For some time now, there have been rumblings in the business community about being the victims of “shakedowns” by Republican politicians. Certainly, Tom DeLay’s K Street project has intimidated the lobbying firms into only hiring those of whom he approves.
Now, however, they are throwing down the gauntlet and turning their dirty tricks operation on business leaders who don’t toe the line. This thing with Soros is a sea change. If the Republicans think they can intimidate billionaires who don’t share their political point of view, the CEO’s should really begin to wonder just who is running the show, here.
If the Speaker of the House can accuse Soros of making his money from the illegal drug trade (which doesn’t make any sense since he’s in favor of legalization) then they can say anything about any of those guys too if they don’t follow the party line.
What an interesting dilemma for the masters of the universe. Is Monsieur DeLay their bitch or are they his?
Update:
Hesiod (welcome back to the jungle, dude) finds the genesis of this Hastert (and Gingrich) smear against Soros. It’s none other than Lyndon LaRouche. Figures.
Now, what’s all this I hear about Scaife and his sister?
So, this is the first I’ve heard that Dave Dreier is gay but it does explain something to me that I’ve wondered about for a long time — why he didn’t run for higher office. He’s very articulate, attractive and media friendly — way more than some loser like Bill Jones, who’s running against Barbara Boxer. He always seemed to travel in the power circles of the party and recently served as a high level advisor to Arnold. I’ve scratched my head more than once as to why this guy hadn’t achieved a much higher profile.
This is one of the most potent arguments against bigotry. Here you have someone who is obviously a talented politican (if playing for the wrong team — the GOP, that is) and he can’t be allowed to run for higher office because of the prejudices of a bunch of medieval lamebrains. This happens all the time in all walks of life and it’s so patently unamerican. This is, after all, the country where anyone is supposed to be able to make it on the merits. As Clinton used to say, we don’t have a person to waste. (Like arabic translators…)
Then again, I have to ask myself why any self respecting gay person would be a Republican when most of his comrades believe he is a repellant deviant (unless he’s a Catholic priest in which case it should be overlooked.) To me, it’s like a black man joining the KKK. Don’t get it.
Update: To be clear, I am not making a comparison between gays and pedophiles. My meaning was that the right seems to be remarkably forgiving of the fact that the priesthood has a fair number of gay members — a status which they perceive as deviant and repellant — and that is something that would be the cause of a general condemnation of any other institution. (Think Boy Scouts.) The pedophilia issue is something else altogether — although it is quite telling that they don’t hold the church accountable for real crimes either. Apparently, if the institution in question is a church, there is nothing the right will find worthy of the condemnation they extend across every where else in society.
If the entire priesthood is gay it’s a non-issue as far as I’m concerned. Likewise, if priests have affairs with their female parishoners, which I understand is not exactly unheard of, it’s none of anyone elses business in my book. I’m not a catholic, so I don’t really feel that I have a right to judge their moral requirements for adults. (Obviously pedophilia, which is most often heterosexual, is a crime and should be prosecuted wherever it happens.) But, surprisingly, I don’t hear much of an outcry from the sanctimonious Republican party that a two thousand year old religious institution is a hotbed of what they deem to be the kind of sexual immorality that led them to a non-stop orgy of absolutism just six short years ago in the impeachment of the president. Indeed, they are going out of their way to court the leaders of that very institution. Strikes me as a little bit self-serving, that’s all.
This is driving me nuts. All night long, on all the cable networks, the whores were going on and on about how the polls are terrible news for Kerry. On Matthews they were studiously trying to figure out what moment it was exactly when Kerry lost the election. Nobody questioned GOP shill Dave Drier when he said he was ecstatic that the polls have done a 180 and Bush now has a good chance to take California. Shake ups in the Kerry camp are afoot. Fineman points out that Kerry may have been a fighter but he’s never had to face Karl Rove before. That explains his ignominious defeat. These Republicans are just too good.
Except for one thing. This is all bullshit. Here’s the latest from polling report. It’s a goddamned dead heat. And the question nobody asks is how a Republican incumbent who stood at a 90% approval rating for more than a year is now below 50% and can’t seem to put away the pussy Democrats in the middle of a war.
There’s your story, press corpse.
I guess it’s just so comfy cozy for them to be back in the loving arms of the GOP where they nestled so sweetly for more than two years suckling on the mother’s milk of wartime propaganda. Extolling the manly heroism of George W.Bush is something that comes so naturally they don’t even realize they’re doing it. Why bother with the real story? This one just feels so right.
Never listen to the pundits. They are living in an alternate universe and they are almost always wrong about everything. Just look at the last four years of punditry if you doubt me.
Listening to these idiots on Matthews talk about “what women want” is truly unbelievable. Apparently, women will vote for Bush because the war in Iraq means that their children will come home safely from school. Also because his wife met him at a bar-b-que. You see, women need the wife to vouch for her husband because they have to vote for men all the time and it’s icky.
This is Matthews, Mitchell, Meachum and Scarborough who are saying this. The elite SCLM.
I’d like to see Hillary march up to the platform and slap the shit out of all of them.
Just as Andrew Sullivan was coming over to the side of goodness and light, he sees the macho performance of the hairy and manly real men of the GOP last night and hurries back into his rightful place as their favorite gay mascot who shall be explicitly denied his rights under the US Constitution. Some things are even more primal than the desire to marry and settle down, I guess.
I can’t say that I’m surprised. Bush worship — in the George W. sense, anyway — is very hard to shake. I think you have to hire one of those deprogrammers.
What’s more upsetting, though is that Michael Bérubé, bleeding heart liberal professor hockey playing Bush hater, was taken in as well. If they’ve got Bérubé, I’m afraid it’s all over:
And then McCain. What is there to say about McCain? McCain is McCain. The quintessential maverick, quintessentially mavericking all those other sucker-quintessential pseudo-mavericks who try to bring that weak shit to the hole. When he called Michael Moore a “disingenuous filmmaker,” I realized that my own piddling critiques of Moore were so much dust in the wind. As McCain explained in his post-game interview with CNBC, Michael Moore’s film suggested that Iraq under Saddam was some kind of Biblical paradise, and that’s so wrong it’s just . . . just . . . disingenuous, is what it is. Isn’t it weird that Democrats won’t say anything bad about Saddam? Rock on, John. The disingenuous must die!! Die, disingenuous Democrats, die!!
And then, listening to the testimonies and watching the montages after McCain’s speech, I began to think about my own prejudices as a liberal-left blogger. Seriously, the last time I had a substantial debate with one of my liberal-leftist colleagues about the Bush presidency, it was at an American Studies panel at Tiny Elite Liberal University titled, “Republicans– Do They Merely Give Voice to the Vilest Elements of American Society, or Are They Themselves the Vilest Elements of American Society?” At the time, I argued strenuously in favor of either the former or latter position, but now that I’ve finally seen some actual Republicans up close on TV, I’ve had to reconsider. These people really seem very nice, once you get to meet them. They’re not wild-eyed ideologues– they’re just ordinary folks, sitting there in Madison Square Garden, trying to have a good time. They’re as sensible as you or your grandmother, and all they want is for people to love one another, inclusively, in a big tent that is inclusive. They love their country, and you should too.
And then . . . Rudy G.
Read on if you dare. Rudy G is more than just a manly man filled with macho manliness and male machismo. He’s the man.
But hold on to your codpieces, fellas. The Terminator, a man so masculine he isn’t even human, is on deck. It’s a manly night to end all manly nights. I sense you’d better have cigarettes and tequila at the ready — and tell the women folk to put on something frilly and make a few sandwiches. GOP don’t need no silver star. They’ve got a movie star, mothafuckah!
One of the hazards of democracy is that if we endorse our government’s willingness to use torture, others will feel justified in holding we the people as responsible for it as our leaders. It’s unlikely that the billion Muslims on this planet will continue to see a distinction between themselves and the Islamic radicals if the people of America validate the illegal actions of this government and extend this administration’s power for four more years.
This is going to haunt our country forever. We unleashed the beast and I fear we will all pay a heavy price if we do not hold our leaders accountable.
The bandages were handed out by Morton Blackwell, a longtime GOP activist from Virginia, with the message: ”It was just a self-inflicted scratch, but you see I got a Purple Heart for it.”
Kerry won three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star for his service in the Vietnam War. A group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking Kerry as a liar through campaign ads and media interviews, but Kerry’s wartime experiences have been backed by crewmates and official records.
”It is inexcusable for a delegate to mock anyone who has ever put on a soldier’s uniform,” said Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe. ”It is inexcusable to mock service and sacrifice.”
Blackwell, who gave out almost 250 of the bandages, said veterans have every right to be angry about anti-war comments Kerry made after returning to this country.
Party Chairman Ed Gillespie spoke to Blackwell, and they agreed that he would not distribute the bandages tonight, said GOP spokesman Jim Dyke.
This is where the talking heads come in. Don’t let this go. They need to repeat their shock and dismay at this disgusting little “joke” that dishonors the troops over and over again until everybody is sick of hearing it. And when the other side says that it wasn’t the RNC who did it and that Gillespie asked them to stop, they need to say “yes, you people claim that you are never responsible for any of these smears against veterans. But they just keep coming, even at your own convention.”
This is a rather silly issue on its face, but it’s an easy to understand symbol of the GOP’s willingness to devalue a veteran’s service if he doesn’t agree with their politics. Even the press corpse gets it. And, according to the polls, this isn’t going down very well with the electorate.
The underlying issue here isn’t dishonoring the troops. It’s dirty campaigning. It’s smart politics to scream bloody murder every time Bush or his shock troops do it, particularly when it involves military matters. The idea is taking hold — people believe he is behind it. (The AWOL thing is the sub-text.) Having to feel some pain for it will make Rove more cautious and put him off his game.
If we really want to fuck with Gillsepie’s head the Dems should call it “political hate speech.”
Tom Tomorrow had a great strip a week or so ago about undecided swing voters in which he noted with his usual subtlety that swing voters are idiots.
This article in the LA Times confirms it. They say they want specifics. They always say they want specifics, but they don’t understand the specifics when they hear them so they just pretend that they didn’t hear any and piss and moan again about the candidate not addressing “the issues.”
Undecided Voters Want Bush to Offer Specifics
When he steps on stage at Madison Square Garden on Thursday night to accept the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, swing voters say, they want to know how he plans to lower gas prices, make healthcare more affordable and create jobs.
America’s shrinking cadre of crucial undecided voters say they want to hear Bush promise that he won’t touch Social Security funds to pay for something else. They want him to describe how he’ll get rid of the national debt. But most of all, they say, they want to know how he plans to extricate U.S. forces from ongoing combat in Iraq.
“We have soldiers dying every day. One thing I learned in the military is you have to have an exit plan,” said Terry Eaton, 50, a paramedic training officer in San Antonio. “One of the things George Bush didn’t have was a way to get out. I want to hear what his goals are for Iraq.”
[…]
On the plus side for Bush, most of those interviewed said they think he has done a relatively good job in his first four years. And they take into account the Sept. 11 attacks when looking at the president’s progress on improving the economy.
You can see why they need to hear more from him on where he stands. They’ve only had four years and he’s done a relatively good job except for the jobs, gas prices, health care, social security, running up the deficit and Iraq. He just needs to lay out his agenda so they know what to expect.
Charlotte Stone, a nurse’s aide and registered Republican from the central Missouri town of Crocker, said she was worse off than when she voted for Bush in 2000. She had $3,000 in the bank back then. Today, her savings have dwindled to $300.
She’d like to go back to school and become a nurse or a massage therapist. But she can’t afford to quit her job to pursue her studies.
Kerry has yet to win her over, but Bush, she complained, doesn’t understand how Americans are struggling.
“I had money saved, but the price of gas went up,” said Stone, 50, who grosses about $14,000 per year. “People here live on $10,000 a year, and we have to drive. We’re trying to afford health insurance and 401(k) plans. We want to pay our way. But we can’t do it much longer, the way things are going.”
Stone said she’ll tune in to the convention in New York City, listening for a Republican plan to ease gas prices and a job-training program for older workers.
“I think he’s been an excellent president,” Stone said of Bush. “But with the economy and the gas prices, there are people out there who can’t afford him.”
Yes, he’s been an excellent president except for the living hand to mouth and affording her 401(k)! on 14,000 a year and no savings. You can see why she’d be wanting to hear about his plan for job training for older people. Those Republicans are big on that kind of thing.
Even those who voted for Bush in 2000 said their biggest fear was that the war in Iraq would develop into another Vietnam.
Eaton, the paramedic training officer, said Bush “talks about bringing troops home, but I have friends who are being called up to the National Guard for two years.”
Bush did a lot to make the nation safer by creating the Department of Homeland Security after the 2001 terrorist attacks, said Eaton, but that progress could be squandered if troops remain in the Middle East.
“It’ll add more fuel to the fire for Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas,” he said. “They’ll be more angered about the Western presence. In some ways, I’d say, no, we don’t have a right to be there.”
But he might vote for Bush anyway.
Before the Republicans turned radical, there was a decent case to be made that you could split tickets or swing from one election to the other. Government was largely by consensus so it was possible that you could find a place in the middle of either party to be comfortable if you were a moderate. Small differences in terms of specific issues were relevant. Those days are no more and the much smaller numbers of swing voters (as opposed to independents who vote with one party or another) is a reflection of that change. Swing voters today are simply ideologically incoherent.
I recall focus groups in the last couple of weeks before election 2000, after the debates, when these swing voters were being féted like visiting potentates by the networks. To the last person, they all said they still couldn’t make up their minds because they needed even more specifics. This after hearing hours of discussions of prescription drug plans and patient’s bill of rights and privatising social security and lockboxes and Dingell-Norwood until I thought I was going to kick in the TV.
The truth is that the issues really have little to do with this. These people cannot connect their own lives to the actions of the government in any coherent fashion. And they either love being seen as “above partisan politics” or they simply don’t get the warring philosophies of the two parties. Their decision making process is incomprehensible and I’m not sure how you can fashion a message for them that makes any sense. They don’t make any sense.
As Tom Tommorrow pointed out, it’s frightening that the fate of the nation and perhaps the world relies on these people. They literally don’t know their own minds.