Archive for the 'Election' Category

18
Jun
09

SCARLET H (Hypocrisy) UPDATE – Repubs Vote No on War Funding

Scarlet H - Repubs - War fundingI’m starting a new series entitled “Scarlet H Update” about political hypocrisy, as I described in my last blog. I’m sure it will be a regular series, because now that there’s a Democrat in the White House, we’re sure to routinely witness Repubs again and again do the same things they chastised Democrats about while Bush was ruining the world.

I’ll probably have to start another series “Spineless Dems – WTF?!” and we might have an installment of that tomorrow.

In case you didn’t happen to read yesterday’s post in which I discuss the all-too-common combination of Republicans, adultery, and hypocrisy, the Scarlet H will now be applied to those who criticize one and then do the exact same thing down the line. It’s elementary, but you see, our politicians simply cannot stop themselves from issuing the almighty condemnation for actions they themselves pursue. While I would say this is a bipartisan problem, the majority of Scarlet H award winners are Rebubs for too many reasons to go into at this juncture.

Today, we focus on war funding.

Remember this little gem from the campaign trail in which Cindy McCain attacked Obama for voting against a war funding bill – which her husband had done earlier as well (I could only find a video of the ridiculousness enmeshed in a Hardball clip, but it’s at the beginning, so you don’t have to watch all the commentary if you don’t want to):

Cindy’s speech mimicked many attacks the Republicans have launched against Democrats should a leftie ever, ever decide to vote against a war fuding bill. Why would they do such a thing? You see extraneous funding are always attached to bills that guaranteed to pass – like a military funding bill. This is how many projects receive money. I’m not saying it is right. I’m saying this is how it is – whether a Democrat or Republican has been in the White House.

Well, it just so happens that a war funding bill has come across the laps of our Washington legislators – complete with the typical extraneous funding requests and guess what? The VAST majority of House Republicans voted against the lastest war funding bill June 16.

As Politico (whose piece I linked to above) points out:

In 2005, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) ripped Democrats who opposed the supplemental request, calling their position “immoral.” When war funding came up again in 2006, Cole took to the floor to say, “I would ask members to remember this is a vote about our willingness to support our servicemen and women and not about other policy issues.”

He voted no on the war funding Tuesday.

Even McCain said he is leaning against voting for the bill – I wonder who his wife would support on the campaign trail now.

The fact of the matter is that Republicans have railed against Democrats repeatedly, consistently in recent years when Democrats voted against war funding bills for the exact same reason Republicans are turning their backs on this piece of legislation.

In a flood of vitriol, Republicans hurdled accusations claiming the Democrats did not care for the troops, hated America, weren’t patriotic every time they Dems something stripped from a war funding bill.

Now Republicans are committing an act they had, as recently as the last presidential campaign, called a grievous sin.

There’s no honor, no dignity in politicizing the troops, which the Republicans do repeatedly when it serves their purpose. Then, to turn tail when the White House is blue, is a true bottom-feeder low. Despicable from all angles.

And don’t write any comments criticizing the legislation. I’m not defending the legislation. War funding bills have always had these tag-along items and only now are yellow-bellied Republicans standing against such legislation. Shameful.

And that’s why, today, Republicans get the H.

And talk about double standard, why isn’t Fox reporting on the lack of Republicans supporting the bill?

Advertisements
17
Jun
09

Republicans, Adultery and Hypocrisy AGAIN

Politicians need to stop criticizing each other for having affairs. You know the ones who protest the loudest are in the back room boning their secretary or their friend’s wife or some prostitute when they’re not in front of their precious cameras.

And I really don’t think having an affair makes you a bad legislator or should immediately designate your pink slip.

But, for chrissakes, Republicans! All the bastions of morality who spewed faux indignation after Clinton’s Cigar Adventures with Lewinsky are, one-by-one, revealing themselves card-carrying members of the Scarlet H club – Hypocrites.

Sanctity of marriage, my ass. Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, David Vitter and now John Ensign have all emerged as pathetic boobs committing the same sins for which they’ve ordered others’ political executions.

Furthermore, these are all men (old and white) who have called for the preservation of the their version of marriage and would keep same-sex marriage from being legal. Yet, they grind their own marriages to a pulp. How they think adultery should remain legal while same-sex marriage not, according to their own logic and dogma, is beyond explanation.

It is always the Christians, always the right wingers, the Sarah Palins, the Carrie Prejeans and now the John Ensigns who make the Religious Right-Wing Hypocrites-R-Us Party so unpalatable. They hold everyone else to a standard they themselves cannot meet.

Every week, another of my Republican friends (mostly white and 30) tell me they are abandoning the Red Party and heading over to the Libertarians. And you can thank, in large part, the never-ending, vomit-inducing mountain of hypocrisy that eminates from the right side of the aisle. It’s beyond grotesque.

13
Jun
09

Sarah Palin Has the Political IQ of a Gnat: Why blaming the media won’t work

Preface: I have no idea what Palin’s political ambitions are. Perhaps she just wants to host a daytime television talk show. And maybe she just wants to make sure that any male born in her family has a name that starts with T and R. I don’t know. But just in case, on the slim chance that she does want to win a national election or even follow in Michael Steele’s trailblazing footsteps to become head of the RNC, I have to write this blog.

At most, Sarah Palin will just be the mascot of the Right Wing Repubs. Nothing more. A great fundraiser she is – and that’s nothing to sneeze at since most political parties raise the bulk of their funds from their base (and corporations who’s asses they are kissing).

Here’s why. She, her husband, her handlers and her political team are as dumb as a box of rocks. The blame-the-media strategy does not work. First of all, the majority of voters can see through the ridiculous facade that a politician is somehow a victim of the media. It didn’t work for the Clinton’s – yes, Bill had higher approval numbers than Bush (who wouldn’t even if he were being compared to Satan), but the country was tired enough of the Politician vs. Media fight to elect the genius governor of our glorious state of Texas for president.

She still hasn’t given up her “double standard” line when it comes to the media and right vs. left. She told Matt Lauer that Obama declared families off limits during the campaign, so no one touched his. I would pay good money for one of these interviewers to ask Palin if she thinks Obama would have been elected had one of his daughters become an unwed teenage mother. What if Michelle had had a previous addiction to prescription medicine as did Cindy McCain. There’s no way Obama would have been close to a presidential ticket if he had been known to use a governership as a persona

l ATM like Huckabee or committed complete 180’s between elections as with Romney in his governor race and then in his bid to become president. Obama was held to a much higher standard and he prevailed. Palin’s cry of foul is ingeniuine and rings hollow.

And now she has become a card-carrying participator in silly season in this manufactured feud with David Letterman. The man tells edgy jokes that approach the inappropriate boundry FOR A LIVING. All this talk of boycotting Letterman by Draft Sarah is so inane because of the fact that none of the people who would consider Draft Sarah anything but an organization of crack smokers wouldn’t watch Letterman in the first place.zazzle.com

Secondly, a good politician would put out a statement “blah, blah, blah, the joke demeans women, blah, blah, blah..” and move on. A smart politican wouldn’t engage a COMEDIAN WHO HOSTS A TELEVISION SHOW. Like they say: you don’t fight down. She just looks like a moron even addressing it personally, and then her lower IQ allows her to say things like, “Hey maybe he couldn’t be trusted because Willow’s had enough of these types of comments, and maybe Willow would want to react it him in a way that maybe would catch off guard.” Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously, they need a Special Ed class for politicians of her lack of caliber. Really, go read every issue of Newsweek from the last year and then maybe, just maybe she’ll be informed enough to move up to politics for second graders.

Basically, there are a few qualities American voters tend to hone in on when in the “decider” booth. One of them is strength. Playing the victim is a major turnoff when a broad spectrum of voters are involved, as they would be in a national election. Blaming the media just makes Sarah look like a weak, bitchy shrew – which is how many people saw Hillary in the 90’s. No one ever succeeded in recent elections with the “Poor me” syndrome. Voters don’t care if the media is rough on politicians. At all. A candidate has to rise above the petty noise and stay above it. Sarah just looks like a pig in mud. And that won’t win elections.

So, the next time Palin wants to go on national television and say,

Here’s the problem, Matt – the double standard that has been applied here. One, let’s talk politically, the double standard. First, remember in the campaign, Barack Obama said the family’s off-limits – you don’t talk about my family. And the candidate who must be obeyed – everybody adhered to that and left his family. They haven’t done that on the other side of the ticket, and it has continued to this day. So that’s a political double standard. But here again, the double standard when it comes to acceptance of a celebrity being able to get way with a disparaging comment that does erode a young girl’s self-esteem and does contribute to some of the problems that we have in society.

someone on her team better get fired. And they need to draw a stick figure with big red lips and say “That’s you.” Then they need to draw a puppy and say, “That’s your political dream.” Then they need to draw the stick figure shooting the puppy and say, “That’s what you’re doing when you engage in this kindergarten, sandlot fight with the media. It doesn’t work. It never has. It never will.” Maybe then she’ll get it. But probably not.

Remember, America just had one shit-fer-brains for a president. We’re not looking for another one. Well, most of us aren’t.

28
May
09

Can I Get a Decent Democrat Senator?

I don’t give a shit what anyone says about MSNBC; yesterday’s programming was priceless to a political junkie like myself.

First off, Chris Matthews unleashed the freaking 4th degree on Senator (gag) Roland Burris – who tried to convince an incredulous Hardball host that he was “placating,” or lying, to Blagojevich’s brother when he said he would try to raise money for the governor. The transcript of the phone conversation between the governor’s bro and the political big boy wannabee is priceless and you can read it here. It’s a hoot of pathetic proportions.

Let me paraphrase it for you:

Rod Blasumovabitch’s brother: I’m not a bullshitter, give us money.

Roland Blatant Weasel Burris: Hey, hey, I been meanin’ to talk to you because I want to raise money for ya, but I really want that senate seat. So, ya know, pony up, bitch. Senate seat, senate seat, senate seat.

Rod Blasumovabitch’s brother: Yer a loser, but whatever, just right us a check and yeah, whatever.

Burris is a retard. His defense is that he was bullshitting Blago’s brother. The only problem is that that implies Burris was reactionary during the discussion, which is false. Blago’s brother called to ask if Burris could fundraise and the entire rest of the conversation is led by Burris trying to figure out how to pay for the senate seat without getting caught. It’d be funny if that unsneaky bastard weren’t sitting in one of the highest offices in the land.

Can’t wait til 2010 for Burris to be out on his arse.

Then, then, on the Ed Show, which I hardly ever watch (and which has a terrible title), Joe Sestak (aka, Admiral Sestak, aka the highest ranking former military officer to serve in the U.S. Congress Sestak) announced that he would challenge newly Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter in the primary for his seat in 2010 (pending a Sestak family discussion and agreement, blah, blah, blah).

Joe said he didn’t necessarily think that Washington’s decision to anoint Spector the next Democratic nominee in the Pennsylvania senate seat might not fly with citizens of the state. I agree. Kick Spector out – he ain’t no Democrat. He’s just a desperate politician tryingfinagle a couple more years onto his career. Have you seen him? He’s like 102 years-old. It’s time of the bag of bones to go.

So, good luck, Sestak! This Texan with absolutely no influence in the outcome of your ambitions wishes you all the best! (Unless, that is, it emerges that you fathered some illegitimate child with an underage prosititute. But, I’m sure that won’t happen.)

We need some better Democrats in the Senate – I won’t even get into Reid, Dodd and Feinstein. We have some good apples, but really, most of them are simply politicians with their hands in the corporate cookie jar.

So, in the name of worthless, irrelevant, ineffective Dems, TERM LIMITS!!!

15
May
09

News You Should Know 05.15.09

This Friday afternoon, there were a number of news stories that caught my attention. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to write an entire, fleshed out blog on each of them.

  1. Pulitzer Prize winners. I know this is from last month, but I recently took a look at this year’s Pulitzer winners and found many quite worth the squiz:
    1. Alexandra Berzon of the Las Vegas Sun on higher death rates among construction workers on the Strip due to lax regulation enforcement.
    2. David Barstow of The NYT on the utilization of generals by the Pentagon to sell the Iraq War. (Pt. 1 and Pt. 2)
    3. Ryan Gabrielson and Paul Giblin of the East Valley Tribune reveal how a popular (and over-zealous) sheriff’s focus on illegal immigration resulted in the endangerment of investications of violent crimes and other areas of public safety. I still see that sheriff all over TV.
    4. St. Petersburg Times for Politifact (they completely deserve this one).
    5. Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post for his coverage of the 2008 election. This surprise me. Dont’ get me wrong, I love Eugene, but I’m not quite sure how his comentary was better than, say, E.J. Dionne’s. Eugene still rocks and congratulations to him.
    6. Steve Breen of the San Diego Union-Tribune for his editorial cartooning. Example:
    7. Damon Winter of The NYT for his photography of Obama’s presidential campaign. A great series and really worth the look.
  2. Texas and other states charging victims for rape kits. This is appalling – it reduces the number of women willing to pursue the arrest and conviction of their perpetrator. If a murder victim’s family had to pay for the evidence to be collected at the murder scene, the country would be in an uproar. Remember when I say there are areas where the U.S. needs improving? This is one of them.
  3. THIS IS BIG. The ACLU is suing to challenge a patent Myriad Genetics on two human genes linked to breast and ovarian cancers.“Knowledge about our own bodies and the ability to make decisions about our health care are some of our most personal and fundamental rights,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “The government should not be granting private entities control over something as personal and basic to who we are as our genes.”
  4. The Texas Senate passed a bill weakening eminenet domain laws and forcing the government to operate much more transparently when attempting to seize private property. Yee-Haw!! Now, get with it, House, and let’s get this signed into law! I hope eminent domain reform is progressing in other states as well.
13
May
09

Dick Cheney: Opinion Compilation

My opinion for Dick Cheney really needs no description. He is a vile, megalomaniacal, right-wing zealot with no capability of reasonable contemplation or consideration for any other strategy than full-throttle, “Either join me or get outta my way!” This country is infinitesimally better off now that the old man is sidelined.

That said, how wonderful it is that the black-pace-makered, sinister posterboy pokes his head above the muck and mire long enough to remind everyone why Obama won on Nov. 4 before returning to his panic room to watch Fox until he perceives yet another indignity that needs addressing.

The left is like a kid in a candy store when Dick’s thin lips part to reveal his jutted lower jaw and antediluvian, borderline-schizo views. We sit aglow in front of our television screens asking, Does it get any better than this? It could, I suppose, but it most likely will not. Only Bush on his knees in tears, arms stretched to the sky, crying, “Why, oh why, Baby Jesus, am I so hated when all I did is what you tole me to do?” That would be awesome.

Three commentators offered their opinions regarding the latest Dick Cheney tomfoolery and I couldn’t have put it any better than they did:

Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic:

I don’t know how else to interpret his obviously self-destructive grandstanding this weekend. But think of the long view for a moment. Here is a former vice-president, who enjoyed unprecedented power for eight long, long years. No veep ever wielded power like he did in the long history of American government. In the months after 9/11, he swept all Congressional resistance away, exerted total executive power, wielded a military and paramilitary apparatus far mightier than all its rivals combined and mightier than any power in history, tapped any phone he wanted, claimed the right to torture any suspect he wanted (and followed through with thousands, from Bagram to Abu Ghraib) and was able to print and borrow money with impunity to finance all of it without a worry in the world. But even after all that, he cannot tolerate a few months of someone else, duly elected, having a chance to govern the country with a decent interval of grace.

Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post:

This is the crux of Cheney’s “argument,” and I put the word in quotation marks because it isn’t really a valid argument at all. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration approved programs and methods that previously would have been considered illegal or unacceptable: arbitrary and indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, waterboarding and other abusive interrogation methods, secret CIA prisons, unprecedented electronic surveillance. Since 2001, there have been no new attacks on what the Bush administration creepily called the “homeland.” Therefore, everything that was done in the name of preventing new attacks was justified.

The fallacy lies in the fact that it is impossible for Cheney to prove that anti-terrorism methods within the bounds of U.S. law and tradition would have failed to prevent new attacks. Nor, for that matter, can Cheney demonstrate that torture and other abuses were particularly effective.

[…]

Given a choice between a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state who has given to his nation a lifetime of exemplary public service or an entertainer who brags about how much money he makes from bombast and bluster, Cheney would go with the gasbag. This is advice that’s supposed to help the Republican Party?

Maureen Dowd from The New York Times:

In 2002, when Bush Junior was ramping up to his war against Saddam, Al Gore made a speech trying to slow down that war resolution, pointing out that pivoting from Osama to Saddam for no reason, initiating “pre-emptive” war, and blowing off our allies would undermine the war on terror. Charles Krauthammer called Gore’s speech “a disgrace.” Michael Kelly, his fellow Washington Post columnist, called it “vile” and “contemptible.” Newt Gingrich said that the former vice president asserting that W. was making America less safe was “well outside the mark of an appropriate debate.”

[…]

The man who never talked is now the man who won’t shut up. The man who wouldn’t list his office in the federal jobs directory, who had the vice president’s residence blocked on Google Earth, who went to the Supreme Court to keep from revealing which energy executives helped him write the nation’s energy policy, is now endlessly yelping about how President Obama is holding back documents that should be made public.

Cheney, who had five deferments himself to get out of going to Vietnam, would rather follow a blowhard entertainer who has had three divorces and a drug problem (who also avoided Vietnam) than a four-star general who spent his life serving his country.

[…]

He has no coherent foreign policy viewpoint. He still doesn’t fathom that his brutish invasion of Iraq unbalanced that part of the world, empowered Iran and was a force multiplier for Muslims who hate America. He left our ports unsecured, our food supply unsafe, the Taliban rising and Osama on the loose. No matter if or when terrorists attack here — and they’re on their own timetable, not a partisan red/blue state timetable — Cheney will be deemed the primary one who made America more vulnerable.

W.’s dark surrogate father is trying to pull the G.O.P. into a black hole of zealotry, just as the sensible brother who lost his future to the scamp brother is trying to get his career back on track.

When Cheney was in the first Bush administration, he was odd man out. Poppy, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell corralled Cheney’s “Genghis Khan” side, as it was known, and his “rough streak.” Cheney didn’t care for Powell even then.

Keep it coming, Dick Cheney; this is gold, I tell ya, GOLD!!

11
May
09

Elizabeth Edwards No Innocent Bystander

I cannot get enough of the Edwards saga – and, lucky for me, this will be a story that keeps on giving. While John’s career is pretty much toast, the media will continue to minitor for noteworthy developments in their lives and each one will again propell this jaw-dropping scandal to the public forefront.

Events that will bring the story back from faded obscurity: results of a paternity test of Rielle Hunter’s child, a decision by Rielle Hunter to capitalize on her infamy with a book or Lifetime movie, and any slightest deterioriation in Elizabeth Edward’s health. Little does John know – or maybe he does – that any progress he might accomplish in the rehabilitation of his reputation will immediately be snuffed upon the death of Elizabeth. When her life is finally extinguished and public sympathy for her reaches maximum peak, no mind will be distracted from John’s infedelities as the story is replayed over and over between commercial breaks. John’s misdeeds will have earned him an upteenth, inescapable tar and feathering. I bet he often thinks, If I could only undo the past….

Elizabeth’s interview on Oprah last week was heartbreaking, I have to say. Her desciption and defense of the life she built was captivating, to say the least. That one hussy, combined with her husband’s ginormous ego could tear it all apart was gut-wrenching.

But, she does not deserve all my sympathy. First of all, I was never a John Edwards fan. There is a blatant inauthenticity to him, that slippery-eel lawyer quality, that made my husband and I blanch at the the fact he was chosen by John Kerry as his 2004 running mate. Afterward, John’s championing of the poor was such an overtly strategic political move, with no heart behind it, I found it galling that so many were duped by the accent and the smile. Even the Bush administration referred to him as the Breck girl (ref. Dead Certain, by Robert Draper). It was so clearly fake, I had a hard time watching him. And reports of his split personality emerged during the campaign – on-camera John was friendly and warm, whereas off-camera John was cold and snobby – seemed to square with my gut reactions to his appearances.

It did not suprise me in the least that he had cheated on his wife. The jeopardy, however, in which he placed the 2008 election – the most important of my generation – was and is unforgivable. He would never have obtained the nomination, but the possibility dangles in our hindsight as a frightening reminder that politicians are a tricky bunch.

Elizabeth Edwards says to pull out of the race would have been to create an unnecessary drama, so they opted to stay in after she knew of his philandering. She deserves outrage for allowing this potentially nuclear charade to continue. Shame on her. She aided and abetted this lying, this performance at a time when we desperately needed responsible real deals. The sham they paraded was politically criminal. That they would put the interests of themselves – or even their wealthy family – over those of the country is dispicable, even now. Elizabeth Edwards told Oprah women should support each other. How was she supporting our half of the population by helping her husband possibly torpedo the election and allow McCain (no on domestic violence bill, no on equal bay bill) to win?  She doesn’t care about the rest of us girls at all. It is a shame she has cancer, but she was not an innocent bystander, she was a willing participant and perpetuator and I wouldn’t purchase a book of hers regardless of the level of juicy details she seeks to peddle.

She said on Today this morning that John made one mistake. One mistake. Bullshit. Utter nonsense. His boning of the ugly lady was a mistake, his political chicanery was far worse. He won’t even stand up and be a proper father to the child he helped create.

And until both Edwardses admit and take responsibility for their culpability to their supporters and the American people, no tell-alls, no speeches about poverty, no Larry King interviews will put them back in the good graces of the millions of us to whom this unforgettable lapse in judgment mattered in the first place.




Scarlet Letter of Atheism

a

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

Blog Stats

  • 95,676 hits
WordPress Political Blogger

Top Clicks

  • None