When Your Dad Is Running For President...
You shouldn't break the law.
NBC News has confirmed that Howard Dean's 17 year old son has been arrested...it looks like for burglary or robbery (I just caught it on MSNBC, can't find the story on the net yet).
What the fuck was this kid thinking?
Friday, June 20, 2003
Thursday, June 19, 2003
Son. Of. A. Bitch.
Rick Perry has called for a special session on redistricting.
He says that "The recently completed regular session clearly demonstrates that legislators -- regardless of political party affiliation and philosophy -- can work together to address issues important to Texans."
Uh huh. That's why the Democrats had to leave the state to keep from getting screwed with their pants on.
Me and Texas are no longer friends.
Rick Perry has called for a special session on redistricting.
He says that "The recently completed regular session clearly demonstrates that legislators -- regardless of political party affiliation and philosophy -- can work together to address issues important to Texans."
Uh huh. That's why the Democrats had to leave the state to keep from getting screwed with their pants on.
Me and Texas are no longer friends.
We Have Money But Give Us More!
Why, exactly, is NRO soliciting contributions? Don't they realize that real conservative publications get their funding from Richard Mellon-Scaife?
Did someone piss off one of their sugar daddies, or does Jonah need a new transmission for his car, or what?
Or perhaps it's a sort of high-concept electronic word art piece. Maybe they already have plenty of money, but are saying they deserve more, at the expense of regular people who don't have as much, in which case it's a brilliant illustration of conservative tax-cut ideology.
Genius!
I bet it was Kathryn Jean's idea...
Why, exactly, is NRO soliciting contributions? Don't they realize that real conservative publications get their funding from Richard Mellon-Scaife?
Did someone piss off one of their sugar daddies, or does Jonah need a new transmission for his car, or what?
Or perhaps it's a sort of high-concept electronic word art piece. Maybe they already have plenty of money, but are saying they deserve more, at the expense of regular people who don't have as much, in which case it's a brilliant illustration of conservative tax-cut ideology.
Genius!
I bet it was Kathryn Jean's idea...
Conspiracies
I was greatly amused by the list of things people in America believe that Bob Harris currently has posted up at Tom Tomorrow's site. There are some real crazies living amongst us. But we knew that.
However, one number actually disturbed me quite a bit. According to the numbers Harris cites, only 10% of the population believes that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
Let's think about that for a minute. That means that 90% of us think that Oswald didn't act alone. The Warren Report, however, which was the result of the official government investigation, says he did.
9 out of ten people don't believe the government's official version of the assasination of a democratically elected President. For fuck's sake, more people believe OJ's version of Nicole's murder than believe the government's version of Kennedy's.
My question is, if so many people think the official version is wrong, why is it that anyone who talks about anyone other than Oswald being involved is automatically accused of conspiracy theorizing?
I'm not going to get into the assasination right now, because it's late and I'll just end up driving myself crazy, but make no mistake- Kennedy's assasination, coming as it did during a critical point in the balancing game that was the Cold War and arguably being a major cause of the social upheaval of the late 60's, was one of the most significant events of the 20th century, with ripple effects that will continue to be felt, at least indirectly, for a long time to come.
So if none of us believe what we are told about it, why aren't more people concerned about getting the full truth? Is it fatigue? After so many years of so many different theories, different versions of evidence, and different suspects, we all just say "Fuck it" and ignore it?
I'm just as guilty of saying "fuck it" on this subject as anyone, but doesn't that strike you as extraordinarily dangerous?
I was greatly amused by the list of things people in America believe that Bob Harris currently has posted up at Tom Tomorrow's site. There are some real crazies living amongst us. But we knew that.
However, one number actually disturbed me quite a bit. According to the numbers Harris cites, only 10% of the population believes that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
Let's think about that for a minute. That means that 90% of us think that Oswald didn't act alone. The Warren Report, however, which was the result of the official government investigation, says he did.
9 out of ten people don't believe the government's official version of the assasination of a democratically elected President. For fuck's sake, more people believe OJ's version of Nicole's murder than believe the government's version of Kennedy's.
My question is, if so many people think the official version is wrong, why is it that anyone who talks about anyone other than Oswald being involved is automatically accused of conspiracy theorizing?
I'm not going to get into the assasination right now, because it's late and I'll just end up driving myself crazy, but make no mistake- Kennedy's assasination, coming as it did during a critical point in the balancing game that was the Cold War and arguably being a major cause of the social upheaval of the late 60's, was one of the most significant events of the 20th century, with ripple effects that will continue to be felt, at least indirectly, for a long time to come.
So if none of us believe what we are told about it, why aren't more people concerned about getting the full truth? Is it fatigue? After so many years of so many different theories, different versions of evidence, and different suspects, we all just say "Fuck it" and ignore it?
I'm just as guilty of saying "fuck it" on this subject as anyone, but doesn't that strike you as extraordinarily dangerous?
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
VeryVeryHappy Poetry Corner
Kevin Drum has decided to tweak D2 Digest's angry post about the many flaws of haiku as an English poetry form.
As I always appreciate a good tweaking between friends, I approve.
D2's post is a stunning example of intellectual elitism, and is also completely correct. I approve of it, too!
And so, to show my admiration, I present two politically themed poems - a haiku for Kevin, and a limmerick for D2 (a form which he suggests is much more challenging):
Bright sun before rain.
Deceiving us all, we're wet.
Republicans suck.
There once was a rich man named Bush.
His election was akin to a putsch.
He now screws all the poor folk,
His reign's like a quick poke
From a sharp stick straight to the tush.
I. Am. Awesome.
Kevin Drum has decided to tweak D2 Digest's angry post about the many flaws of haiku as an English poetry form.
As I always appreciate a good tweaking between friends, I approve.
D2's post is a stunning example of intellectual elitism, and is also completely correct. I approve of it, too!
And so, to show my admiration, I present two politically themed poems - a haiku for Kevin, and a limmerick for D2 (a form which he suggests is much more challenging):
Bright sun before rain.
Deceiving us all, we're wet.
Republicans suck.
There once was a rich man named Bush.
His election was akin to a putsch.
He now screws all the poor folk,
His reign's like a quick poke
From a sharp stick straight to the tush.
I. Am. Awesome.
Presidential Issues
Uh oh. I let slip that I am in favor of the (admittedly far-fetched) Dean/Clark ticket.
So let's take a closer look at that, eh?
First, in this post, a rundown of candidates whose names are not Howard Dean:
John Kerry- Can't win. Sorry. He very well might win the nomination, but if he does, I will be digging a very deep hole -- filled with cheap booze and old science fiction novels -- in which to spend the next four years, because George Bush will reign until 2008.
Why? For one very simple reason - John Kerry is boring and looks too damn old.
Simplistic, juvenile analysis? Yes. But it is absolutely correct.
Say what you will about Bush, the man is quite the young buck, as Presidents go, and his handlers are very careful to present him in small, easy-to-swallow bites to keep him seeming fresh, interesting, and exciting. You and I thought the carrier landing was excessive, but a good chunk of the populace loved it, and not just the die hard Republicans.
Kerry just cannot win against Bush’s vitality.
It's too bad, then, that Kerry, as the pseudo-front runner, is wrapping up a lot of the big campaign guns - particularly Rand Beers, who could potentially do a lot of damage to Bush while bolstering Democratic National Security Street Cred (DNSSC).
Hopefully, Kerry will get bounced out of the primaries and gracefully hand off all his weaponry to the nominee.
Joe Lieberman- Can't win. Same problems as Kerry, with the additional stench of loser carrying over from 2000. The only Democrat less trusted by the base is Zell Miller, and Lieberman's handling of the Enron investigation makes that distinction deserved.
John Edwards- The way I see it, Edwards is the only guy besides Dean who has a chance at beating Bush. Unfortunately, he has, up to this point, been a disappointment. As Kos has noted in the past, he has occasional brilliant moments followed by a week or so of mediocrity. This is no good.
Actually, for a young guy who's a relative newcomer to national politics, he's done pretty well. Unfortunately, all of the "next Clinton" talk has led to over inflated hopes – both on his part and the media’s -- which have in turn made his actual performance to date a failure in terms of expectations. Bad. Bad. Bad.
Another big chink in Edwards' armor is the fact that he was a trial lawyer only a few years ago. Now, you and I know that that does not necessarily make him a bad guy; in fact, given his record of going after major corporations on behalf of wronged individuals, it can be a big plus. The problem, though, is that people dislike lawyers, especially ones that sue. Yes, the perception of trial lawyers all being greedy thugs who help lazy good-for-nothings get rich with frivolous lawsuits is manufactured by the tort "reform" crowd, but that doesn't make it go away. Basically, in order for Edwards' previous career to be a factor in his favor, he needs to continue to "fight for the little guy" in the Senate for a few more years, so that journalists and other storyline-makers can draw a parralel between his two careers, with fighting people who take advantage of others as an overarching theme. Otherwise, the GOP can just point to him and say “trial lawyer,” and the jig is up; go home, no White House for you.
I like John Edwards. I think that, given a bit more experience and a more extensive Senate record, he could be a real contender. In fact, I'm looking at him a little like Gary Hart in '84- a young guy with good ideas and charisma who just needs a few more years of experience and a higher national profile (assuming Edwards avoids any Monkey Business-type flameouts).
So this run is good for him. Let him learn the ins and outs of national campaigning, and let him build up that all-important name-recognition. He's one of the few national figures in the Democratic party who's young enough to still be in his political prime in 2012 if another Democrat wins the Presidency next year. On the other hand, if the gods throw tomatoes at us and Bush wins next year, then Edwards will be ready to roll in 2008. Either way, this is a practice run for him.
Dick Gephardt- Can't win. Unions like him, he has a lot of legislative experience, blah blah blah. So did Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale, and those two got beaten like the family mule.
The fact is, any Democrat smart enough to know who he is is also smart enough to know that he was the top Democrat in the House during a time when the Republicans ruled the House with an iron fist. Dick couldn’t keep the GOP from growing in power in the 90's (save for that little hiccup in '98 when the country decided it hated Newt), and everyone knows it. More than that, he presided over the 2002 midterms which, in terms of the House, were quite a drubbing for the Democrats. And no matter what The Note says, he still gives off a faint whiff of Loser from that election.
Yes, he has a nifty health plan, yes he is raising some good money, yes he has good support in midwestern blue states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois.
Doesn't matter. He has too much baggage, too little personality, and the unions simply can't get out the vote like they used to. God help us if he wins the nomination.
Bob Graham- Who?
Al Sharpton- Can't win without help from extra-terrestrials, and only then if they have death rays and are willing to use them.
But so what? Al certainly talks a good game, and my initial fears of the Republicans accusing the Democrats of racism for discounting him as a contender in the primaries have mostly faded away.
He's an entertaining guy, and from what I've seen and read of his speeches, he manages to make interesting some of the larger messages the Democrats have been trying to push (the Kool-Aide line about Bush’s tax cuts was classic). He is able to phrase things in a funny, memorable, sound-bite way, a skill that seems to be sorely lacking among Democrats.
He will never be President, but I say let him bash Bush to his heart's content. A few funny lines, if picked up by the media, can be devastating, and if they come from Al, the nominee can avoid any blowback that might result from negative reaction to what he says.
Al can be our wrecking ball.
Carol Mosley-Braun- Can't win. She's simply too marginal a figure. Honestly, I don't know what possessed her to declare, unless perhaps she is trying to score some points and raise her profile for another run down the road.
Dennis Kucinich- Can't win. I'm going to get flack for this, but someone needs to state the obvious.
He's too damn funny looking to win.
Again, it's a stupid, juvenile thing to say, but it's true. Compared to someone of Bush's good looks and vitality, Kucinich doesn't stand a chance.
Even if he was the most brilliant candidate imaginable, with a platform that could win over the entire country, he would still lose. For good or ill, television is a critical component of any modern campaign, and Dennis does not look good under the lights. You think they made fun of Dukakis for looking a little strange? You ain't seen nothing.
***
Having gone through all that, I'll talk about Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, and why I believe they could be a winning combination in my next post after I get home from class tonight.
Uh oh. I let slip that I am in favor of the (admittedly far-fetched) Dean/Clark ticket.
So let's take a closer look at that, eh?
First, in this post, a rundown of candidates whose names are not Howard Dean:
John Kerry- Can't win. Sorry. He very well might win the nomination, but if he does, I will be digging a very deep hole -- filled with cheap booze and old science fiction novels -- in which to spend the next four years, because George Bush will reign until 2008.
Why? For one very simple reason - John Kerry is boring and looks too damn old.
Simplistic, juvenile analysis? Yes. But it is absolutely correct.
Say what you will about Bush, the man is quite the young buck, as Presidents go, and his handlers are very careful to present him in small, easy-to-swallow bites to keep him seeming fresh, interesting, and exciting. You and I thought the carrier landing was excessive, but a good chunk of the populace loved it, and not just the die hard Republicans.
Kerry just cannot win against Bush’s vitality.
It's too bad, then, that Kerry, as the pseudo-front runner, is wrapping up a lot of the big campaign guns - particularly Rand Beers, who could potentially do a lot of damage to Bush while bolstering Democratic National Security Street Cred (DNSSC).
Hopefully, Kerry will get bounced out of the primaries and gracefully hand off all his weaponry to the nominee.
Joe Lieberman- Can't win. Same problems as Kerry, with the additional stench of loser carrying over from 2000. The only Democrat less trusted by the base is Zell Miller, and Lieberman's handling of the Enron investigation makes that distinction deserved.
John Edwards- The way I see it, Edwards is the only guy besides Dean who has a chance at beating Bush. Unfortunately, he has, up to this point, been a disappointment. As Kos has noted in the past, he has occasional brilliant moments followed by a week or so of mediocrity. This is no good.
Actually, for a young guy who's a relative newcomer to national politics, he's done pretty well. Unfortunately, all of the "next Clinton" talk has led to over inflated hopes – both on his part and the media’s -- which have in turn made his actual performance to date a failure in terms of expectations. Bad. Bad. Bad.
Another big chink in Edwards' armor is the fact that he was a trial lawyer only a few years ago. Now, you and I know that that does not necessarily make him a bad guy; in fact, given his record of going after major corporations on behalf of wronged individuals, it can be a big plus. The problem, though, is that people dislike lawyers, especially ones that sue. Yes, the perception of trial lawyers all being greedy thugs who help lazy good-for-nothings get rich with frivolous lawsuits is manufactured by the tort "reform" crowd, but that doesn't make it go away. Basically, in order for Edwards' previous career to be a factor in his favor, he needs to continue to "fight for the little guy" in the Senate for a few more years, so that journalists and other storyline-makers can draw a parralel between his two careers, with fighting people who take advantage of others as an overarching theme. Otherwise, the GOP can just point to him and say “trial lawyer,” and the jig is up; go home, no White House for you.
I like John Edwards. I think that, given a bit more experience and a more extensive Senate record, he could be a real contender. In fact, I'm looking at him a little like Gary Hart in '84- a young guy with good ideas and charisma who just needs a few more years of experience and a higher national profile (assuming Edwards avoids any Monkey Business-type flameouts).
So this run is good for him. Let him learn the ins and outs of national campaigning, and let him build up that all-important name-recognition. He's one of the few national figures in the Democratic party who's young enough to still be in his political prime in 2012 if another Democrat wins the Presidency next year. On the other hand, if the gods throw tomatoes at us and Bush wins next year, then Edwards will be ready to roll in 2008. Either way, this is a practice run for him.
Dick Gephardt- Can't win. Unions like him, he has a lot of legislative experience, blah blah blah. So did Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale, and those two got beaten like the family mule.
The fact is, any Democrat smart enough to know who he is is also smart enough to know that he was the top Democrat in the House during a time when the Republicans ruled the House with an iron fist. Dick couldn’t keep the GOP from growing in power in the 90's (save for that little hiccup in '98 when the country decided it hated Newt), and everyone knows it. More than that, he presided over the 2002 midterms which, in terms of the House, were quite a drubbing for the Democrats. And no matter what The Note says, he still gives off a faint whiff of Loser from that election.
Yes, he has a nifty health plan, yes he is raising some good money, yes he has good support in midwestern blue states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois.
Doesn't matter. He has too much baggage, too little personality, and the unions simply can't get out the vote like they used to. God help us if he wins the nomination.
Bob Graham- Who?
Al Sharpton- Can't win without help from extra-terrestrials, and only then if they have death rays and are willing to use them.
But so what? Al certainly talks a good game, and my initial fears of the Republicans accusing the Democrats of racism for discounting him as a contender in the primaries have mostly faded away.
He's an entertaining guy, and from what I've seen and read of his speeches, he manages to make interesting some of the larger messages the Democrats have been trying to push (the Kool-Aide line about Bush’s tax cuts was classic). He is able to phrase things in a funny, memorable, sound-bite way, a skill that seems to be sorely lacking among Democrats.
He will never be President, but I say let him bash Bush to his heart's content. A few funny lines, if picked up by the media, can be devastating, and if they come from Al, the nominee can avoid any blowback that might result from negative reaction to what he says.
Al can be our wrecking ball.
Carol Mosley-Braun- Can't win. She's simply too marginal a figure. Honestly, I don't know what possessed her to declare, unless perhaps she is trying to score some points and raise her profile for another run down the road.
Dennis Kucinich- Can't win. I'm going to get flack for this, but someone needs to state the obvious.
He's too damn funny looking to win.
Again, it's a stupid, juvenile thing to say, but it's true. Compared to someone of Bush's good looks and vitality, Kucinich doesn't stand a chance.
Even if he was the most brilliant candidate imaginable, with a platform that could win over the entire country, he would still lose. For good or ill, television is a critical component of any modern campaign, and Dennis does not look good under the lights. You think they made fun of Dukakis for looking a little strange? You ain't seen nothing.
***
Having gone through all that, I'll talk about Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, and why I believe they could be a winning combination in my next post after I get home from class tonight.
Monday, June 16, 2003
Security Issues
I'll go over my currently-preferred Democratic ticket in another post (it's Dean/Clark), but first I want to try out an idea I've been kicking around since January.
Whoever gets the nomination should quickly snap up Gary Hart and tell everyone that he will be their National Security Advisor if they win.
Now, granted, National Security Advisor is not an office you usually see a Presidential candidate talk about filling on the campaign trail; it certainly is never a major campaign theme. If they give any thought to it at all, people usually rely on the perceived national security credentials of the candidate, and assume that they will fill the various government posts with like-minded people.
However, for an election that will be as much about national security and terrorism as it will be about anything else (and let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it will be all about the economy, eh? Played that game in 2002. Didn't go so well), it seems like it would not be a bad idea to shove every bit of security street cred the Democrats can muster in everyone's face.
Even though I never mentioned it in this space, I actually like Gary Hart a lot. Unlike other Hart supporters, though, I didn't actually want to see him make a Presidential run (I'm looking at you, Ezra). Here's an excerpt from an email I sent to a friend of mine discussing Hart's potential candidacy:
But Gary Hart's biggest strength this time around -- national security and anti-terrorism -- is both a desperately sought-after commodity in the Democratic party, and something that, in the proper office, can be divorced from an ancient character scandal. Nobody cares about the National Security Advisor's sex life.
For the nominee, making Hart the visible architect of their national security platform would be an ideal theme-crafting move.
We all learned in 2000 that the prevailing themes among journalists can make or break a candidate (Al Gore and the internet, anyone?). By bringing Hart onboard as an important side-figure, the Democrats can capitalize on the media's perception of him as a terrorism-psychic and a national security guru without being weighed down by his baggage.
I'll go over my currently-preferred Democratic ticket in another post (it's Dean/Clark), but first I want to try out an idea I've been kicking around since January.
Whoever gets the nomination should quickly snap up Gary Hart and tell everyone that he will be their National Security Advisor if they win.
Now, granted, National Security Advisor is not an office you usually see a Presidential candidate talk about filling on the campaign trail; it certainly is never a major campaign theme. If they give any thought to it at all, people usually rely on the perceived national security credentials of the candidate, and assume that they will fill the various government posts with like-minded people.
However, for an election that will be as much about national security and terrorism as it will be about anything else (and let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it will be all about the economy, eh? Played that game in 2002. Didn't go so well), it seems like it would not be a bad idea to shove every bit of security street cred the Democrats can muster in everyone's face.
Even though I never mentioned it in this space, I actually like Gary Hart a lot. Unlike other Hart supporters, though, I didn't actually want to see him make a Presidential run (I'm looking at you, Ezra). Here's an excerpt from an email I sent to a friend of mine discussing Hart's potential candidacy:
If I were a Republican, I couldn't pick a better Democratic candidate. Not because his ideas are worse than those of the GOP. They're better. Not because the majority, if they understood, wouldn't support Gary Hart in a second over any Republican. They would. But because the GOP political apparatus is geared primarily toward massive smear campaigns and character assassination, and Hart has a giant bullseye on his chest. This is what these people do. Take, as only one example, Bill Clinton. A man who I have mixed feelings about, but, regardless, was a brilliant and very competent President, with a relatively minor character flaw. Over the years, the GOP has succeeded in painting him as a cesspool of immorality and vice, who set a "moral tone" which caused everything from the Columbine shootings to the Enron-led fraud epidemic. I am not making this up: They blamed Enron on Bill Clinton getting a blowjob.Fortunately, Hart decided against a run at the Presidency. When he did, though, he made sure to emphasize the fact that he still had a great desire to serve the American people in some capacity. Some people have suggested that he should run for the Senate again- an interesting possibility that would ultimately be doomed, for much the same reason as a Presidential run. People care where politicians stick their widgets, even if it was 16 years ago.
Clinton at least had the courtesy to try and hide the fact of his adultery. Hart paraded it in the country's face, a particularly brilliant move given the power of the various televangelist empires at the time.
But Gary Hart's biggest strength this time around -- national security and anti-terrorism -- is both a desperately sought-after commodity in the Democratic party, and something that, in the proper office, can be divorced from an ancient character scandal. Nobody cares about the National Security Advisor's sex life.
For the nominee, making Hart the visible architect of their national security platform would be an ideal theme-crafting move.
We all learned in 2000 that the prevailing themes among journalists can make or break a candidate (Al Gore and the internet, anyone?). By bringing Hart onboard as an important side-figure, the Democrats can capitalize on the media's perception of him as a terrorism-psychic and a national security guru without being weighed down by his baggage.
Saturday, June 14, 2003
Zell Redux
I don't know why I didn't know mention this before (I guess I never really thought about it), but let us all take a second to remember that Zell Miller voted to confirm Ted Olsen as Solicitor General.
Every bad thing I said about Miller in this post?
Double it.
I don't know why I didn't know mention this before (I guess I never really thought about it), but let us all take a second to remember that Zell Miller voted to confirm Ted Olsen as Solicitor General.
Every bad thing I said about Miller in this post?
Double it.
Even Their Ads Don't Work Right
Thank God American Express is sponsoring Salon today, because I nearly killed someone last week when Microsoft was sponsoring the "Day Pass." The damn thing absolutely would not play for me, instead popping up a little window that said "the designated file needs a codec to run, but does not specify which one." And so, there was no way to proceed, because the damn thing wouldn't play without the codec, and wouldn't continue without playing. Extremely frustrating, but so very typical of the boys in Redmond.
Thank God American Express is sponsoring Salon today, because I nearly killed someone last week when Microsoft was sponsoring the "Day Pass." The damn thing absolutely would not play for me, instead popping up a little window that said "the designated file needs a codec to run, but does not specify which one." And so, there was no way to proceed, because the damn thing wouldn't play without the codec, and wouldn't continue without playing. Extremely frustrating, but so very typical of the boys in Redmond.
Caught
Talking to my mother today-
Mom: Your father tells me you have a website now.
Me: Well, it's really not particularly exciting. I just yell about politics and such on an irregular basis.
Mom: You aren't swearing on it are you?
Me: Um...
Mom: Christian! You weren't raised that way!
Me: Okay, mom, seriously-
Mom: I'm telling the Pastor! You'll be kicked out of the church and go to hell!
Me: Well, fair enough.
Talking to my mother today-
Mom: Your father tells me you have a website now.
Me: Well, it's really not particularly exciting. I just yell about politics and such on an irregular basis.
Mom: You aren't swearing on it are you?
Me: Um...
Mom: Christian! You weren't raised that way!
Me: Okay, mom, seriously-
Mom: I'm telling the Pastor! You'll be kicked out of the church and go to hell!
Me: Well, fair enough.
It Must Be Nice To Be The InstaPundit
Calling the French troops in the Congo cowards on his deck via wireless, while sipping a Redhook IPA and grilling steaks.
What an asshole.
Calling the French troops in the Congo cowards on his deck via wireless, while sipping a Redhook IPA and grilling steaks.
What an asshole.
Thursday, June 12, 2003
President Zell Miller
That three-word phrase, if it ever became true, would be unquestionable proof that God does not exist.
Via the Wyeth Wire, I see that the Senator from Georgia is putting out feelers for a Presidential run.
Let's just clear this out of the way right now:
If the Democratic Party nominates Zell Miller, it means that the Party is well and truly dead, with no hope of revival. It's over, go home; or better yet, go to Canada, because the Right has won and will reign supreme forever and ever, Amen.
Why? Because he's a Republican. While technically not one of those bastard Blue Dog Democrats, he is just as far Right as any of them, and he has betrayed the Democrats more times than I can count. And when I say betrayed, I mean betrayed. As in sold out, cheated on, stabbed in the back.
Zell Miller's brand of "bipartisanship" fits Grover Norquist's definition of it. How many times has Miller voted not just with the GOP but against the Democrats?
It's not just that he is a conservative. Joe Lieberman is a conservative. Zell Miller is Judas.
A particularly egregious example of this is the Estrada filibuster.
Not only did Miller join Majority Leader Bill Frist in attempting to rejigger the judicial nomination process so as to prevent a filibuster like the one the Democrats are still carrying out, but he submitted an amendment to the Senate Rules which would effectively end the filibuster as a parliamentary tool by reducing the number of votes neccessary for cloture upon each successive cloture motion.
These two actions were directly aimed at screwing the Democratic leadership -- not to mention the Left in general -- by dealing them a huge blow in their struggle against the administration and the Republican majority's attempts to pack the judiciary with Rightwing idealogues who will warp the judicial landscape for generations to come.
The only good thing about Senator Zell Miller is that he is leaving the Senate when his current term comes to an end.
I don't really have any fear that Miller would get the nomination even if he was deluded enough to run. The base hates him too much - Joe Lieberman looks like a shining example of liberalism and party loyalty next to him.
But just the idea is enough to give me shivers...though remote, the possibility is just too horrible to contemplate.
Go home, Zell. No one wants you here.
That three-word phrase, if it ever became true, would be unquestionable proof that God does not exist.
Via the Wyeth Wire, I see that the Senator from Georgia is putting out feelers for a Presidential run.
Let's just clear this out of the way right now:
If the Democratic Party nominates Zell Miller, it means that the Party is well and truly dead, with no hope of revival. It's over, go home; or better yet, go to Canada, because the Right has won and will reign supreme forever and ever, Amen.
Why? Because he's a Republican. While technically not one of those bastard Blue Dog Democrats, he is just as far Right as any of them, and he has betrayed the Democrats more times than I can count. And when I say betrayed, I mean betrayed. As in sold out, cheated on, stabbed in the back.
Zell Miller's brand of "bipartisanship" fits Grover Norquist's definition of it. How many times has Miller voted not just with the GOP but against the Democrats?
It's not just that he is a conservative. Joe Lieberman is a conservative. Zell Miller is Judas.
A particularly egregious example of this is the Estrada filibuster.
Not only did Miller join Majority Leader Bill Frist in attempting to rejigger the judicial nomination process so as to prevent a filibuster like the one the Democrats are still carrying out, but he submitted an amendment to the Senate Rules which would effectively end the filibuster as a parliamentary tool by reducing the number of votes neccessary for cloture upon each successive cloture motion.
These two actions were directly aimed at screwing the Democratic leadership -- not to mention the Left in general -- by dealing them a huge blow in their struggle against the administration and the Republican majority's attempts to pack the judiciary with Rightwing idealogues who will warp the judicial landscape for generations to come.
The only good thing about Senator Zell Miller is that he is leaving the Senate when his current term comes to an end.
I don't really have any fear that Miller would get the nomination even if he was deluded enough to run. The base hates him too much - Joe Lieberman looks like a shining example of liberalism and party loyalty next to him.
But just the idea is enough to give me shivers...though remote, the possibility is just too horrible to contemplate.
Go home, Zell. No one wants you here.
Shite
Well, it seems that the nice people who were hosting my images finally decided that since I wasn't using their (free) service for online auctions, I suck and deserve to have my account disabled.
Oh well. I'm grateful they allowed me to use it as long as they did.
Unfortunately, I now have to find someplace else that will host my (very small) images. I don't really care about the picture of myself (although I do think that a small pic on one's blog is a nice touch...an added bit of familiarity, yes?), but I do want to get the email address back on the site (in case you never noticed, my email address was displayed as a tiny .gif file, to keep it from being snagged by spamcrawlers). Also, my FAQ was a tiny HTML document that was hosted at the same place.
So, does anyone out there have any suggestions as to where I can host a few small files (at least 20K, preferably 150K so I can [very rarely] use an image or two in a post) for free? By my rough calculations, I use about 250 megs of bandwidth per month (although as readership increases, that will of course get bigger).
Ideas?
Well, it seems that the nice people who were hosting my images finally decided that since I wasn't using their (free) service for online auctions, I suck and deserve to have my account disabled.
Oh well. I'm grateful they allowed me to use it as long as they did.
Unfortunately, I now have to find someplace else that will host my (very small) images. I don't really care about the picture of myself (although I do think that a small pic on one's blog is a nice touch...an added bit of familiarity, yes?), but I do want to get the email address back on the site (in case you never noticed, my email address was displayed as a tiny .gif file, to keep it from being snagged by spamcrawlers). Also, my FAQ was a tiny HTML document that was hosted at the same place.
So, does anyone out there have any suggestions as to where I can host a few small files (at least 20K, preferably 150K so I can [very rarely] use an image or two in a post) for free? By my rough calculations, I use about 250 megs of bandwidth per month (although as readership increases, that will of course get bigger).
Ideas?
A Suggestion
Go check out Terry Pinder's site, The Storm.
When I first stumbled over his corner of the internet, I thought to myself, "My, he's an angry young man."
Then I realized that, hey, so am I! We could be twins!
Well, fraternal twins anyway. We don't look exactly alike...
Recently, he's been keeping a close watch on events in the Congo, a region that gets largely ignored by both politicians and the media despite conditions that make Iraq under Saddam look good.
It's important to remember that, despite the fact that we've capturedOsama Bin Laden Saddam Hussein Hussein's sons Mullah Omar Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, we haven't quite eliminated evil from the world.
Go check out Terry Pinder's site, The Storm.
When I first stumbled over his corner of the internet, I thought to myself, "My, he's an angry young man."
Then I realized that, hey, so am I! We could be twins!
Well, fraternal twins anyway. We don't look exactly alike...
Recently, he's been keeping a close watch on events in the Congo, a region that gets largely ignored by both politicians and the media despite conditions that make Iraq under Saddam look good.
It's important to remember that, despite the fact that we've captured
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
We Are Most Certainly Less Crazy Than Them
Like all the cool kids, I've been reading The Clinton Wars, and the effect it has had on me is very similar to that of Blinded By The Right.
I was never really a huge Clinton fan. To this day, I'm somewhat ambivalent about him and his presidency. He did good things, and he did bad things. He was undeniably brilliant but he did some really stupid things. He was a liberal, but he made too many concessions to corporate interests. He was a big kick-ass Democrat who brought the party out of the doldrums of the Reagan/Bush years, but his name is a bigger liability than it is a strength in large portions of the country.
What's funny is the fact that the more I read about the years of his presidency, and the years immediately preceding it, the more I like Mr. Bill.
There is some merit to the idea of judging a man by his enemies, and going by that standard, Bill Clinton was a truly great man - after all, if charlatans and scumbags, liars and thieves hate you, you can't be all bad.
There have been a lot of attempts in recent weeks to compare the behavior of the GOP during the Clinton years to that of the Democratic Party since Bush took over (most notably Jane Galt's reasonable-sounding but ultimately self-serving Jane's Law: "The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane"). A lot of these attempts have been by Righties who, in light of information emerging about those years during the 90s, cannot with a straight face deny that the GOP and its allies perpetrated some astounding abuses of power and resorted to the dirtiest tactics since -- maybe -- Nixon. In order, then, to distance themselves from "that element" and allay whatever guilt supporting such a Party entails, they try to muddle the issue by saying, in effect, "Hey, both Parties do it, get over it and move on."
Aside from snarky comments about "moral equivalence", the idea that the Democrats have been equally devious in attacking Bush is ridiculous on its face.
Until a Left-leaning Supreme Court Justice clears the way for a viciously partisan Democratic Special Prosecutor to take control of a high-profile, endlessly-funded investigation that has already cleared Bush of wrong-doing and extend said investigation into areas that aren't covered by its mandate (and are, indeed, being manufactured and promoted by Hard Left lawyers with funding from wealthy Leftist crackpots) in order to force Bush to perjure himself so that the inherently totalitarian House of Representatives -- controlled by insanely partisan Democrats -- can draft and pass embarrassingly weak Articles of Impeachment (but only after illegally presenting waffling moderates, outside of the House chamber in a Democratic headquarters, with "evidence" that wouldn't hold up in any court that Bush was a rapist) - all enabled by some of the most factually-impaired reporting since Hearst's heyday and a television pundit corps that skews heavily to the Left, I think we can safely say that the "Devious Shit" award goes to the reigning champion GOP.
"But Hillary is a bitch!"
Mm-hmm.
Like all the cool kids, I've been reading The Clinton Wars, and the effect it has had on me is very similar to that of Blinded By The Right.
I was never really a huge Clinton fan. To this day, I'm somewhat ambivalent about him and his presidency. He did good things, and he did bad things. He was undeniably brilliant but he did some really stupid things. He was a liberal, but he made too many concessions to corporate interests. He was a big kick-ass Democrat who brought the party out of the doldrums of the Reagan/Bush years, but his name is a bigger liability than it is a strength in large portions of the country.
What's funny is the fact that the more I read about the years of his presidency, and the years immediately preceding it, the more I like Mr. Bill.
There is some merit to the idea of judging a man by his enemies, and going by that standard, Bill Clinton was a truly great man - after all, if charlatans and scumbags, liars and thieves hate you, you can't be all bad.
There have been a lot of attempts in recent weeks to compare the behavior of the GOP during the Clinton years to that of the Democratic Party since Bush took over (most notably Jane Galt's reasonable-sounding but ultimately self-serving Jane's Law: "The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane"). A lot of these attempts have been by Righties who, in light of information emerging about those years during the 90s, cannot with a straight face deny that the GOP and its allies perpetrated some astounding abuses of power and resorted to the dirtiest tactics since -- maybe -- Nixon. In order, then, to distance themselves from "that element" and allay whatever guilt supporting such a Party entails, they try to muddle the issue by saying, in effect, "Hey, both Parties do it, get over it and move on."
Aside from snarky comments about "moral equivalence", the idea that the Democrats have been equally devious in attacking Bush is ridiculous on its face.
Until a Left-leaning Supreme Court Justice clears the way for a viciously partisan Democratic Special Prosecutor to take control of a high-profile, endlessly-funded investigation that has already cleared Bush of wrong-doing and extend said investigation into areas that aren't covered by its mandate (and are, indeed, being manufactured and promoted by Hard Left lawyers with funding from wealthy Leftist crackpots) in order to force Bush to perjure himself so that the inherently totalitarian House of Representatives -- controlled by insanely partisan Democrats -- can draft and pass embarrassingly weak Articles of Impeachment (but only after illegally presenting waffling moderates, outside of the House chamber in a Democratic headquarters, with "evidence" that wouldn't hold up in any court that Bush was a rapist) - all enabled by some of the most factually-impaired reporting since Hearst's heyday and a television pundit corps that skews heavily to the Left, I think we can safely say that the "Devious Shit" award goes to the reigning champion GOP.
"But Hillary is a bitch!"
Mm-hmm.
France Is Our Enemy
Those bastards are helping unarmed American civilians make a cowardly retreat from the civil war-wracked capital of Liberia.
Will their villainous behavior never end?
Those bastards are helping unarmed American civilians make a cowardly retreat from the civil war-wracked capital of Liberia.
Will their villainous behavior never end?
Hillary Clinton Is A Paragon Of Virtue, And A Luscious Babe To Boot
Actually, I don't really care much about her one way or another. But the way I see it, if that sentence can thin out the GOP electorate by causing a few heart attacks and perhaps a cranial implosion or two, it is my Solemn Duty to write it.
Actually, I don't really care much about her one way or another. But the way I see it, if that sentence can thin out the GOP electorate by causing a few heart attacks and perhaps a cranial implosion or two, it is my Solemn Duty to write it.
Random Thought
What is Al Gore doing these days? We haven't heard much from him since he declared himself a non-candidate.
Also, it occurs to me that one of the most important things he can do over the next year is get whatever political networks he has in Tennesee working overtime. I'm not sure how helpful he can be on the national scene next year, campaigning for the Democratic nominee, but he damn sure still has pull in the Volunteer State, and those eleven electoral votes are going to be very, very important.
It's going to be a close one next year...
What is Al Gore doing these days? We haven't heard much from him since he declared himself a non-candidate.
Also, it occurs to me that one of the most important things he can do over the next year is get whatever political networks he has in Tennesee working overtime. I'm not sure how helpful he can be on the national scene next year, campaigning for the Democratic nominee, but he damn sure still has pull in the Volunteer State, and those eleven electoral votes are going to be very, very important.
It's going to be a close one next year...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
