All Posts Tagged With: "Republicans"
Narcissistic Jerks And The Parties That Love Them
So Joe Lieberman gets to keep his gavel. Can someone tell me why Harry Reid still has a job? Lieberman will keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee and Armed Services Subcommittee. But in a stirring show of wussitude, they stripped him from the Environment and Public Works Committee. Ouch. I bet that very nearly stung a little.
I can’t understand why the Democrats chose to do this. The obvious answer is they have no spine. But honestly, I still think they don’t need this guy. God knows Connecticut thinks it can do without him. A new pole shows 61% of voters disapprove of his performance and 48% saying they’d definitely vote for someone else, with another 18% saying they’d consider someone else.
This is the guy who, when asked if Obama was a Marxist said, that’s a good question. He spoke at the RNC saying that Obama voted against funding for troops in the field. He pushed the Bill Ayres connection, said Obama was not ready to lead, that he put party ahead of country, and that Obama was the candidate of Hammas.
In one move, the Democrats have lost the ability to crack the whip on its own membership the way the Republicans have done so well over the past eight years. By forgiving Joe Lieberman for what was a very public betrayal of the party that brought him to Washington in the first place, they have eliminated the chance that there will be any repercussions for party members who deviate in the future. And this is not Lieberman’s first betrayal. Two years ago he got all the heavy hitters, including Barack Obama, to come to Connecticut to campaign for him. In exchange, he agreed to honor the primary results. When he lost, he went back on his word and ran as an independent. It has often been said that in the Senate you are only as good as your word. This puts Joe Lieberman’s value right around that of a festering bucket of afterbirth.
Which puts Lieberman about $0.23 shy of Harry Reid, whose only response to opposition, despite being in the majority, is to shrug and say, well, I tried.
Except you didn’t did you Senator? I mean, my god. Someone threatens to filibuster and you say, ok, you win. How about making them actually filibuster? No one does that anymore, the whole Mr. Smith collapsing at the podium thing. Someone says that if legislation goes forward they will filibuster, and Harry Reid, having all the moral fiber and strength of character as a piece of damp cardboard, he just shrugs and gives up instead of making them actually filibuster. I’ve had infections with greater tenacity than you!
It’s like the DNC has Battered Wife Syndrome. They’ve been kicked around so much the only response they can muster is to curl up in a ball and weep, completely incapable of extricating themselves from the hellish downward spiral in which they live. When that sort of thing happens to a single person, it is tragic. When it happens to an entire party, it is pathetic.
Senator Reid: I call upon you to either grow a pair, or resign so that you might be replaced with something more useful, such as one of the pieces of furniture in your office.
Ok. Now that I’ve gotten that out, yes, I admit that it’s a lot harder for the Senate to bust Lieberman’s balls when Barack Obama has publicly forgiven him and asked that everyone move on. Then again, after running a campaign that promised an end to work together in the best interests of the country, he didn’t have much of a choice.
And one can argue that as long as Lieberman has his chairmanship, the Democrats still have something to hold over his head to keep him in line. The thing is, I don’t think they’ll ever pull the trigger on that one. This Congress hasn’t exactly been all that big on accountability, so the odds that they’ll actually hold his proverbial feet to the metaphorical fire are virtually nil.
Referral to a tough post on Palin
A friend of mine runs a blog called “Why We Need Obama.” He just put up a strong anti-Palin post that I wanted to refer our readers to. Click here to check it out.
I’m still sorting my personal views out on this pick. At the moment I think it was a smart political move. McCain needed a game changer. Picking Palin gave his maverick narrative a breath of life, it changed the story following a powerful Democratic convention. Despite her inexperience, many will find Palin a bold and compelling figure, including some former Hillary Clinton supporters.
That said, in terms of governance, this pick seems terribly irresponsible due to her complete lack of foreign policy experience and her weakness on economic issues. Also, as the post referenced above points out, it seems to have been hastily made without proper vetting. Before any of you McCainiacs come after me and say Obama = Palin on foreign policy, I’d remind you that Obama sat on the foreign relations committee for 4 years, which includes heavy briefing and study of the most pressing international issues that will face the administration.
I recently heard a former GOP congressional leader comment on the absurdity of letting one man (or woman) decide who the Vice President will be. I think there is very little doubt Palin would not have been the selection of the majority of Republican voters because of her inexperience on economic and international issues, and because of her far-right views on social policy. VP candidates should also have to run in a primary. The people deserve a say in who each parties VP will be, particularly when the candidate at the top of the ticket is a 72 year old former P.O.W. who is also a cancer survivor.
Palin fails crucial GOP test, sucks at naming things
Editors note: This post was playfully written and intended in jest. That seems to be lost on some of you posting comments.
The modern Republican Party is only good at two things: (1) winning campaigns, and (2) naming things. Forget about governing or following through on promises to cut spending. Despite her one loss for Lieutenant Governor, Sarah Palin is a proven winner. However, she has proven herself a catastrophic failure in the modern GOP’s great strength, naming things.
Since Sarah Palin claims her experience as a mother is a factor qualifying her to be leader of the free world should the actuarial tables on McCain’s life expectancy hold up, lets look at the five most important naming decisions she’s made so far as a mother. She has five children, and she gave all five of them absurdly stupid names. From Wiki: “Palin has two sons (Track, 19; and Trig, four months) and three daughters (Bristol, 17; Willow, 14; and Piper, 7).” Does this bother anyone else?
What questions for Palin are sexist?
Sarah Palin has chosen to have a large family, which poses demands on her time. Is it fair to ask her how she would balance her young family’s need for a mother against the impossible rigors of the Presidency? Brain accuses Johnathan Atler of sexism for raising an issue particularly likely to be weighted by conservative republican “family values” voters. Is it sexist to ask a political question about whether this view of family values held by a portion of her base will impact voter turnout?
It is probably true that most commentators would hesitate longer in raising this issue if Todd Palin were the candidate, I wonder if that alone makes it fair to call the question sexist. Is this mitigated in any way by the political truth that a significant portion of her base includes “family values” voters who tend to think a child’s mother should play a significant role in child rearing, particularly in the child’s younger years?
How about a different, but related question: “Governor Palin, do you intend to have more children in the next eight years?“
Something just feels wrong about asking that, and the follow up of “do you use birth control” seems pretty squarely out of bounds. Still, having a child at her age carries with it attendant health risks. How would the American people feel about a woman in the third trimester of pregnancy trying to meet all the duties that come with that office? At what point would she invoke the 25th Amendment? Is it reasonable to ask if she practices safe sex. Probably not, but we did get to learn that Bob Dole uses Viagra! If there is much of a possibility she will have another baby, and she would invoke the 25th Amendment, should we be troubled by not knowing who she would nominate to be her VP if she were elevated (not knowing who would be running things if Am25 were invoked).
There are obvious birthing issues that apply to women and not men. We’ve never had to address these before as the only other female VP nominee would have been 50 when in office, and less likely to have another child. I’m interested in where the line between a fair question and a sexist question should be drawn.
An Illustrative Example
I wanted to clue all of you readers in on something that happened today that I think is probably the best illustration so far to me of exactly why the GOP is headed for a defeat of historic proportions next year.
It was my lunch hour and I was returning from the Espresso Royale in the Illini Union. I saw one of my computer expert friends and we stopped behind the building to discuss Ken Burns’s The War, which is currently running on PBS. While we were talking in quite an animated fashion, a pair of young men bearing Rudy Giuliani bumper stickers came by, calling out, “Help defeat Hillary–anybody but Hillary!”
One stopped and offered me a bumper sticker. I declined, saying that “my politics run a lot more along the lines of Ron Paul. I think Rudy’s a bit weird in some ways.”
Now, what did these two young men (I assume they’re members of the local chapter of the Young Republicans) do when I said this? Keep in mind that they are dealing with someone who has expressed interest in voting for a Republican for President in 2008. Did they say to me, “Well, we think that Rudy is a better choice. If you listen to our arguments on these issues, I’m sure you’ll agree and come over to our way of thinking”? Did they say to me, “Well, we disagree with you, but certainly hope that you’ll support the Republican nominee in November of next year”?
HELL NO TO BOTH FUCKING QUESTIONS!
Here’s what the two young representatives of the Grand Old Party did–They laughed at me. They not only laughed at me loudly, they made fun of me in public and then walked away chuckling and congratulating each other on their cleverness.
Now, I could give a rat’s ass about what anyone thinks of me. However, what happened is not just the work of two students who are probably not smart enough to do anything useful with their lives outside of politics. What they did is a symptom of the malaise that riddles the Republican Party. The GOP has decided that the Libertarians and the evangelicals who have kept them in office since the days of Ronald Reagan are no longer necessary for them to win an election. It’s not just them laughing at an old weird guy, either. During one of the televised debates, the other candidates detectably laughed at Paul himself following some of his remarks.
Now, there is no way that I would vote for Hillary, I’d sooner cut off my left leg. However, it would not surprise me that some other weird old guy, when faced with these two punks, wouldn’t say to himself, “I’ll show them! I’ll vote for Hillary just to fuck ‘em over!”
The defeat next year is going to be biblical in scope.
Oh, and I will take back this column if the Young Republicans find these two miscreants and get them to wear a sign over the lunch hour that says, “I will not make fun of other Republicans.” Monday would be good, but I’ll give them until Tuesday and then consider sending a copy of this to the DI.
Tom
Reading 465 Pages Aloud…TWICE
Staff for the House Ways and Means Committee is spending the entire day reading the 465 SCHIP bill out loud because the Republicans refused the customary waiving of the bills reading. They’ve been reading most of the afternoon and there is little end in site. To view the lunacy of our government in action, go to the House Ways and Committee webpage and click on the link on the middle left to “View Committee Proceedings Live.”
The Republicans say this is a delay tactic in response to their receiving the lengthy bill less than 24 hours ago. Ok, but it’s still a dick move. Surely there is a more civilized way to conduct governance.
*******UPDATE*******
Evidently after my earlier post the Ways and Means Democrats convinced the Republicans to waive reading. However, the Bill is now in the Energy Committee, and the clerk hasn’t started reading the bill again. Tune in here for live coverage. The ranking member just said “I’m not trying to be dilatory” and Chairman Dingell just said “you’re giving every appearance of doing so.” The Republicans are now offering amendments. This is quite a show, but what a wasteful exercise in political masturbation.
The Uninspiring Republican Field
It’s been a while since I’ve written anything and Billy has just simply begged me to (and offered me all manner of favors) so I’ve decided to post once again. Today’s topic of interest in the field of 2008 Republican presidential hopefuls. All I can say is: Really? IS THAT REALLY THE BEST THEY’VE GOT!? Let’s do a rundown, shall we?
Rudy Giuliani
Giuliani is a “new brand” of Republican. Pro-life, pro gun control and pretty pro government in general. He’s very socially liberal, but appears willing to compromise his beliefs for votes. Some people call him a pseud0-Democrat, but ever since I heard him in a debate I’ve been singularly unimpressed. My favorite Giuliani moment was when Ron Paul humbly suggested that perhaps the United States is reviled and hated because we interfere in other countries’ politics and kill their people, Giuliani retorted with something along the lines of “No, it’s because they hate freedom!” to a roar of applause. I knew then that the Republican party was irrevocably doomed for the ‘08 election cycle. Oh and a large minority of Americans would not vote for a guy who’s been married three times. Dressing up like a pretty lady probably doesn’t help him either.
Mitt Romney
Romney’s an interesting cat. He, like Giuliani is sort of a “new brand” of Republican. He’s socially liberal (although rapidly trying to backpedal on just about all of his former positions), economically conservative, and he’s got the presidential look. His major liability is that a good number of Americans wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. So if the base can swallow Mormonism and a less than perfect record on social issues, Romney would be a good pick. If the base wants pretty, he’s also their Ken.
John McCain
What can be said about the Arizona senator? He’s managed to piss off so many people that his campaign is sinking faster than the Titanic. He was once the presumed presidential nominee for 2008. Republicans always pick the guy who waits his turn like a good boy, but McCain is getting the shaft. His strong pushes for government accountability and to limit the influence of big money on elections as well as his less than perfect conservative track record have raised the ire of just about every segment of the Republican base except the Billy Joe Mills types. Add to this the fact that Americans don’t like old people, it’s pretty safe to write his candidacy off.
Fred Thompson
A lot of moderate conservatives love Fred Thompson. I mean c’mon, he played a lawyer on TV! What good Republican doesn’t love lawyers and TV (read Hollywood). He’s also been a lobbyist (we love the beltway culture) and apparently a lackluster senator. Many tell me that he’s John McCain without the baggage, but I think he’s going to run into trouble for his lobbying career and late entry into the field. But at least he’s conservative.
Newt Gingrich
The leader of the so-called Republican Revolution of 1994. Newt Gingrich curiously sat on the sidelines during the impeachment proceedings of then president Bill Clinton. Well, it’s not so curious, he’s also been married three times and was doing the no no bad thing with a staffer at the time. Gingrich is a hardcore conservative on most issues though. Unfortunately he’s not the most deft politician as evidenced by his taking the blame for the government shutdown of 1996 when Clinton made him look like a petulant child who was throwing a tantrum over not getting his spending cuts (despite the fact that it was Clinton who shut the government down). He’s still a force to be reckoned with, but hasn’t taken any serious steps toward a presidential bid as of yet.
Ron Paul
Ron Paul’s a funny guy. People I know on the hill call him “Dr. No” because they say he votes no on almost every single piece of legislation and the Republicans don’t count on him in anything really. That, and the fact that he has little appeal outside of the hardcore libertarian wing of the party, means that his candidacy is not exactly soaring on the updrafts. I have to give him credit for being honest and more realistic than the other candidates especially on national security matters.
There are several other candidates that are to the right of all of these gentlemen, but the right seems to be somewhat dormant in this year’s selection process and this post is getting too long, so I’ll just stop the list here. The only hope Republicans have in 08 is that their relatively moderate candidate field will attract centrist voters, but the primaries will likely get really ugly because each of the major candidates has a good deal of baggage that people aren’t going to want to have on their candidate. It looks like 2008 will be a good year for Democrats…
Wow, It’s Like, Sanity
Wow, It’s Like, Sanity
How Republicans Are Taught to Lie
As a safe old man and something of a father-figure, I sometimes have occasion to help young women in their attempts to understand young men. One of the things that I tell them to do is to avoid asking questions like, “Do I look good in this dress?” because if they do look truly hideous, their beaux will be punished for telling the truth. This results in men learning that in order to truly please their women, they cannot be truthful.
The resulting dishonesty has spelled the doom of more than one relationship.
Well, on Tuesday, Fox had their Republican debate in South Carolina and one of the high points came when Ron Paul, the most libertarian candidate, was asked about 9/11. When Paul explained that Osama’s crusade against America was in reaction to the first Iraq War and US bases in Saudi Arabia, Giuliani flipped out as if Paul was a cursed ferret-lover or something. Rudy stridently echoed the views of the Bush administration that the situation was a result of a clash of civilizations rather than a rather rational reaction to an overextension of its sphere of influence by the world’s only superpower.
This is in spite of Osama bin Laden’s own words in his fatwah. (The declaration of jihad is long, but everyone who wants to understand the current situation should read it at least once all the way through–keep in mind, this was written in 1996).
At the end of the debate, Hannity was amazed that the text-message voting put Ron Paul as the winner of the debate, rather than agreeing with the pundits’ views that Rudy’s rejoinder carried the evening. (He and Colmes wrote it off to Paul’s heavy internet-user following.)
This represents a complete misunderstanding by the Republican Party of its own base. Pat Buchanan has a good analysis of the overall situation in his column today.
So, a brave individualist who actually has bothered to read Osama’s words explains to a studio audience during a debate the real reason why we were attacked on September 11th, and what was the reaction? Did National Review have a debate on the issue? Was he lauded by the House Minority Leader for his deep foreign-policy studies? Did W scratch his head and say, “Hmmm. I’ve never thought of this before?”
Nope. Some members of the Republican Party are now pondering excluding Ron Paul from any remaining debates prior to the primary season!
If the Party does this, they deserve to lose and lose big in the coming years. The loss of the House of Representatives in November 2006 will just be the beginning of a long decline spelling the virtual end of their power.
After all, everyone understands why passive-aggressive young women really don’t get asked to the Prom.
Tom