Republicans — The Party of “Values” — Part 1: Sex (and some Drugs)

So how about this whole "Party of Values" label the Republicans have handed themselves? Isn’t that a hoot? How about the whole "I’m more Christian than you!" tone the right wing has celebrated for years? You evangelicals who worship at the feet of these idiots; do you feel duped yet? There’s nothing even remotely moral about these people, as a group, and I mean nothing. That is not to say there are no moral people who happen to be registered Republicans, of course, but if you look at what your votes have sanctioned over the years, there has to be some soul searching going on in moderate Republican circles.

Face it, folks; you’ve been had.

If it seems at times like the Democratic Party has a hard time getting its act together and acting in unison, it’s because it doesn’t. On the other hand, for most of the last 40 years, we have been led by a Republican Party populated by hypocrites who say all sorts of things that people want to believe, but their actions have in no way matched their words.

Actually, it goes well beyond that. It’s getting to the point where I don’t want to be alone with a Republican man. Apparently, they’re a bunch of freaks. Within the last few months, we’ve had several prominent Republican political operatives, including many who had high profile roles in Republican presidential campaigns, who were caught doing, um, weird things to people.

Let’s start with the more recent freak scandals. Many have referred refer to this stuff as "gay sex," but let’s get real here. I’m not gay, but somehow, I can’t see these activities as particularly normal for most gay men who are relatively secure in their sexuality. These people are freaks, in part because they simply cannot be what they want, and they’re acting out.

Seriously, folks; all of you know gay men. You don’t know many of them are gay, but they’re there, right in front of you. But it doesn’t matter to you, because most gay men are not freaks. I think it’s safe to say that  most gay men do not solicit strangers for sex in a public restroom. I know some of you wingnuts think of gay men as something akin to predators, but most are pretty much aware that most bathroom solicitations will probably result in something painful happening to them. Most gay men find other gay men the same way most of us in the heterosexual world find women; in bars, in church, through mutual friends, on the Internet, etc. They don’t stand outside a men’s room stall and peek longingly through the crack at a guy taking a shit, and continue staring for two or more minutes, before proceeding to the next stall to play footsie. They don’t peek over the stall door and offer the guy inside $20 to give him oral sex. Actually, it’s pretty unusual for anyone to pay to give oral sex, and even more unusual to then claim that you were trying to do it to get away from the "cluster of black people" gathering around the area. I’m pretty sure, if enough menacing people of any race were "clustering" threateningly, offering them money to blow them might get you in more trouble than simply running away. And I can’t imagine a relatively normal gay man ever having sex with another man while he was sleeping, either, especially when the other man was so incredibly drunk and passed out that it didn’t even awaken him. Relatively normal gay men don’t preach against homesexuality during the day, and then partake in crystal meth and male prostitutes at night. They also don’t host hours and hours of television with their wives, preaching about the wickedness of adultery and homosexuality, while going off several evenings a week to be with their male lovers, nor do they pay huge sums of money to hush up said (now former, I presume) lover, in order to keep their hundred-million-dollar television ministry from going under. And normal gay men, despite the right wing stereotype, simply do not get into intimate sexual discussions with underage kids who are supposed to be in their employ, especially when they’re congressmen.

You see, the behavior above is not the behavior of normal gay people; it’s the behavior of self-loathing predators who feel the need to persecute others who are fortunate enough to be comfortable in their own skin, and able to be themselves. If these wingnut Republicans want to be gay, they can be gay. But then, they might have to give up some of their perceived power, and that’s simply not acceptable.

And for those Republicans or their supporters who aren’t gay, aren’t pedophiles, and aren’t criminals, you, too are just as culpable when it comes to the immorality of hypocrisy. Another of the leading televangelists in the country, who praises Jesus while simultaneously supporting those who violate His teachings on a daily basis, actually referred to the predatory behavior of the congress toward the boy pages, as described above as a "joke," and excused — not forgave, mind you, but excused — the above congressman’s behavior as unimportant. Imagine that your child was a congressional page, and you found out that this congressman was talking to him explicitly about sex. I’m pretty sure you’d want to kick his ass. and if someone who proclaimed himself to be Jesus’ representative on earth, and instructed everyone on ethics and morals, excused such behavior with a ‘boys will be boys" kind of attitude, you’d certainly consider him a hypocrite, and you sure as hell wouldn’t go to his church. Yet, this phony preacher has most of the Republican leadership kissing his ample ass. Why?

The Republican sex scandal is not a new phenomenon, either. Back in 1990, the FBI broke up a teenage homosexual prostitution ring that had been active in and around DC for many years; among the ring’s clients were several very high level White House officials. Did I mention the prostitutes were teen boys? Before that, another official working in the White House was forced to resign when it was found out that he had hired gay prostitutes, and used his own credit card to pay.

And those are just the criminals, folks. Among the others who have spent the last 40 years gay bashing, and doing their best to make sure their "base" understands that they don’t "condone" homosexuality, include a very prominent Republican who was "outed" against his will after he voted against a host of bills designed to give gays equal rights; another Republican who spends far more of his time living alone with a male chief of staff in a small Capitol Hill apartment than with his wife,  and several others. There are actually quite a few, but this isn’t about outing anyone, but pointing out the hypocrisy of a party that touts itself as being the party of values, when it is obviously the party of hypocrisy.

I don’t care if anyone is gay, including a Republican. But when someone is gay, then claiming they’re against homosexuality makes them a liar, and actively voting to deny rights to other gays makes them the ultimate hypocrites. And can we all agree that, at the very least, we should expect as much truth and as little hypocrisy as possible from those we elect to lead us?

Besides, the Republican sex scandals aren’t just about "gay" sex. There is plenty of heterosexual freakiness to go around, and for a "family values" group of "devout Christians," there sure seems to be a lot of adultery and an awful lot of multiple marriages.

Several prominent Republican politicians, while they were busy impeaching the President of the
United States for adultery, declaring themselves moral stewards for the country, and expressing remorse for the president having somehow made it "acceptable for teenage girls to give their boyfriends oral sex (despite the fact that said president never talked about oral sex; only the "moral" republicans did), were themselves involved in adulterous affairs, or had been recently. One even later dumped his wife for the mistress he
was sleeping with during the impeachment trial. Of course, this shouldn’t have shocked anyone, since that wife had once been his mistress when he dumped his first wife, while she lay in a hospital bed. Another impeachment-obsessed Republican, who was set to take over as Speaker when the
first adulterer was forced to quit before being kicked out for ethics violations too great for even the Republican Congress, was himself forced to quit, having been identified as an adulterer himself. Not only that, but the leader of the House impeachment brigade was forced
to admit that he, too, had been an adulterer several years before, in what he
characterized as a "youthful indiscretion," despite the fact that he was well into his 40s when it happened. Then there is the Republican politician recently discovered to be a client of a prostitution ring, who apparently has an affinity for wearing diapers.

And it’s not just the politicians themselves. Their most prominent supporters also play the hypocrisy game to the hilt. Who can forget the Republican talk show host (I know, he claims he’s not a Republican, but then, he also claims to tell the truth) who was caught with his pants down, so to speak, having phone sex with a subordinate employee, and describing the unspeakable things he’d do with a falafel. Then there’s the Republican mouthpiece who was caught red-handed, as it were, with an addiction to oxycontin procured for him by his maid, and then later, this paragon of morality (according to him) was stopped at the airport, after a return flight from the Dominican Republic (where he vacationed with several male buddies), with a large vial of Viagra not prescribed to him.

The above is only the tip of the iceberg, folks. There is also the Republican legislator who was convicted of molesting his daughter and her friend for 8 years; a Republican activist arrested on suspicion of having given a 13 year old girl pot and having sex with her; a leading Republican voice against Roe v. Wade, who has been married three times, and once paid for a girlfriend’s abortion; the Republican congressman and anti-gay activist who was charged with having sex with a 16 year old he picked up at a gay bar; the Republican activist convicted of possession of child pornography; the Republican legislative aide who was charged with molesting a 12-year-old boy and possessing child pornography;  the male Republican politician who was charged with having sex with a 13-year-old boy…  I could continue, but I think that’s enough.

 

This is not to say the Democrats are without sin; they’re not. But then, the Democratic party doesn’t strut around, portraying itself as a party of virtue. I am also not trying to say that every Republican is an immoral clod and a sexual freak show. But there are too many instances of things like this happening, for it to be a coincidence. And it’s not a coincidence. What better way for a self-loathing gay man to hide his hated sexuality than to join the Republican Party, grab his crotch, proclaim himself "anti-gay," and pass a bunch of laws that persecute gays? it won’t matter, right, since he’ll always hide his homosexuality, or at least hope to.

Likewise, for the pedophiles and the sexual freaks, what better way to hide your hated sexuality than to cloak yourself in legitimacy, so to speak, and become a Republican politician? After all, no one in his right mind would ever imagine anyone who speaks so brilliantly against "immoral behavior" would ever engage in it themselves, would they? And then they wrap themselves in the cloak of "Christianity" (the fake kind) for added cover.

These are among those leading the Republican charge against "immoral" behavior, folks. I purposely didn’t include names, because this isn’t about them, personally; it’s about the overall issue of honesty and integrity, as well as the veracity of the whole "Party of Values" label and the absolute double standard of these people.

Except for the child molesters and pedophiles, I don’t have a problem with any of the behavior above. I’m not sure I’m too crazy about a guy approaching me while I’m taking a shit, and he’s liable to be, shall we say, startled if he tries, but I think prostitution should be legal, and adultery is between the married couple themselves. It’s not the behavior that should bother anyone, but the institutionalized hypocrisy innate in such behavior.

In the context of everything they say and do within the scope of their job, the behavior begs the question; what are their values, really? Where do they get off being so judgmental of others? Is that what makes someone a loyal member of the Republican Party? Are you, as a Republican supposed to judge everyone else far more harshly than you judge yourself? Are you supposed to hold everyone else up to a much higher standard than you yourself follow? And pretty much every single Republican in office right now holds himself up as a "Christian;" please point to the section of the New Testament that encourages you to judge others more harshly than you judge yourself? Better yet, point to the section where it tells you to deny civil rights to people, based on your disapproval of some aspect of their personal life. And what was it Jesus said; "Do unto others, so that you can get as much money and power as you want, and screw ’em if they don’t like it." What? You mean, he didn’t say that? Well, his followers in the GOP seem to think he said that…

This is just the sex chapter, folks… I have a lot more to cover, and a lot more questions to ask…

Stay tuned for Part 2…

Ted Nugent — Typical Wingnut Scumbag

Ted Nugent is the biggest asshole in the history of a music scene that features a variety of assholes, and the kookiest of right wing kooks.

And apparently, like all right wing kooks, who hold up their guns and proclaim their manhood to all who will pay attention, at heart, he’s a fricking coward.

From: Facing a draft, Nugent bravely wet his pants

:: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Richard Roeper.

So Ted Nugent roams a concert stage while toting automatic weapons, calls Barack Obama "a piece of —–" and says he told Obama to suck on one of his machine-guns. He also calls Hillary Clinton a "worthless bitch" and Dianne Feinstein a "worthless whore."

That Nugent, he’s a man’s man. He talks the talk and walks the walk, right?

Except when it was time to register for the draft during the Vietnam era. By his own admission, Nugent stopped all forms of personal hygiene for a month and showed up for his draft board physical in pants caked with his own urine and feces, winning a deferment. Creative!

Okay, so why do we allow these idiots to proclaim to us how macho they are? Why do we allow THEM to tell us how we should conduct a war, and how to keep the country safe? More importantly, how can assholes like Nugent even begin to proclaim himself any sort of "patriot"?

Nugent’s always been a nutbar; in other words, a typical wingnut. it’s not enough that he disagrees with animal rights people on hunting animals; hell, I disagree with them on hunting animals. No, Nugent’s not content with simply saying that he thinks they’re wrong; he has to go a step further, calling Heidi Prescott of the Fund for Animals a "worthless whore" and a
"shallow slut," asking "who needs to club a seal, when you can club
Heidi?" He was later ordered to pay her $75,000.

of course, like most winguts, Heidi need not have worried, because like other wingnuts, such as Dick Cheney, he’s a goddamn phony when it comes to hunting, anyway. This idiot runs Sunrize Acres, a little operation that specialized in canned hunting, which is a coward’s method of hunting. it’s not unlike Cheney’s "quail-tard" hunts, where he gets drunk and hunts quails in pens by the side of the road. What a manly sport, huh?

Yeah, when it comes to guns, Nugent is a typical wingnut, as well. He talks a great game, but it’s all talk. At the 2005 NRA Convention, Nugent stoked the fires of the cowardly NRA morons in the audience with the following rant:

"Remember the Alamo! Shoot ’em! To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers
dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters
dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early
release. I want ’em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot
’em."

Yeah! What a man, huh? He shit and pissed himself to avoid Vietnam, but now he’s telling everyone how brave he is. Folks, when are you going to get a clue? We have a president who ran away from Vietnam by scamming his way to the National Guard, and then ran away from the National Guard. He, like Nugent, also seems to have pissed himself at least once, when terrorists hit the World Trade Center.  We have a Vice President who applied for deferment after deferment to avoid Vietnam, who shoots defenseless penned birds and calls it hunting, and who shoots his friend in the face and demands an apology for it. And one after another wingnut proclaims their manhood every chance they get, while actually demonstrating that they’re really just a bunch of big pussies.

Seriously; Ted Nugent threatened Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton a few days ago, and the right wing has been defending him! "I was in Chicago, I said, ‘Hey, Obama, you might wanna suck on one of these, you punk’" as he shook two assault weapons "menacingly." When his audience of assholes cheered, he continued, "Obama, he’s a piece of shit. I told
him to suck on my machine gun! Let’s hear it for him." His brain dead audience again cheered and Nugent switched to criticising Clinton.
"I was in New York, I said, ‘Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch!’" By the way, Sean Hannity, another wingnut coward, thought it was funny.

Ted Nugent is more worthless than Hillary Clinton. And you’re also more of a bitch.

Where is the Secret Service when it comes to stuff like this, by the way? If Alec Baldwin had said and done something similar to a Republican candidate (he wouldn’t, of course), there’s no way he would get away with it, nor should he. So why is Nugent getting away with it?

Summers Hedges on Recession Talk

Here’s a guy who knows a thing or two about economy. Of course, he worked for Clinton, so wingnuts willSummers1
dismiss him as a kook…

From: Ex-Treasury chief Summers warns on recession risks on Yahoo! News.

Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said on Sunday the risks of a recession are greater now than at anytime since the September 11 attacks due to real estate and mortgage market troubles.

"I do not think we yet would have a basis for making a prediction that there will be a recession," Summers said.

"But I would say that the risks of recession are now greater than they’ve been anytime since the period in the aftermath of 9/11," he said on ABC’s "This Week."

Summers headed the Treasury Department from 1999 to 2001. He resigned last year as president of Harvard University. In October, he joined a Wall Street hedge fund group.

I disagree with him, though. We have a basis for thinking there will be a recession. First is the fact that millions of homes are over-valued, and must now be ‘corrected.’ Second, the greedheads are running out of scams with which to dupe the American people into pumping more fake money into the economy. Third, foreign countries are increasingly turning to the Euro, at a time when our government is running huge deficits.

Bush2007
I will not only predict, but I will guarantee… the next president will inherit a recession.

And that will be TWO Bush recessions. And don’t blame the last one on 9/11, because that’s not what caused it.

 

Gonzo Resigns to spend More Time With Jeff Gannon

Gonzalez_terrorism_150
Well, we finally got rid of this twit… but will we really be better off?

From: Embattled Attorney General Resigns – New York Times.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.

Mr. Gonzales, who had rebuffed calls for his resignation, submitted his to President Bush by telephone on Friday, the official said. His decision was not immediately announced, the official added, until after the president invited him and his wife to lunch at his ranch near here.

Mr. Bush has not yet chosen a replacement but will not leave the position open long, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the resignation had not yet been made public.

That’s according to the New York Times. According to CNN:

President Bush will likely nominate Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, senior administration officials told CNN Monday.

Chertoff, 53, previously sat on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, which handles appeals from New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania
and the Virgin Islands.

Chertoffbrown
Good Lord…

Two things come to mind. The first one is "be careful what you wish for…" Gonzo was bad, but is "Skeletor" Chertoff any better? Think of the doubletalk after Katrina for a clue…

The second thing is, does George W. Bush know anyone? Has any administration in history recycled the same people more often than this Bush Administration?

We have to get rid of these people… we have to…

 

Radio’s Problem Is Radio People

First, read this whine from a local Baltimore radio general manager.

From: Radio may survive this, too — baltimoresun.com.

"Because of satellite radio, more affluent people are going to use that service, so we have a smaller piece of the pie to slice up with the people remaining, who are not so affluent," said Bob Pettit, general manager of WCBM, the Baltimore talk-radio station at 680 AM. "The younger people are going to the new technologies. Radio used to be a very effective way to reach people aged 18 to 34. Now, not so much."

As a result, Pettit said, national advertisers are not turning to the old medium the way they once did, leaving the field to cheaper, and often local, ad buyers. In turn, the stations are obliged to charge less money because their demographic is poorer, he said, leaving the stations with less revenue.

In a word, bullshit. I can’t tell you in how many ways this is wrong.

 

First off, everyone has a radio — everyone.  Even people who hate technology have at least a little "transistor" radio they use to listen to ballgames. Most people will NOT opt for a satellite radio. broadcast radio could be extremely healthy, if the people programming it weren’t so profoundly stupid, and programming the most boring radio in history.

Seriously, folks, this is the problem with American business; they hire all sorts of consultants, and buy all sorts of surveys, and come up with every excuse in the book, but what it really comes down to is, people don’t tune in because radio has become incredibly boring and pointless.

If "affluent" people are buying satellite radio, there are two reasons. If you travel a lot in your car, satellite radio makes sense, because stations don’t drift in and out all of the time. The other reason is because there is nothing to listen to on terrestrial radio.

The station this idiot runs, WCBM, is a great example of what I mean by stupid. He operates in a city where the population is so overwhelmingly Democratic that when the Democratic primary happens for mayor next month, the winner will be the next mayor, and in a state that has been overwhelmingly Democratic for generations, yet his lineup features all wingnuts, all the time. And he imagines that his audience is "affluent"? I think perhaps he meant his programming was effluent. This guy thought he scored a coup when the other station in town, WBAL, dropped Limbaugh, and he picked him up. Funny, but with Limbaugh, and Hannity, and Dr. Laura and the Savage Weiner, his ratings are still well below WBAL, which went to all-local, and significantly less offensive conservative talk. In a market that has probably the most liberal demographic in the country? How can that be?

And how about the little slap at the "not affluent." And you wonder why this guy isn’t selling advertising? I hate to break it to him, but other stations in the market are making plenty of money , while FOCUSING on the "not affluent" demographic. And which "national advertisers" is he talking about when he says they don’t want to advertise, except to an "affluent" audience? Coke? Pepsi? McDonalds? Burger King? Best Buy? Wal-Mart? Target? Hyundai?  Yeah, it really hard to see any of their ads, except on CNBC, huh? 
Only the rich drink Budweiser, folks, and only the rich use FedEx.

This is actually indicative of the attitude that has overtaken most of American business; the people who run things want to be able to sit on their asses and let the money flow in, and when that doesn’t happen, they look for someone to blame. Radio these days largely sucks. I did a short stint on a station about 10 years ago; it was the first time I had been on the radio in almost 20 years, and I was shocked then, by how horrible it was. I walked into the studio, and immediately started choosing the music I wanted to play, only to be short-circuited by the PD of the station, who handed me a list of the songs I was to play and when, and even a summary of the banter I would provide between certain songs. It was awful, and I have no doubt it’s become worse in the last ten years. And if I’m sitting behind the microphone, bored out of my skull, I can only imagine what the listener is thinking.

The problem with terrestrial radio isn’t satellite radio; it’s a lack of reason to not buy a satellite radio. If radio people want to fix the problem, they should start with three basic rules, taught to me by one of the great disk jockeys of all time;

Good radio is mostly local;
Good radio is mostly spontaneous; and
Good radio is interactive.

Give radio back to the people, and the radio people will find themselves awash in more money than they can imagine. if they have any imagination, that is…

Large Webcasters Reach Deal Small Webcasters ok till 2010 on Royalty rates

Apparently, someone in the record industry has begun to figure out that cutting off their noses will only spite their faces.

From Billboard: Major Labels, Large Webcasters Reach Agreement Over Rates.

Major record labels and SoundExchange have just reached a deal with the large webcasting services over crucial terms covering royalty rates that webcasters must pay to stream sound recordings through 2010, Billboard.biz has learned.

Under the deal, reached during a confidential meeting held in New York today, large commercial webcasters … will not have to pay more than $50,000 per service as a per-station or per-channel minimum royalty to webcast sound recordings, according to a source close to the negotiations.
(…)

Also, the large webcasters will not be required to implement any particular kind of technology to prevent the streamed music from being ripped, i.e. copied, by users, the source says. But the services have agreed to cooperate and discuss implementation of anti-stream ripping technology on their services with labels and artists.

(…)

No final agreement has been reached yet with small webcasters. SoundExchange sent a letter to them this week offering to carry forward old rates through 2010, which is the last year for which rates were set by the CRB under copyright regulations.

Think the record companies will ever get it? Digital technology WAS the best thing to ever happen to them. Instead of embracing it, they fought it, and now they’re screwed. Musicians, for the most part, aren’t harmed by file sharing; only record companies are. if record companies were smarter, they could turn this to their advantage. Instead, they keep giving in to their short-term greed.

Here’s one hint, RIAA; $18.99 for a Beatles CD at a music store? An album we bought on LP 35 years ago for $3.99? And you want to know why people download from peer to peer services? Get real.

You Wanna Know Why Progressives have No Power?

From: Pelosi’s Stand Blocking Impeachment in the House is Killing the Democratic Party – The Smirking Chimp.

It’s just the Constitution that’s suffering because of House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi’s nutty and unprincipled "impeachment-off-the-table" position
blocking any effort to impeach President Bush or Vice President Cheney for
their many crimes and abuses of power.

Her position on impeachment is killing the Democratic Party too, by driving
away not just progressived members of the party, but independents who voted
for Democrats last November expecting some action in defense of the
Constitution.

I see this anger welling up among progressives and independents everywhere I
travel, as people say they’ve simply had it with the Democrats. The support
of the party for a bill continuing funding for the war through September was
terrible. The Democrats’ rush to pass a bill granting Bush the authority to
spy without a warrant on Americans, and to expand the power to spy
domestically well beyond phones and internet to even include break-ins was a
last straw.

My own little call for people so sign an "I Quit This Party" petition has
seen a jump from 300 to now 400 signers. (Sign up on the column to the
right.) When it gets to 500 I’ll be sending the list off to Pelosi, as well
as to the offices of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic
National Committee Chair Howard Dean.

Four or five hundred party defectors may seem like small loss, but it
reflects a larger trend across the country.

Okay, this is how stupid progressives are at times. A democratic body, like the Democratic party, isn’t doing exactly what you want it to do, so you LEAVE IT??

Let’s see… let’s set up a hypothetical.

Say you have a group of 200 people. Of that group, 50 are true progressives, 100 are moderates, and 50 are conservative; 110 are against impeachment, while 90 are in favor of impeachment.

Now, 10 progressives LEAVE the party. Can someone PLEASE explain to me how reducing the number of progressives in the Democratic Party makes them more progressive?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to encourage more progressives to JOIN? This is a democracy after all; doesn’t it make more sense to INCREASE the numbers on our side?
It’s NOT POSSIBLE.

The REASON the Democratic Party has drifted to the right over the last 40 years is because progressives have this fantasy that they can start a third party and revolutionize politics, which is patently absurd. Progressives, at best, make up 15% of the population; there are probably fewer of us than there are wingnuts. Progressives don’t cause Democrats to cower in fear because they might leave; they already LEFT!

See, here’s how politics works.

You recruit good progressives to run. You run them as Democrats, because the bulk of the population, for better or worse, will vote for a Republican or a Democrat, period. The Wingnuts will vote for pretty much anyone with a "R" next to their name, and do so in lockstep, so we really have to counter that effect.

Therefore, leaving the Democratic party, or even threatening to leave the Democratic party, is just the ultimate "biting off our nose to spite our faces" moment, and it’s the main reason progressives are generally like the kid looking at the puppy in the pet store window, but never really getting it. We’ve had a generation of wingnut politics now, and this is exactly why.

Now, as for Pelosi "taking impeachment off the table;" she said that almost a year ago for Chrissakes! In fact, she said it on 60 Minutes on October 22, 2006. I am unaware of any active movement led by Rep. Pelosi to actively derail any impeachment articles, currently.

I would also add that Pelosi really doesn’t have much of a say as to whether impeachment is on the table or not. The Speaker of the House doesn’t have the power to stop Articles of Impeachment from ever going to the Judiciary Committee and then to the floor. What’s stopping it right now is a lack of co-sponsors, and a lack of support. In other words, instead of dwelling on something Pelosi said on October 22, 2006, we’d probably be much more effective if we inundate our Congresspeople with letters (and I do NOT mean e-mails!, and I do NOT mean every goddamn Congressperson in the House!) and urge them to do the right thing.

I would also remind you that rushing into this would be a profoundly stupid idea. You only get to do this once, maybe twice, and politically speaking, they had better pass the articles. Not only that, but if you want to  convict, you have to swing at least 19-20 Republican Senators to vote to convict Bush and Cheney, which will take a hell of a lot more than just "Well, you’ve seen what they did!" there will have to be a lot of evidence.

Also, politically speaking, Pelosi is in an unusual situation, in that the impeachment call is for both Bush and Cheney. Such a move, if successful, would make her president, if only for a short time. Politically speaking, there would be consequences for her taking such a potentially self-serving step as introducing, or even actively helping along Articles of Impeachment. Ethically speaking, there might be questions if she led the charge. They will never come from her, and she really shouldn’t even co-sponsor them, truthfully.

IOW, the thing to do is join the fricking Democratic Party, and move it left, and write your Congressperson, and ask them to co-sponsor articles of impeachment. Leaving the Democratic Party is what spoiled children do when they don’t get their way.

In other words, it makes us look like Wingnuts.
You look at stuff like this, and it’s no wonder the left has been impotent for 40 years…

Tenet Goes Under the Bus; Bush Comes Out Unscathed

Bush_tenet
You know, I don’t normally do the conspiracy thing, and i am no huge fan of George Tenet, but doesn’t it seem as if it’s at least possible that Tenet was a patsy in some sort of master plan to create a scenario in which Bush wold have to take no responsibility, should there be a security failure after taking office?

Think about it. Even if they didn’t plan 9/11 (and I truly doubt that they did), they did plan to invade Iraq, and they would need an "intelligence failure" of some sort to use as a rationale for the invasion. So, they kept Tenet on, as one of the very few holdovers from the Clinton Administration, with a plan to blame him when the intelligence failed.

Of course, then came 9/11, which was the worst intelligence failure in US history, and Bush was responsible. No, you can hem and haw and piss and moan all you want. Bush should have known something was up, he had graphic warnings, and he did nothing but stay on vacation, and then proceed to pee his pants when the first plane hit the World Trade Center.

So, fast forward six years, and who gets thrown under the bus, so that Bush can avoid all accountability for his major f*** up?

From: The Blotter: CIA Report Blames Tenet for 9/ll Failure.

Former CIA director George Tenet "bears ultimate responsibility" for failing to create a strategic plan to stop al Qaeda prior to 9/ll, according to a review by the CIA’s inspector general that was made public today, more than two years after it was written.

The report says that while Tenet wrote he wanted "no resources or people spared" in going after al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, neither he, nor his deputy, "followed up these warnings and admonitions by creating a documented, comprehensive plan to guide the counterterrorism effort."

"I know now why Tenet worked so hard to kill this report," said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, now an ABC News consultant.

In a written statement, Tenet, who received the Medal of Freedom from President Bush, said the report was "flat wrong." Tenet said the inspector general failed to interview him. "He fails to understand how intensely I pushed the counterterrorism issue," Tenet said.

Now, I don’t think anyone can absolve Tenet of responsibility altogether. But to place all of the blame on him, when the CIA and other Intelligence agencies — and the outgoing Clinton Administration, for that matter — warned the Bushies that terrorism was job one, and that al Qaeda and bin Laden were major problems, is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. The Bushies never took terrorism seriously, until it was laid bare on our doorstep (and for at least 7 minutes after).

Tenet’s responsible on some level, but the release of this report is obviously a calculated attempt by the Bushies to avoid accountability. Put it this way; Bush gave Tenet the Medal of Freedom after 9/11. Think about it…

 

Democratic Freshmen Raise Twice as Much as GOP for 2008 House Races

This is huge, folks. It’s not only a sign of support for Democrats, but a sign that even traditional Republican donors see the writing on the wall…

More: Dem freshmen get fundraising burst – USATODAY.com.

Democrats who captured control of the House last year after a 12-year hiatus are dominating the first clash of the 2008 elections: the money race.

The most vulnerable House Democrats — freshmen who won in districts that went for President Bush in 2004 — raised an average of $600,000 in the first six months of this year, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. That’s nearly double what Republican freshmen raised. If the trend continues, it will make it difficult for the GOP to reduce Democrats’ 231-202 House majority.

"Our goal is to put our members in the strongest position as possible, as quickly as possible," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "We are right on target."

The 42 Democratic freshmen raised an average of $1.8 million to win election in November, half of them in Bush districts. Four raised more than $3 million.

2008 should be a blowout year, folks, although we can’t get cocky. We need for Dems to not only have a majority in both halves of Congress, but to CONTROL them. Then, when they’re in, and the Democratic president is sitting pretty (provided we don’t end up with "President for Life" Bush), we can bombard them with letters and demands for what needs to be done to fix the problems the right wing has caused in the last (by then) 28 years, and become a progressive nation once again…

President for Life Bush??

Apparently, the Wingnuts don’t just plan to stop at a few stupid wars and the funneling of your tax money to their wealthy friends. Digby (and many others, apparently, has saved a nice little article from the web site Family Security Matters. They’ve tried to scrub it from the site, but it was still in their cache recently.

From: Hullabaloo.

Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Philip Atkinson

Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007

While
democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it
has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes
some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson

President
George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn
in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the
majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he
is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization
expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which
now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an
inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people,
which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the
majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they
are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man
chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious
position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be
held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit
folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is
frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat
that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used
to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush
took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he
conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act
did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any
clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army
merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply
return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to
use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with
his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little
risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he
did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term
of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that
modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit
suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not
raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off
the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied
permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do
what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the
nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result
that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no
sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his
countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become
another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over
truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and
justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush
must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When
the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer
ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to
defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment
his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by
mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political
opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient
Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to
Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in
ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that
gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush
copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and
repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate
results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by
converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it
from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while
terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar’s
example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield
military power to become the first permanent president of America, and
end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and
the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his
duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president”
Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq,
who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then
who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and
becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler
has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age
wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

It seems that Family Security Matters is a bit more, um, radical, than other wingnut think tanks. Something tells me that, if I had written this article and substituted Hillary Clinton’s name for Bush’s, I’d be sitting in Gitmo right now.

Wonder how long before someone from FSM comes out and calls this article "just a joke"…