Multi Medium

Tell Me Again Who The Pedophiles Are?

You know, I have to wonder if all the bigoted right’s stereotyping of gays as amoral libertines, perverts and pedophiles might not just be a bad case of projection…

A far-right Republican candidate for governor of Georgia has issued what must be one of the most counter-productive — and flat-out hilarious — denials in the history of modern political campaigning.

On Saturday, Ray McBerry sent out a lengthy statement denying that he “attempted to have an affair” with his former campaign manager; had sexual relations with under-aged girls; stole custody of his son from the son’s mother (who, he noted, had tested positive for meth anyway); is no longer allowed to teach in the state; and is unpatriotic, just because he refuses to salute “the current federal flag which represents the present unconstitutional leviathan in Washington,” and instead salutes the flag of Georgia and the “original Betsy Ross American flag.”

Oh, and please stop calling me unpatriotic when all the separatists are on your side of the fence.  (And what is it with pervy separatist Republicans running for Governor of Georgia???)

Add comment March 16th, 2010 at 07:55am Posted by Eli

Love Your Horse, But Don’t LOOOOVE Your Horse.

Another day, another homophobic Republican wanker:

Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) said Sunday that the expansion of state laws allowing gay marriage could lead to people marrying horses.

Hayworth, during an interview with an Orlando, Fla., radio station explained: “You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage — now get this — it defined marriage as simply, ‘the establishment of intimacy.’”

(…)

“I mean, I don’t mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point,” he continued. “I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse.”

The former Republican congressman then insisted that the “only way” to prevent men from marrying horses is to create a federal marriage amendment. Hayworth noted that he supports such an amendment.

Or you could, y’know, just make it illegal to marry horses.

Personally, I’d like to see Obama pass a bill outlawing cross-species marriage, just for the fun of watching Republicans and conservatives reflexively oppose it.  Mitch McConnell would unleash the full fury of his obstructionist bag of tricks, and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck would rant and rave about Obama the communofascist infringing on Americans’ God-given Constitutional right to wed farm animals.

Who knows, maybe the GOP would even add horse-buggery equiphilia as an official plank in the party platform, just to show those liberals that no one tells them what to do.

Add comment March 15th, 2010 at 08:01pm Posted by Eli

No One Could Have Anticipated

Because only gay officers would ever sexually harass their subordinates…

Rep. Massa, an upstate Democrat, resigned his seat after admitting to “inappropriate” behavior with young male aides – groping and unwanted advances, the complaints alleged – that he described as a carry-over from his days as a career Navy officer.

Then former shipmates emerged last week with stories that Massa tried to grope, “snorkel” and ogle those of lesser rank.

“It’s a cautionary tale” of a superior officer allegedly seeking to prey upon subordinates that argues against repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, said Elaine Donnelly, head of the anti-repeal Center for Military Readiness.

“That kind of abuse would become far more frequent” if gays were allowed to serve openly, Donnelly said.

That is such homophobic bullshit, right up there with all the arguments against gay priests/teachers/scoutmasters that equate homosexuality with pedophilia.  There has never been any shortage of straight sexual harassers, and tolerance for gay servicemembers doesn’t mean tolerance for abusive ones.

Add comment March 15th, 2010 at 07:03am Posted by Eli

Remarkable.

That Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen could write so many words about how healthcare reform is doomed and everybody hates it because they hate Big Government without ever once mentioning the public option and how overwhelmingly popular it is.

I’m sure it’s just an oversight; so many people seem to have forgotten all about the public option lately.

Add comment March 12th, 2010 at 11:32am Posted by Eli

News Flash For The Vatican

Condom machines don’t encourage teenagers to have sex.

Being teenagers encourages teenagers to have sex.

Add comment March 12th, 2010 at 07:10am Posted by Eli

Were You Aware Of It?

Apparently all Protestants are rich white guys.

Who knew?

Add comment March 11th, 2010 at 09:54pm Posted by Eli

Wankers Of The Day

Harry Reid and Dick Durbin.

After all their pro-public-option posturing, now they’re urging Senate Democrats to vote against any amendments to the woefully inadequate and public-optionless reconciliation bill, even if they’re popular and/or they personally support them.

Great plan, make Democrats vote against popular healthcare policies that they support… in an election year.  They must be worried that the base isn’t depressed enough.

(Gee, I guess Bernie didn’t get the memo…)

Add comment March 11th, 2010 at 08:41pm Posted by Eli

Gang Of 14: Yer Doin It Wrong

Lindsey seems a little unclear on the concept:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wants to revive the bipartisan Gang of 14 — this time for health care reform, not judicial nominees.

But most of his moderate Democratic colleagues aren’t rushing to R.S.V.P.

Graham said Tuesday that a coalition of Republican and Democratic senators could rescue the Senate from an institutional disaster brought on by the use of the parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation to finish the health care bill.

“Many Republicans who were ready to pull the trigger on the nuclear option on judges are now glad they didn’t,” Graham said. “This place would have ceased to function as we know it. If they do health care through reconciliation, it will be the same consequence. So if you are a moderate Democrat out there looking for a way to deliver health care reforms and not pull the nuclear trigger, there is a model to look at.”

I wouldn’t mind seeing something like the original Gang Of 14 compromise, where the majority agreed not to eliminate the filibuster in exchange for the minority agreeing not to use it.  But this is more like the minority party agreeing not to use it in exchange for the majority party not making them want to.

What both “compromises” have in common, of course, is that the Democrats cede power to let the Republicans get their way.

Add comment March 11th, 2010 at 07:20am Posted by Eli

Massa:Beck::Al Capone’s Vault:Rivera?

Poor Glenn Beck.  Massa was serving up all kinds of juicy tidbits about groping and tickling and naked browbeating, but because he wouldn’t come out and say that Rahm or Obama did horrible corrupt illegal conspiracy things to force him out of office, the whole interview was a waste of time.

1 comment March 10th, 2010 at 11:36am Posted by Eli

…And?

Oh yeah, this seems like a real effective argument against financial regulation:

Alex Castellanos, a Republican consultant, pointed to another edge: with Americans most anxious about unemployment, calling for stricter regulation of Wall Street is “not a growth argument, it’s a punishment argument.”

Aside from being dishonest in the extreme, is it even relevant to anything?  Wall Street’s growth has done little if anything to enrich anyone outside of Wall Street, so it’s a little difficult to see what the harm in curbing it to sustainable levels of non-recklessness would be.

2 comments March 9th, 2010 at 11:23am Posted by Eli

Trying To Pull The Woolsey Over Our Eyes

Lynn Woolsey’s attempt to convince us that she’s not a total spineless weakling on the public option is quite remarkable.  She starts out with an excellent defense of the public option, then pledges to… push for a separate public option bill right after the current monstrosity passes.  Right, because that would totally happen.  The only chance to pass the public option is now, when the White House is desperate for a win on healthcare.

This is strongly reminiscent of Candidate Obama’s promise to fight to strip telecom immunity from the FISA reform bill… immediately after he voted for it.  And look how well that worked out.

Reading Woolsey’s op-ed was like watching Ron Carey in High Anxiety: “I get it… I get it… I get it… I don’t get it.”

(Side question: Has anyone in the Senate leadership yet given any kind of coherent explanation for why the public option isn’t in the reconciliation sidecar?  I know Gibbs – who is not in the Senate – said it didn’t have the votes, but otherwise it seems more like the public option simply hasn’t occurred to Harry, and all the Senators who have signed the public option are just a vague buzzing noise in his ear.)

1 comment March 9th, 2010 at 07:22am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

Blanche Lincoln:

“The larger message being sent to the administration and Congress is: You are with us or you are against us,” said Patterson, Lincoln’s campaign manager. “The left feels frustrated after eight years [of President George W. Bush] their agenda should be at the forefront and should be passed in its entirety in the first year. That didn’t happen and that anger, some of that is being magnified in our race.”

This might – I repeat, might - be a plausible defense for the Obama administration, which can claim that it’s had to make unpalatable compromises because its awesome progressive agenda has been obstructed by Congress, but it is disingenuous at best coming from one of the obstructors herself.

Instead, Lincoln’s campaign manager pretends that his boss is just some kind of innocent bystander, caught up in “the left’s” overall frustration with Congress, and not one of the primary causes of it.

3 comments March 8th, 2010 at 07:10am Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Sales

In their latest e-mail blast, apparently the DNC actually thinks this is a good thing:

On Fox News Sunday this morning Mitt Romney defended the individual mandate, which was in the health care plan he championed as Governor, as the “ultimate conservative plan”

See it HERE:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzdhJ3CsYLQ

DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan offered the following response to Romney’s declaration:

“We know that ensuring everyone is covered and expanding the risk pool will lower costs, but it certainly speaks to the bipartisan nature of the President’s plan that Governor Romney calls the idea of an individual mandate the “ultimate conservative plan.”

Romney Defends Individual Mandate as “Conservative.” “What we did, I think, is the ultimate conservative plan. We said people have to take responsibility for getting insurance, if they can afford it, or paying their own way. No more free-riders.” [FOX News, 3/7/10, See it HERE:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzdhJ3CsYLQ]

DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan offered the following response to Romney’s declaration:

“We know that ensuring everyone is covered and expanding the risk pool will lower costs, but it certainly speaks to the bipartisan nature of the President’s plan that Governor Romney calls the idea of an individual mandate the “ultimate conservative plan.”

Oh yeah, I am soooo stoked to run out and support the Senate’s healthcare plan now that I know that Mitt Romney has endorsed the individual mandate as “the ultimate conservative plan” – I’m gonna get on the phone to my congressman right away!

2 comments March 7th, 2010 at 03:27pm Posted by Eli

Question Of The Day

Does The Obama Administration Even Want To Win In November?

Johnson’s bafflement is an excellent companion piece to Scarecrow’s.

My take on it is that a Republican-controlled (or Republican + Blue Dog-controlled) Congress gives Obama an excuse to pursue the Republican policies that he apparently wants to pursue anyway.  “Oh gee, I really wanted to do something about healthcare/unemployment/financial shenanigans/global warming/EFCA/DADT, but my hands are tied by all those Republicans.  How about some nice shiny tax cuts?”

What I don’t get is how Obama actually thinks that leading his party into a rout in 2010 and then using that as an excuse to govern like a full-blown Republican is going to win him any votes in 2012.  Maybe he’s counting on the Republicans nominating someone terrifyingly, unelectably insane.  Which is not completely out of the question.

Add comment March 6th, 2010 at 01:11pm Posted by Eli

So Now He’s In A Hurry?

Funny how Obama’s patience was nearly infinite when the public option was in the Senate healthcare bill with Republicans and conservadems trying to take it out, but now that the public option is out with liberals and moderates trying to put it back in, he can’t get it passed soon enough.

If it weren’t for his solemn promise to “revisit” the public option at some unspecified future time (just like his promise to “revisit” NAFTA!), I might think that he really really doesn’t want it.

Add comment March 5th, 2010 at 07:02am Posted by Eli

Epic Optics Fail

Sure, that’s a great idea to publicly embrace a company whose reputation is so corrupt and bloody that it had to CHANGE ITS NAME.  How could that possibly backfire?

The Republican National Committee plans to hold an April fundraiser at a Moyock, N.C. compound owned by the military contracting firm formerly known as Blackwater, Politico reports.

According to an RNC fundraising document uncovered on Wednesday, RNC “Young Eagles” — party major donors under 40 — will meet at the facility in the spring.

(…)

It was recently reported that Blackwater employees took hundreds of firearms from both the U.S. Mmilitary and Afghan police forces using the South Park alias “Eric Cartman.”

Brilliant!  Hey, maybe KBR can handle the lighting.

Add comment March 4th, 2010 at 08:30pm Posted by Eli

Republican Witch Hunt Of The Day

Well, this is thoroughly inappropriate and disgusting:

A day after a conservative group released a video condemning the Justice Department for refusing to identify seven lawyers who previously represented or advocated for terror suspects, Fox News has uncovered the identities of the seven lawyers.

(…)

The video by the group Keep America Safe, which dubbed the seven lawyers “The Al Qaeda 7,” is the latest salvo in a lengthty political battle.

For several months, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has led an effort to uncover politically-appointed lawyers within the Justice Department who have advocated for Guantanamo Bay detainees or other terror suspects.

“The administration has made many highly questionable decisions when it comes to national security, ” Grassley said in a recent statement. “[Americans] have a right to know who advises the Attorney General and the President on these critical matters.”

(…)

Before joining the Justice Department, Jonathan Cedarbaum, now an official with the Office of Legal Counsel, was part of a “firm-wide effort” to represent six Bosnian-Algerian detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, according to the web site of the firm WilmerHale.

That effort brought the case Boumediene v. Bush to the Supreme Court, which reaffirmed the right of detainees to challenge their detention.

So as far as the right is concerned, detainees may have the right to counsel, but attorneys don’t have the right to provide it.  Awesome.

Add comment March 4th, 2010 at 11:40am Posted by Eli

Rove Chides Self For Not Lying More Effectively

Poor Dubya – Karl really let him down:

While defending the administration’s handling of Iraq, Rove concedes that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction damaged the administration’s credibility. And he blames himself for failing to set the record straight.

“When the pattern of the Democratic attacks became apparent in July 2003, we should have countered in a forceful and overwhelming way,” he writes. “We should have seen this for what it was: a poison-tipped dagger aimed at the heart of the Bush presidency.”

If only he had done more to convince America that Iraq really did have WMDs.  Maybe he should have given Dubya’s little “Where are the WMDs?” sketch a happy ending or something.

Add comment March 4th, 2010 at 07:10am Posted by Eli

Shock Doctrine Troops

Psychologist Michael Bader confesses his dislike for the teabaggers, but also advocates empathy as well:

People can’t tolerate feeling helpless and self-hating for very long. It’s too painful, too demoralizing and too frightening. They have to find an antidote. They have to make sense of it all in a way that restores their sense of meaning, their feeling of agency, their self-esteem, and their belief in the possibility of redemption. They have to. They have no choice. That’s just the way the mind works.

The paranoid strategy is to generate a narrative that finally “explains it all.” A narrative — a set of beliefs about the way the world is and is supposed to be — helps make sense of chaos. It reduces guilt and self-blame by projecting it onto someone else. And it restores a sense of agency by offering up an enemy to fight. Finally, it offers hope that if “they” — the enemy, the conspirators — can be avoided or destroyed, the paranoid person’s core feelings of helplessness and devaluation will go away.

(…)

For new Tea Party members… the drift toward paranoia is facilitated by the right-wing media machine that offers several ready-made narratives perfectly designed to help its consumers clear up their confusion, understand their helplessness, absolve them of any blame and offer a way out. The conspiratorial alliance of business and government, a growing tyranny intended to disenfranchise, disarm and exploit ordinary citizens, secret pacts to overthrow the Constitution, etc. all currently led by an un-American, godless, colored, elitist, contemptuous foreigner: Barack Hussein Obama. A grim and frightening picture of the world to be sure. Psychologically speaking, however, it offers relief from helplessness and a sense that things are falling apart. It offers a sense of cohesion and identity based on certainty, a commonality of interests, innocence, and even martyrdom. While the world of the Tea Partiers is filled with danger, it is a danger mitigated by moral certainty, clarity of purpose and a definable external enemy.

This is truly horrifying if you think about it.  The right is actively manufacturing and promoting extremist narratives to exploit these people’s sense of helplessness and fear – caused by their own destructive policies – and turn them into an army of fanatics.

Imagine this guy, we’ll call him Rob, secretly schemes to get his friend Tee fired from his job.  Tee then confides in Rob his sense of helplessness and despair.  But instead of helping him find a new job and get back on his feet like a real friend would do, Rob instead tells Tee that it’s all Rob’s bitter rival Dan’s fault and that Tee should show Dan that he’s on to him and teach him a lesson.  That, in a nutshell, is what the Republicans are doing, and it’s amoral and disgusting.

Republicans aren’t just obstructing meaningful economic stimulus and health care reform because they want Democrats to fail, but because every person who loses their job or their health insurance is another potential convert to Glenn Beck’s teabag gospel.

Add comment March 3rd, 2010 at 07:11am Posted by Eli

Wankers Of The Day

Shorter Tom Harkin and Debbie Wasserman Schultz: We really like the public option, but it is necessary to destroy healthcare reform in order to save it.  Or something.

Democratic support for the public option looks more and more phony and insincere every day.  Like Obama, they want it dead, but they know it’s popular and don’t want to take the blame for killing it, so they play Reluctant Pragmatist Acceding To Reality.  Pathetic.

Add comment March 2nd, 2010 at 11:32am Posted by Eli

Can Doctors Be “Disbarred”?

Looks like yesterday was Professional Misconduct Day on the NYT op-ed pages.

First, the torture doctors:

According to Justice Department memos released last year, the medical service opined that sleep deprivation up to 180 hours didn’t qualify as torture. It determined that confinement in a dark, small space for 18 hours a day was acceptable. It said detainees could be exposed to cold air or hosed down with cold water for up to two-thirds of the time it takes for hypothermia to set in. And it advised that placing a detainee in handcuffs attached by a chain to a ceiling, then forcing him to stand with his feet shackled to a bolt in the floor, “does not result in significant pain for the subject.”

(…)

The medical basis for these opinions was nonexistent. The Office of Medical Services cited no studies of individuals who had been subjected to these techniques. Its sources included a wilderness medical manual, the National Institute of Mental Health Web site and guidelines from the World Health Organization.

(…)

The shabbiness of the medical judgments, though, pales in comparison to the ethical breaches by the doctors and psychologists involved. Health professionals have a responsibility extending well beyond nonparticipation in torture; the historic maxim is, after all, “First do no harm.” These health professionals did the polar opposite.

Nevertheless, no agency — not the Pentagon, the C.I.A., state licensing boards or professional medical societies — has initiated any action to investigate, much less discipline, these individuals. They have ignored the gross and appalling violations by medical personnel. This is an unconscionable disservice to the thousands of ethical doctors and psychologists in the country’s service. It is not too late to begin investigations. They should start now.

And then the legal profession:

The Supreme Court has a chance to reinforce that fundamental protection in the case of Albert Holland. A Florida prisoner, he did everything he could to ensure that his lawyer filed his habeas corpus petition, which would allow the federal courts to review his state-court conviction for first-degree murder and other crimes.

He continually asked about it, and emphasized the importance of meeting the deadlines. The lawyer repeatedly assured Mr. Holland that he would take care of it, and then missed the habeas deadline. Mr. Holland was given a new lawyer, who argued that due to the first lawyer’s extreme negligence, the failure should be excused under “equitable tolling,” which allows for deadlines to be excused in the broader interests of justice.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit rejected the argument, ruling that even gross negligence by a lawyer does not provide a basis for equitable tolling. Unless there was “bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, mental impairment,” or something of that magnitude, the court said, the deadline would stand.

Disgraceful behavior by Holland’s lawyer, and disgraceful behavior by the appeals court.  I don’t have high hopes for the Supreme Court, but I hope the criminally incompetent lawyer got disbarred (not holding my breath).  And any doctor who facilitated torture should be shunned and shamed, and never allowed to practice medicine ever again.

1 comment March 2nd, 2010 at 07:01am Posted by Eli

Juxtaposition Of The Day

Today’s NYT Op-Ed page:

It is not unusual for members of Congress to arrange group rentals in Washington to share housing costs…. What is highly unusual, and unjustifiable, is the tax-exempt status as a religious institution enjoyed by a boarding house called the C Street Center that caters to conservative Christian lawmakers.

The $1.8 million townhouse came to public notice last year when three recent tenants — Senator John Ensign; Mark Sanford, the South Carolina governor and former congressman; and former Representative Charles Pickering Jr. — were embroiled in marital infidelity scandals. Mr. Pickering was accused by his estranged wife of entertaining a mistress at the house.

The center soon lost most of its city tax exemption, after District of Columbia officials decided it was a residence, not a church. And now a coalition of mainline Christian ministers is demanding that the Internal Revenue Service end the center’s federal tax exemption and its shield of nontransparency. The coalition is rightly concerned that the center is exploiting, and thereby cheapening, the constitutional protections guaranteed legitimate religious institutions.

The Week profile of Joseph Stack:

Why was Stack so furious at the IRS?
He was apparently busted in the 1980s for claiming his home was a church to avoid taxation — a protest scheme he says cost him “$40,000+” and “10 years of my life.”

Not that I’m trying to compare conservative Republicans to a crazy man who hated taxes so much that he flew his plane into an IRS building, of course.  That would be uncivil.

Add comment March 1st, 2010 at 06:57pm Posted by Eli

Oh Trickledown, Is There Anything You Can’t Do?

Trickledown: It’s not just for people any more:

Corporate America descended on Capitol Hill Wednesday morning hoping to ride the small business gravy train that’s been gaining steam. Instead, they caught an earful from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who didn’t appreciate the message they brought.

CEOs representing 11 major corporations argued that the Democratic emphasis on small businesses missed the important role that Big Business has to play, several people in the meeting told HuffPost.

(…)

W. James McNerney Jr., chairman, president and CEO of Boeing Company, was one of the more outspoken executives, arguing that helping big business was the same as helping small businesses, and that either way he supported them doing both, not one or the other. For every job created at Boeing, he said, two small business jobs are created.

His argument sparked something in Reid, who recoiled, indicating with his body language and facial expression that he didn’t like what he was hearing, according to people in the room. Reid dressed down the CEO and then walked out of the meeting.

Yes, that’s right: Just like how the best way to help the poor and middle class is to give the rich massive tax cuts, so too the best way to help small business is to give lots of breaks to big business.  Awesome.

(h/t dday)

Add comment February 26th, 2010 at 11:22am Posted by Eli

No One Could Have Anticipated…

Turns out Obama “supports” the Consumer Financial Protection Agency in much the same way that he “supported” the public option:

The Obama administration is no longer insisting on the creation of a stand-alone consumer protection agency as a central element of the plan to remake regulation of the financial system.

In hopes of quick congressional approval of a reform bill, White House officials are opening the door to compromise with lawmakers concerned about creating a new bureaucracy, according to congressional and some administration sources.

President Obama’s economic team is now open to housing the consumer regulator inside another agency, such as the Treasury Department, though they still prefer a stand-alone agency. In either case, they are insisting on a regulator with political autonomy and real teeth so it can effectively enforce rules designed to protect consumers of mortgages, credit cards and other financial products.

(…)

A free-standing agency had been a central part of the original blueprint released by the Obama administration, which said it is essential to have one agency with the sole mission of protecting consumers from lending abuses. In the lead-up to the financial crisis, that responsibility was spread across numerous agencies and often took a back seat to ensuring the well-being of banks. A version of the stand-alone proposal was included in a bill passed by the House in December.

(…)

In one scenario under discussion, a consumer bureau would be set up within the Treasury Department. In another, a consumer protection division would be established inside a new national agency to regulate banks.

The latter idea would upset some consumer advocates, who say they do not want the consumer regulator to answer to bank supervisors. Advocates say these supervisors have shoddy records on shielding customers from abusive financial practices.

What could possibly go wrong?

Add comment February 25th, 2010 at 11:28am Posted by Eli

Miss Beverly Hills Achieves The Impossible

…She makes Carrie Prejean look good:

Ashley told Fox News that not only is she against same-sex marriage, but that she thinks it is divine law that gays should be put to death because “the Bible is pretty black and white“:

Carrie Prejean isn’t the only beauty queen open to expressing her objection to same-sex marriage. Miss Beverly Hills 2010 Lauren Ashley is also speaking out in support of traditional nuptials.

“The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, ‘If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.’ The Bible is pretty black and white,” Ashley told Pop Tarts.

“I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone. If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that’s a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life.”

Despite her strong words about homosexuality, Ashley also told Fox that she “has a lot of friends that are gay,” and that there’s “no hate between [her] and anyone.”

Why is it that I never hear any gays or minorities saying that some of their best friends are bigots?  I mean, there are more than enough bigots claiming to be friends with them…

2 comments February 25th, 2010 at 07:18am Posted by Eli

It Certainly Does Explain A Lot…

No wonder Gibbs is trying to throw cold water on passing the public option through reconciliation.  Obama really is playing for the other team. Jebus, what a dishonest scumbag.

I’m still hopeful that Congress will pass the public option simply to save their own skins in November, but it’s going to be a lot harder with the president actively working against them.  I assume even Obama wouldn’t be stupid enough to actually veto the public option if it somehow passed, but if he did I’m sure his explanation would be fascinating.

1 comment February 24th, 2010 at 07:16am Posted by Eli

This Just In…

Earth to Obama and Democrats: How many times do we have to tell you that the reason everyone hates the Senate healthcare bill is because it doesn’t have a public option?

I know this is hard and painful for you to hear, but you would actually improve your re-election chances by moving left, not right.  But perhaps you’re less worried about staying in office than you are about your employment after office.

(h/t Phoenix Woman)

Add comment February 22nd, 2010 at 07:18pm Posted by Eli

Republican Hilarity

Republicans certainly do have a unique and fascinating worldview.  Too bad it’s so completely at odds with reality.  First, Orrin Hatch:

But one thing Hatch won’t do, he said, is vote against Obama appointees for partisan reasons. He said he won’t stoop to the tactics he claims Democrats used against President George W. Bush’s appointees.

A-HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Right, that totally isn’t happening, I’m sure he had Excellent Totally Valid Nonpartisan Reasons for voting against Sotomayor.  And Democrats totally only voted against Dubya’s appointees out of sheer partisanism and spite, and not because they were unqualified ideological hacks.  Which must be why Dubya couldn’t get hardly anyone confirmed by the end of his first year in office.

And Mitch McConnell:

McConnell said Thursday that he preferred a “right of center” solution, and he urged Obama to become more of a centrist.“President Obama needs to have an epiphany,” he said. “The way to make progress is in the political middle.”

I was kinda confused for a few seconds there, but then I realized that McConnell was talking about the socialist Bizarro Obama that Republicans are always complaining will ruin the country with his far-left madness.  Although just between you and me, I kinda wish we could have that Obama in the White House right now.

Add comment February 19th, 2010 at 11:35am Posted by Eli

Hysterical Right-Wing Wanker Of The Day

According to Ken Blackwell, Dawn Johnsen’s (still disgracefully languishing) nomination to head OLC is exactly like Stalin exterminating millions of Russian Jews.

President Obama is big on civility. He talks a very good game. But his nominee for a top slot at the Department of Justice–Dawn Johnsen–is a leading exponent of incivility. Johnsen worked with the ACLU for years. And she joined ARM–the so-called Abortion Rights Mobilization–to strip the Catholic Church of its tax-exempt status because of its pro-life advocacy. The Catholic Church eventually won that case–but not until it had spent years and millions of dollars defending itself. The Catholic Church was just the biggest ARM target. If they had succeeded against the Catholics, they surely would have come after the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals, and The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod.

If Mr. Obama is serious about civility he needs to withdraw Dawn Johnsen’s nomination. If she is confirmed, we will see a radical anti-Catholic, pro-abortion zealot influencing policy thoughout the Justice Department—but also policy throughout the entire federal government.

What we are witnessing right now is an anti-Christian programmatic pogrom. What is a “pogrom” it’s the word that describes anti-Jewish raids by Cossacks and others in czarist Russia, but a programmatic pogrom best describes what is happening right now. These are not isolated attacks. And while we no longer have Cossacks to threaten, we now have left-wing bloggers who actually call themselves Kossacks (after the Daily Kos).

Those poor beleaguered Christians.  It’s a wonder they’ve survived this long with all the adversity and persecution they must face as a tiny disempowered minority.

Add comment February 18th, 2010 at 07:22am Posted by Eli

Texas School Board: Mission Accomplished!

Looks like all that hard work on shaping textbook content is really paying off:

Nearly a third of Texans believe humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time, and more than half disagree with the theory that humans developed from earlier species of animals, according to the University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.

(…)

• 38 percent said human beings developed over millions of years with God guiding the process and another 12 percent said that development happened without God having any part of the process. Another 38 percent agreed with the statement “God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago.”

• Asked about the origin and development of life on earth without injecting humans into the discussion, and 53 percent said it evolved over time, “with a guiding hand from God.” They were joined by 15 percent who agreed on the evolution part, but “with no guidance from God.” About a fifth — 22 percent — said life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time.

• Most of the Texans in the survey — 51 percent — disagree with the statement, “human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.” Thirty-five percent agreed with that statement, and 15 percent said they don’t know.

• Did humans live at the same time as the dinosaurs? Three in ten Texas voters agree with that statement; 41 percent disagree, and 30 percent don’t know.

That’ll do, Texas School Board.  That’ll do.

(h/t WT)

2 comments February 17th, 2010 at 09:29pm Posted by Eli