And now we're too far gone, hope is such a waste

Skippy was one of the first big deal bloggers to throw us a link way back when, and since we both live in L.A., we've gotten to be pretty good friends with him and Ms. Skippy. In fact, at the bottom of the page is a recent pic of them.

Skippy is known throughout Blogtopia (y!sktp) as one of the wittiest cats in town. But just tonight he penned a post of Olbermann-like intensity and depth. It's too good to paraphrase or quote from, so here it is in its entirety:

The conservative mindset, by nature (perhaps even by definition) strives for hegemony of political thought, preferably (or perhaps, "only") thought which adheres to their conservative viewpoint.

In the Right's mindset, disagreement equals disrespect. There is no room for opposing viewpoints without treason. Any deviation from that viewpoint is considered, well, deviant, and must be erased from the discussion. Witness the Dixie Chicks, Cindy Sheehan, and Michael Moore.

Of course in reality, there is no such thing as complete hegemony of political thought. The progressive left kept speaking up, and inserting their viewpoints into the national discussion. This made the Right quite upset.

They had dominated the debate during the Reagan years quite naturally (that is to say, in a natural fashion: Americans were prone to accept the idea of lower taxes and united states superiority, so Repubbblican memes were easily digested) .

However, things didn't go as well for them during Clinton’s administration. America realized that even democrats made sense once in a while. so the right had to try to dominate political thought in unnatural ways. Thus the Lee Atwater/Frank Luntz approach to spin over ideas, logical fallacies over adult debate was increasingly utilized by rightist "intellects" (for the lack of a better term).

Thus impeachment for no reason other than to marginalize the left was born. at the same time, this country witnessed the rise of the demonization of progressive thought, in the form of radio talk shows and cable TV "experts."

This wave of unnatural domination of political discourse resulted in (and came to a head during) the bush ii years. the right managed to practically wipe out all dissenting points of view (see Chicks, Sheehan, Moore, above).

But unfortunately for the right, it turns out that all they are good at any more is sloganeering. actual governing really eludes their grasp. So things, quite naturally, turned to sh*t.

And thus the elections of 2006 and 2008 ushered in an era of democratic majorities and more open debate on the national stage.

What was the hardly-ever-right wing to do? As we established above, any ideas not in keeping with their own are not allowed, let alone even worthy of debate. How could they take back the megaphones?

So the brain trust on the right stumbled upon what they thought was a cunning plan: emulate what they thought the left had done, by becoming disruptive and contrary.

And so the party of "no" came into being. the hardly-ever-right wing now not only roots against the democratic left, they actively root against America’s interests, if obtaining those interests makes the Dems look good. Glenn Thrush elucidates specific examples.

And let's not forget today's disrespect for the united states president winning the nobel peace prize. In any other decade, the country would be pleased. in 2009, the Repubbblicans can't bring themselves to even give a "good show" for one of the world's highest honors going to the man in the executive office. Sour grapes, anyone?

Unfortunately for the hardly-ever-right, in their quest to throw hot pennies of opposition on the democrats' ice rink of governing, they have become the very thing they hated in the first place: unhegemonious, if there is such a word.

Because, after all, there are ways to debate and be civil. There are ways to disagree and not disrespect. But to the Hardly-Ever-Right Wing, these ways are weak and unpatriotic.

However, and this is too bad for the Right (but great for us), the unexpected consequence of being continuously uncivil and disrespectful is that the Right has become what they hate: the Left.

(Hey, it makes as much sense as Liberal Fascism!)

I truly believe that the Right is making itself look more and more foolish in the eyes of Middle America. Sure, they've got their base of 20% sewn up. But it takes more than that to win elections.

(Disclaimer: I am not a political analyst. I am a blogger with an opinion, for all the hemmorhoid analogies which that image brings to mind ("every asshole gets them"). I grant that the GOP is in good position to take back some seats in Congress, if not the majority of the House, and that Fox News consistently beats MSNBC and CNN in ratings. But these are just individual battles in a larger fight. I maintain that, by becoming the party that shoots anything that moves, the GOP has shot itself in both feet, several times in the past few months.)

Here's the pic of Teh Skippy's. Handsome couple indeed.

Because Newt is thinking about running for prez

I thought I'd start running some of his wonderful old hits. This is a post right after the horror at Virginia Tech, where he thought he could scrape off the blame on to liberals:

Newt Gingrich explains why liberals caused the Virginia Tech massacre

By trying to say his bizarre statement after the Columbine school shooting still applied. Read (and hear) his intelligent and logical response as to why the liberals are at fault:

GINGRICH: Well, who has created a situation ethics, essentially, zone of not being willing to talk about any of these things. Let me carry another example. I strongly supported Imus being dismissed, but I also think the very thing he was dismissed for, which is the use of language which is stunningly degrading of women — the fact, for example, that one of the Halloween costumes this last year was being able to be either a prostitute or a pimp at 10, 11, 12 years of age, buying a costume, and we don’t have any discussion about what’s happened to our culture because while we’re restricting political free speech under McCain-Feingold, we say it’s impossible to restrict vulgar and vicious and anti-human speech. And I would argue that that’s a major component of what’s happened to our culture in the last 40 years.

Aren't we already getting eight years of this weird make-your-own-reality stuff? I think we've had enough.

Besides.

Who wants a president named Newt?


(Picture of Warty Newt from here.)

Update 4/23: Mustang Bobby of Bark Bark Woof Woof reminds us of another time Gingrich worked very hard to link society's ills and liberals together.... and it didn't work:

It is easy for Mr. Gingrich to blame society for the ills and tragedies of one demented man. He has done it before, with the tragedy of Susan Smith, the woman who drowned her two children in 1994. At first Mr. Gingrich implied that liberals were to blame and that it would be advantageous for the Republicans in the upcoming 1994 mid-term elections by reminding voters that liberals could be held accountable: "Slightly more moving our way. I think that the mother killing the two children in South Carolina vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things." He dropped that when it came to light that Ms. Smith had been molested as a teen by her stepfather, a prominent South Carolina Republican and leader of the Christian Coalition. But obviously that smack-down in irony has not been enough to deter him, and onward he goes, doing what Republicans do best: finding a problem, making people afraid of it, and then finding someone else to blame for it. He doesn't offer solutions, nor does he bother to contemplate the fact that it was under the Reagan administration that federal assistance for mental health services for people like Mr. Cho was cut back and the Republicans have been very successful in defeating every effort by the Democrats to restore it, leaving it to the states, who have barely enough resources to pay for existing facilities, or the private sector.

Run, Newt, Run! I'm going to post more about your family values and three wives in a bit!

crossposted at Rants from the Rookery

Project much, Senator?

SARASOTA, Fla. – Republican John McCain on Thursday spiced up a cross-state bus tour aimed at keeping Florida from swinging to the Democrats by accusing rival Barack Obama of saying "anything to get elected."

Just keeping track of McCain's ability to saying anything even if it's the opposite of what he just said....

McCain! The Flipflopper Express!



crossposted at Rants from the Rookery

She knows how to dress her kill

Bryan of Why Now? warns us not to underestimate Governor Sarah Palin:

She isn’t the weak retiring creature that all of these “Democrats” seem to believe, and if they really annoy her, she knows how to “dress” her kills.

Looks like Cheney could have some competition.

link from Mahakal of Cannablog.

crossposted at Rants from the Rookery

Something's not right...

Bringing you the weekly top ten conservative idiots. Number 9 I just had to copy in full:

Daniel Pipes

For the longest time, Republicans had a winning electoral strategy: simply tell everyone that a vote for the Democrats means that the terrorists will attack America. Unfortunately that strategy doesn't seem to be working any more. Despite the Republicans' best efforts, the voting public steadfastly refused to crap their pants in 2006 and booted the GOP out of the House and Senate.

So what's next? They've got no ideas, they have a terrible record of failure, and their last best electoral strategy is a dud. Where do Republicans go from here?

Neo-con Daniel Pipes might have the answer. While discussing the possibility of an attack on Iran during an interview with National Review Online last week, he said:

What I suspect will be the case is, should the Democratic nominee win in November, President Bush will do something. And should it be Mr. McCain that wins, he'll punt, and let McCain decide what to do.

Or in other words, if you vote for Barack Obama this fall, hair-trigger George will lose his shit and start World War III.

I'm not sure if that's exactly a winning message for the McSame campaign, but it might be all they have left.

Which makes me print this pic again:



crossposted at Rants from the Rookery

Nope. Not me. Ah'm not allowed to even touch the button.

(edited to include this necessary pic)


Unka Dick is going to do it.

WASHINGTON - The White House on Tuesday denied a published report in Israel that said President Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term in January.
A story in the Jerusalem Post quoted a "senior official" there as saying that Bush plans to attack Iran in the coming months. The story says the unidentified official claimed that a "senior member" of Bush's traveling entourage made the statement about attacking Iran in a closed meeting. Bush was in Israel last week.

The article also says the unnamed Bush official said that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney "were of the opinion that military action were called for."

[snip]

Perino said the "president of the United States should never take options off the table, but our preference and our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful diplomatic means. Nothing has changed in that regard."

Diplomacy? Isn't that appeasement to Georgie? I think this means we're going to attack Iran before the year is out.

And McBush apparently doesn't give a fuck who is actually in charge in Iran:

Yesterday, the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) often incorrectly portrays Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as if Ahmadinejad has a significant role in formulating Iranian foreign policy. He doesn’t. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Iran’s National Security Council set Iran’s foreign policy.

Yesterday, Time’s Joe Klein pressed McCain on the issue, but McCain refused to concede he was wrong, saying he disagreed that Khamenei runs Iranian policy behind the scenes. McCain added that because the “average American” thinks Ahmadinejad is Iran’s leader, that’s good enough for him:

MCCAIN: I mean, the fact is [Ahmadinejad’s] the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that’s a uh, that’s your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they’d know.

Ahmadinejad? Khamenei? What does it matter if we're going to nuke the place anyway?



crossposted at Rants from the Rookery

It' My Party and I'll Whine Cry If I Want To

GOP leaders sought yesterday to "re-brand" the party with a new slogan and renewed pledges of fiscal rectitude and limited government. But the slogan -- "The Change You Deserve" -- came under mocking fire, because it parallels Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama's "Change We Can Believe In" motto and it mirrors the advertising slogan for the antidepressant Effexor. [ED: Take for depression, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. Common side effects include apathy, irritable bowel syndrome and sexual dysfunction. Take only if you are a republican.]

And in a rare moment of honesty:

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner said "It's not that the party's going to change, it's what we talk about and how we talk about it"

See, even Boner (R-loser) admits it's just talking points and nothing is going to change if McCain (R-bushleague) gets elected.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

the ink of a scholar is worth a thousand times more than the blood of a martyr

GWBush stepped in some horse doo doo today:

In a speech to Israel's Knesset, Bush said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Of course, his loyal minions claim he wasn't trying to smear Obama:

The White House said Bush's comment wasn't a reference to Obama.

"It is not," press secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel. "I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."

Sure. That's why it was done in the Knesset; Bush can claim that Republicans are better defenderers of Israel. And it's bullshit on so many levels. And who was the genius speechwriter that came up with this? We can't blame Frum for this, I don't think he's that stupid.

Harry Reid has a pretty good take on it:

“Not surprisingly, the engineer of the worst foreign policy in our nation’s history has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round. More than seven years into his Presidency and in the sixth year of the directionless Iraq war, President Bush has yet to learn that his brand of divisive partisan rhetoric is precisely what has made America and our allies less secure. And for the President to make this statement before the government of our closest ally as it celebrates a remarkable milestone demeans this historic moment with partisan politics.

“President Bush’s own actions demonstrate that he believes negotiations – at the right moment, under the right conditions and with the right leaders – can both show strength and produce results. He has relied on negotiations with North Korea and Libya, two state sponsors of terror. And by conducting discussions with Russia, China, Libya, North Korea and Iran in recent years, President Bush has demonstrated his belief that negotiations can be a tool to advance America and Israel’s national security interests. I call on the President to explain the inconsistency between his Administration’s actions and his words today.”

Obama's response was OK, just OK, but Kevin Drum's take is spot on:

Over in Israel today, George Bush got right down to business and compared Democrats to the Hitler appeasers who sold out Czechoslovakia just before World War II. Barack Obama shot back that this was a "false political attack" and that Bush was a liar.

. . . I still think I would have preferred something like a Reaganesque shake of his head followed by "It's always Munich with these guys, isn't it?" There are times when mockery is the best policy.

And as proof that GWBush's statement is sheer partisan hackery, here's his SecDef just yesterday in the WaPo:

The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday.

Does this mean he will be reprimanded by Bush? McCain, of course, fellates supports Bush:

Senator John McCain, who has been critical of President Bush on the environment and other policies this week, on Thursday morning wholeheartedly endorsed Mr. Bush’s veiled rebuke in the Israeli Knesset of Senator Barack Obama that talking to “terrorists and radicals'’ was no different than appeasing Hitler and the Nazis.

“Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,'’ Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. “I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.'’

Note the obligatory Reagan idolatry. But oft-sensible conservative Andrew Sullivan thinks:

This is manna for the Obama campaign, sent straight from Heaven. Who wouldn't want to run against this president this November? By conflating Bush and McCain on this, the White House has done the Democrats a massive favor.

McCain's invocation of Reagan's vision is pretty myopic. Fred Kaplan in Slate:

Part of the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was due to the fact that the Reagan administration was feeding billions of dollars in arms to Afghanistan's Islamic resistance. Reagan and, even more, his intensely ideological CIA director, William Casey, saw the battle for Afghanistan as a titanic struggle in the war between Eastern tyranny and Western freedom.

. . . After the last Soviet troops departed, Afghanistan fell off the American radar screen. Over the next few years, Shevardnadze's worst nightmares came true. The Taliban rose to power and in 1996 gave refuge to the—by then—much-hunted Bin Laden.

Oh yeah, those were our terrorists. So Reagan was doing his presidential duty by talking with those terrorists, as well as creating Iran-Contra, but now Bush and McSame won't talk to anybody?

Bastards.

Here's Lupe Fiasco's "American Terrorist":

Do you think having an explosive temper is helpful

For getting things done in a hurry?

Steve Bates of The Yellow Doggerel Democrat discusses McCain's recent jokes about his temper and notes:

Let me get this straight: uncontrolled anger is a virtue, and McCain intends to campaign on it, mocking his questioners who have a legitimate problem with an historically angry man with his finger on the metaphorical nuclear button? How desperate must the GOP be, to run such a man for president? And yet, with the effectiveness of the GOP election theft apparatus, and the media's preoccupation with the angry man, he may well take the office.

Like threatening fellow Congressional members, or cursing at your wife in public or bombing Iran, or returning to finish off what was left undone in Vietnam....

Really nice of you to mock our concerns, McCain. But we've learned not to think it's a laugh to have an uncorked personality in the Oval Office. And if it's you who get to be in the White House, we have to trust your judgment and cool deliberate reasoning.

So making jokes about your temper might be clever and mavericky, but we will no longer be grinning and saying how cute.



Update 5/9: Memorable quotes from here:

"F--- you," he shouted at Texas Sen. John Cornyn last year.

"Only an a------ would put together a budget like this," he told the former Budget Committee chairman, Sen. Pete Domenici, in 1999.

"I'm calling you a f------ jerk!" he once retorted to Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.

With Cornyn, he smoothed things over quickly. The two argued during a meeting on immigration legislation; Cornyn complained that McCain seemed to parachute in during the final stages of negotiations. "F--- you. I know more about this than anyone else in the room," McCain reportedly shouted.

crossposted at Rants from the Rookery

One man, one vote -- step into the future

I usually try to avoid posts that start off like "Republicans are Bastards!" because I know this can piss off otherwise sensible people. Like Ron Brownstein, who writes this crap in his new book: "The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partizanship Has Paralyzed Washington And Polarized America":

Offering both sweeping analysis and intimate detail drawn from exclusive interviews with top officials and strategists in both parties, The Second Civil War captures the currents that have carried America to today's dangerous impasse, from little-understood changes in congressional rules that made it easier for parties to enforce discipline and discourage compromise to the rise of special-interest pressure groups to a vastly changed media environment that has become much more vicious and much less serious.

...little-understood rule changes, special-interest pressure groups? From such a normally smart guy, this is brazen dishonesty. To not state immediately that the rule changes were created by the Republican dominated Congress, and that the special-interest were, until the last 3 years, all Republican dominated, is deceitful, and is meant to picture some bi-partisan D.C. where Dems & Repubs sing Kumbaya while drinking cognac and smoking Cohibas with David Broder.

But that's not important right now. Because Republicans are bastards. As my friend Brad Friedman reported last week:

Today the House GOP members managed to block Congressman Rush Holt’s emergency voting bill with a 239 – 178 vote; a 2/3 majority was required for passage. It is unknown at this time what the next move will be. Maybe an all-out ban on DREs? The bill would get nowhere but it would bring the Election Integrity Community back together.

So? Blocking Democratic sponsored legislation has become reflex to the Republicans of today.

Rep. Rush Holt (D-I'd change my name), who sponsored the voting bill, explains at VoteTrustUS:

Rep. Rush Holt (pictured at right) today strongly criticized House members for blocking legislation – the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008 (H.R. 5036) – that would encourage states to conduct verifiable elections by converting to a paper ballot voting system, offering emergency paper ballots, and conducting hand-counted audits. Two weeks ago, the same legislation passed the House Administration Committee with bipartisan, unanimous support, including from some of those who voted to block the bill’s passage today.

“This bill would represent a real step forward in our effort to protect the accuracy, integrity and security of the November elections,” Holt said. “The bill that the House leadership scheduled for a vote today is the same one that passed two weeks ago without the objection of a single Committee member. There is no reason why this should be a partisan issue but the Republicans evidently have chosen to make it so. The White House issued a statement opposing the bill and 176 of 203 Republicans voted that way”

. . . Holt noted that the main objection to the bill was, according to Republicans, its cost.

So there you have it. GWBush says "No" and suddenly moderate Republicans vote against their own best interests. WTF are they afraid of, what power can this lame duck still wield?

As I started off this post, I pointed out that I don't like to make blanket statements. So I won't say Republicans are bastards. I'm sure some were born legitimately, not all were spawned by Satan.

But I can say safely that there is an essential difference today between Republicans and Democrats that didn't exist when I was a kid watching the Army-McCarthy hearings in the '50s: Republicans vote for Party first, Nation second. Party above national interests. Party above even self-interest. Party first.

Know what? They are bastards.

How does it feel?

How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone?

How does it feel to be the excuse for Bush to continue the war? How does it feel to keep soldiers in the war zone until they slowly go mad or die? How does it feel to be leg-chained to the worst administration in US history and know your name and face will be forever linked with them in the history books?

How does it feel?



I know how I feel just listening to you two.

crossposted at Rants from the Rookery

The endorsement by the Deciderer

Comes with its own requirements.





crossposted at Rants from the Rookery

McSame McLame

Nobody does it better

I think the Democratic Underground has covered just about all of it (from number 6 addressing Ralph Nader):

Sit back and watch Bush spend eight years shredding the Constitution, voiding decades-old international treaties, illegally invading other countries, wiretapping American citizens without a warrant, politicizing the Department of Justice, appointing radical conservative Supreme Court justices, whipping the religious right into an apocalyptic frenzy, sinking the economy into recession, robbing working Americans to pay for generous tax cuts for millionaires and generally destroying America's reputation around the world.

More of the top 10 worst conservatives for this week.




crossposted at Rants from the Rookery