Mit is tenderly nuzzling his nose up the Religious Right's poop-chute, a little bit of foreplay before he buries it to the hilt.
The election is his. Let me be the first to call it.
Forget Obama. Forget Hillary. Our next President is going to be another Republican. A stupid Mormon one with a 80’s-style haircut.
Here’s why.
People are stupid, selfish, mean and fearful .
I almost said “Americans” are stupid, selfish, hateful and fearful, but that’s unfair. American’s aren’t inherently dumber, greedier, meaner and more cowardly than humanity in general. I believe those attributes are pretty evenly distributed through the homo sapiens genetic code, and probably even bound up somehow with adenine, guanine, thyrine and cytosine in the actual strands of our DNA.
We Americans, however, tend to glorify those vices more than most other cultures though. We even confuse them with virtues to a much greater extent than, say, the Swiss. And stupid, selfish, mean and fearful Americans want, ultimately, to vote for John Wayne.
At no time do these despicable qualities become more pandered to than during the election of whichever corporate-owned figurehead will preside over the Executive branch of the federal government.
That’s when these four ugliest strands of humanity’s psyche get plucked like banjo strings, in order to --- just like in the movie “Deliverance” --- provide a soundtrack for a brutal ass-rape. The victims are reason, common sense and a basic understanding of what is in our best interests.
After these decision-making factors have been made to squeal like pigs by the rancid cocks of fear-mongering right-wing corportatist propaganda, Americans give up trying to think about who they really want to see in office.
Instead, out of sheer exhausted panic, they vote against whoever they have been convinced to see as the most repulsive.
And the Republicans can be said to be the master of a three skills: Making money. Trolling for anonymous gay sex in public bathrooms. Making Democrats look repulsive.
That’s not many but it is enough. Every four years they take a decent, intelligent, successful public figure and convince a whisker-thin majority of stupid, greedy, mean and fearful voters that that public figure has some petty, yet stomach-turning character flaw. A tiny weakness in their psyche, yet one so pathetic and shameful that he should be shunned as an embarrassment to the race, not elevated to lead the nation.
Gore is a serial exaggerator. Kerry is a pussified flip-flopper. Clinton is a rapist. Dukkakis fellates Willie Horton. And so on and so on and so on.
By comparison, the Republican is portrayed as John Wayne.
Not the real John Wayne, who was named Marion, wore lifts, and sat out WWII to advance his film career. The John Wayne that was shown on the movie screen. Quiet. Masculine. Tough. Confident. Contemptuous of book learning. Intinctively competent. In other words, the kind of person the stupid, selfish, mean and fearful people would like to see themselves as, if they could ever forget for one second that they are stupid, selfish, mean and fearful .
And it works. Except for when the stupid, selfish, mean and fearful party lost its crazy sub-wing to Ross Perot in ’92 and the Republicans nominated someone too old and crippled to play the John Wayne role in ’96, it fucking works. Every time.
Of the Republican field, who can take on the John Wayne role? The Republicans hoped Fred Thompson could, but he’s proving to be too old and drowsy to pull it off. Same with cranky old coot McCain. Guiliani is plenty selfish, mean and fearful, but not quite stupid enough, as evidenced by his positions on gays, guns and babies.
Romney is not actually stupid, but he is desperate and shameless enough to play that part if he thinks it will get him the votes. Consequently, as soon as the Mormon issue can be assuaged sufficiently (see article) the Republicans --- first the moneyed decision makers, and eventually the stupid, selfish, mean and fearful masses --- will coalesce around him.
Then in the general elections, it’s all over.
Hillary, Obama and John Edwards don’t stand a chance. Remember, the Republicans don’t have to convince any stupid, selfish, mean and fearful people to vote for Romney, only convince them to vote against the Democratic candidate.
A woman, named Clinton to boot. A black guy. A smart, kind, thoughtful, gentle man who believes that the rich should share wealth with the poor.
Half the Republicans’ work will already be done.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Rudy's Ground Zero Lie vs. Al's Invented Internet Myth
I still angrily remember the shameful piling on that Al Gore received regarding a a claim to have "invented the Internet" that he NEVER FUCKING MADE. This completely bogus piece of shit story spun out by GOP Asshole Dick Armey's fax machine and was immediately and eagerly swallowed by print and television reporters without question. As a result, Gore, who was ever nothing if not straight-laced and boringly honest got turned into a foolish serial exaggerator.
By comparison, what consequences has Rudy Giuliani suffered for his videotaped claim in front of a Cincinnati crowd that that he was at ground zero "as often, if not more, than most of the workers"? Yeah, it did make the papers, briefly. And Rudy later backtracked and said that he "misspoke." But it doesn't seem like it's got the legs, or has been purposely woven into a part of a pattern in the way Al Gore's NON-EXISTENT claim did.
But besides being REAL, and Gore's FAKE, there are such huge differences between the two that if Gore's claim turned him into an untrustworthy laughingstock, then Giuliani's should deservedly make him a pariah, to be treated with contempt and derision.
Not only is it blatantly false (later schedule checking showed that Rudy actually spent 29 hours at the Ground Zero site, compared to hundreds by recovery and reconstruction workers. But the intent was mean spirited and contemptuous. Rudy was doing more than trying to burnish his post-911 credentials, which is bad enough. He was also attempting to downplay the legitimate health concerns of the 911 rescue workers, and minimize the shoddy treatment that they have received from both the City of New York and the U.S. Government.
If there's any justice in the world (doubtful) or sense in the Democratic Party brain trust (more doubtful yet) this statement will be wielded like a sharp stake to impale the dark heart of Rudy's Presidential aspirations. In this one statement, Rudy crystallizes all the things that make him such a horrible human and truly frightening Presidential candidate --- he's mean, he's arrogant, he's combative, he's self-delusional, and absolutely and completely full of his own self-serving shit.
By comparison, what consequences has Rudy Giuliani suffered for his videotaped claim in front of a Cincinnati crowd that that he was at ground zero "as often, if not more, than most of the workers"? Yeah, it did make the papers, briefly. And Rudy later backtracked and said that he "misspoke." But it doesn't seem like it's got the legs, or has been purposely woven into a part of a pattern in the way Al Gore's NON-EXISTENT claim did.
But besides being REAL, and Gore's FAKE, there are such huge differences between the two that if Gore's claim turned him into an untrustworthy laughingstock, then Giuliani's should deservedly make him a pariah, to be treated with contempt and derision.
Not only is it blatantly false (later schedule checking showed that Rudy actually spent 29 hours at the Ground Zero site, compared to hundreds by recovery and reconstruction workers. But the intent was mean spirited and contemptuous. Rudy was doing more than trying to burnish his post-911 credentials, which is bad enough. He was also attempting to downplay the legitimate health concerns of the 911 rescue workers, and minimize the shoddy treatment that they have received from both the City of New York and the U.S. Government.
If there's any justice in the world (doubtful) or sense in the Democratic Party brain trust (more doubtful yet) this statement will be wielded like a sharp stake to impale the dark heart of Rudy's Presidential aspirations. In this one statement, Rudy crystallizes all the things that make him such a horrible human and truly frightening Presidential candidate --- he's mean, he's arrogant, he's combative, he's self-delusional, and absolutely and completely full of his own self-serving shit.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Toddler kicked off plane... good.
Just read this story where a woman said she and her toddler son were kicked off a plane after she refused a flight attendant's request to medicate her son to get him to quiet down and stop saying "Bye bye, plane."
I love this story. The last couple of times I have flown, I've had to listen to babies and little kids whining, howling, babbling and crying to the point where I wanted to kick the kid off myself... mid-air.
Then I started thinking... why are these living, breathing noise-makers evenly dispersed throughout the plane, ensuring that the entire passenger load is subject to this auditory assault?
I remember when there were smoking sections on planes, on the premise that people who indulge in noxious, annoying habits should only inflict those habits on one another. Why not apply this same logic to the noxious, annoying habit of allowing your precious bundle of joy to scream and cry at maximum volume for hours at a time?
Simply create a child section of the plane, for any passengers with children under the age of 8 or nine. Put a diaper changing table in the nearest bathroom, juice holders in the fold down trays, Highlight magazines in the magazine pockets, bring tiny liquor bottles full of chocolate milk over once an hour, whatever these children and parents need to get through the flight in comfort.
In the meantime, I, and those other childless travelers can specifically request to be as far away as that den of caterwauling and mewling as humanly possible.
I love this story. The last couple of times I have flown, I've had to listen to babies and little kids whining, howling, babbling and crying to the point where I wanted to kick the kid off myself... mid-air.
Then I started thinking... why are these living, breathing noise-makers evenly dispersed throughout the plane, ensuring that the entire passenger load is subject to this auditory assault?
I remember when there were smoking sections on planes, on the premise that people who indulge in noxious, annoying habits should only inflict those habits on one another. Why not apply this same logic to the noxious, annoying habit of allowing your precious bundle of joy to scream and cry at maximum volume for hours at a time?
Simply create a child section of the plane, for any passengers with children under the age of 8 or nine. Put a diaper changing table in the nearest bathroom, juice holders in the fold down trays, Highlight magazines in the magazine pockets, bring tiny liquor bottles full of chocolate milk over once an hour, whatever these children and parents need to get through the flight in comfort.
In the meantime, I, and those other childless travelers can specifically request to be as far away as that den of caterwauling and mewling as humanly possible.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Scooter and Paris
So I've just read the news that President Bush (god, I choke even typing those words together) commuted Scooter Libby's sentence, stripping it of the 30 months of jail time which he had been given by the Federal Judge.
Just as fast as my own ire started rising, I quickly headed to my usual left-wing sites to see what they had to say... it's all pretty much the same. We are pissed. It was worth noting to me that the comment sections, usually full of all sorts of long-winded diatribes and amateur political philosophizing had been reduced to single word exclamations like "Fuck!" "Impeach!" "Cocksuckers!" and the like.
Is there some fancy German word for the sick feeling you get when someone gets away with something they shouldn't? You know the feeling, don't you? Disgust and anger all mixed up at once into a sour taste that twists your stomach and makes your lips purse up.
I felt it when O.J. was acquitted.
I felt it when Paris was (first) let out of jail.
I'm feeling it now.
I think humans have a visceral reaction when they see people who flout the social contract without penalties. For most of us, our lives are spent making compromises, going along to get along, following stupid rules made by stupid people, just so that we can get our paychecks, pay our bills and be left alone to claw whatever little bit of satisfaction we can out of this life.
We do this, for the most part, because we are taught from an early age both verbally and with the harsh electric shocks of reality, that these are the sacrifices we have to make to get along in life. We don't like it, but for the most part we have the thin satisfaction of knowing that everyone else is more or less in the same boat, too.
That's what makes equality before the law such a cherished ideal. It's bad enough that the rich live better lives than us, on a daily basis. It's bad enough that the rich and powerful are able to isolate themselves away from the rest of us behind gated communities and executive privilege, so that they can do what they want without fear of getting caught. It's bad enough that they have resources to hire expensive attorneys to protect them from the consequences of their rule breaking on the few occasions when they do get pinched.
But when we see that their privilege goes beyond even that, that even when they've been caught, tried and convicted that they are able to pull strings which pluck them from accountability, we become enraged.
This commutation was a poke in the eye to a lot of people, not just liberals. It's the sort of thing that is going to enrage anyone with the sneaking suspicion that there are two sets of rules operating in America, one for the obscenely rich along with their minions, and the other for the rest of us.
This is going to be the stupid little thing that sets off the firestorm, I think. This is the small act which crystallizes all the things that have been bugging the shit out of people about this administration all along. Even Republicans are going to be pissed about this one. I think this is the tipping point.
The scandals that fuck the political figures aren't the big, real, complicated fuckups like, say, invading Iraq. That's too amorphous, too hard to get a head around. No, the deadly mistakes are the ones that are simple and personal... lying about a break-in.... getting blown by an intern. Protecting a convicted minion from responsibility falls in that category.
It's pretty clear. THis person was convicted, but simply because the President likes him, he doesn't have to serve time. This is going to stir the shit, and at last it might very well start to boil over.
Bring it on, I say.
Just as fast as my own ire started rising, I quickly headed to my usual left-wing sites to see what they had to say... it's all pretty much the same. We are pissed. It was worth noting to me that the comment sections, usually full of all sorts of long-winded diatribes and amateur political philosophizing had been reduced to single word exclamations like "Fuck!" "Impeach!" "Cocksuckers!" and the like.
Is there some fancy German word for the sick feeling you get when someone gets away with something they shouldn't? You know the feeling, don't you? Disgust and anger all mixed up at once into a sour taste that twists your stomach and makes your lips purse up.
I felt it when O.J. was acquitted.
I felt it when Paris was (first) let out of jail.
I'm feeling it now.
I think humans have a visceral reaction when they see people who flout the social contract without penalties. For most of us, our lives are spent making compromises, going along to get along, following stupid rules made by stupid people, just so that we can get our paychecks, pay our bills and be left alone to claw whatever little bit of satisfaction we can out of this life.
We do this, for the most part, because we are taught from an early age both verbally and with the harsh electric shocks of reality, that these are the sacrifices we have to make to get along in life. We don't like it, but for the most part we have the thin satisfaction of knowing that everyone else is more or less in the same boat, too.
That's what makes equality before the law such a cherished ideal. It's bad enough that the rich live better lives than us, on a daily basis. It's bad enough that the rich and powerful are able to isolate themselves away from the rest of us behind gated communities and executive privilege, so that they can do what they want without fear of getting caught. It's bad enough that they have resources to hire expensive attorneys to protect them from the consequences of their rule breaking on the few occasions when they do get pinched.
But when we see that their privilege goes beyond even that, that even when they've been caught, tried and convicted that they are able to pull strings which pluck them from accountability, we become enraged.
This commutation was a poke in the eye to a lot of people, not just liberals. It's the sort of thing that is going to enrage anyone with the sneaking suspicion that there are two sets of rules operating in America, one for the obscenely rich along with their minions, and the other for the rest of us.
This is going to be the stupid little thing that sets off the firestorm, I think. This is the small act which crystallizes all the things that have been bugging the shit out of people about this administration all along. Even Republicans are going to be pissed about this one. I think this is the tipping point.
The scandals that fuck the political figures aren't the big, real, complicated fuckups like, say, invading Iraq. That's too amorphous, too hard to get a head around. No, the deadly mistakes are the ones that are simple and personal... lying about a break-in.... getting blown by an intern. Protecting a convicted minion from responsibility falls in that category.
It's pretty clear. THis person was convicted, but simply because the President likes him, he doesn't have to serve time. This is going to stir the shit, and at last it might very well start to boil over.
Bring it on, I say.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
weak, weak, weak
So it looks like the Democrats have blinked after all.
I'm disappointed, but certainly not surprised.
You know, just once I'd like to see the Democrats, as a whole, at least try to go down swinging.
Yeah, we've got some brave souls (I'm looking at you Feingold) who are at least out there standing up for what they believe, but their backbone gets lost in all the moral flab and cowardice of the rest of the wishy washy, faux-centrist, compromising gang.
This is a speech I'd like to hear from a Democrat:
"I oppose this war, and am not going to support it for one more minute. I don't care if stopping this war costs me my office. I can always find new work, but America can never recover the blood and treasure that we pour into that quagmire. If I lose my seat, but save more American lives, it will be worth it."
Please.
I'm disappointed, but certainly not surprised.
You know, just once I'd like to see the Democrats, as a whole, at least try to go down swinging.
Yeah, we've got some brave souls (I'm looking at you Feingold) who are at least out there standing up for what they believe, but their backbone gets lost in all the moral flab and cowardice of the rest of the wishy washy, faux-centrist, compromising gang.
This is a speech I'd like to hear from a Democrat:
"I oppose this war, and am not going to support it for one more minute. I don't care if stopping this war costs me my office. I can always find new work, but America can never recover the blood and treasure that we pour into that quagmire. If I lose my seat, but save more American lives, it will be worth it."
Please.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Jerry Falwell, RIP (P stands for Pain)
So Jerry Falwell, obese ass-clown extraordinaire, kicked the bucket yesterday.
Though I usually refrain from disrespecting the dead, with Jerry it’s pretty near irresistible. After all, he did it first.
Like when he said AIDS victims had received retribution from a just God.
And when he said that the poor souls who perished in the terror and fire of the 9/11 attacks had died because gays and lesbians and abortionists had inspired that attack.
I’m racking my brain for something positive to say about the man, and coming up blank. It’s very possible that he was a good father and husband. And for all I know, an all around great fellow. But I didn’t see that.
All I ever saw was someone trying, whole-heartedly, to take the three most divisive issues going --- sex, religion and politics --- and combine them into an electoral weapon. Then use that weapon to bully the rest of America into living our lives according to his particular sect’s interpretation of morality.
To me that’s just an asshole.
Death comes to us all, so I can’t be particularly happy to hear that it came to him. I’m just disappointed that it was as swift and painless when it did.
If there were truly any justice on this earth, Jerry Falwell would have slowly and painfully wasted away from opportunistic infections. Or jumped in terror from the 100th story of a burning skyscraper.
Not being a believer of any specific set of religious fairy-tales, I can't even console myself with the idea that he's roasting in hell right now. I just hope that at some point, as his heartbeat faded, he truly did watch his life pass before his eyes.
And that what he saw disgusted him as profoundly as it does me.
Though I usually refrain from disrespecting the dead, with Jerry it’s pretty near irresistible. After all, he did it first.
Like when he said AIDS victims had received retribution from a just God.
And when he said that the poor souls who perished in the terror and fire of the 9/11 attacks had died because gays and lesbians and abortionists had inspired that attack.
I’m racking my brain for something positive to say about the man, and coming up blank. It’s very possible that he was a good father and husband. And for all I know, an all around great fellow. But I didn’t see that.
All I ever saw was someone trying, whole-heartedly, to take the three most divisive issues going --- sex, religion and politics --- and combine them into an electoral weapon. Then use that weapon to bully the rest of America into living our lives according to his particular sect’s interpretation of morality.
To me that’s just an asshole.
Death comes to us all, so I can’t be particularly happy to hear that it came to him. I’m just disappointed that it was as swift and painless when it did.
If there were truly any justice on this earth, Jerry Falwell would have slowly and painfully wasted away from opportunistic infections. Or jumped in terror from the 100th story of a burning skyscraper.
Not being a believer of any specific set of religious fairy-tales, I can't even console myself with the idea that he's roasting in hell right now. I just hope that at some point, as his heartbeat faded, he truly did watch his life pass before his eyes.
And that what he saw disgusted him as profoundly as it does me.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Another Iraq war casualty: Our ability to help
Listening to Democrats talk about how we've got to "get out of the middle of a civil war" in Iraq has caused some strange feelings for me lately.
As much as I want for the U.S. to extricate itself from that sucking shithole of wasted lives and money, I thought that the willingness to get between people trying to slaughter one another was one of the better things about us liberals.
Modern Republicans prefer to provoke civilian deaths abroad (Nicaragua) or ignore them, (Darfur), depending on their corporation-biased opinion of what best serves American interests.
Democratic presidents, however, have a history of trying to stop those deaths, even if tardily (Bosnia) and ineffectually (Somalia), with the most glaring and shameful exception being our inaction during the Rwandan civil war. All things being equal, Democrats don't like to sit around and watch chaos spread and innocent people die.
Under normal circumstances, a tribal bloodbath between Sunnis and Shiites would be the sort of thing that we'd want to tamp down and defuse. Maybe we'd use some military force, as in Bosnia, maybe we'd try to help prod some diplomatic solutions, as in Northern Ireland. Undoubtedly, we would shovel money at both sides to make it worthwhile to simmer down--- and compared to the current fiscal assfucking our military action is giving us, it would be a bargain.
But these aren't normal circumstances. As worthy an objective it might be to keep the ethnic groups from eachother's throats, we're not the ones that can do it anymore.
We're too tainted. Tainted by the lies we rode into the country on. Tainted by the tortures and murders that we've committed there.
Even if we had the military and financial capacity to do it anymore, nobody in or out of the Iraq would believe in the worthiness of our goal, or try to help. Who can blame them?
After our claims to be in Iraq to find WMDs and establish democracy, turned out to be such utter bullshit, our professions of humanitarian intevention are now likely to be perceived as more of the same.
Consequently, our forces would remain their current position: Welcomed by none, and used and hated by all.
What a mess. Now that we've created a scenario which actually might justify a U.S. presence in Iraq, our direct responsibility for that scenario makes it impossible for us to do anything about it. We're fucked. Though not nearly as fucked as the poor Iraqis who live, work and die in our experiment to see what happens when extremely limited minds receive nearly unlimited power.
Intellectually, I know that the only option for us at this point is to pull out and abandon the Iraqis to a Lebanon-style civil war, and insulate ourselves from the jihadists that conflageration would create.
But fuck, I don't like it. It makes me feel guilty, and ashamed of what America has done, two emotions I wish I had GWB and Dick Cheney's natural immunity from.
As much as I want for the U.S. to extricate itself from that sucking shithole of wasted lives and money, I thought that the willingness to get between people trying to slaughter one another was one of the better things about us liberals.
Modern Republicans prefer to provoke civilian deaths abroad (Nicaragua) or ignore them, (Darfur), depending on their corporation-biased opinion of what best serves American interests.
Democratic presidents, however, have a history of trying to stop those deaths, even if tardily (Bosnia) and ineffectually (Somalia), with the most glaring and shameful exception being our inaction during the Rwandan civil war. All things being equal, Democrats don't like to sit around and watch chaos spread and innocent people die.
Under normal circumstances, a tribal bloodbath between Sunnis and Shiites would be the sort of thing that we'd want to tamp down and defuse. Maybe we'd use some military force, as in Bosnia, maybe we'd try to help prod some diplomatic solutions, as in Northern Ireland. Undoubtedly, we would shovel money at both sides to make it worthwhile to simmer down--- and compared to the current fiscal assfucking our military action is giving us, it would be a bargain.
But these aren't normal circumstances. As worthy an objective it might be to keep the ethnic groups from eachother's throats, we're not the ones that can do it anymore.
We're too tainted. Tainted by the lies we rode into the country on. Tainted by the tortures and murders that we've committed there.
Even if we had the military and financial capacity to do it anymore, nobody in or out of the Iraq would believe in the worthiness of our goal, or try to help. Who can blame them?
After our claims to be in Iraq to find WMDs and establish democracy, turned out to be such utter bullshit, our professions of humanitarian intevention are now likely to be perceived as more of the same.
Consequently, our forces would remain their current position: Welcomed by none, and used and hated by all.
What a mess. Now that we've created a scenario which actually might justify a U.S. presence in Iraq, our direct responsibility for that scenario makes it impossible for us to do anything about it. We're fucked. Though not nearly as fucked as the poor Iraqis who live, work and die in our experiment to see what happens when extremely limited minds receive nearly unlimited power.
Intellectually, I know that the only option for us at this point is to pull out and abandon the Iraqis to a Lebanon-style civil war, and insulate ourselves from the jihadists that conflageration would create.
But fuck, I don't like it. It makes me feel guilty, and ashamed of what America has done, two emotions I wish I had GWB and Dick Cheney's natural immunity from.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
A second helping of Gonzales
Looks like you've got some 'splaining to do, Alberto!
From Patrick Leahy's office:
Were those US Attorneys fired for:
A. NO reason at all.
These Attorneys do, after all, serve at the "pleasure of the President" as we've heard about 10,000 times by now. So if Abu and his staff have the time, inclination and chutzpah to fuck around with, fire and defame good attorneys because of the way the wind tickles their balls in the morning, there's nothing illegal about that.
It does speak to their judgement, priorities and human decency though, and the voters should know that's how they roll in the Bush administration.
B. A GOOD reason.
There's nothing illegal about that. We're just curious what it was, though. Humor us.
B. A BAD reason.
Anyone that cares to put the pieces together about competitive districts, witch-hunts for non-existent voter fraud cases, suspicious corruption case manipulations, deleted emails, and secretly inserted Patriot Act provisions for appointing US Attorneys without Congressional Approval is starting to see what these replacements were about. And, again, there's nothing inherently illegal about it.
So just come out and say it, already.
From Patrick Leahy's office:
You spent weeks preparing for the April 19th hearing. Yet during your
testimony, in response to questions from Senators on both sides of the
aisle,
you often responded that you could not recall. By some counts
you failed
to answer more than 100 questions, by other counts more than 70,
but the most
conservative count had you failing to provide answers well over
60 times.
As a result, the Committee’s efforts to learn the truth of
why and how
these dismissals took place, and the role you and other
Department and White
House officials had in them, has been hampered.
The
questions asked by Senators should not have been a surprise. You were
alerted in letters to
you well in advance of last Thursday’s hearing.
By letter sent April 4,
you were asked to include in your written
testimony a "full and complete account
of the development of the plan to
replace Untied States Attorneys, and all the
specifics of your role in
connection with that matter." That account was
not included in your
written testimony nor in your answers to questions at the
hearing. You
were also alerted in advance of the hearing, by a letter sent
on April 13,
that you would be asked about information derived from the staff
interviews
of your senior aides. You were, nevertheless, unprepared to
answer
those questions.
We believe the Committee and our
investigation would benefit from you searching and refreshing your
recollection
and your supplementing your testimony by next Friday to provide
the answers to
the questions you could not recall last Thursday.
I've got an idea for the committee. Clearly, open-ended questions are too challenging for the Attorney General. Let's give him a multiple choice exam.
Were those US Attorneys fired for:
A. NO reason at all.
These Attorneys do, after all, serve at the "pleasure of the President" as we've heard about 10,000 times by now. So if Abu and his staff have the time, inclination and chutzpah to fuck around with, fire and defame good attorneys because of the way the wind tickles their balls in the morning, there's nothing illegal about that.
It does speak to their judgement, priorities and human decency though, and the voters should know that's how they roll in the Bush administration.
B. A GOOD reason.
There's nothing illegal about that. We're just curious what it was, though. Humor us.
B. A BAD reason.
Anyone that cares to put the pieces together about competitive districts, witch-hunts for non-existent voter fraud cases, suspicious corruption case manipulations, deleted emails, and secretly inserted Patriot Act provisions for appointing US Attorneys without Congressional Approval is starting to see what these replacements were about. And, again, there's nothing inherently illegal about it.
So just come out and say it, already.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Virginia Tech Shooter:Liberal or Conservative?
Yes, I know that I am a sick, heartless fucker for even thinking this way, but I have been trying to figure out whether the Virginia Tech shooter was a liberal or conservative.
I know it shouldn't really matter. He was mentally ill, that's the main thing. And committed a heinous act that created devastating pain for 33 sets of families, friends and communties.
But still. I want to know. That's just how my brain has become wired over the last dozen years or so. Call it political polarization, call pop psychologizing, say that I am obsessed, but I really don't feel like I can get a grip on how someone's mind functions these days, without knowing where they fall in some basic questions.
Like whether they believe in evolution or creationism. Support or oppose the Iraq war. Are indifferent to or disgusted by homosexuals. Are pro-choice or anti-abortion. Side with corporations or people. Believe in punishing or helping others. Interested in cooperation or domination.
And, yeah, I do judge people --- negatively --- when they disagree with me on these issues. Who doesn't?
Usually, it's pretty easy to pick out the wingers from the moonbats, but Cho Seung-hui is kind of a tough one to label. Here's what I know about him, and where I think it puts him on the Liberal/Conservative spectrum.
Liberal Traits:
A minority
An English Major
Writes plays
Hates Rich Kids
Conservative Traits
Korean
A gun nut
A Religious Fanatic
Hates Debauchery (aka Fun)
All in all, it seems pretty much balanced. So I guess the deciding factor would have to be his actions.
That's an easy one.
A true liberal would have dealt with his hurt and disappointment by banding together with other similarly afflicted victims to whine and petition for recognition and special treatment. Culminating, perhaps, in some sort of march or sing-in in front of the Student Union.
A sullen, uncommunicative, Jesus-obsessed loser who blames all the troubles in the world on another group of people, then remorselessly kills those people as if they were not even human?
That's a conservative.
I know it shouldn't really matter. He was mentally ill, that's the main thing. And committed a heinous act that created devastating pain for 33 sets of families, friends and communties.
But still. I want to know. That's just how my brain has become wired over the last dozen years or so. Call it political polarization, call pop psychologizing, say that I am obsessed, but I really don't feel like I can get a grip on how someone's mind functions these days, without knowing where they fall in some basic questions.
Like whether they believe in evolution or creationism. Support or oppose the Iraq war. Are indifferent to or disgusted by homosexuals. Are pro-choice or anti-abortion. Side with corporations or people. Believe in punishing or helping others. Interested in cooperation or domination.
And, yeah, I do judge people --- negatively --- when they disagree with me on these issues. Who doesn't?
Usually, it's pretty easy to pick out the wingers from the moonbats, but Cho Seung-hui is kind of a tough one to label. Here's what I know about him, and where I think it puts him on the Liberal/Conservative spectrum.
Liberal Traits:
A minority
An English Major
Writes plays
Hates Rich Kids
Conservative Traits
Korean
A gun nut
A Religious Fanatic
Hates Debauchery (aka Fun)
All in all, it seems pretty much balanced. So I guess the deciding factor would have to be his actions.
That's an easy one.
A true liberal would have dealt with his hurt and disappointment by banding together with other similarly afflicted victims to whine and petition for recognition and special treatment. Culminating, perhaps, in some sort of march or sing-in in front of the Student Union.
A sullen, uncommunicative, Jesus-obsessed loser who blames all the troubles in the world on another group of people, then remorselessly kills those people as if they were not even human?
That's a conservative.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Let's talk about irresponsibility, Mr. Cheney
I just read this load of garbage that our gravel-voiced, Vice-Mumbler delivered on CBS News' Face the Nation yesterday.
For the "R-word" to even come from your blood-stained lips is laughable under any circumstances. You've been the dirty, reeking, radioactive power-source driving an administration which has mechanically worked to divert any and all responsibility from itself for its blunders (9-11, Katrina), crimes (Valerie Plame's outing), corruption (DoJ firings, Iraq Reconstruction) and for those actions which combined all those together in a massive festering ball of corrupt, blundering criminality (Iraq).
To avoid ever taking responsibilty, your administration has let underlings take the blame (poor little Scooter), smeared formerly loyal underlings (Richard Clarke) and systematically hid the evidence (Karl Rove's missing emails) and lied, with a straight face about it all.
So let's drop the charade about who's responsible, okay?
Because in this case, you really don't want to go there.
Let me put it to you in an analogy that you will understand:DUIs.
You and your girlfriend, W, have been drunk driving for six years now, swerving all over the road, through yards and creating quite the trail of death and destruction in your wake. The rest of the country, the ones that actually own the car, have been begging you to stop, to pull over, to sober up or at the very least try to keep the car between the lines. You've refused, so we've decided to stop paying for gas.
So tell me now, Dick. Who's the irresponsible one?
I think it's important they know where we stand. And the fact of the matter is I do believe that the positions that the Democratic leaders have taken and -- to a large extent now are irresponsible. I mean, Harry Reid last fall said -- is after the November elections -- that he would not support an effort to cut off funding for the troops. Then he changed that position to one in which he would support an effort to cut off funding for the troops, place limitations on--on the funding, and now he's to the point where he's saying he's going to support legislation that cuts the whole funding for the troops. He's done a complete 180 from where he was in five months. I think that is irresponsible. I think you cannot make the basic fundamental decisions that have to be made with respect to the nation's security, given everything that's at stake in the war on terror, and what we're doing in Iraq, and with the 140,000 American troops in the field in Iraq and with the 140,000 American troops in the field in Iraq in combat every day, and call that kind of--of rapid changes in position anything other than irresponsible.
For the "R-word" to even come from your blood-stained lips is laughable under any circumstances. You've been the dirty, reeking, radioactive power-source driving an administration which has mechanically worked to divert any and all responsibility from itself for its blunders (9-11, Katrina), crimes (Valerie Plame's outing), corruption (DoJ firings, Iraq Reconstruction) and for those actions which combined all those together in a massive festering ball of corrupt, blundering criminality (Iraq).
To avoid ever taking responsibilty, your administration has let underlings take the blame (poor little Scooter), smeared formerly loyal underlings (Richard Clarke) and systematically hid the evidence (Karl Rove's missing emails) and lied, with a straight face about it all.
So let's drop the charade about who's responsible, okay?
Because in this case, you really don't want to go there.
Let me put it to you in an analogy that you will understand:DUIs.
You and your girlfriend, W, have been drunk driving for six years now, swerving all over the road, through yards and creating quite the trail of death and destruction in your wake. The rest of the country, the ones that actually own the car, have been begging you to stop, to pull over, to sober up or at the very least try to keep the car between the lines. You've refused, so we've decided to stop paying for gas.
So tell me now, Dick. Who's the irresponsible one?
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Harry, Nancy, Democrats. Don't blink.
Okay.
We've passed a spending bill with a deadline for troop withdrawls attached to it. Didn't that seem a little bit easy to you?
Especially you, Harry. Why do you think that it was even allowed to go to a vote, instead of getting shut down like all the other substantive bills the Senate Republicans have blocked?
I think we know. Because George W. Bush actually wants to veto it.
He could use the distraction, from the Attorneygate, GSA-gate and whatever other gate's erupt between now and whenever the bill hits his desk. He likes making grand, dramatic stands. He thinks that he can take the high, terrorist-fighting, troop-supporting road on this issue.
Furthermore, he believes that doing so will cost him nothing. He believes, with some historical validity, that Democrats will cave and compromise. That we will settle for some sort of meaningless, non-binding, bullshit little addendum to the spending bill that he can smirk at and ignore.
Let's prove him wrong.
He wants to play chicken. Great. Let's throw the steering wheel out the window while he watches.
Let's announce to the world that this is the only spending bill that he is going to see. And he can either sign it or not. Period.
More to the point, let's stick to it, no matter what.
What's the worst that could happen? Our troops have to come home in April? Great. Something tells me the National Guardsmen on their third deployment aren't going to be too pissed about that. The Republicans will accuse us of cowardice and treason? They already are doing that. The Iraqis will descend into civil war? Ditto. Democrats might suffer some political fallout for taking a firm stand for our principles? It's worth it.
This is our chance, the best one in a long, long, time to break Bush's willful defiance of the facts --- of Iraq, the Constitution, what the American people want, and the new balance of power in Washington.
He's not going to like it. He's going to bluster, and threaten, and cuss, and call us names. Fuck him.
He's been on a six year binge of other people's lives and money.
We can cut him off now.
Let's do it.
We've passed a spending bill with a deadline for troop withdrawls attached to it. Didn't that seem a little bit easy to you?
Especially you, Harry. Why do you think that it was even allowed to go to a vote, instead of getting shut down like all the other substantive bills the Senate Republicans have blocked?
I think we know. Because George W. Bush actually wants to veto it.
He could use the distraction, from the Attorneygate, GSA-gate and whatever other gate's erupt between now and whenever the bill hits his desk. He likes making grand, dramatic stands. He thinks that he can take the high, terrorist-fighting, troop-supporting road on this issue.
Furthermore, he believes that doing so will cost him nothing. He believes, with some historical validity, that Democrats will cave and compromise. That we will settle for some sort of meaningless, non-binding, bullshit little addendum to the spending bill that he can smirk at and ignore.
Let's prove him wrong.
He wants to play chicken. Great. Let's throw the steering wheel out the window while he watches.
Let's announce to the world that this is the only spending bill that he is going to see. And he can either sign it or not. Period.
More to the point, let's stick to it, no matter what.
What's the worst that could happen? Our troops have to come home in April? Great. Something tells me the National Guardsmen on their third deployment aren't going to be too pissed about that. The Republicans will accuse us of cowardice and treason? They already are doing that. The Iraqis will descend into civil war? Ditto. Democrats might suffer some political fallout for taking a firm stand for our principles? It's worth it.
This is our chance, the best one in a long, long, time to break Bush's willful defiance of the facts --- of Iraq, the Constitution, what the American people want, and the new balance of power in Washington.
He's not going to like it. He's going to bluster, and threaten, and cuss, and call us names. Fuck him.
He's been on a six year binge of other people's lives and money.
We can cut him off now.
Let's do it.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Why The US Attorneys Firing Scandal Matters
There are still some people who purport to be confused as to why the reason or method or people involved in the firing of the eight US Attorneys matters. And why Congress should issue subpoenas and force a Constitutional conflict to get to the bottom of it.
These people point out that nothing illegal happened, that US Attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President" and that he has the right and privilege to remove and replace them at any time and for any reason.
That I will grant. Yes, the President, and his appointed Attorney General do have that right, and should have that right.
But I would add that the U.S. public has the right to know about it.
The President, the District Attorney and the US Attorneys, let's not forget, are all public servants. All are charged with doing the people's business.
If the President, his staff and the appointees he puts into place believe that the proper method of executing this business is to reward political loyalty and punish impartiality and competence, I guess it's not exactly illegal.
But it certainly shouldn't be secret.
That is exactly the kind of information that voters should be made aware of, so that we can more accurately assess how we cast our votes next time we're asked to elect our next batch of public servants. And Congress has the right and duty to reveal that information to us.
After all, who else will? Not the press, who lacks the legal authority (and the spine) to wrest the needed documents and testimony from the participants. Not the judicial system. And certainly not the executive branch, through some sort of Special Investigator like Daniel Fitzgerald. They know they can't squeak through another one of those without getting really hurt.
Secondly, even if the nakedly partisan firings and hirings aren't illegal, they raise the possibility of other illegalities that may have been committed. Namely obstruction of justice and false charges by those US Attorneys who got the hint about what was expected of them if they wanted to stay employed. Pursuing this investigation to its logical end is the best way of unearthing those crimes.
These people point out that nothing illegal happened, that US Attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President" and that he has the right and privilege to remove and replace them at any time and for any reason.
That I will grant. Yes, the President, and his appointed Attorney General do have that right, and should have that right.
But I would add that the U.S. public has the right to know about it.
The President, the District Attorney and the US Attorneys, let's not forget, are all public servants. All are charged with doing the people's business.
If the President, his staff and the appointees he puts into place believe that the proper method of executing this business is to reward political loyalty and punish impartiality and competence, I guess it's not exactly illegal.
But it certainly shouldn't be secret.
That is exactly the kind of information that voters should be made aware of, so that we can more accurately assess how we cast our votes next time we're asked to elect our next batch of public servants. And Congress has the right and duty to reveal that information to us.
After all, who else will? Not the press, who lacks the legal authority (and the spine) to wrest the needed documents and testimony from the participants. Not the judicial system. And certainly not the executive branch, through some sort of Special Investigator like Daniel Fitzgerald. They know they can't squeak through another one of those without getting really hurt.
Secondly, even if the nakedly partisan firings and hirings aren't illegal, they raise the possibility of other illegalities that may have been committed. Namely obstruction of justice and false charges by those US Attorneys who got the hint about what was expected of them if they wanted to stay employed. Pursuing this investigation to its logical end is the best way of unearthing those crimes.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Nope, nothing wrong here.
"In his remarks Tuesday, Bush emphasized that he appoints federal prosecutors and it is natural to consider replacing them. While saying he disapproved of how the decisions were explained to Congress, he insisted "there is no indication that anybody did anything improper.""
That's one of the things that's so frustrating about this guy. You don't really ever really know if he's being extremely stupid, ass-headedly stubborn, or is simply lying.
With each subsequent testimony and document dump, it becomes increasingly clear that the Administration wanted to use United States Attorneys as guard dogs for Republican politicians and attack dogs against Democratic ones. And that the USAs that didn't want to go along with that got pushed out and replaced with ones that did.
I suppose, it is possible that Bush doesn't see anything 'improper' about that... he did, after all, 'win' the Presidency. And these are all supposedly 'his' guys, that serve 'at his pleasure.' Which, to him and his circle of cronies might very well mean that they are supposed to do his bidding, no matter how nakedly political and partisan that is.
The rest of us here in America find it very improper indeed. Also disgusting. And more than a little frightening.
We might accept that people come into a politically appointed office with certain leanings and tendencies. And even understand if they allow these leanings and tendencies to affect them in the fringes of their duties... like if there's a very close judgement call to be made, their judgement might be nudged toward the direction of their leanings and tendencies. People, after all, are not perfect.
But this is a case that goes far beyond that. This is the sort of stuff that conspiracy theories and banana republics are made of. This is an attempt to stymie prosecutors from following a clear trail of wrongdoing and to send them down false trails for political gains.
That's a road that no American, Republican or Democrat, should want our justice system to begin going down. Not only does it make a mockery of the hard work that our country has done to preserve our laudable level of professionalism, but it sets a nasty precedent that could be used with the change of administrations.
Of course, that's in the long term. And if there's one aspect of Bush's personality that isn't tough to read, it's that he doesn't really give a fuck about anything any further out time-wise than his next brush-clearing vacation.
That's one of the things that's so frustrating about this guy. You don't really ever really know if he's being extremely stupid, ass-headedly stubborn, or is simply lying.
With each subsequent testimony and document dump, it becomes increasingly clear that the Administration wanted to use United States Attorneys as guard dogs for Republican politicians and attack dogs against Democratic ones. And that the USAs that didn't want to go along with that got pushed out and replaced with ones that did.
I suppose, it is possible that Bush doesn't see anything 'improper' about that... he did, after all, 'win' the Presidency. And these are all supposedly 'his' guys, that serve 'at his pleasure.' Which, to him and his circle of cronies might very well mean that they are supposed to do his bidding, no matter how nakedly political and partisan that is.
The rest of us here in America find it very improper indeed. Also disgusting. And more than a little frightening.
We might accept that people come into a politically appointed office with certain leanings and tendencies. And even understand if they allow these leanings and tendencies to affect them in the fringes of their duties... like if there's a very close judgement call to be made, their judgement might be nudged toward the direction of their leanings and tendencies. People, after all, are not perfect.
But this is a case that goes far beyond that. This is the sort of stuff that conspiracy theories and banana republics are made of. This is an attempt to stymie prosecutors from following a clear trail of wrongdoing and to send them down false trails for political gains.
That's a road that no American, Republican or Democrat, should want our justice system to begin going down. Not only does it make a mockery of the hard work that our country has done to preserve our laudable level of professionalism, but it sets a nasty precedent that could be used with the change of administrations.
Of course, that's in the long term. And if there's one aspect of Bush's personality that isn't tough to read, it's that he doesn't really give a fuck about anything any further out time-wise than his next brush-clearing vacation.
Um, sorry, that's not going to do it
In this article, Bush makes his grandiose offer.
"Bush said his White House counsel, Fred Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview presidential counselor Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies — but only on the president's terms: in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript."
Bushie-Boy seems to be laboring under the delusion that his ideological and financial cronies still run things in Congress.
You'll note that he doesn't give any hint of reason why his staff can't testify under conditions in which it's more difficult to get away with lies, besides ""We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ..."
A more laughable statement can't be imagined coming from someone who only came as close to election as he did in 2000 on the strength of exactly that... a fishing expedition into Clinton's real estate dealings that uncovered the shocking fact that a man would tell fibs to avoid getting caught cheating on his wife.
Still you can hardly blame him for shielding his henchmen so vehemently.
Once Rove and his thugs are up on the stand, under oath and in front of the cameras there's no telling what kinds of skeletons, corpses and bound-and-gagged living captives might fall out of the administration's closet.
"Bush said his White House counsel, Fred Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview presidential counselor Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies — but only on the president's terms: in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript."
Bushie-Boy seems to be laboring under the delusion that his ideological and financial cronies still run things in Congress.
You'll note that he doesn't give any hint of reason why his staff can't testify under conditions in which it's more difficult to get away with lies, besides ""We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ..."
A more laughable statement can't be imagined coming from someone who only came as close to election as he did in 2000 on the strength of exactly that... a fishing expedition into Clinton's real estate dealings that uncovered the shocking fact that a man would tell fibs to avoid getting caught cheating on his wife.
Still you can hardly blame him for shielding his henchmen so vehemently.
Once Rove and his thugs are up on the stand, under oath and in front of the cameras there's no telling what kinds of skeletons, corpses and bound-and-gagged living captives might fall out of the administration's closet.
Monday, March 19, 2007
I'm Ready for the 2nd DOJ Corruption Helping, Thanks!
As the DA purge investigations continue, it's clear that the Administration was playing the the same crude and blatant politicization game with the Department of Justice as with every other person, place or thing they've had occasion to interact with.
One thing that you can say about that group of thugs and cavemen is that--- with the exception of the wily Rove, who layers a thin veneer of slickery, gotcha-proof, slime on top of his thuggery --- they aren't hard to read.
Their mandate was pretty clear to the DAs: Help get Republicans elected. Try to find (non-existent) voter fraud cases. Indict Democrats. And above all, stop investigating Republicans.
By firing the 8 DA's who, in the words of their own emails, weren't being "loyal Bushies," and accelerating or decelerating investigations at GOP command, they have more or less tipped off anyone of a suspicious mindset that the other 85 DA's were. Being loyal Bushies that is. And, on a side note, as of March 19th, 2007 I can't think of a more embarrassing label than that.
I'm rubbing my hands together waiting for the parties stung in the process --- like Dems who were unfairly singled out for investigations and intimidation, and prosecutors who had clear-cut corruption investigations against Repubs terminated --- to jump on the bandwagon and start telling their stories.
I'm betting that there is plenty of that particular kind of shit for us to push Republican noses into, while telling them that they are "Bad Americans! Bad!" before sending them out of the house, so they never get a chance to shit on the American carpet again.
One thing that you can say about that group of thugs and cavemen is that--- with the exception of the wily Rove, who layers a thin veneer of slickery, gotcha-proof, slime on top of his thuggery --- they aren't hard to read.
Their mandate was pretty clear to the DAs: Help get Republicans elected. Try to find (non-existent) voter fraud cases. Indict Democrats. And above all, stop investigating Republicans.
By firing the 8 DA's who, in the words of their own emails, weren't being "loyal Bushies," and accelerating or decelerating investigations at GOP command, they have more or less tipped off anyone of a suspicious mindset that the other 85 DA's were. Being loyal Bushies that is. And, on a side note, as of March 19th, 2007 I can't think of a more embarrassing label than that.
I'm rubbing my hands together waiting for the parties stung in the process --- like Dems who were unfairly singled out for investigations and intimidation, and prosecutors who had clear-cut corruption investigations against Repubs terminated --- to jump on the bandwagon and start telling their stories.
I'm betting that there is plenty of that particular kind of shit for us to push Republican noses into, while telling them that they are "Bad Americans! Bad!" before sending them out of the house, so they never get a chance to shit on the American carpet again.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Republican Priorities
According to this LA Times article, Carole Lam, the District Attorney for San Diego was fired because she preferred to pursue high level, white collar criminals (including Republican Congressman/Geriatric Partyboy, Randy "The Duke-stir" Cunningham) instead of immigration law violators.
How very Republican.
Thinking that it's less important to prosecute rich white people defrauding U.S. taxpayers than poor brown people trying to become them.
How very Republican.
Thinking that it's less important to prosecute rich white people defrauding U.S. taxpayers than poor brown people trying to become them.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Hilary ’08: Getting Ugly Early
Though it’s still early, nay, pre-rosy-fingers-of-dawn days for the ’08 elections, already La Hilary is looking less and less enticing as time goes by.
Her whole campaign, to my way of thinking, has always been more or less based on the “who else ya got?” factor. Though the number of people who are actually jazzed at the thought of a Hilary Clinton Presidency is miniscule… so miniscule that even I, who consort exclusively with hard-core Dems and godless Liberals have yet to engage in conversation with anyone that would fit that description.
Most of them, like me, have said something along the lines of “Yeah, there’s no doubt that she’d do a good job. Yeah, I guess if I had to choose between a Republican and Hilary, I would choose Hilary.”
I also add the caveat that I wouldn’t like it. And that I would be very uncomfortable, probably even physically nauseous, having to persuade someone else to vote for her too.
This, friends, is a problem for someone running for elected office. Let’s not kid ourselves that the process of picking office of President of the United States selects out the most qualified. The process is a popularity contest, along with other even less savory things.
And Hilary, despite her formidable intelligence and many gifts, simply is not popular.
There’s no shame in that. Being popular, as any junior high-schooler will tell you, just kind of happens to some people and doesn’t to others, and there’s little that any of us can do to force it. Kind of like being a great athlete. Hard work can take you far, but then when you reach the edges of your capacity, you get smoked by those who’ve worked just as hard and also have a natural edge on you.
That’s what we’re seeing now with the Obama infatuation. Obama is likable, and as such, he’s the biggest threat that Hilary faces. After all, her candidacy falls apart when people feel like they have another option.
So get ready to watch Team Hilary & Bill do everything they can to cut off Obama’s funding, disparage his readiness, and in general delegitimize his candidacy. Kind of like the shot they just sent across his bow with the David Geffen thing last weekend.
Also, keep your fingers crossed that they fail. And that the Clintons realize that the party, and the nation, would be better served if they put their awesome powers behind a candidate with the natural gifts to get elected.
Because if the Clinton Machine does manage to outmaneuver and starve and crush all the other Dem candidates, the end result will be a lot of surly and disappointed Democrats squaring off against a Republican base energized beyond belief for a fight against an unlikable, unpopular figure they’ve spent the last 16 years demonizing.
And that, my friends, will be really ugly.
Her whole campaign, to my way of thinking, has always been more or less based on the “who else ya got?” factor. Though the number of people who are actually jazzed at the thought of a Hilary Clinton Presidency is miniscule… so miniscule that even I, who consort exclusively with hard-core Dems and godless Liberals have yet to engage in conversation with anyone that would fit that description.
Most of them, like me, have said something along the lines of “Yeah, there’s no doubt that she’d do a good job. Yeah, I guess if I had to choose between a Republican and Hilary, I would choose Hilary.”
I also add the caveat that I wouldn’t like it. And that I would be very uncomfortable, probably even physically nauseous, having to persuade someone else to vote for her too.
This, friends, is a problem for someone running for elected office. Let’s not kid ourselves that the process of picking office of President of the United States selects out the most qualified. The process is a popularity contest, along with other even less savory things.
And Hilary, despite her formidable intelligence and many gifts, simply is not popular.
There’s no shame in that. Being popular, as any junior high-schooler will tell you, just kind of happens to some people and doesn’t to others, and there’s little that any of us can do to force it. Kind of like being a great athlete. Hard work can take you far, but then when you reach the edges of your capacity, you get smoked by those who’ve worked just as hard and also have a natural edge on you.
That’s what we’re seeing now with the Obama infatuation. Obama is likable, and as such, he’s the biggest threat that Hilary faces. After all, her candidacy falls apart when people feel like they have another option.
So get ready to watch Team Hilary & Bill do everything they can to cut off Obama’s funding, disparage his readiness, and in general delegitimize his candidacy. Kind of like the shot they just sent across his bow with the David Geffen thing last weekend.
Also, keep your fingers crossed that they fail. And that the Clintons realize that the party, and the nation, would be better served if they put their awesome powers behind a candidate with the natural gifts to get elected.
Because if the Clinton Machine does manage to outmaneuver and starve and crush all the other Dem candidates, the end result will be a lot of surly and disappointed Democrats squaring off against a Republican base energized beyond belief for a fight against an unlikable, unpopular figure they’ve spent the last 16 years demonizing.
And that, my friends, will be really ugly.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
the 21.5k solution
I was gone from the country for two weeks, from about Christmas to mid January and was astounded by how fast Bush's surge idea has been imposed on the country.
When I left, the talk was all about the Iraq Study Group, and their recommendations and how Georgie was going to deal with them. Two weeks later, the Decider has spoken, and all of that group's suggestions have been swept aside and the surge is a done deal.
I've got a lot of problems with the idea, but am also curious as to where he came up with the number of 21,500 troops.
In the first place, that's kind of small. It almost implies that we're only 20 something thousand soldiers away from winning this thing... like it's been more or less a closely balanced see-saw up until now, and by putting just that tiny little extra weight on the scales, it's going to swing to Victory with a mighty clank.
Secondly, it's such an oddly precise number.
Did someone parse it out so clearly as to decide that 21,000 wouldn't quite be enough to do the job, yet 22,000 would be overkill?
If so, who?
When I left, the talk was all about the Iraq Study Group, and their recommendations and how Georgie was going to deal with them. Two weeks later, the Decider has spoken, and all of that group's suggestions have been swept aside and the surge is a done deal.
I've got a lot of problems with the idea, but am also curious as to where he came up with the number of 21,500 troops.
In the first place, that's kind of small. It almost implies that we're only 20 something thousand soldiers away from winning this thing... like it's been more or less a closely balanced see-saw up until now, and by putting just that tiny little extra weight on the scales, it's going to swing to Victory with a mighty clank.
Secondly, it's such an oddly precise number.
Did someone parse it out so clearly as to decide that 21,000 wouldn't quite be enough to do the job, yet 22,000 would be overkill?
If so, who?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)