excuse to marginalize the party -- just as the Republicans want them to. But in the deep dark places that conservatives don't like to talk about at parties, they might just realize that they're in serious spit.
2. Lieberman's loss was Lieberman's loss. Alarmists and apologists were all over the place mourning Lieberman's loss today as if he'd been the party standard-bearer who was suddenly and unforseeably rejected. The fact is, Lieberman had drifted away from the Democratic Party for years -- he couldn't even muster 10% of the vote in a New England state in the 2004 primaries and was forced out after New Hampshire. He'd been bedding with Bush for the last three years. And what you heard over and over when it was Connecticut voters and not Washington pundits who were talking was that Joe Lieberman had been perceived as placing himself over his constituency since at least 2000, when he simultaneously ran for Vice-President and Senator, refusing to relinquish his Senate seat while claiming to be dedicated to winning the national election.
Despite the Republican-fueled rush to depict this election within the paint-by-numbers lines of "Democrats moving too far left," the result may well have simply been the result of LIeberman's tone deaf-ness toward his own state. As Newsweek's Jonathan Darman wrote today,
[Lieberman said] "We’ve seen two presidents, President Clinton and now President Bush, who’ve been the targets of just the worst vituperation and I’d call it hatred from people in our country." Lieberman sounded, sincerely, like the mystified moderate, the man who longed for the old civility in the halls of Congress. But what came across most powerfully was his stunning indifference to the countless Democrats who are outraged about Bush’s policies. Lieberman didn't realize then, and still doesn't today, that to many mainstream Democrats, it is offensive to even mention their vaunted past president in the same sentence as the current incumbent.
If you represent Connecticut, and especially when you're campaigning as a Democrat, and you don't realize the depth and intensity of the hatred that most Democrats feel toward this adminsitration and towards George W Bush as an individual human being, then you clearly either haven't been paying attention or don't want to. Which is your prerogative. But then don't be surprised when the people hold you accountable.
3. Whatever damage is being done to the Democratic party is being done by Lieberman himself. Wow, did you hear all the whining and worrying we heard from Lieberman apologists today about the damage to the Democratic party that's been done? I'll agree with them on one point: there is damage being done to the party. But it's not Lamont or his supporters doing that damage; it's "I Just Want To Be In Office" Joe.
Tell me, what's more damning: a conservative Republican -- whose national party has lost face, credibility, and the will of the people over the last three years -- arguing that Lamont is a single-issue candidate whose supporters are dragging the party too far to the left? Or a "Democratic" (in name, anyway) Senator making the same argument as he refuses to accept the judgement of the people?
Joe Lieberman is doing more damage to Lamont and the national Democratic party than the RNC could ever dream of doing. Which some would argue was his plan all along, while others would say that Joe doesn't care who or what he tramples, just as long as he gets to be in office somewhere. Either way, it stinks like fetid cheese.
4. Ken Mehlman needs to shut the hell up. While campaigning in Ohio, Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman said the vote reflected "an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism and a 'blame America first' attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous."
You know, I am sick and forkin' tired of being called un-American just because I do not mindlessly accept conservative thought and bleat my approval for everything they do. Really, really sick of it. (Anyone know if Kenny-boy Mehlman served in the military at all, or does he just like to shoot his mouth off about how much other Americans don't like America? I served, you little bitch-ass punk. Did you? If not, then shut the hell up about how much more you love America than me.)
First of all, Mehlman's an idiot, and a misleading and dissembling one at that. National Democratic leaders -- from Bill Clinton to Nancy Pelosi to Harry Reid to Barbara Boxer to Charles Schumer -- all supported Lieberman. The national party was trying desperately to help him hold on. So how can you say that the result reflects the attitude of "national Democratic leaders," you Newspeak-spewing bufffoon?
The conservo-media wants you to believe that the 'negative' tone of politics these days is all wild-eyed lefties hating on Bush. (Guess you're supposed to forget about how savagely they went after Clinton throughout his presidency.) But the truth is, they shouldn't be surprised. They started it. It's people like Mehlman, who automatically assigns "anti-America" motives to anyone who doesn't agree with him, who poisoned the tone of American politics.
Democrats have been demonized since the mid-80s by Limbaugh, Gingirch, DeLay, the Christian right, and other conservative leaders. or 20 years or more now, being a "liberal" has virutally been equated with being Benedict Arnold, OJ Simpson, the Rosenbergs, and Aldrich Ames all at once. 20 years of being called the enemy simply for believing differently engenders a lot of anger ... much of it justified. Republicans feigning shock and outrage at the tone of the national discourse is a joke; the only surprise is that it took Democrats and liberals this long to fight back, to fight ire with ire. I'm sorry, but I am in no mood to play nice with a sadistic group of schollyard bullies who've been calling me un-American for my entire adult life (proudly registed as a Democrat since 1986)... these are the guys who painted Max Cleland -- who lost three limbs in Vietnam serving his country -- as a coward, and had the nerve to attack John Kerry's service while their own leadership had either gone AWOL or never bothered to serve at all.
So Mehlman? I got two words for ya. You should ask Dick Cheney what they are.
5.Michael Moore needs to shut the hell up. Yawn... he opened his mouth again, and stupidity came out.
Virtiolic gadflies have their role and place; Newt Gingrich used to be one, and then one day he was Speaker. But the difference is, Gingrich focused on putting his party into power. Moore focuses on the same idiotic ideological purity that the extremist Christian right would insist upon for our nation. Lieberman deserved to lose, yes... but not merely for his support of the war. He was too close to Bush, and was too Republican to be a Democrat. (The nail in the coffin? My father, a staunch conservative with views opposite mine in almost every way, today on the phone bemoaned Lieberman's loss and called him "a straight shooter." If my dad likes him, there ain't nothin' Democratic about the man.)
Emptyheaded blathering, bleating and saber-rattling aimed inward is idiotic; if Moore were even capable of making good on his threats to go after every Democrat who supported the war, he'd succeed merely in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in November. The public hates George W, Michael... they know he lied, they know he's utterly incompetent, and they are ready to reject him, his party, and his platform. So why would you piss into that wind? For what -- ideological purity?
At his best, Moore can be witty, satirical, and a devastatingly biting social critic. Farenheit 9/11 was a great piece of work. But he's begun to believe his own press clippings, and the ideologues who bleat their approval at his every word. And he's ceased being an asset. Now, he's just an ass.
Posted by Christopher at 08:44 PM | Comments (0)August 08, 2006
Election Night
Two big election results to talk about tonight that have made me an extremely happy Mudge:
1) The Devil Went Down In Georgia Cynthia McKinney -- you remember her, the "oh no you dih-int" attitude havin', cop-slappin', screeching harpie idiot who decided she was too good for security at the US Capitol and then hauled off on the cop who dared do his job and stopped her? The witch went down hard tonight, losing 59%-40%. Hopefully, that's the last we see -- ever -- of that jackassed medusa.
2) Better Ned Than Red (Stater). The country's most famous Republican in sheep's clothing, Joe Lieberman, lost his primary to Ned Lamont, 52-48% in Connecticut. Lieberman immediately showed that he is either too arrogant or too blind to understand the basic concepts of democracy... having been rejected by the voters, he immediately announced that he doesn't feel the need to abide by voters' wishes.
Unbowed, Lieberman immediately announced he would enter the fall campaign as an independent... “As I see it, in this campaign we just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead. But, in the second half, our team, Team Connecticut, is going to surge forward to victory in November,” Lieberman said after congratulating Lamont.
I have friends -- Democratic ones, even -- who live in Connecticut and who, inexplicably to me, were still supporting Lieberman, despite his spending the last few years as the poster child for capitulation to the evil incarnate that is the Bush administration. I know reasonable people can disagree... but supporting Vichy Bush? After tonight's shameful display of arrogance, I wonder if they might think they backed the wrong horse. Then again, failing to respect the fair outcome of an election is just one more thing Joe Lieberman has in common with George W. Bush.
Election day was marred, however, by a denial-of-service attack on Lieberman's Website that shut down not only the website but Lieberman's get out the vote efforts. If, as Lieberman charges, the attacks were perpetrated by a zealous Lamont supporter, the government should prosecute quickly and to the fullest extent of the law. If one of Lamont's Internet legion orchestrated this (without the knowledge of the campaign, I hasten to add), they should go to jail. Not a fine, not a suspended sentence, not probation; jail.
There is no excuse for interfering with the democratic process, either in counting votes or in getting voters out to support their candidates. It was wrong when George W. Bush's campaign did it in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, and it is just as wrong if lefty activists did it today. There is no room in a free society for garbage like this, least of all from the end of the spectrum that's had such tactics used so maddeningly against it in the last two presidential elections. I'll say it again: when the perpetrator is discovered, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and jailed for as long as legally possible.
Anyway... Cynthia, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. And Lieberman... you may win in November, but you've shown your true colors. Your lack of respect for basic democracy is to your eternal shame, and it is your legacy.
Posted by Christopher at 11:47 PM | Comments (1)August 06, 2006
Ideological Purity
You know, a lot is being made of the Lieberman-Lamont dynamic in Connecticut. Most of the stories you see -- which, typical of the conservative-cowed media, have been written for the benefit of the Republican Party -- have focused on the influence of liberal bloggers in the race, and an alleged "swing to the left" among anti-war Democrats that could hurt the national party.
Lost in all the constant conservative whining about "liberal media" is the fact that for most of Bush's presidency -- and even back into the Clinton years -- the media has been overhwelmingly sympathetic to or soft on conservatives, while repeating virtually everything conservatives want to say about liberals. The Myth Of The Liberal Media stands as one of the greatest propaganda victories of the last half century. And the fear/uncertainty/doubt tactics being used to raise alarmist bells about Lieberman's fate are just the latest example of the media doing the right wing's bidding.
The subtext in all these stories about the 'dangerous' inluence of the blogging left is the same obnoxious subtext that has been carried in the conservative media or the past six years. Lieberman is close to Bush, see - thinks like Bush and cooperates with him often... and if you don't think like Bush does, you must be bad for America. Hence the scare tactic stories about all these 'dangerous' wild-eyed liberal bloggers coming in to do damage in Connecticut. The blogging left, they scream at you, is concerned less with sound policy or winning elections, and more about ideological purity.
Meanwhile, you hear barely a peep in the national media about the attempted purge occuring right next door in Rhode Island. Republican Lincoln Chaffee is considered too liberal for the conservative Christian right wing that dominates the Republican Party, so they've got a candidate running against him in the Republican primary. Conservative bloggers and 'grass-roots' (usually church) organizations from around the country are all flocking to oppose Chaffee in that primary. Why no national stories screaming from the front pages every morning on the Christian right's attempts to impose ideological purity in the Republican party and to purge moderates from the Senate? Why is there no consistent whining and carping about the influence of wild-eyed out of staters coming in to a New England state to impose their version of the party line and swing the party wildly off center?
Because such coverage wouldn't mesh with the agenda dictated by the religious right and the Republican party, and dutifully carried out by the conservative media (and if they're not conservative, then it's worse... then they're just cowards for being cowed into parroting the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Dobson party line for the past six or seven years).
Posted by Christopher at 09:34 AM | Comments (1)August 01, 2006
Voting in Kansas
So the state of Kansas is today deciding whether to join the 21st century, or to remain a worldwide laughing stock mired in the 19th. Yes, kids -- it's election day for the Kansas Board of Education.
Kansas Board of Education members who approved new classroom standards that call evolution into question faced a counterattack at the polls Tuesday from Darwin’s defenders. Five of the 10 seats on the board were up for election in the primary, the latest skirmish in a seesawing battle between faith and science that has opened Kansas up to international ridicule.
It's struck me that one could make a remake of The Gods Must Be Crazy! and shoot it in a Kansas schoolroom... can you imagine what the current Board of Education might make of modern items like a Coke bottle, telephones you don't hand crank to use, and flush toilets?
The only good thing to come out of the Christian Taliban's assault on science and fact in Kansas was the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pastafarianism. Beyond that, Kansas has been an embarrassment to our nation, and frankly to believers in Christianity, for a long time. The state's voters have teh chance today to choose either sanity and modernity, or to willingly remain a backwards, brainwashing state.
(By the way, I think any company that requires employees to have scientific knowledge in order that the company remains competitive ought to send the Kansas legislature a letter promising that no citizen of Kansas, nor student ever "educated" in its schools, nor any student that attended KU or K-State, will ever be hired by that company until the ostrich-like, anti-modernity and anti-science policies are revoked. Hit the backwoods Cooters in their employment lines, and maybe they'll choose to enter 2006 before the year 2349.)
Posted by Christopher at 07:36 PM | Comments (0)July 28, 2006
Don't Ask, Don't Tell... Don't Protect Our National Security
I've often opined about how I believe that religious conservatives and their dogmatic, theocratic agenda is the greatest threat we face to what America is supposed to stand for. But that religiously dogmatic agenda is also a direct threat to your personal safety and to national security, and you ought to see it for what it is. To wit:
The United States military prohibits openly gay citizens from serving in the defense of our country. The sole reason for this is extremist Christian religious dogma. Despite the fact that more than two dozen nations -- including some of America's closest military allies, like the United Kingdom, Israel, Germany, Poland, Canada, and Australia -- allow openly gay citizens to serve and have yet to have crippling disciplinary problems (not to mention fire or brimstone falling upon them), the US Taliban fall back on their same tried and true distortion and fearmongering in order to cloud the issue and spread irrational fear. Sadly, the US Taliban have puppets in this White House who are perfectly happy to be led around by their noses, catering to every whim and twitch of the religious right in this country... and so gays are still kicked out of the military for... being gay.
Which is a stupid and short-sighted policy anyway... but when you consider the military situation we're in right now -- both in Iraq and in fighting al Qaida -- it's a downright criminal policy. See, the United States desperately needs people who can speak, understand and translate various dialects of Arabic. Given that al Qaida is out there still (thank you, George W Bush!), it is a matter of national security that we are able to intercept and understand as much as we can about their plans. That's a tall order right now, because there is an acute shortage of qualified Arabic translators. Many candidates are declined because of security concerns (maybe their families emigrated from say, Syria, or they have a few too many friends in Saudi Arabia for the US government's liking, perhaps), and there is simply not enough supply to meet the demand.
You'd think that this dire need -- and the perpetual threat posed to our nation by al Qaida -- would override the US Taliban's irrational and pathetic smear & fear campaign, and that any US citizen who could speak Arabic and serve honorably would be welcome to serve. You'd think wrong, though. Because the Pentagon and the Bush White House would still rather kiss the asses of their religious conservative masters, and would rather keep the US military pure enough for their religiously bigoted ideology, than actually protecting our national security as best they can.
Case in point: Bleu Copas, a decorated soldier and Arabic language specialist (you know, one of those guys we desperately need?) has been kicked out of the Army for being gay.
An eight-month Army investigation culminated in Copas’ honorable discharge on Jan. 30 — less than four years after he enlisted, he said, out of a post-Sept. 11 sense of duty to his country... More than 11,000 service members have been dismissed under the [don't ask, don't tell] policy, including 726 last year — an 11 percent jump from 2004 and the first increase since 2001. the GAO also noted that nearly 800 dismissed gay or lesbian service members had critical abilities, including 300 with important language skills. Fifty-five were proficient in Arabic, including Copas, a graduate of the Defense Language Institute in California.
Discharging and replacing them has cost the Pentagon nearly $369 million, according to the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Your national security at direct risk. $369 million of your money. All so that the hyper-conservative Christian movement can rest easy knowing our military has maintained ideological purity to their satisfaction. The next time one of those social conservative weenies tries to yap about how liberals or Democrats aren't patriotic, they ought to be 1) slugged in the mouth; and 2) asked why it is that they support the forced removal of service members with the skills we desperately need the most.
Oh - and one more thing... I served in the US military (Naval Reserves, 1991-1995). I have been there. I know the culture, I know the routine, I know the camaraderie and I know the espirit de corps that exists in the military. And I wholeheartedly support allowing gays to serve openly. It won't impact morale or discipline any more than any other issue in the barracks. And anyone whining about wanton, hedonistic, immoral sex that could occur in the military as a result of letting "them" in... I submit to you that they've never seen heterosexual servicemen and women who are just getting out of basic, or who are on shore leave, or who are stationed somewhere and are out for a night on the town off base. The military is full of human beings -- young ones at that, for the most part. Human beings have sex. Shut up, deal with it, and get over it... because your ideological purity is directly putting me at risk.
Posted by Christopher at 09:05 PM | Comments (1)July 20, 2006
Joseph Lieberman, Will You Please Go Now?
I saw some news today that brought a smile to my face; the fake Democrat in Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, is no longer leading the real Democrat, Ned Lamont, in the polls for the Democratic primary for the US Senate seat. It's statistically a dead heat due to margin of error, though Lamont now leads 51-47 among registered Democrats.
One of the things that would make me happiest this election season is seeing that Republican who fraudulently masquerades as a Democrat be ignominiously dumped by the people of Connecticut and removed from the Senate. Of course, since Lieberman has no principles other than his own hold on power, he's already shown his disdain for the party he claims to be a member of... he will not abide by the result of the primary -- will not respect the wishes of Democratic voters -- if he loses. Which means he'll enter himself as a third candidate, split the Democratic vote, and deliver the state to another Republican.
Lieberman's shameful acquiescence to the Iraq war and his quisling-like support for George W. Bush's war was bad enough to get his conservative butt booted. But beyond the war, Lieberman's been in bed with the right wing on so many issues, the mattress has an indentation. He's never been a Democrat; there's room in our party for multiple perspectives but not for someone who sides with the bad guys three out of four times. His defeat in the prim