Blogging will be very light, perhaps nonexistent, over the next few days, but will pick up again around the end of this week. Don't worry, everything will be explained later.
Added: If you're someone who found your way over here as a result of the, er, news coverage and you're trying to get an idea of this site's typical tone and/or subject matter, this is probably as good a place to start as any. Enjoy.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 9:26 AM
Thursday, August 05, 2004
This town ain't big enough for the both of us
Kerry and Bush somehow ended up campaigning three blocks from each other in Davenport, Iowa, yesterday. Kerry nailed the best campaign-related zinger of the day: "It occurred to me that he [Bush] could come here for a great discussion about America's future if he were really willing to just turn a corner." Given the opportunity to come up with an equally zingy zinger, Bush whiffed — "Asked what Kerry was doing in town, Bush had a two-word answer: 'Ask him.' " Yeah, encourage people to make the three-block walk to hear your opponent speak, that's some cunning strategery.
In other news from the campaign trail, John Edwards hopped himself up into the bed of a pickup truck and made an impromptu, off-the-cuff campaign speech when fans just started showing up in the parking lot of his hotel. That's why we loves ya, John! (Incidentally, this happened in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, hometown of radio's most famous three-time recidivist divorcee/prescription-drug abuser.)
And we also get word that, rather than being a liability (as she's being painted by those who would like nothing better than to turn her into another Hillary, so they'd have someone else to kick around for 4-8 years), Teresa Heinz Kerry is gaining an increasing number of fans as she stumps for her husband on the campaign trail. Her approval ratings, in case you were curious, are only a few points lower than Bush's.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 11:27 AM
Why does Richard Shelby hate America?
Not that you'd know it from the dearth of so-called liberal media coverage, but Sandy Berger was cleared last week. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala., unfortunately), not so much:
WASHINGTON — Federal investigators have concluded that Sen. Richard C. Shelby, R-Ala., divulged classified intercepted messages to the media when he was on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, according to sources familiar with the probe.
Specifically, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron confirmed to FBI investigators that Shelby verbally divulged the information to him during a June 19, 2002, interview, minutes after Shelby's committee had been given the information in a classified briefing, according to the sources, who declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the case.
Ha, the irony! A Fox News reporter blows the whistle on ol' Shel! Good job, Campaign Carl!
Of course, given the lengths to which the right wing went to excoriate Berger even though his offenses were paltry by comparison, I'm guessing we can expect all of them to lay into Shelby just as hard. Ann Coulter's column this week is titled "I'll Have The Sandy Berger And A Side Of Lies," so I'm assuming we can expect next week's to be called, oh, I don't know, "Shelby Comin' 'Round the Federal Investigation When He Comes." Or something. (Shut up, you know you love it.)
It's not like anyone should be all that surprised that Shelby is a threat to our national security, since he is a close personal friend of Saddam Hussein's. But now that the people of Alabama have been made aware of their three-term senior senator's malfeasance, we're confident that they will give him the drumming-out he deserves and promptly elect a new, more qualified senator so that the healing can begin. Anybody in Alabama got any ideas who that should be? . . .
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 10:12 AM
Jeez, lady, don't you have a voter roll to purge or something?
Well, we already knew that Katherine Harris was no stranger to just making stuff up — reasons why thousands of people in Florida should be turned away from the polls, f'rinstance. Now we get word that she's still engaging in those kinds of shenanigans as a U.S. representative, only instead of concocting legal justifications for disenfranchisement, she's cooking up fanciful tales about made-up terrorist attacks:
Republican Rep. Katherine Harris said Wednesday she regrets making the claim that a plot existed to blow up the power grid in Carmel, Ind., a notion city officials disputed.
[snip]
Harris, who was at the center of the political storm over the disputed 2000 presidential election, made the comments about terrorism and the plot on Monday at a rally for President Bush in Venice, Fla., and a subsequent interview with the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.
She told the audience that while in the Midwest recently, the mayor of Carmel told her how a man of Middle Eastern heritage had been arrested and hundreds of pounds of explosives were found in his home.
"He had plans to blow up the area's entire power grid," she said, according to the newspaper.
Oh, really? Let's let the folks who actually live in Carmel, as opposed to a thousand miles away?
City officials in Carmel said they know of no such plot.
"We're aware of the comments we read in the paper," said Tim Green, assistant chief of police in Carmel, a town about 10 miles north of Indianapolis. "We're not aware of any plans to blow up Carmel's power grid."
Nancy Heck, a spokeswoman for Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard, said, "The mayor never talked to Katherine Harris. They never had that conversation."
So wait. The mayor never talked to Harris, but she's making up stories about something this guy supposedly told her? Doesn't that pretty much make her a straight-up, stone-cold liiiiiar?
And doesn't it also sort of cast aspersions on this "more than 100 terrorist attacks have been foiled" story? Especially when she's basically saying, "It's all classified, so I can't go into it, but trust me, it happened"? Trust you? Yeah, I don't think so. But hey, I'm lovin' this "classified" thing — I can just make up any old cockamamie claim I want to, but as long as I slap the "classified" label on it, I've immunized myself from any responsibility to prove it. Hey, I had another date with Keira last night — I'd love to tell you all about it, but it's classified! I picked her up in the brand-new Mercedes S500 I bought over the weekend — oops, can't say any more about that, it's classified!
I just remembered that the syndicated episode of "Seinfeld" that was on TBS last night was the "Yada Yada" episode where George's girlfriend glossed over all the incriminating information in her stories with the eponymous phrase. It's starting to look like "classified" is the "yada yada" of the Bush administration — "We set up this homeland-security-department thing back in 2002, and yada yada, we've prevented more than 100 terror attacks." Brilliant!
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 9:25 AM
Um, Mr. President, are you sure you don't want us to cook that for you? It'll only take a . . . no? Well, you're the boss . . .
U.S. President George W. Bush holds an ear of raw sweet corn that he ate on a visit to the Bettendorf farmers' market during a campaign stop in Iowa, August 4, 2004. Bush is on a three-day campaign swing through middle America in the hotly contested states of Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio and Michigan.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 8:00 AM
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Cribbing from Ken Lay
Reader Tony Goins brings us this news that the Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Halliburton, its former CFO and its former controller with failure to disclose the 1998 alteration of a corporate accounting method. Judging by the graph at the bottom of the linked page, the alteration resulted in Halliburton reporting more than $210 million in earnings that did not, at the time (1998-99), exist.
Now, one could certainly use the defense Kenneth Lay has been trying to put up in the Enron case, that he didn't know this was going on. But that would sort of make Cheney seem a bit of a boob, wouldn't it? He's the highest-ranking officer at the company, and he doesn't even know about, much less sign off on, a critical change in accounting methods?
Maybe something will come out of all of this and maybe it won't. But the story's still worth following just for the name of the former controller being named in the charge: Robert C. Muchmore, Jr. Totally not making that up. Well, it's a pretty good name for anyone who's involved in accounting, isn't it?
ETA: Hee. Following Kevin Drum's lead, GWBWYPGN?! will now be referring to Cheney's former employer as Manchurian Global Halliburton.
ETA2:Billmon has lots, lots more on how the likelihood of Cheney not knowing about these shenanigans is very, very slight indeed.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 1:45 PM
Douchebag clearance event! Everything! Must! Go!
Originally we were going to do a separate post for each of these things, but we got busy and they just kind of built up, so . . . it's time for an Omnibus Bush/Cheney Cavalcade of Stupidity (OBCCS). Heh, that actually has kind of a ring to it. Maybe it's crying out to be a regular feature. Lord knows we have the material.
• July 30: Dick Cheney holds rally in Albuquerque, requires loyalty oath to attend. Doesn't it kind of figure that that would happen at a rally where Cheney only was in attendance? And how Kool-Aid-addled do you have to be, even as a conservative Republican, to get excited about seeing Dick Cheney without George W. Bush? (Courtesy Matt Lavine and Atrios.)
• July 31: Also courtesy of Matt, Bush utters the following quote at a campaign appearance in Canton, Ohio: "[Kerry] said he's only going to raise taxes on the so-called rich. But you know how the rich is — they got accountants. That means you pay." Leaving aside for a moment the utter grammatical mayhem present in this statement, what is Bush trying to imply here? That raising taxes on the upper class will somehow force the lower class to pay more, like it's some kind of economic Corsican Brothers syndrome? (And where were all the Republicans who shriek "Class warfare!" every time John Edwards gives the Two Americas speech?)
• July 31: Having done such a bang-up job with the loyalty oaths in Albuquerque, the Bush/Cheney campaign demands to know the race of a photographer who will be taking Cheney's picture the following day at an appearance in Tucson. No word yet on rumors that, to match Bush's own "Heart and Soul of America" tour, Cheney's trip was dubbed the "Bigotry and Paranoia of the Desert Southwest" tour. (Courtesy Politics 101.)
• August 1: Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, speaking about the warnings of impending terror attacks at specific sites in New York City and New Jersey, says, "[W]e must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the President's leadership in the war against terror" [my emphasis]. Two days later, responding to accusations that the warnings were motivated by a desire to boost Bush's re-election chances, Ridge says, "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security." (Links via Atrios.)
• August 3: Not connected with Bush/Cheney, but still worth noting: Memphis City Council Chair Joe Brown barred seven Iraqi community leaders from entering city hall, saying they might be dangerous and that he would "evacuate the building and bring in the bomb squads" if they were allowed to enter. Best part? They were in town on a civil-rights tour. (Also via Atrios.)
• August 4: Atrios for the hat trick — the official Bush/Cheney campaign blog links to a National Review Online column containing the following passage: "Generally speaking, the likelihood that a firefighter will vote for John Kerry is inversely proportional to the number of fires he has actually fought. Witness all those T-shirted "Fire Fighters for Kerry" you saw at the convention. A little soft around the middle some of them were, weren't they? Do you think some of them could haul a hose pack up 50 flights of stairs? I'm not betting on it. I'm guessing the only fires many of them have seen lately were at IAFF barbecues." Yeah, insult them into votin' for ya, that'll work. (Apparently the same people Bush saw fit to thank for "making the nation proud" on 9/14/01 became expendable once they stopped toeing the line.)
Wow, it's been a busy week for these folks, hasn't it? Surely they must be suffering from an acute case of Asshole Fatigue by now. Take it from someone who's tried — you can only be that much of a jerk for a few days before you just start to give out. Dial it back and take a breather for a few days, guys, you've still got a convention coming up at the end of the month!
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 12:39 PM
What's new in the exciting world of ideas
Of all the hotly contested Congressional races that will be decided in this election year, none of them may be as interesting as the one for Tennessee's 8th House district, which the irrepressible Matt Lavine focused on in a post this morning. The unopposed Republican candidate in Friday's primary is one James Hart, whose platform appears to be as follows:
• Stem the tide of rampant poverty and underachievement in our inner cities by cutting welfare payments going to "the least capable members of the human race" and instead investing the money in "[a] nonviolent eugenic program" designed to root out the "poverty genes" in "less favored races." • Uphold workers' rights and reject the "myth that the races and classes are equal."
• Issue "usury-free dollars."
• Repeal NAFTA.
• Eliminate Congressional pensions and make Congressmen participate in Social Security along with everyone else.
Just in case anyone was curious, the 8th Congressional district in Tennessee is not one of those ultra-urban/ultra-liberal districts where the Democrat is destined to win in a walk and, as such, the only Republicans who ever run are the ones who can be convinced to spend a lot of time and energy tilting at an unattainable windmill. No, the 8th starts in northern Memphis and pretty much takes up the entire northwest corner of Tennessee, stretching almost all the way east to Nashville. In other words, it's big and populated enough that you'd think the Republicans could've found someone slightly less crazy to run there, and with everyone talking about how Gore's loss of his home state in 2000 presaged a sea change in Tennessee's partisan politics, you'd think there would be enough people to vote for a hypothetical non-crazy GOP candidate, too. (His opponent, Democratic incumbent John Tanner, has been in Congress since '89, but it's not like he carries some Dick Gephardt/John Lewis amount of influence around with him that would be a particularly monolithic obstacle to a potential challenger.)
Anyway, like Matt, we found this Hart character to be quite fascinating. And the next time any of our Republican friends start bitching about what an embarrassment Cynthia McKinney is, or Maxine Waters, or Jim McDermott, we're going to smile real friendly like, put our arm around him/her and say, "Let me introduce you to a fellow by the name of James Hart."
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 9:31 AM
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Not a joke
Above, the unaltered, unphotoshopped cover of Michelle Malkin's latest book. Diiii-sgusting.
I'm sorry, but is it discriminatory or racist in any way to think Malkin's racism and xenophobia is even more disgusting coming from someone whose own parents were Filipino immigrants? I mean, everyone in this country has an equal right under the First Amendment to be bigoted and disgusting, but is it not reasonable to suspect that had Malkin's worldview been permitted to prevail in the U.S. government during the fifties and sixties, she wouldn't even be here right now?
And does anybody else get this methinks-the-lady-doth-protest-too-much whiff from her, as if she's ratcheted up her xenophobia just that eeeextra bit higher because she's trying to get in good with her conservative bedfellows but she knows she's from an ethnic demographic that they assume is going to go Democratic, so she's got to give that 110 percent? F'real. I'm asking. I seriously want to know.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 6:12 PM
Is this Governor Bush? Governor George Bush? George Walker Bush? Listen . . .
Despite all the yammering done about it by pundits and bloggers on both sides of the aisle, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is not, in our humble opinion, the most effective weapon the anti-Bush forces have in their cinematic arsenal this summer, not by a long shot — "The Manchurian Candidate," besides having a bad-ass poster (above), is about as clever a piece of political propaganda as we're going to see.
In the original 1962 film, the character of Raymond Shaw was captured by the Chinese army while fighting in Korea, brainwashed, and sent back to America to be a sleeper agent for the Chinese. In the remake, however, the evil brainwashing organization is not a country but rather a corporation, Manchurian Global, described as a multinational "private equity capital" conglomerate with interests and projects in every part of the world. And after being exposed to Manchurian's laundry list of specialties — "private security forces" to supplement American forces (not to mention any other country that asks for them), construction, government contracts of every conceivable nature — it's entirely possible that at least half of the film's audience members are going to walk out of the theatre thinking "Halliburton."
Is that what Jonathan Demme intended? Who knows. The funny thing is, though none of the characters' partisan affiliations are mentioned at any point in the film, we're pretty sure that Shaw and his scheming Senator mom (the one played by Meryl Streep) are supposed to be Democrats. In one of the opening scenes, which takes place at a party nominating convention, Streep is trying to get her son picked as the nominee's running mate (so he can whack the president and assume office himself, of course), and in making her case she points that the current frontrunner will only help the ticket in the areas where the party doesn't need any help — the upper Midwest, the Northeast, and California. But that's one of those blink-and-you'll-miss-it references that may only be picked up on by electoral-politics dorks like ourselves. The subliminal Halliburton imagery from Manchurian Global is likely to stick in people's minds a lot more firmly.
(Of course, you're also going to have the die-hard Hillary-haters insisting that Streep's manipulative, ball-busting character could only be a stand-in for Hillary Clinton, but Streep has stated in no uncertain terms that this is not the case.)
Anyway. Good flick, creepy as hell, go see it. And particularly if you're in a strongly Republican area, you might want to remark a little too loudly as you walk out of the theatre, "Gee, I wonder if Halliburton put an implant in George W. Bush . . . "
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 1:22 PM
Dennis Prager is a Lousy Writer and He Isn't Even That Hot and Plus, He Picks On Little Girls
Yeah, I know, we're supposed to reserve this kind of teardown treatment for Ann Coulter, but dammit, when we caught wind of Dennis Prager's latest TownHall column from TBOGG, we couldn't resist. Prager, that manly man of all manly men, has written an entire column trying to take down Ilana Wexler, the 12-year-old girl who spoke to wild applause at the Democratic National Convention last week.
Yep, that's right — 56-year-old Dennis Prager has written an entire column talking about how Ilana Wexler doesn't know jack. It's bad enough when right-wingers try to assail grown men like John Kerry with nothing better than "He's a flip-flopper and a poopyhead and plus, he speaks fluent French!", but this is just freaking ridiculous (not to mention horribly ironic coming from the man who appeared in two "For Goodness' Sake" motivational videos about how you should be nice to people all the time). We were going to just pick out a few excerpts from the column and laugh our asses off at them, but really, you have to read the whole thing to believe it. Herewith, Prager's "Why the Democrats use 12-year-olds," and our gleeful commentary:
After spending the week at the Democratic National Convention broadcasting my radio show, it was not easy to choose which aspect of the convention I would devote my column to. Would it be the discussions I had with delegates, nearly all of whom I liked and none of whom thought clearly about our nation's issues? Or about the Potemkin Village the Democrats erected — a convention where almost nothing the Democrats really believe was on display?
We can't wait to have a look at the Potemkin Village the Republicans will have ready and waiting in New York at the end of this month — a village where intelligent moderates like John McCain, George Pataki and Rudy Giuliani have somehow become the face of the party, while hateful demagogues like John Cornyn, Gary Bauer and Tom DeLay — the ones really driving the party's social agenda — are conveniently swept out of sight.
I decided on the speech given during prime time by a 12-year-old girl from the San Francisco Bay Area. In my view, this talk was typically and uniquely Democratic.
To understand modern liberalism and its political party, it is vital to understand Democrats' desire to blur any distinctions between child and adult. Ever since the 1960s, liberalism has been largely a movement dominated by children (of every age).
I enjoyed meeting Democrats last week. Many are people I would be happy to have as neighbors. But compared to Republicans, liberals and Democrats are often adults who do not wish to grow up.
Yeah, all that "immature" labeling stings a little, but then read this . . .
When George W. Bush was elected, I felt as if adults would now run the country after the adolescent-like President Clinton.
Yep, Dennis thinks George W. Bush is an epitome of grown-up-ness. So with his perspective on the issue of maturity apparently as skewed as a Picasso painting viewed through a kaleidoscope, you may now feel free to completely disregard all of the crap he just shoveled regarding Democrats being childlike.
Liberals and Democrats are not comfortable with adult-child distinctions. They therefore frequently treat and regard children as adults and frequently treat and regard adults as children.
That is why liberals do not generally want children to call adults "Mr." or "Mrs." Such titles render adults distinct from children.
Huh? Where did he get that from?
That is why liberal teachers often dress and talk similarly to their students and ask to be called by their first names.
Again, huh? I had plenty of liberal teachers, but calling any of them by their first names was generally a one-way ticket straight out of their good graces.
That is why liberals led the fight to lower the voting age to 18 and why California Democrats are now seeking to lower it further (as low as 14).
We'll admit that the age-14 idea is pretty lame, but as for 18, we see no reason why people old enough to be sent off to die in the military shouldn't have a voice in selecting the folks in Washington who are in charge of the off-sending.
That is why liberal educators worked to enable students to design college curricula. To many liberals, a 55-year-old professor does not know anything more than a 20-year-old about what students should be studying.
For the hat trick: Huh? Guys, did y'all forget to tell us this was "Pull Stuff Out of Your Rear End Day"?
That is why liberals don't worry about protecting children's innocence as much as conservatives do. The early sexualization of children is therefore not a problem to liberal educators. In a nutshell, the differing views of childhood innocence are what the battles over sex education in elementary schools, condom distribution in high schools and AIDS education in fourth grade are all about.
Yeah, Republicans think everyone under the age of 30 is dumb and Democrats think they're smart enough to handle factual information about urgent societal threats to their health. The difference couldn't be clearer.
It is therefore not surprising that the Democrats invited a 12-year-old girl to address their convention.
First, the politicization of children is no more a problem to most Democrats and liberals than is children's sexualization.
Wait, we're politicizing children? Rick Santorum does everything short of claim that gypsies will be snatching our children out of their very beds unless we vote to ban gay marriage, but the Democrats let a kid give a kick-ass speech at a convention and we're the ones politicizing children?
Second, for many liberals, there is just as much to be learned about politics and society from children as from adults. The notion that wisdom accrues with age is generally alien to liberals. So why not have a 12-year-old share her own wisdom with a convention and nation of adults?
Third, it is illuminating to note what the 12-year-old said that evoked the loudest cheers from the Democratic delegates. In the words of the Oakland Tribune, "The show-stealer was Oakland's Ilana Wexler, 12, who brought down the house with her suggestion that Vice President Dick Cheney get a 'timeout' for using foul language. Within hours she became an international star, media outlets clamoring for her attention, fans seeking her autograph."
Yeah, that was pretty f$#!in' funny.
The Democrats went crazy over the girl because she not only shattered the adult-child social distinction, she did so with regard to an adult of immense prominence and status, the vice president of the United States.
Listening to a 12-year-old publicly mock the Republican vice president of the United States brought Democrats almost orgasmic pleasure, especially since no Democrats had the courage to do so in their speeches.
What the hell? The Republicans bitch for nearly eight months that campaigning Democrats are doing nothing but bashing Bush, and when they cool it during their convention, Dennis is crowing that none of them showed any "courage"? In the immortal words of Dick Cheney . . .
Of course, this girl has accomplished nothing compared to Dick Cheney. She has no wisdom, no humility and no knowledge beyond the leftist platitudes spoon-fed by her parents and schools.
What the hell is this? Dennis is slamming a 12-year-old for not having accomplished as much as Dick Cheney? Yeah, she's never voted against sanctions to punish South Africa for apartheid, she's never disseminated false information about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and she never engineered a no-bid contract for a company where she used to be CEO. Clearly, this girl is useless!
She is a mere child, more foolish than most, in that she actually thinks she has earned the right to publicly ridicule the vice president of the United States.
Well, Ilana Wexler may be no expert, but she apparently knows more about our system of government than Dennis Prager does, because Dennis appears to be completely unfamiliar with a little something called the Bill of Rights — which does give Ilana the right to publicly ridicule the vice president of the United States, or anyone else she damn well pleases.
The Democratic Party is as shameless as it is immature.
Shameless in its exploitation of children. And shameless in its hypocrisy. The Democratic candidate for president, John Kerry, used the same "f-word" in a public interview in Rolling Stone magazine — a far more serious matter than using it privately.
"Privately"?! Cheney said it on the Senate floor! In the hallowed halls of our own government! The lengths to which Republicans will go to in order to excuse their own behavior, and then excuse their own hypocrisy when they lambast Democrats for doing the exact same thing, are positively astounding.
And that is why a 12-year-old know-it-all stole the Democrats' show.
In case you're scoring at home, Dennis Prager just used 735 words to belittle a 12-year-old. We have a ruling on the field, and after further review, we have declared the Republican Party officially out of ideas. G'night, folks! Thanks for coming!
Ann Coulter may not be the most self-aware knife in the drawer, but even she evidently has enough sense to realize just how idiotic she would look if she ever lowered herself to writing an entire column condemning a freaking 12-year-old girl. Too bad Dennis Prager doesn't, and we can now look forward to his future TownHall tirades against Jamie-Lynn Spears, the PowerPuff Girls, and the kid who played Sean Penn's daughter in "I Am Sam." Hope you enjoyed this just as much as we did, suckas . . . now, whenever you hear some idiot neocon talk about how only the Republican Party is strong enough defend America from its enemies, you can reply with, "Well, if I ever need protection from a 12-year-old girl, you guys will definitely have my vote, but for now I'm sticking with John Kerry, k thanks." Boo-ya! (Stay tuned this week for another episode of Ann Coulter is a Lousy Writer and She Isn't Even That Hot, appearing at its regularly scheduled time!)
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 11:02 AM
Monday, August 02, 2004
For George W. Bush, the view continues not to change
At Thursday night's big convention-watching bash here at the state Kerry/Edwards HQ, a reporter from the local NBC affiliate put me on camera for a little while, and one of her questions was about why Kerry would make a good leader. If only I'd had longer to think about it, I would've said, Well, when the so-called leader of the free world is following virtually every recommendation you make, you must be doing something right. Comes now the news that Bush will be supporting the 9/11 Commission's recommendation to create a national intelligence czar and a counterterrorism center — in other words, the exact same thing Kerry did about a week ago.
But this isn't anything new for Bush. He opposed the idea of a Department of Homeland Security, but when it started to look like that issue might be a big winner for the Democrats, he took the plan proposed by Joe Lieberman and Max Cleland, gutted it of anything that would protect the rights of the new department's workers, and tried to smear Cleland (among others) as being unpatriotic for not supporting his version. He opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission, then pulled a switcheroo when it looked like the public was clamoring for it. Kerry said he wanted to seek more international cooperation for the Iraq reconstruction, and Bush pooh-poohed this suggestion for a few weeks before trying it himself; same thing with involving NATO. Now Kerry supports a Cabinet-level intel czar, and after a week or so of hemming and hawing and being noncommittal about it, Bush finally follows Kerry on board like the good little lamb that he is.
So who says Democrats aren't strong on national security? Nearly every major security-related policy proposal for which the neocons are heaping accolades upon Bush were originally the ideas of Democrats. On the one issue Bush can count as a winner for him in this election year, we're basically dictating his policy.
Since Bush is getting plenty of credit for all this, though, it's a perfectly sound strategy to just keep following Kerry around wherever he goes. Let Kerry be the "primary through the door" on anything that might be remotely controversial, let him take whatever fire there is to be taken, and if the issue looks like a winner, jump on board to the point where Bush's own positions are virtually indistinguishable from Kerry's. Once there's nothing at all differentiating the two, bust out the "Steady Leadership in Times of Change!" card in the hopes that, all other things being equal, people will come out for the incumbent while there's a war on.
On the other hand, you could just elect the guy who supported all those ideas first and doesn't need anybody to make his tough decisions for him. That's decisive leadership, kids, and if you run into one of those half-wits who seems to think Bush has a monopoly on it, you have my permission to re-educate them.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 1:06 PM
White House West
Atrios turned us on to a new commercial-Web-movie-thingy put together for the good people at America Coming Together, a progressive political organization you may have heard of recently. It stars none other than Will Ferrell, whom GWBWYPGN?! is one of the funniest people alive at the moment in spite of the fact that his departure from "Saturday Night Live" forever deprived us of the "Celebrity Jeopardy" sketches (which are, in our humble opinion, the funniest thing SNL's ever done).
The movie is a big-ass file, so you might want to select the low-speed version unless you're super-confident of your modem's abilities, but it's totally worth it. We, too, approve of this message and think that it is awesome — even funnier than "Anchorman," if that tells you anything.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 11:02 AM
The whistling sound you hear is that of what goes around coming around
Billmon has an excellent postgame analysis of both the Democratic convention and the Republican whining that followed it. Drop whatever you're doing and read it, right now.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 9:24 AM
Serenity now!
Granted, expecting sound logic and intelligent arguments from a couple of neoconservatives being interviewed on Fox News is sort of like moving to midtown Manhattan to "get away from it all," but even with that in mind, the interview with Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd and former Rep. Newt Gingrich (Malignant Tumor on the Prostate of Humanity-Ga.) on "Fox News Sunday" was a truly epic voyage through the rabbit hole.
The first inkling that something was amiss came when Gingrich, still looking jubilant and energetic from having received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Academy of Complete Assholes Who Serve No Discernbile Purpose to Humanity (AACAWSNDPH), said:
[T]his president is much more like Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1942 or like Harry Truman in 1948. We're in the middle of tremendous changes.
Yes, the man who devised the Contract With America specifically as a counter to the growth of government programs started under Roosevelt is now comparing George Bush to FDR (and Truman, another Democratic president).
Seconds later, Gingrich repeated the bald-faced lie that Bush "inherited a recession" that started in 2000, and then launched into the following bit of lunacy:
[Kerry] promised — Senator Edwards promised no big tax increase, and then Senator Kerry began to explain all the different things they would spend more money on.
Now, at some point, somebody's going to say to Senator Kerry, show us your budget and explain how he can do all these. President Bush has had to show a budget for four straight years. And President Bush in New York, I think, will outline his achievements. He'll outline his vision, and he will draw a clearer and, I think, legitimate contrast.
So wait a minute. Gingrich is demanding that Kerry "show us your budget and explain how he can do all these," but Bush, who has included massive deficits in each of those four budgets totaling nearly a trillion and a half dollars, and projects that he'd still be incurring deficits in 2009 were he to win a second term, gets a pass?
Now how much would you pay? Don't answer yet, because if you order in the next fifteen minutes, you'll get this comment from Matt Dowd:
If you want status quo and the out-of-the-mainstream way to do things, Senator Kerry's your man, and you ought to vote for him. But if you want change in this country, you ought to vote for President Bush.
Yes, you heard that right: If you want change, vote for the incumbent. Left has officially become right, up has become down, night has become day. And apparently I need to add "So I can leap through the TV screen and slap the shit out of Matt Dowd" to my "Sufficient Justifications for Altering the Space-Time Continuum" list.
There's your dose of pure, uncut surrealism to spice up this Monday morning, compadres. Enjoy.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 8:16 AM
Friday, July 30, 2004
Who, us?
Fox News just cut to a panel discussion (Fred Barnes, Jeff Birnbaum, Juan Williams and the anchor) on Kerry's acceptance speech. They played the clip of Kerry from the "that flag does not belong to one political party" segment of the speech, and then, I kid you not, the following exchange took place:
FOX ANCHOR: I don't recall anyone in the Bush administration ever having wrapped themselves in the flag . . .
FRED BARNES: Yeah, I thought that was really unnecessary.
Even for Fox News, that was pretty un-fudging-believable.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 5:42 PM
Ann Coulter is a Lousy Writer and She Isn't Even That Hot: Canto 45 — Stuck inside of Boston with the convention blues again
We at Ann Coulter is a Lousy Writer and She Isn't Even That Hot have to admit, it's been a tough week for Ann Coulter. There she was, sharpening her knives and polishing her resplendent arsenal of lame-ass insults in anticipation of the Democratic National Convention, and no sooner had she pumped out her first barely-coherent DNC rant than — bickety-bam! — USA Today spiked it for the rambling, elementary-school-playground-taunting-match-caliber sack of steaming elephant poo that it was. So not only did Ann not get any national ink for the rest of the week, she had to sit there in Boston for four more days and sulk as Democrats like Barack Obama and Bush's nemesis John Kerry rocked the hizzy. She was even subjected to a speech by Bill Clinton, that awful, awful man! (And she will never ever forgive him for the tingling it created in her feminine parts, that philandering hunk of sexy, sexy ma . . . uh, weasel!)
Anyway, Ann was apparently quite deflated at the realizaton that her massive stockpile of DNC-related lameness and incoherence would never see the light of day, because her regular column for this week is just as petty, bitchy and immature as the daily one that got spiked, and like that column, it rarely ever comes close to approaching a coherent thought or unifying theme. On Monday all the conventiongoers were horrible people because they were ugly, but today they're all horrible people because . . . uh, they're teachers? Or something? Please let us know if Ann thinks teachers are really the scourge of the Republic, or if we're completely missing something here — not that, in "Dems' New Slogan: No Teacher Left Behind," there's all that much of substance to miss:
The traditional greeting at the Democratic National Convention is, "Where do you teach?" On rare occasions, the greeting is modified to, "Where does your husband teach?" or "Where does your gay lover teach?" (Democrats could save a lot of money by holding the Democratic National Convention and the National Education Association Convention at the same time.)
So . . . there are too many teachers at the DNC? Is that it? Too many male teachers? Or gay teachers? Really, we have no idea what Ann is going for, so somebody, please, help a brother out.
The Democrats keep loudly proclaiming that Republicans represent only extremely white rich people, while the Democrats represent all Americans. (Bar bet: Among the four major candidates for president and vice president this year, who has the smallest net worth? Answer: George Bush.)
Net worth, approval rating, brain, amount of credibility . . . "Bush '04: Steady Minimalism in a Time of Change."
If the Democrats are a fair cross-section of America, then I guess we can stop worrying about class size. As a friend of mine points out, if the Democratic delegates represent America, then the teacher-student ratio in this country is, at worst, one teacher for every three students. And since the teachers unions don't include private or parochial school teachers, we're looking at a teacher-student ratio of about one teacher for every one student.
Nope, sorry, still at a loss here. Really, is it too many teachers at the DNC? Because teachers are such horrible menaces to American society? WTF?
Democrats are representative of the nation only if the nation we're talking about is Brazil. For Democrats, there is only the maid and millionaires. There are no Americans in the middle. To the extent Democrats are forced to recognize working-class white men, they call them "fascists."
Again . . . what the f$#!? When did we do that?
To thunderous applause here in the American Taliban,
The right wing wants to criminalize homosexuality and force prayer in the schools, but somehow we end up the "American Taliban." Somebody open a window, the irony is killing me!
billionaire Teresa Heinz Kerry said she looks forward to a day when "women who have earned the right to be opinionated will be called smart and informed — just as men are." It's no wonder Democrats weren't interested in liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from woman-hating Islamicist fanatics: They think real oppression of women consists of people calling Teresa "opinionated" right here in the USA.
When did we say that?
How did Teresa "earn" the right to be opinionated again? By marrying inherited wealth?
In Ann's world, Teresa will only have "earned" the right to be opinionated again when she tears off her jacket to reveal an "I (Heart) Bush" T-shirt, then takes a job as the Bush/Cheney campaign's personal geisha.
She also boasted that the Heinz family charity, John Kerry, "earned his medals the old-fashioned way." A couple of sponges on another man's wealth might want to steer clear of using the word "earn" so much. Democrats don't believe in capitalism and don't worry about taxes on earned income because they can't imagine there is any way to "earn" money other than the Teresa Heinz-John Kerry way.
Snore . . . All this juvenile name-calling and straw-man-building was fun for a while, but columns are not built on straw men alone. Are you going to get around to at least one good blatant, fiery, categorically disprovable falsehood in this column, Ann, or are you going to continue to sit there and bitch and name-call like a first-grader?
Despite colossal efforts by the Democrats to fake out Americans and pretend the Democrats are normal Americans who love their country, every once in a while they make a mistake and give us a "tell." The Democrats have carefully studied Americans, observed their habits and expressions, so you would think for five days the Democrats could pull off a passable impression.
Right, the whole Democrats-hate-America thing, again . . . you're still not doing it for us, Ann.
Special-effects artists are working overtime. Gore was prohibited from screeching about Republicans being Nazis, and Clinton was told not to show up in a toga. Democrats unable to conceal their America-hating pacifism were relieved of their anti-war signs and escorted to the free-speech veal pens a few blocks from the convention center.
Find one DNC attendee who tried to enter the Fleet Center with an anti-war sign and was hustled into a "free-speech veal pen," Ann. Just find us one. Otherwise we'll have to assume that, like so many other anecdote-like substances that populate your columns, this one was complete and utter B.S. (On the other hand, maybe she heard about it from her taxi driver . . . )
Convention organizers even forced the delegates to choke their way through the Pledge of Allegiance — something the teachers' students are not allowed to say.
OK, there's an outright lie right there. Nobody in this country has ever been banned from saying the Pledge of Allegiance. They simply are not forced to say it. Yes, there is a difference. Leave it to a Republican to be denied the ability to force other people to do things, and then whine about it as an attack on their freedom: "You're infringing on my freedom to force other people to do stuff against their will!"
The delegates play along, pretending they know the words and making the occasional random reference to "God," trying not to sound ironic.
But, inevitably, they stumble, dogs start growling, and you realize these people are androids.
Right, Democrats don't believe in God either . . . snore . . . you're losing us again . . . must . . . keep . . . eyes open . . .
In a prepared speech carefully reviewed by the Democrats' Americanization team, Jimmy Carter said: "After 9/11, America stood proud." Proud? I believe "proud" was the last emotion most Americans were feeling after 9/11, coming in considerably behind, for example, "fighting mad," "incensed," "enraged," "humiliated" and "vengeful." It didn't occur to any of the Democrats vetting Carter's speech to cut that line? "What's the matter, Prince? Why are you growling? That's just a moderate Democrat."
Ummm . . . it didn't occur to any of Ann's editors to cut that line? For it gave us an unpleasantly clear picture of Ann's America. Yes, many of us were proud after 9/11 — proud of the way Americans banded together to save what lives they could in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania; proud of the way the whole country mobilized to send help to the ravaged parts of Manhattan; proud that instead of giving in to terrorists, we were standing tall in the face of disaster and refusing to become the kind of country al-Qaeda wanted us to be. But for Ann, none of that was important. American pride? Naaah, screw that! We were supposed to feel humiliated! We were supposed to want to go kill us some towelheads! To hell with loving our country, that can wait until we've struck out in a blind rage or two!
For someone who claims to love this country as much as Ann does, that paragraph is, quite frankly, stunning. And the kind of rhetoric that makes it really hard not to lob a Cheneyesque epithet in response.
Even as Democrats ape Republicans — producing a platform that lyingly claims Democrats support war with Iraq, the Patriot Act and the defense of America —
Wait, who the hell said we supported the Patriot Act? If any of the speakers at the DNC did say that, yeah, I'll be mad. But more likely Ann's just making stuff up again.
the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats can't help slipping out: Democrats are not angry about 9/11.
This is just completely retarded. "Not angry"? Hells yes we were angry. But anger is only useful for so long. After a while it's time to do something constructive instead of just sitting around seething. (Maybe Ann should try that sometime.) What's she trying to accuse us of here? That we've been letting that worthless, pernicious American pride get in the way of a good unfocused burst of rage?
Sad, maybe — sad that it didn't happen on Clinton's watch so his legacy would be more than a semen stain. But they're not angry.
Yeah, she did have to watch Clinton's speech, didn't she. And she ain't happy about it.
Indeed, the belle of the ball at the convention is noted patriot Michael Moore, who apparently thinks Americans who voted for George Bush deserved to be killed on 9/11. The day of the attack, Moore wrote this on his Web page: "Many families have been devastated tonight. This is just not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, D.C. and the planes' destination of California — these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!" Perhaps Moore could provide the terrorists with a map of the red states before the next attack.
Moore's comment was a ridiculous one, but when did he say that folks in the red states should have died? His whole point, poorly spoken as it was, was that no one should have died and that al-Qaeda's attack was stupid and pointless to begin with. (Whom does Ann think should have died in the 9/11 attacks, we wonder?)
This week, Moore was boasting about how well-received he was by the Democrats in Boston — evidenced by his yukking it up in a sky box with former president Jimmy Carter. He has been hugged by DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe and praised by impeached former president Bill Clinton.
Oh, now we get it — Ann is furious that USA Today spiked her DNC column but, at least for the time being, Mike Moore gets to keep his Republican Convention gig. Ha! Hurts to get one-upped by the fat guy with the movie camera, doesn't it? Jealousy's a bitch!
Moore's only concession to the Democrats' role-playing is to deny that he is a Democrat, hoping enough Americans were taught by public school teachers that no one will know how to look up Moore's voter registration card. ("Democrat.")
Moore says Bush must be defeated because Bush lied about the war in Iraq. Ninety-three percent of the delegates agree with him, saying they oppose the war in Iraq, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.
But the Democrats' candidates for president and vice president both voted for war with Iraq. Their party platform supports the war with Iraq. (Let's just hope wherever the delegates teach, they're not teaching logic.)
Has anyone — Ann Coulter, ex-Deaniacs, warhawks, White Castle employees — stopped to consider that whether one voted for the war might now be about as relevant as what color undies Tipper Gore wore to the 2000 convention? The war happened. It's a historical fact now, not to mention a fact of life. Hell, I drove my Alabama ass up to D.C. to protest the war before it happened, but now that what's done is done, I've put that anger on the back burner and am now focused on getting someone into office who can clean up the mess Bush created in Iraq. And it's awfully telling that while right-wingers like Ann are still working themselves into a froth over what the Democrats did or didn't support more than a year ago, Kerry and Edwards are working on a plan to deal with the situation we're in now. Gee, I think I prefer that approach.
The only "issues" Democrats dare discuss publicly are the things everyone can agree on: They are for "jobs," a good economy and the middle class. None of their blather ever touches on any issue on which Democrats and Republicans could possibly disagree.
Wait, back at the beginning of this column Ann said we thought the middle class were fascists! Now she's bitching that we talk about being for them! Ann's stance on Democrats and the middle class: Troubling!
The issues on which the parties differ are: pre-emptive attacks on terror-producing nations, gay marriage, gun control, partial-birth abortion, taxes, letting non-citizens and felons vote. But the Democrats won't talk about those issues. This is the Democrats' week to make-believe they are Republicans for the folks watching at home on TV. In the lingo of the delegates, this is "story time."
Last night we seem to remember a speech by some dude named Kerry or Carrie or something in which pre-emptive attacks on terror-producing nations, taxes, and gay marriage were referred to. He didn't mention gun control because it apparently isn't a big issue in this election, nor is partial-birth abortion. We're not sure where she got the idea that we want to let non-citizens vote — more random stuff-making-up, we guess.
Though this column flirted at various intervals with having a point, in the end it turns out to be just as much of an unfocused, bitchy, scattershot anti-DNC diatribe as the one USA Today deemed unworthy of their printing ink. (Thus confirming that USA Today's standards are markedly higher than those of either TownHall or Human Events.) We're really interested to see what's going to happen when the RNC rolls around — ten bucks says Ann's September 2 column is 1,000 words (if not more) of Ann going positively orgasmic over the fact that Bush was able to utter a three-syllable word in his acceptance speech without stumbling. Damn you, soft bigotry of low expectations, damn you to hell! Whatever she ends up spewing out, Ann Coulter is a Lousy Writer and She Isn't Even That Hot will be there to dissect it, so fear not, anti-Coulters — help is on the way!
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 3:32 PM
The polls have closed . . .
. . . and we have a runoff in our process of selecting a lucky conservative bachelorette to appear in GWBWYPGN?!'s first stab at a reality show, "Liberal Joe." Jenna Bush won a plurality, but with only 38 percent of the vote, it wasn't enough to avoid a runoff against second-place finisher Ann Coulter.
So once again the choice is yours: Which lucky conservative gets to be subjected to the advances of a dozen or so liberal suitors? Cast your votes between now and noon CDT next Friday. And keep sending us your suggestions for liberal bachelors.
Here's a visual aid, in case you need it:
The blonde and windswept Jenna . . . . . . . and the blonde and, uh, bulimia-swept Ann.
Vote today! We're counting on you!
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 12:18 PM
Let them pop pills!
Sit back, close your eyes, and try to imagine the extinction-level media crapstorm that would've erupted had anyone in the Kerry campaign uttered this:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) — A campaign worker for President Bush said on Thursday American workers unhappy with low-quality jobs should find new ones — or pop a Prozac to make themselves feel better.
"Why don't they get new jobs if they're unhappy — or go on Prozac?" said Susan Sheybani, an assistant to Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt.
The comment was apparently directed to a colleague who was transferring a phone call from a reporter asking about job quality, and who overheard the remark.
That quote should be put on a placard, printed in My Life quantities, and distributed to Kerry campaign offices all over the country so that Kerry supporters can pick them up and bum-rush Bush campaign appearances with them in hand wherever he goes. Jeebus.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 10:55 AM
Convention, day 4
Well, I don't know about y'all, but my expectations were exceeded last night. John Kerry is still no Barack Obama or John Edwards when it comes to oratorical skills, but he was more energetic last night, he was more plain-spoken, and most importantly, he said the things that I, along with a whole bunch of other people, had been desperately waiting for someone to say.
We have it in our power to change the world. But only if we're true to our ideals — and that starts by telling the truth to the American people. As president, that is my first pledge to you tonight. As president, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House.
Four years ago, George W. Bush ran on a "platform" that basically consisted of nothing more than "I'm not that weasel Bill Clinton." He, too, promised to restore trust and credibility, and four years later, that promise has turned into a colossal joke. This line was a subtle reminder that that promise has gone unfulfilled, and I'm glad Kerry had the courage to make that point.
We're told that outsourcing jobs is good for America. We're told that jobs that pay $9,000 less than the jobs that have been lost is the best that we can do. They say this is the best economy that we've ever had. And they say anyone who thinks otherwise is a pessimist. Well, here is our answer: There is nothing more pessimistic than saying that America can't do better.
Thank you, Lord. For the past six months we've been told by the Republican Party that if you don't think things are grand and George W. Bush's plan is working swimmingly, you're a pessimist. But Kerry and Edwards together are doing a terrific job of spiking that idiotic idea. It's not that we don't believe America can do any better; we just don't believe Bush can. Had I been Kerry, I might've added the converse to his statement — "There's nothing more optimistic than saying America is capable of doing better" — but still, it was incredibly heartening to hear him say what he did.
I know what kids go through when they are carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right when you're just not sure that that's true. As president, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war.
One of the things I've been saying ever since an invasion of Iraq became a real possibility is that George W. Bush and his advisors — not to mention many of their supporters — just don't seem to view war with the same seriousness that I do. I'm not saying that to sound self-righteous; I'm saying it because I'm of the belief that war should only be used as a last resort, and no matter which presidential candidate you support, no matter how you felt about the war, no matter what justification you gave if you were for it, I don't think anybody can honestly say this war was a last resort. But as someone who's actually fought in a war — someone who's had to kill enemies and watch friends die — John Kerry understands just how serious war is, I have no doubt about that. And that's why I trust him to be more responsible with it than George W. Bush.
In these dangerous days, there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words. After decades of experience in national security I know the reach of our power and I know the power of our ideals. We need to make America once again a beacon in the world. We need to be looked up to, not just feared.
Another thing I think neither Bush nor many of his supporters understand is that bullying does not automatically equate to leadership. "Let them hate, so long as they fear" isn't going to work now; hate started this war, and hate's not going to win it.
That flag doesn't belong to any president. It doesn't belong to any ideology. It doesn't belong to any party. It belongs to all the American people.
Word. Just word.
I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush. In the weeks ahead let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity. Let's respect one another. And let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.
When he said that first sentence, I remember thinking to myself, "Uh-oh, be careful what you say next . . . " But the challenge Kerry made in that statement, if you want to call it that, was a perfectly legitimate one: You want to call yourself a "uniter not a divider," walk the walk for once.
And let me say it plainly: In that cause, and in this campaign, we welcome people of faith. America is not us and them. I think of what Ron Reagan said of his father a few weeks ago and I want to say this to you tonight: I don't wear my religion on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side.
Nearly everyone I've talked to, no matter what else they liked or didn't like about the speech — or whether they like or don't like John Kerry period — loved this line. To me it subtly spelled out the difference between how Bush and Kerry see their spirituality, and a lot of it is rooted in their respective denominations. Bush's background is evangelical Christian, and without meaning any disrespect to that group, there are a substantial number of them who believe all you have to do is be "saved" and then you can do whatever else you want. All you have to do is say you believe in Jesus, and once you're "saved," you don't actually have to do anything to be a Christlike person or earn your salvation; some of them even condemn the idea that someone would try to earn their way into heaven by putting their faith into action and helping others. Instead of grace through faith, however, Roman Catholicism — the kind my mom brought me up with, at least — teaches grace through works — proving to God that you've taken His lessons to heart by living them and putting them into action while you're out among the rest of His people. In other words, just saying you believe isn't enough — again, you have to walk the walk.
I see a lot of that dichotomy expressed through the words and deeds of Bush and Kerry. Bush claims to be inspired by God anytime he does this thing or that thing, but he acts like he doesn't have to apologize for (or even really think through) anything because, hey, God's on his side, and that kind of unearned, unconsidered Christianity really bothers me. As a Catholic, though, I'm fairly certain Kerry was brought up believing that God doesn't give you stuff just because you believe in Him. Nobody is automatically granted God's "endorsement," and I give Kerry a lot of credit for not being the kind of person who'll take that endorsement as a given.
It is time to reach for the next dream. It is time to look to the next horizon. For America, the hope is there, the sun is rising. Our best days are still to come.
You know, I think he might just be right.
It wasn't a perfect speech; there was a lot you might classify as "filler," and the line about "being born in the West Wing" I think is something that's only going to give ammunition to those who want to label him as an elitist. (Though it certainly wasn't any more elitist than believing God is green-lighting everything you do.) Overall, I'll give it a B, and maybe add a plus for so directly nailing so many of the points I would've been scrambling to put in there had I been writing the speech myself.
The party at the Alabama state HQ, by the way, was a roaring success — around 300 guests, if not more, and coverage from all four local TV stations plus the Birmingham News. In all honesty, I was a little worried about having so many people crammed into the building to watch a political speech — in the span of 45-50 minutes there's plenty of opportunity for people to get bored or antsy, and then you're in trouble. But I'm not kidding — the folks we had there hung on his every word. They were excited about the opportunity to watch their candidate step up and address the nation, and they were so pumped that they didn't even wait for the televised crowd in Boston to show them when to applaud — they shouted and cheered whenever they damn well felt like it. And this was in Birmingham, Alabama, a place the Bush folks have tried to tell us is their territory, but nobody at 205 20th St. North was buying that last night. The reporter from the News asked me if I wished I was in Boston, and I told her yeah, it would've been a lot of fun, but at the same time it was cool to be surrounded by so many enthusiastic Kerry supporters in a place everyone thinks Bush is supposed to walk away with. It would've been hard to find a better bunch of people to be around last night.
I also really enjoyed hearing from the Kerry daughters — Alexandra Kerry's hamster CPR story is probably going to be ridiculed this morning by Limbaugh and the other talk-radio asshats, but I thought it was funny, and Lord knows that if it had been Barbara Bush telling the story, the Republicans would be falling all over themselves talking about what a great, down-to-earth guy Dubya is. Max Cleland, as always, was terrific, and it does not speak well for the Republican Party that his brand of patriotism was not what they were looking for in Georgia.
And Wes Clark — oh, Wes Clark. You know there's still a bunch of us ex-Clarkies out there working for the Kerry campaign; a whole bunch of us were at the par-tay last night, and man, we nearly lost it when you said:
War. I've been there. Heard the thump of enemy mortars. Seen the tracers fly. Bled on the battlefield. Recovered in hospitals. Received and obeyed orders. Sent men and women into battle. Awarded medals, comforted families, attended funerals. And this soldier has news for you: Anyone who tells you that one political party has a monopoly on the best defense of our nation is committing a fraud on the American people. Franklin Roosevelt said it best: "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
This hall and this party are filled with veterans who have served under this flag - our flag. We rose and stood reveille to this flag. We saluted this flag. We fought for this flag. And we've seen brave men and women buried under this flag. This flag is ours! And nobody will take it away from us.
That's right, kids. The next three months are going to be a wild ride, but we're going to win. Believe it.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 8:20 AM
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Hot Democrats IV: Special convention edition
Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling. . . . My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention. (Ann Coulter, in her first, and last, column from the Democratic National Convention)
Izzat so? Here's . . .
Future Second Daughter (?) Cate Edwards.
Future First Daughters Vanessa and Alexandra Kerry with two old dudes.
Should-be First Daughter Karenna Gore.
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.
Natalie Portman.
And though we can't see her face, we'll give this chick the benefit of the doubt, based on . . . uh, her brains. Big, enormous brains.
But I thought hot girls always ran in packs! Maybe Ann's "pretty-girl" allies needed a token skinny, stringy-haired skank to comply with the EEOC. Your guess is as good as ours.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 3:42 PM
In case you're wondering what we're Shorter-ing about, it's the stuff at the bottom, where Jimmy takes issue with Ted Kennedy's "The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush" comment from Tuesday night and goes off all half-cocked about how Democrats apparently no longer believe there is any kind of terror threat.
Well, that's not what we believe, you Radar-O'Reilly-looking dipstick. Yes, Virginia, there is a terrorist threat, and of all the people who've gotten up and addressed the crowd at the DNC this week I don't think you'll find a single person who will honestly dispute that. But you know what? There's a difference between vigilance and fear. There's a difference between awareness and fear. Vigilance and awareness are useful; fear is not. Vigilance and awareness are what keep your eyes open and trigger your brain to think there's something weird about a guy who takes lessons at your flight school but expresses no interest in learning how to land, or about a guy who tries to sneak a Ginsu knife in is carry-on. Vigilance and awareness save lives. Fear, on the other hand, is what makes you piss your pants just because the guy sitting next to you on the plane has a Pakistani passport. Fear is what makes you call the FBI just because the college kid at Starbucks the other day was reading an anti-Bush essay in Mother Jones. Vigilance and awareness get people to be better citizens and can snuff out terrorism before it even starts. Fear just gets people riled up without accomplishing much else.
So you know what? I liked that line of Kennedy's. I know there's a threat, so I'll be vigilant, I'll let them search my bag, I'll stand in line at the airport for as long as they ask me to. But unlike Lileks, I'm not going to assume that security measures must automatically equal fear. I'll use common sense, but I won't live in fear, and I won't support any president who tells me I should.
We're a strong country, and we're going to beat the terrorists. (You almost get the impression Lileks might've believed that too, once upon a time.) But we're not going to beat them by cowering like a bunch of Nancies. I'll be vigilant, I'll be strong, I'll fight back, but I won't be afraid.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 2:50 PM
Reverse psychology and a little bit of the ol' snarkety snark snark
Kevin Drum blogged yesterday on an issue I, too, sometimes find myself wrestling with on sleepless nights, in between worrying about how far behind I am at work, how screwed-up my personal finances are, and how can I get my friend Erin's hot friend who's a waitress at Hooters to go out with me: Given what a royal mess Bush has made of Iraq, the budget, and a host of other things, should we really be throwing Kerry to the wolves like this? Might it not be better to give Bush another four years to clean up his own mess, thus putting the Democrats in an even better position in 2008 after four more years of Bush bungling?
On the one hand, it's a tempting idea: The minute Kerry takes the oath of office, the Republicans will suddenly realize that — oh yeah! — Iraq is still a mess and the budget deficit is more than $400 billion, and wait, where did all those jobs go?! And they're not likely to even wait one week before bashing Kerry for not waving his magic fairy wand and solving all the problems Bush created. Maybe better to force Bush to continue taking the heat for it.
But then I remember all the reasons this election is so important — there's a war against terror going on, and it's too important to allow Bush to continue to screw it up just to make a political point (even if it is a strong one); there are also potentially a bunch of Supreme Court nominations to be made in the near future. And even if electing Kerry in the current political environment would be like handing him a "poisoned chalice," as Kevin describes it, things wouldn't be any better were we to permit Bush to continue screwing things up for another four years. If that happened, whichever Democrat got elected by a disgusted populace in 2008 — be it Edwards, Obama, or whoever — would only be getting another poisoned chalice, only with twice as much poison.
So don't worry, we're not voting for Bush. It was just an interesting philosophical question. But the real reason I wanted to link to that post was because the comments thread contained two of the best anti-Bush snarks I've heard in quite a while. First runner-up goes to John Gillnitz for:
Giving Bush another 4 years? Isn't that like being hit by a drunk driver then asking him to drive you to the hospital?
And the grand-prize winner is "fester," for a metaphor that's about as bluntly truthful as it gets:
Simple, I want Kerry in office because I don't trust Bush to be competent enough to find the clap in a whorehouse, much less clean up the mess that he has created.
Ah yes. How true, how true that is.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 11:23 AM
Convention, Day 3
OK, Cate Edwards is hot. Especially all Jackie-O'd up like that. Wait, what was this supposed to be about?
Right, her dad. Well, John Edwards kicked ass, no doubt about it. I think what I particularly liked was the fact that his "two Americas" rhetoric of the primary campaign is now noticeably giving way to a "one America" theme that he pushed in last night's speech; the effect is, OK, I've talked to you before about why things in America aren't where they need to be; now I'm going to tell you how we make them better, and how great things are going to be once we do that. In last night's speech, Edwards struck a blow against two of the most asinine right-wing myths about the Democratic ticket: first, that they're going to be weak against terrorism ("We will destroy you" seems like a pretty difficult line to confuse), and two, that they're pessimists.
There's absolutely nothing pessimistic about believing America can do better; when Republicans level the "pessimist" accusation at Kerry and Edwards, what they're really saying is, They're pessimistic about what life will be like under four more years of Bush. But can you blame them? Their advisors have cocked up the Iraq operation every way imaginable, our intelligence system remains in a shambles, personal incomes have dropped precipitously, the deficit is skyrocketing; in light of all that, wouldn't you think that the Kerry/Edwards message — Join with us, and let's fix this — sounds as non-pessimistic as it's possible to get? For the Republicans to call Kerry and Edwards pessimists at this stage implies that the right wing thinks everything is hunky-dory under Bush and the whole country is so perfect that to change anything about it would invite disaster. Come on, you guys don't really believe that, do you?
Anyway, Edwards's speech was terrific. In all honesty, my only real worry now is that after Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, John Kerry's own acceptance speech will seem lacking by comparison. But I've got to think that his advisors and speechwriters knew that Clinton, Obama and Edwards would be a extraordinarily tough act to follow, and they've cooked up something fantastic to exceed expectations. We'll see tonight. (Invite's still open for the party at the Birmingham HQ, by the way. Come one, come all to the fabulous B-hizzy and party like rock stars with GWBWYPGN?!.)
Edwards wasn't the only great speaker last night, though — it was good to see Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, another Official Hot Chick of GWBWYPGN?!, given her own opportunity to push a unity message. (It's just a shame that she was born in British Columbia, which keeps her out of any presidential/VP consideration, at least until the Republicans succeed in axing that from the Constitution so that they can try and put Schwarzenegger in the White House.) And Al Sharpton — look, I know a lot of people out there don't like him, and there's a lot of stuff in his past I don't like either, but the man can fire up a crowd. His role all through the primary season was as sort of a Greek chorus who would call the other candidates out on their B.S. and give straight-up I-don't-care-what-you-think answers when everyone else was going out of their way to be pat and political, and in some small way I think the Democratic campaign this year is stronger for it. And nobody, not even Bill Clinton himself, can put together a one-liner like Reverend Al. The "40 acres and a mule" bit was classic.
What else. Oh, does anyone else think John Edwards's mom looks a lot like Adam Sandler's granny in "Happy Gilmore"? Part of me was almost afraid Ann Coulter was going to pop up in the Edwards box and offer her a nice tall glass of shut the hell up, so I'm glad that didn't happen. Also, here's Andre 3000 at the convention. Don't know why, I just thought it was cool that he's there.
Oh, and if you were watching a channel that showed the very beginning of the roll-call vote after Edwards's speech, you got to see a few members of the Alabama delegation (number one in the alphabet, number one in your hearts) — the guy who did the talking was Dr. Joe Reed, superdelegate and vice-chair of minority affairs for the state Democratic Party, and I also recognized Jefferson County Commissioner Sheila Smoot on one side of him and state party chairman Redding Pitt on the other. (Redding is also the state chair of the Kerry campaign, and his son William Rivers Pitt is one of the guys behind truthout.org.)
Tomorrow I'm looking forward to Max Cleland, my boy Wes Clark (w00t!), and of course the big dog himself. It's going to be exciting.
P.S.:Cate Edwards, if you stumble upon this page somehow and think there's any chance you'll be in the vicinity of the B-hizzy in the next few months, holla. Thanks.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 8:18 AM
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Taxicab confessions
I was riding around Birmingham in a taxicab today, and I found out that the taxi driver was a big Georgia Bulldogs fan like myself, so we got to talking. Somehow the topic turned to politics, and I mentioned I worked for the Kerry campaign in Alabama.
"I like that guy Kerry," the taxi driver told me. "We got to get Bush out. Bush talks and talks and talks about terror this and terror that, but he ain't done squat about terrorism."
"So you think Kerry would actually do a better job?" I asked, impressed.
"Damn right I do. He'd keep this country safe. Bush ain't kept us safe — if we're so safe, how come the terror warning level is bein' raised to orange or burnt umber or whatever the hell it is every few weeks?"
"I'm awfully glad to hear that," I said. "Depending on what part of town you're in, you'll run into a lot of people who don't like Kerry. Some of them are even Democrats, unfortunately."
"Yeah, like Zell Miller," the cabbie said with a sneer. "Or that dude Mickey Kaus who writes for Slate."
"You read Mickey Kaus?" I asked.
"I don't read him, I just sort of pick up on bits and pieces of what he says. Don't know how he call himself a Democrat. Ain't never got anything nice to say about Kerry — he just tryin' to get attention, like, 'Look, I'm a Democrat and I don't like John Kerry! I'm so special!' "
"You might be right about that," I said with a smile. "I've never seen a Democrat go so far out of his way to sound like Rush Limbaugh or Neal Boortz . . . "
"Neal Boortz, don't get me started on that dude," said the cabbie, shaking his head. "Don't know how Mickey Kaus can call himself a Democrat and don't know how Neal Boortz can call himself a Libertarian. Shiiit, the Patriot Act, seven trillion dollars in debt . . . if you support Bush, that automatically means you ain't no Libertarian, that's what I know."
"Sums it up pretty well," I said.
We chatted a little while longer, and when he dropped me off at Highland and 22nd, I gave him a five-dollar tip. Then I met up with Keira and the two of us had a delightful lunch.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 4:47 PM
Convention, Day 2
Well, the "skinny kid with a funny name" did good. Barack Obama's keynote address last night was awesome — as good as, or even better than, Bill Clinton's speech in a lot of ways.
Atrios particularly liked this part, and we did too:
The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.
We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?
John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope.
I'm glad someone finally had the guts to call this red-state, blue-state stuff for what it is — utter nonsense. That whole concept was something the media cooked up during the 2000 election, and the Republicans — those uniting-not-dividing Republicans — have been running with it ever since, dividing the country so that they could conquer. As someone with "blue state" politics but a "red state" location and lifestyle, it's been incredibly dispiriting to see how, as this country faces one of its most daunting enemies ever in al-Qaeda, the far right has been hard at work getting Americans to make enemies out of each other. We can't be successful in a war abroad if we're preoccupied with a war here at home amongst ourselves, and I'm glad we have (forgive the cliché) a rising star in Barack Obama who understands that.
My friend Tom, an Alabama for Kerry/Edwards homey who got elected delegate to the convention, that lucky fuck, said everyone in the Alabama delegation was holding up signs that said "O'Bama" while he spoke. Proud to be a Democrat? You're damn right. To be honest, I didn't think I'd really give much of a rat's ass about this convention a few weeks ago, but I'm getting pretty pumped.
One question, on an unrelated note. Right before Obama spoke — I believe it may have been while Dick Durbin was introducing him, as a matter of fact — the CNN camera cut for just a second to this blonde chick who was standing in the crowd not looking nearly as excited as anyone else. In fact — and maybe I'm just making this more scary in my memory than it really was — she was wearing a scowl that looked like the one Linda Blair wore for most of "The Exorcist" after she got possessed. I was half expecting to pick up the phone and hear the words "Seven days" after seeing her on the screen. Did anyone else see anything like this on either CNN or Fox, or am I crazy? And if you did see the person I'm talking about, was it who I think it was? . . .
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 8:59 AM
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
UNCOVERED! The Koulter Kolumn USA Today DIDN'T want you to see!
Miffed that USA Todayspiked her first from-the-floor-of-the-DNC column, Ann Coulter took her ball and went home, and then posted the 86ed column on her Web site.
USA Today said it was "unusable" and "not funny." Our response: check and check. There's not even any point in us doing an Ann Coulter is a Lousy Writer and She Isn't Even That Hot-style beatdown, because Ann hasn't even done the courtesy of writing any provable (or disprovable) facts or assertions. It's just so much inane schoolyard taunting: liberal women are ugly, Democrats are the "Spawn of Satan." In other words, the kind of insults not even imaginative to pass muster at a 5th-grade snap fight. "Ann Coulter so stank, I called her for phone sex and got an ear infection," that's creative. But nothing in this column is.
Ann Coulter, the witty, vivacious HUMAN EVENTS columnist and best-selling author, was hired by USA Today to offer commentary about this week’s Democratic National Convention, but her first column was summarily rejected late last night.
“Apparently," said Coulter, "USA Today doesn’t like my ‘tone,’ humor, sarcasm, etc. etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them in the first place. Perhaps they thought they were getting Catherine Coulter.”
In a sort of package deal, USA Today plans to have Michael Moore offer commentary at the Republican National Convention next month. “My guess is they will ‘get’ his humor” said Coulter. We agree.
Wait — "witty, vivacious" columnist? "We agree"? Who the hell wrote this, anyway?
Check the byline, kids.
Un-freaking-believable.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 8:59 AM
Convention, Day 1
Our political leanings aside, we hope you realize one thing: Had the first night of the Democratic National Convention sucked, we'd be honest enough and realistic enough to admit that it sucked right here on this very blog. Fortunately, it didn't; it was terrific. I only got to catch bits and pieces of everything that came before Hillary Clinton, but by the end of the night I was about as pumped as I've been since this campaign season got started — which, I guess, was precisely the point.
Jimmy Carter was his usual terrific self; Al Gore disappointed only the wingnuts and Freeptards who'd turned in just to see him fly off the handle; the memorial to 9/11 was beautiful, understated and — I'm just spitballing here — a damn sight less melodramatic than whatever the Republicans are going to come up with in September. (Though it was not, as Ezra from Pandagon points out, beautiful enough to keep the Fox News people from talking over it.)
And then there was Bill Clinton. Man, what a terrific speech. Had a "conference call" of sorts with a couple friends of mine after it was over and we couldn't stop talking about how great he was — funny, self-deprecating, and most importantly, clearly pumped about the chances of a Democratic win and the course this country would take afterward. And the "Send me" refrain was brilliant, sort of building a subliminal bridge from Kerry's Vietnam service in the late '60s to his presidential run today, vying for the opportunity to be the person who leads America through the war on terror. It's important to realize just what a staggeringly difficult task Kerry would have as the next president, trying to patch up the messes the Bush administration has made in the war on terror and foreign policy in general, but clearly Kerry has no intention of backing down from that. He said "send me" in 1968, and he's saying "send me" again 36 years later. Awesome.
Basically, the first night was a smashing success because it defied expectations in both directions: It gave Democrats more than they thought they'd get, and it gave the Republicans less. It pumped up the Democratic base by meeting the issue of national security head-on and practically challenging anyone to explain why Kerry would be weaker in the war on terror than Bush; it disappointed the Repubs because it deprived them of all the faults they were no doubt hoping to use against the Dems — no shirking the terrorism issue, a dearth of direct Bush-bashing, no limelight-hogging or self-agggrandizement by the Clintons. Hell, they didn't even get to see their favorite punching bag Fire 'n' Brimstone Gore. (It was kind of funny, the way the Fox News folks could barely hide their disappointment over this — before Hillary came on they groused that "there hasn't been much to get the crowd on its feet so far," or something to that effect. I suppose that if Gore had given them the ranting and railing they'd been looking for, they would've been shaking their heads in disgust and muttering "Unbelievable.")
Anyway, it was a terrific night and a terrific way to kick things off. I hope they keep it up.
By the way: Any of y'all readers who are within 50 miles of Birmingham — yeah, both of you — should come to our convention-watching party at the state Kerry headquarters downtown on Thursday. Food will be provided, and you might even get on TV. Hell, come on over even if you're not within 50 miles of the B-hizzy — it'll be worth it. Holla for more details.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 8:11 AM
Monday, July 26, 2004
Right-wing casting call!
OK, thanks to the comments thread from the last post, we've come up with an idea too good to let it go gently into that good night. Inspired by commenter Peter's suggestion of an Ann Coulter/Michael Moore reality show, we came up with "Liberal Joe," a sort of political version of the "Average Joe" TV series we've seen exactly one episode of and it was the last episode from the second season where the smokin' hot ex-NFL cheerleader chose the brain-dead hunk over the genuinely nice guy from Boston and then promptly got dumped by the hunk who was incredulous over the fact that she used to date Fabio . . . not that we're still seething over that or anything.
Anyway, the idea is that we pick a prominent (and attractive) right-winger and put her in a big vacation house or something with 10 or 20 guys to choose from. Only when the guys get off the bus, they're . . . all liberal! Each week we'll check back in with our lovely Republican and see how she's getting on with her lefty suitors, and each week you, the readers, will have the opportunity to decide which liberals get to stay behind to continue their amorous advances and which one gets kicked off.
So anyway. Now all we need is to decide which right-wing honey we're going to throw to the liberal (and average-looking) wolves. The nominees are:
Jenna Bush This one's a no-brainer. Though should it be Jenna and Barbara together, and they both have to decide on one guy, and there's a catfight at the end to determine who gets him? Whatever you guys think is best!
Ann Coulter No, before you even ask, we don't think she's hot (though the above picture appears to actually have been airbrushed to the point of presentability). But we figured hooking her up with a dozen or so liberal dudes would be a fun way to make her suffer.
Laurie Dhue Fox News McHottie. Personally we prefer Juliet Huddy, but Laurie seems to have the higher profile, so we're going with her.
Jeri Ryan After being forced to go to kinky sex clubs by that perv of a husband, it's about time she settled down with a nice respectable liberal guy, no?
Sheri Valera Our favorite Gator-lovin' RNC attendee. Brings a lot of intrigue to the table: Will she end up kissing one of these liberal suitors or will she stay true to her vow? You won't know unless you tune in!
Those are the nominees — vote in the poll at left for your favorite! Polling closes at noon (CDT) on Friday.
Or should it be a hot liberal chick faced with a bunch of conservative dudes? I don't know. If that's what you want to see, make your case in the comments thread. Also make your nominations for lefty bachelors/bachelorettes to compete for the conservative contestant's hand. If we're going for dudes, Moore, Krugman, and Franken are gimmes, but drop any other names you like.
Only 12 weeks until the election, so we gotta get moving on this project, people! Cast your votes/make your nominations ASAP!
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 2:46 PM
Speaking of "shove it" . . .
. . . Drudge has reported that Ann Coulter was actually hired by USA Today to write a daily column from the floor of the DNC, but axed the first one she turned in because it sucked. Here, you gotsta read this section from the Drudge story, it's just too funny for words:
Coulter filed her first report from Boston Sunday night, only to be told hours later that editors found it "unusable" and "not funny."
"Apparently no one at USA TODAY had ever read Ann Coulter before!" Coulter, who has sold nearly a million copies of her various works and his written a syndicated column for five years, said from Boston.
The juxtaposition of those quotes inevitably led us to the following interpretation of Coulter's remarks: Apparently no one at USA Today has ever read Ann Coulter before! Hell, I've been unusable and not funny for five years now! Hey, no argument here!
We won't even bother asking how Anniepoo weaseled her way into the DNC to begin with, or what the editors at USA Today were smoking to have green-lighted this kind of stunt casting, we'll just smile warmly with satisfaction that Coulter has finally outed herself as an unfunny hack. (If only the editors at Human Events or TownHall shared USA Today's opinion that unfunniness and incoherence are actually undesirable traits.) Should any of Ann's Boston missives ever see the light of day, we'll be sure to dig them up and give you all a chance to laugh at them right along with us.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 11:18 AM
Take this "shove it" and shove it
Dick Cheney tells Pat Leahy to "go fuck [him]self" on the floor of the Senate and the right wing applauds Cheney for bravely blowing off some steam. Teresa Heinz Kerry tells a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter to "shove it," and . . . oh no! That horrible woman! How dare she contribute to the incivility in American politics so!
Kevin Drum has an explanation as to why Teresa might not want to be bosom buds with a reporter from the Trib-Review. So if the Repubs can claim not to see anything wrong at all with Cheney's F-word in the Senate, we don't care that Teresa told off the reporter. In fact, we'll see her "shove it" and raise her one GFY.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 11:12 AM
Harbinger?
Dems holding their convention in Boston, Repubs in New York.
Presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry throws first pitch at Red Sox-Yankees game the night before the first day of the Dems' convention.
Boston Red Sox beat New York Yankees, their most hated rivals, 9-6.
Good way to kick things off, I guess.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 10:23 AM
Friday, July 23, 2004
Ann Coulter is a Lousy Writer and She Isn't Even That Hot: Part 44 — Ann Stands By Her (Soulless, Dried-Up Shell of a) Man
In Ann's strange world that is completely unlike our own, of course, it's the liberals' fault for smearing her vice-presidential lust object, when in fact the Democratic Party would love nothing better than to pit their own genial, attractive VP nominee against the soulless black pit that is Dick Cheney. Never one to let facts get in the way of a good stream-of-consciousness tirade, however, Ann concocts a weird history of Democrats telling Republicans their candidates are unelectable and then getting the Repubs to unceremoniously dump them. Why she would want to portray her own party as a bunch of spineless wimps unable to resist the powers of suggestion are beyond us, but maybe Ann was just too blinded by righteous indignance at the treatment of poor Cheney that she wasn't thinking straight. You're welcome to advance theories of your own after you've followed us through the jungle of "Never Trust A Liberal Over 3":
In the '80s, a friend of mine knew a Russian dissident who was always heatedly denouncing the Soviet Union and assuring everyone that he had been completely immune to Soviet propaganda. Then one day, after returning from the Wright Brothers museum in North Carolina, he smugly informed my friend that Americans have their own propaganda: "You think the Wright brothers invented flight -- ha ha -- everyone knows that was the Mozhaisky brothers!"
This is what Republicans are like today. They swear up and down not to trust the liberal media, but as soon as that very media demonize some Republican, half our party is ready to dump him. Currently the Republican liberals would most like to see gone is Dick Cheney.
No, the Republican liberals would most like to see gone is George W. Bush. Haven't you even been paying attention?
There's a basketful of Republicans I'd be very pleased to see removed from office. Dick Cheney ain't one of them.
Yeah, what would Ann do without her solid, funny, handsome, even-tempered, sexy snuggle-bunny?
Another candidate liberals told us was a disaster for the party was Ronald Wilson Reagan. In 1976, Newsweek's Hal Bruno said Republican "party loyalists" feared that Reagan would produce "a Goldwater-style debacle from which there is no comeback." Though the "Republican right wing" was gleeful at the prospect of a real conservative like Reagan purifying the party, Bruno wrote, "it could be a purification indistinguishable from suicide."
In polls of the Democratic and Republican National Committees taken by U.S. News and World Report in early 1980, Democrats overwhelmingly claimed to believe George Herbert Walker Bush was a more formidable candidate than Reagan. "We HOPE they'll run Reagan," liberals said.
Taking their cue on "electability" from the Democrats -- always a great idea! -- a majority of Republican committeemen also thought future one-termer Bush was more "electable." (If only Al D'Amato had been around, he could have recommended dropping Reagan and replacing him with Colin Powell or John McCain.)
That's the only time you'll hear Ann "admit" — and "admit" is really too strong a word for what she did right there — that it was D'Amato who publicly called for Cheney to be booted off the ticket and thus began all the "liberal media" speculation about the chances of that happening.
Pay attention to what happened next: Reagan went on to win two landslide elections for president, transform the nation's politics, and dismantle the Democrats' favorite country, the USSR.
Wait, I thought our favorite country was Iraq. Or China. Maybe it was Cuba? Christ, Ann, you can't even keep your anti-Democratic slanders straight these days.
He not only never lost a general election, Reagan also never won by less than a landslide margin. Reagan's triumph was then promptly jettisoned by Mr. "Electable," who broke his "read my lips" pledge and unceremoniously ended the Republicans' 12-year control of the White House.
Other Republicans we've been told were a disaster for the party are Newt Gingrich -- who produced the jaws-of-life to tear Congress from the Democrats --
And was then forced to resign in disgrace just four years later.
and Ken Starr -- who was responsible for the impeachment and utter humiliation of Bill Clinton.
. . . as well as the utter humiliation of the Republican Party for their hysterical overpursuit of Clinton — they lost Congressional seats in the '98 off-year elections, and didn't even manage to get Clinton kicked out of office for their trouble. Neener-neener!
Like Thomas Sowell's definition of a "racist" ("a conservative winning an argument with a liberal"), the definition of an "unpopular Republican" is "a Republican the Democrats would like to be rid of." Whenever liberals are being hysterical about a Republican, it's because that Republican is not good for the Democrats.
The whole premise of this column is starting to seem a little stupid. When Democrats don't like a candidate who's in office, we . . . try to get rid of them? Um, that's called "politics." Some might even dare call it "democracy." (Heh, no wonder Ann has such a problem with it.)
I promise you, if McCain, Powell or even Rudy Giuliani were put on the ticket, the liberal lovefest would come to a screeching halt. We'd finally get a little investigative reporting on liberals' favorite Republicans -- and who knows what's in those closets. (Let's just hope McCain and Giuliani don't have any messy divorces in their past!) Heaven help us if any of them have ever worked for a successful corporation.
The Bush campaign advanced every unsubstantiated slander and scurrilous rumor it could find against McCain in 2000, yet in Ann's world it's the Democrats who would be digging up dirt like there was no tomorrow. Not that there's any point in this kind of speculation to begin with, since, as we pointed out in an earlier comments thread on the dump-Cheney speculation, there's absolutely no chance that McCain or Giuliani would ever be put on the ticket. And Powell . . . well, he's already given indications he doesn't even want to be secretary of state after this term, much less VP.
Liberal love lasts just long enough to get the job done.
I'm making that into a bumper sticker and slapping it on the back of my Jetta.
The most famous instance of a Republican taking advice from Democrats occurred when former President Bush broke his pledge and raised taxes. The instant Bush capitulated, a staffer at the DNC hit a stopwatch and, for one hour, liberals showered Bush with affection. Maureen Dowd, then-reporter for The New York Times, compared Bush to Eisenhower and gushed he had dropped "the slash-and-burn approach" and was "trying to take a moderate, bipartisan approach."
But as Friedrich Schiller wrote, "Once the Moor has done his duty, the Moor can go." Having tricked the dolt into raising taxes, liberals soon turned on Bush with a vengeance. No longer a bipartisan Eisenhoweresque statesman, Bush became merely an impediment to the Democrats getting a real tax-raiser like Bill Clinton in the White House.
Wha . . . ? Bush raises taxes, and then Coulter accuses the left of dropping him like a hot potato because what they really wanted was someone who would . . . raise taxes? (Never mind that Clinton's '93 tax increase wasn't even as big as Bush's.)
Soon Dowd was describing Bush as one of the "elite males in possession of large fortunes" who lacked "empathy with middle-class and poor Americans hurt by a recession."
Liberals even taunted Bush for being so unprincipled as to raise taxes. Dowd said of Bush: "Will he learn the power of fixed principles in leadership, or will he continue to engage in waffling and expedient stances on issues like abortion, civil rights and taxes?"
So Maureen Dowd didn't like George H.W. Bush. Big deal, she was no fan of Clinton, either. (And a conservative being indignant at a liberal for throwing the "waffling" accusation? WTF?)
Never, in the history of the Democratic Party, have they taken advice from us.
We like to think that's to our credit. But don't let that stop you from whining about it a little more, Ann.
I thought the Democrats should run Dennis Kucinich for president. I even promised them that a lot of Republicans would vote for a Kucinich-Sharpton ticket! But I didn't see any Democrats taking my advice. Of course, Democrats have never had to face the sound chamber of an all-conservative media. (They will in my gulag.)
We've forwarded that last comment on to the folks at Guinness, and you'll shortly be seeing that in the Book of World Records under the category "Idle threat, lamest."
We don't have to adopt all the Democrats' traits -- incessant lying, utter shamelessness, criminal behavior and lots of crying -- but Republicans need to tattoo this truism on their arms: It's never a good idea to take advice from your enemies.
Wonder of wonders, Ann actually said something intelligent. Of course, it's up to the Republicans to take her advice, and that's out of our hands. This whole thing is kind of stupid anyway, because Dick Cheney stands about as much chance of being dropped from the Republican ticket as Hillary Clinton stands of being added to it, but we always love it when Ann gets all huffy about Democrats being infinitely savvier at something than Republicans and disgraces herself by whining about it for 1,000 words. It's kind of like Wile E. Coyote bitching about how unfair it is that the Roadrunner does such a good job of painting train-tunnel entrances on the sides of sheer rock faces.
Sorry that this week's "effort" from Coulter was so lame and easily debunkable, but hey, there were some folks talking smack about her man, so you can't hold it against her for being a little off her game. We'll give Ann a little "personal time" to compose herself and gaze longingly at her well-worn Polaroid of Cheney with his shirt off, bald pate and saggy white man-teats glistening with sweat after a long hard trek to the refrigerator for another Ensure, and we'll be back next week with another thrilling installment of Ann Coulter is a Lousy Writer and She Isn't Even That Hot!
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 10:22 AM
Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with,I just want your extra time and your . . .
Cruising by Sadly, No! early this morning, we stumbled upon a woman we figured would make a sparkling addition to the annals of foxy-chickdom that has long been a hallmark of GWBWYPGN?! — not to mention a hot Republican who might be able to take our minds off of Jenna Bush (who, as regular readers know, is nothing but trouble). But was Sheri Valera to be that woman? Well . . . sadly, no.
Yup, she's a hottie all right — her Republican Party affiliation notwithstanding — plus she goes to the University of Florida, which should mean she's easy. (Oh, stop right there with the righteous indignation, Gator fans. Your cheerleaders wear garters, for crying out loud.) Just for the record, GWBWYPGN?! went out on a couple dates not so very long ago with someone who was both a Bush supporter and a Florida fan — a double betrayal if ever there was one — so dating someone like Sheri Valera wouldn't really be much of a stretch at all.
It wouldn't be much fun, however, because S,N! dashed our hopes by digging up this interview in which dear Sheri turns out to be a little, well, traditional:
While it might seem unbelievable that this head-turning, green-eyed brunette has never kissed a boy, it's true. Valera has decided to wait until marriage to lock lips. Through her no-kissing stance, she's determined to set an example for girls to have higher standards and to wait until they meet "the one."
O&B: What's up with the no kissing policy?
Sheri: To guard my heart. It protects me emotionally and spiritually.
Hmmm. On the one hand, we're like, so much for that. But on the other hand, where some see a buzzkill, GWBWYPGN?! sees a challenge. Florida students, Republican conventiongoers/-protestors, anyone who might be passing through Gainesville in the next few months — your mission, should you decide to accept it, is Operation Kiss Sheri Valera. To win this contest, you must be the first person to provide photographic proof of lip-to-lip contact with Miss Valera; a corroborative statement from at least one witness is also required. Send your jpegs/mpegs and witnesses' statements to georgemustgo(at)hotmail.com. The winner receives a cash prize of $50, volume 3 of Larry Munson's Greatest Calls (including Georgia's epic 37-17 upset of Florida in 1997), and guest-blogging privileges on this site.
But don't get too confident, playas, because GWBWYPGN?! is angling for a ticket to the World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party in Jacksonville in October, and if we see Sheri there, we might just have to attempt to plant one on her ourselves. Better get movin'!
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 8:37 AM
Thursday, July 22, 2004
So long, nose! Take that, face!
Let's debunk this "uniter, not a divider" bullshit once and for all, shall we?
WASHINGTON, July 21 — The White House helped to block a Republican-brokered deal on Wednesday to extend several middle-class tax cuts, fearful of a bill that could draw Democratic votes and dilute a Republican campaign theme, Republican negotiators said.
[snip]
On Tuesday night, after arduous negotiations, House and Senate Republicans thought they had reached a deal that would extend the tax cuts for just two years but not require that they be offset.
White House officials, though, insisted that the tax cuts be extended for at least five years, without paying for them through either tax increases or spending cuts. House Republicans, who had originally sought a five-year extension as well, backed away from the deal on Wednesday once it was clear the White House was not budging.
Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration was still trying to negotiate. But Republican Congressional officials said the administration did not want a deal that Democratic lawmakers might support, giving them a tax-cutting credential, too.
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, had already said he would retain most of Mr. Bush's middle-class tax cuts, and many Democratic lawmakers said they would vote for a modest extension of the tax cuts even if the extension was not paid for.
"If the Democrats had been on the same side, it would have taken a lot of arrows out of the quiver,'' said one Republican staff member.
So the Republicans eighty-sixed one of their own big campaign issues because . . . too many Democrats supported it. Thus is a dagger thrust simultaneously into the hearts of both middle-class tax relief and bipartisanship. (At this rate, the next bill the White House kiboshes will be a joint resolution praising the virtues of cuddly kittens.)
Man alive, I want these people gone.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 2:15 PM
Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president. The next four years will be peaceful years.
George W. Bush's stance on war? Troubling.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 1:40 PM
Was it something we said?
Y'all remember wingnut blog-commenter JarheadDad, right? Sure you do. Well, JhD has added to the Blackfive comments-thread "argument" in which he and GWBWYPGN?! were briefly enveloped, and it's just too bizarre for words (scroll almost all the way to the bottom):
BTW, I sent your link to my kids and let them read what you are espousing. My DD is being heavily recruited by UAB but has decided against it after reading your opinions. She doesn't want to be in a school that has people that would rather see her brother come home in a box or anyone that would care to attack a President she happens to believe in. The oldest one called you a "pantywaist" (he's just out of the Corps). The youngest son at UGA pointed to your arts and media background and said your type was always afraid to hang out with his type. You know the type; jock types that finish their core curriculum in 2 1/2 years so they can try for Qunatico. He called you a "bedwetter". Guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree after all. :-o
BTW, Dink is composing the e-mail to the coach over that at UAB and is including your name and link to your site as a major part of her rejection to their offer. Good luck with that. Looks like UNCW now. You know that school don't you? The one down the road from Lejuene?
We believed this scenario for about two minutes, and then the cracks started showing through. A son who just happens to be at UGA and a daughter who just happens to be looking at UAB? Kids who just happened to pick the exact same epithets their dad used just a few comments back in the thread? A die-hard Marine-lover who can spell neither "Quantico" nor "Lejeune"?
Either he's a terrible liar or the kind of domineering dad who orders his kids to pick their colleges based on stuff he read on a freakin' blog. GWBWYPGN?! is at this moment hard at work trying to figure out which. Readers, what do y'all think?
(That's some impressive mastery of abbreviations, though.)
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 9:55 AM
Yeah, she wants me
DAve pointed out that we haven't had any hot chicks up in here for a while, so here's one.
The saucy smile, the insouciant stuck-out tongue — I think we all know who this was directed at, and his initials are Doug Gillett. I think she's still miffed that I'm going out with Keira.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 9:51 AM
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
One year
Funny, that kid looks a little bit like me when that was my age . . .
Political opinions aside, I try to keep my personal life out of this blog as much as possible, because nobody cares what I had for breakfast or did at work on a given day. But I'm gonna have to get a little personal today, because it's a significant day for two reasons: One, it's the first anniversary of this blog, and two, today was the municipal elections in Muscogee County, Georgia, and my dad lost a very close race for school board in his district.
The two things aren't directly connected, but they aren't all that far apart, either. This blog is an expression of deeply held beliefs, but they're not merely liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat, red/blue political beliefs; they're beliefs about how society should work, how governments should treat their people and how we as citizens should treat each other. And I'm proud to say that a lot of those beliefs come from my dad.
My mom and I often call my dad "the only liberal doctor in Columbus, Georgia." As a family physician, it would have been easy for him to find a specialty that pays a lot more money than he's making now and requires him to invest a lot less time and energy. But he became a family physician because he wanted to see patients, see entire families, watch them grow up, help them deal with their health problems as they arose and keep them healthy and happy. He's got a few patients who come to his clinic in BMWs or big SUVs, and he's got quite a few patients who come all the way in from Opelika or Hatchechubbee because they won't get seen anyplace else. It's his concern for that bewildering array of people that sticks with me the most and has most affected my personal political ideology.
Too often in this country there's an automatic belief that the less fortunate got where they are on purpose -- if you're homeless, or on welfare, or only make enough money for your family to barely scrape by, it's because you were lazy or willfully dumb or didn't try hard enough. Over more than a quarter-century of becoming involved in the lives of an amazing variety of people, my dad has learned better, and I was fortunate enough to have that knowledge passed along to me. Sometimes those people are smart, hard-working folks who've simply been dealt a series of bad breaks in their life, and we as a society have failed if we wash our hands of them and dub them lost causes. My dad understands that, and rarely does a day go by when I don't thank God that he's been around to pass it along to me.
That kind of concern for humanity and willingness to reach out when not necessarily everyone will was also at the heart of his school board run. He didn't win, but he came close. And no matter what, I'm incredibly proud that he bothered to run at all. We're at a point in history now that desperately cries out for people to have the courage to stand up and speak their minds when they don't agree with how something is being run, and while Dad wasn't running against George W. Bush, he did exhibit that courage. Somewhere along the line, I hope I'll be able to do the same.
I started this blog a year ago as just a pale imitation of that kind of courage. GWBWYPGN?! has been around for exactly one year, and it's received almost exactly 200 hits per day in that time; maybe I've changed one or two minds in that time, and maybe I've given like-minded folks some ammunition for their own opinions, but it's still nothing compared to actually hitting the streets and making things change. That's what my dad's done, that's what I've tried to do to follow his example, and that's what I hope every one of us on the left will make it a point to do this election year. If you have an opinion, that's fine, and you certainly shouldn't let anyone in the Bush administration or anywhere else deprive you of the right to express it. But do more than hold, or even express, that opinion -- put it into action. You think the schools aren't being run properly in your community? Run for school board. You think homelessness is a problem? Volunteer at a soup kitchen or a job-placement organization that will help those people get back on their feet again. You think the leadership of this country is asleep at the wheel? Campaign for someone better, get out there on the streets and register voters, take your vision of a better country and make it concrete.
I know this all sounds a little on the maudlin side, but it's my blog, dammit.
Anyway. Thanks to everyone who's been a faithful reader; thanks to everyone who contribute to this blog with links and suggestions; thanks to those who disagree with the opinions expressed here but at least contributed to the debate; thanks to the patriotism-baiters, name-callers and hate-mailers who succeeded in making me more confident in my beliefs than ever. And thanks to Dad, who helped mold the views that made it all possible in the first place.
Birthday "party" over; let the ranting continue . . .
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 11:48 AM
1. Since Iran is known to be working on a nuclear-weapons program, known to have deplorable human-rights standards and an anti-American government, and known to have offered support to al-Qaeda, is it possible that, by all of the criteria given by the Bush administration for pre-emptive invasion, they are a greater threat to America's national security than Iraq ever was?
2. If the answer to (1) is no, why not?
3. If the answer to (1) is yes, are we going to be invading them anytime soon?
4. If the answer to (3) is no, why not?
5. If the answer to (3) is yes, does that mean we're going to have to yank troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan?
6. If the answer to (5) is no, where exactly are they going to come from? Does Bush have a magical armed-forces-recruiting fairy wand?
7. If the answer to (6) is yes, why didn't he fucking use it before we invaded Iraq?
8. If the answer to (5) is yes, does that mean we're done in those two countries?
9. If the answer to (8) is yes, why do things still suck so bad in those two countries?
10. If the answer to (8) is no, then . . . what the hell are we doing?
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 11:38 AM
Singer Linda Ronstadt not only got booed, she got the boot after praising filmmaker Michael Moore and his new movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" during a performance.
Before singing "Desperado" for an encore Saturday night, Ronstadt called Moore a "great American patriot" and "someone who is spreading the truth." She also encouraged the audience at the Aladdin hotel-casino to see the documentary about President Bush.
Ronstadt's comments drew loud boos, and some of the 4,500 people in attendance stormed out of the theater. People also tore down concert posters and tossed cocktails into the air.
"It was a very ugly scene," Aladdin President Bill Timmins told The Associated Press. "She praised him and all of a sudden all bedlam broke loose."
Timmins, who is British and was watching the show, said he didn't allow Ronstadt back in her luxury suite afterward and she was escorted off the property.
Ronstadt's antics "spoiled a wonderful evening for our guests and we had to do something about it," Timmins said. [GWBWYPGN?!'s emphasis]
Wait -- Ronstadt's antics? All she did was tell people to go see "Fahrenheit 9/11" and it sounds like the crowd decided to turn into a bunch of British soccer hooligans. Yet the casino president blames Ronstadt, kicks her out of her suite and tells her not to come back.
Did any of the people who threw drinks or tore down posters get kicked out of their rooms? We're guessing that's a big fat no . . .
Big fat update: Commenter ajc points out that "Two disgruntled concert-goers can be described as 'some,' " and oh, how right you are, ajc: TBOGG brings us a decidedly different account of what happened at the concert, though one that still makes Timmins look like a gi-normous ass.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 8:27 AM
Dammit, Matt Drudge, if you don't cut out the cute stuff and just ask John Kerry out already, I'm gonna be forced to smack the shit out of you.
And so continues Drudge's quest to drag journalism down to a level even Geraldo Rivera could not. (Link via the ever-vigilant TBOGG.)
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 1:46 PM
The truth finally comes out
We'd always had an inkling that this was the case, but Peggy Noonan, bless her little Bush-adoring heart, has been kind enough to come right out and phrase it for us in no uncertain terms: They like him not in spite of the fact that he's stupid, but because of.
This is delicate. A leader cannot seem ambivalent about crucial actions and decisions, and he can't seem so weighed down by the facts and implications of those decisions that people begin to wonder if he's lost his fight.
A leader can't be weighed down by facts? By implications of decisions?! Yeah, fuck facts! And to hell with actually thinking ahead and taking into account the potential consequences of your actions! That crap just gets in the way of a good time!
The worst part is that if you actually voice any kind of well-earned outrage with this willful thick-headedness, you get branded an "elitist" by pretty much the entire right wing and, more often than not, the so-called "liberal" media. Intelligence is a drawback, because it makes you think too much, when what the world really needs is action (even the unconsidered and reactionary kind — hell, especially that kind.) Understanding of nuance is to be laughed at because it clouds your thinking with colors other than black and white. Being able to describe concepts with words and phrases other than "terra terra freedom stay the course" makes you an elitist because now you're talking over the heads of John and Jane Q. Public of Tobykeithsville, Kansas, who have allowed themselves to be duped into thinking that anyone with a point of view more complex than "America, love it or leave it" is only holding that opinion to make nicey-nice with the liberal Northeastern eggheads and, worse, the French. (Christ, the French. Even Pavlov's dog would've rolled his eyes and snickered at the knee-jerk response the word "French" elicits these days from anyone more conservative than Arlen fucking Specter.)
Dammit, if we want our kids to be educated in this country, if we want them to Not Be Left Behind, if we want them to be leaders whose signature phrases are closer to "Ask not what your country can do for you" than "That'll be four fifty-nine, please drive around," we're going to have to lead them there by example, and that means valuing intelligence and the ability to think. But instead we've got an administration that doesn't want to be "weighed down by facts." They have an inherent mistrust of people who might be smarter than they are in any given area because those people might commit the grievous offense of telling them something they don't want to hear. How the hell are we supposed to get kids to respect knowledge, to think that being smart might actually be cool, if the folks sitting in the West Wing more closely resemble the archetype of the dumb jock sitting in the back of the classroom, snickering at the kids who actually dare to raise their hands when the teacher asks a question?
I'm with the cat in the "Get Your War On" cartoon — if wanting the president to think and be smart makes me a snob, fine, I'm a snob. If thinking it's actually pretty cool that John Kerry speaks a bunch of languages makes me a snooty egghead, then fine, guilty as charged. And if thinking that, rather than simple black-white good-evil binary thinking, our current situation — an enemy without a country, a war that has no battle lines and yet stands to be fought on every continent on the globe, a task that has no ending date — actually requires some of the most complex and nuanced thought processes imaginable . . . if thinking that makes me an elitist, then make me an "ELITIST" T-shirt, print me out a bumper sticker, get the boys at Donaldson to stamp me out a vanity license plate, 'cause motherfucker, I'm as elitist as they come.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 8:30 AM
These Muhajadeen – mad Muslim Men – hate us. Their real reason is that we refuse to roll over and cry Mullah. Their stated reasons are our evil vice and our support for Israel. How does the failure of the Federal Marriage Amendment play into their hands? Not only do we allow our women to go unveiled. Not only do we allow our daughters to have sex outside of marriage. Not only do we allow abortion. Not only do we allow women equal rights. We dare to allow homosexuality to exist.
Yes, that's right. If only we forced our women to wear veils, took away equal rights for women and killed all the gay people, these terrorists wouldn't be so mad at us!
So to recap, kids, the message from the pro-FMA forces is that if we want to keep our country safe from the murderous, oppressive, hate-driven forces of extremist Islam, we must become as murderous, oppressive, and hate-driven as they are. Fighting fire with fire, like. Wow, maybe Rick Santorum was right!
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 12:17 PM
War supporters insist that John Kerry can't be trusted with our post-9/11 foreign policy. But I'm a little puzzled about exactly what it is that they're afraid he won't do.
It's true that Kerry would not have gone to war with Iraq, and that's certainly a big difference between him and Bush. But does anyone think there are any more wars coming up in the near future?
If not, what are the hawks afraid of? What do they think Kerry will be too wimpy to do? Or is it that they do have a war in mind that they're afraid Kerry might not start? If so, I think we'd all like to hear about it.
Yeah, no kidding. Anyone (on either side of the aisle) wanna try and tackle that one? Anyone?
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 1:13 PM
If you only read one political essay this summer . . .
. . . you need to read more. But also make sure it's this one, by the always-kickass Jonathan Chait.
Bush and his allies have been described as partisan or bear-knuckled, but the problem is more fundamental than that. They have routinely violated norms of political conduct, smothered information necessary for informed public debate, and illegitimately exploited government power to perpetuate their rule. These habits are not just mean and nasty. They're undemocratic.
Too inflammatory? Not when you read the essay.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 11:39 AM
Corner Madness II: OK, at first you were just being stupid, but now you're being an asshole
The Corner's Andrew Stuttaford gives us an example of the positive, optimistic, uniting worldview that distinguishes the GOP from those pessimistic haters on the left: He says fuck the Olympics!
If you have any remaining shreds of doubt that Tony Blair's Labour Party is dedicated to unecessary meddling, read this:
"A minister for the Olympics could be appointed as part of the summer reshuffle, to increase London's chances of securing the Games in 2012."
The Olympics are not only dull, corrupt and riddled with hubris, they are a blight on any city on which they descend. If he possessed any commonsense, Blair would appoint a minister to save London from this menace. Meanwhile, Nurse Bloomberg, a man on a mission to make life in New York City as miserable as possible, is doing his best to bring the revolting Olympics spectacle to the Big Apple. No surprises there. Hopefully, neither man will prevail.
Go, Paris, go!
The greatest international sporting competition in the history of mankind, and a monument to international goodwill: "dull, corrupt, and riddled with hubris" and "a blight on any city on which they descend." Lovely.
It's easy to accuse some on the American left of being too in thrall to the opinions of people from other countries, but there's a flip side to that coin: The right wing has gone to outrageous extremes in the opposite direction. Their contempt for other countries, and for any kind of international cooperation at all, has gone from occasional to knee-jerk and, if Stuttaford's screed is any indication, now borders on the pathological.
It's one thing to say the UN is an outmoded institution that no longer serves a useful purpose in international relations — I completely disagree, but at least a case can be made. But the fucking Olympics? Why on earth would you rail against something like that? Would the world be better off if the Games weren't around anymore? Or would America be better off simply because our athletes would no longer be forced to rub elbows with those smelly foreigners?
Contrary to the moronic accusations of the right, we do not believe (nor does John Kerry) that American security interests should be beholden to the whims of other countries. But what is there to possibly gain from this kind of knee-jerk antagonism not just toward certain other countries, but for any sort of situation or agreement that would compel the United States to partner or compromise with nations in the rest of the world? What purpose could that possibly serve?
For me, at least, when I talk about this election being about more than George W. Bush, that's part of the "more" I'm referring to. Getting rid of Bush and his administration would be more than simply ridding Washington of gross incompetence; it is a necessary step in fighting this creeping contempt, some might even say hatred, for any kind of internation diplomacy, cooperation, or togetherness. We only have one planet, kids, and like it or not, we all have to share it; if you want to completely cut yourself off from the rest of the world and never have any sort of interaction with another country, fine, but the precedent for that is not exactly inspiring.
If the war on Islamic fundamentalist terror is going to be won, all of the world's free countries have to unite against it. That uniting effort has to have a leader, and that leader must lead by example — and the United States may be the only nation strong enough to be that leader. If we're not going to do it, who will?
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 9:03 AM
Corner Madness I: Kathryn Lopez and the Hillary Hysteria that wouldn't die
You'd think the Korner Kids would be done with this by now, but you'd be wrong:
HILLARY! HILLARY! [KJL]
An e-mail:
Here is what will happen later this month at the Dem convention:
There will be a groundswell of "draft Hillary" sentiment, but it will be for the Presidential nomination, not VP. She will emerge as the Dem candidate for President for '04. Perhaps with Kerry as her VP candidate, perhaps she'll tap Edwards.
I'm not sure what type of skulduggery the Clinton's and their allies will engage in, but it will be effective, and it will start soon. Perhaps they'll "prove" that Kerry is French.
Not content merely to give ink to that idiotic theory, K-Lo tosses in another:
RE: HILLARY [KJL]
Was just e-chatting with Barbara Comstock. Here's her read of the situation: "I think they are genuinely afraid of her stealing the limelight and there is no love lost between Kerry and Clintons since they wanted Wesley Clark as nominee.....And then you have the fact that Kerry DOES understand that Hillary's plans for 2008 are based on Kerry losing....there's no way around that . But I think the uproar from not having her was just too much to sustain the position. I think it's a good sign that the Kerry campaign is pretty tone deaf even within their own crowd.....and they are arrogant even among their own....."
HILLARY AND KERRY AS TONEDEAF [KJL]
A reader: "Talk about tone deaf -- now Kerry's asked Hillary to speak but only to introduce her husband! That makes it appear the Hillary has no separate reason to be there except for her connection to Bill. If Hillary hadn't run and been elected to the Senate this role might be appropriate. But, come on, she's a popular senator from a large influential democratic state who's raised tons of money for these guys. Shouldn't she qualify in her own right, not just as Bill's helpmeet?"
So here's a quick recap of the right wing's running take on Hillary and the convention:
• She's going to speak at the convention! This proves that the Clintons are in total control of the Democratic Party and will stop at nothing to achieve their nefarious goals! The fact that the Dems will give air-time to this out-of-the-mainstream leftist just shows how "tone-deaf" they are!
• Wait, she's not speaking at the convention! The fact that the Kerry campaign would ignore this vibrant, valuable voice just proves how "tone-deaf" they are!
• Hold on . . . she is speaking at the convention, but only to introduce her husband! This is just an insulting reinforcement of bygone gender roles and proves how "tone-deaf" they are!
Clearly, the only solution is to let Hillary speak, but to introduce someone other than her husband, and make her do it remote via satellite so she's not actually physically at the convention, and give her as much speaking time as she wants but not allow her to talk about her political views, and . . . hell, I don't know. You guys figure it out.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 8:24 AM
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Shocking liberal-media exposé: The pictures Time magazine doesn't want you to see!
Except they put them on the cover, so maybe they did! We'll get back to you on that one!
Anyway, Allahpundit has conclusive, irrefutable evidence that the mainstream media is festering with Republican-hating commies. Look at this cover of the most recent issue of Time:
Good God, those two gentlemen look fantastic! But what did Time put on their cover right before the Republican convention in 2000, hmmmm? . . .
Why, that picture doesn't look anything like the first one! It's . . . it's . . . it's in black-and-white! Damn you, Time magazine, you traitorous leftist scum! Damn you to hell!
No, we're really not making this up.
Also: Click here for yet another instance in which Time brutally slandered Bush on their cover. On Christmas, no less!
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 3:54 PM
One state, two state, red state, blue state (II)
Slate has a quiz by which you can determine where you fall on the continuum of red-state and blue-state lifestyles. (For the purposes of this quiz, "red state" is down-home, traditional-values, conservative and rednecky, while "blue state" is coastal egghead snotty elitist, although I've seen people switch the colors when making these references. I wish Congress would pass a law declaring a national definition for "red" and "blue" once and for all so's I don't have to be confused about this all the time.)
Anyway, Yours Truly took the quiz, and I'm somewhere in the middle, but closer to "red": about 60 percent red, in fact, 40 percent blue, going by the quiz's points system. See, there are liberals who like barbecue, guns and college football. Our editorial assistant Cindy coined the term "progressive redneck" to describe such folks, but now I'm thinking "red-state liberal" might be good, too.
Anyway, I'm curious to see how y'all score on the test. Let me know how you did in the comments thread — I'm particularly interested to hear from the country-music-listening, gun-toting NASCAR fans in Connecticut and San Francisco and the NPR-listening Volvo-driving lefties in Alabama and Mississippi.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 3:06 PM
A Texas couple is headed home after proving Americans have the right to say what they want, when they want, even during a Presidential visit. Charleston Municipal Court Judge Carol Bloom dismissed the trespassing charges against Jeff and Nicole Rank Thursday morning.
The couple was charged after wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to the President's 4th of July address at the state capitol. The Rank's lawyer, Harvey Peyton, says the charges were dismissed as a matter of jurisdiction. "Municipalities only have the authority to enforce, in their courts, violations of the municipal code. This citation was a general charge of trespass but the city of Charleston does not have an ordinance that prohibits trespass other than on city property or 'the property of another,' and that does not apply to the common grounds of the state house which, of course, is owned by everybody."
Word.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 2:32 PM
Please be smart
Today we pointed and snickered at some of the willfully brainless douchebaggery going on on the right side of the political spectrum, and not without reason, but we would be remiss if we didn't use this opportunity to point out that we on the left side have to be smarter than that. And that means please, Democrats, no more fucking Whoopi Goldberg.Please.
I mean, the last time she did or said anything funny was when she was the voice of one of the hyenas in "The Lion King," and that was 10 years ago. The fact that her politics and mine are very similar isn't enough to counteract that. Making puns on the word "Bush"? Like nobody ever thought of that before? Look, if I ever have a gaggle of 13-year-old boys who need instruction in the finer points of bathroom-wall graffiti, I'll give Whoopi a call, but when it comes to political involvement I want her to stay as far the hell away from Kerry as possible. I don't mind if you're insulting, but you've got to be funny. "Lick Bush": Not funny. This: Funny.
Now, in the interest of being "fair and balanced," we have to admit it's interesting that the right wing will get its undies in a wad over some junior-high vagina jokes and yet shrug and smile when Jesse Helms insinuates a threat against the president's personal safety or Rush Limbaugh compares a 13-year-old girl to a canine. But Jiminy Christmas, people, let's be better than them. Or at the very least funnier.
Otherwise we just come off as a bunch of retards, and as we've already seen, the world has enough of those as it is.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 12:09 PM
More brilliant strategery from The Corner
Most recent Time poll: 38 percent say Cheney would make a better president than Edwards, 47 percent say Edwards would make a better president than Cheney. So much for Bush's "Dick Cheney can be president" argument!
But the whiz kids at National Review Online are fightin' mad over a New York Times article speculating on the chances that Bush will dump Cheney as his running mate. So they've decided to fight back with the kind of staggering lameness you've come to expect from The Corner:
KERRY DUMPS EDWARDS [John J. Miller]
K Lo: We should encourage people to start talking about Kerry dumping Edwards. You know, Edwards just hasn't delivered the boost in the polls the Kerry camp probably expected. Those numbers from North Carolina--Bush/Cheney at 56 percent, Kerry/Edwards at 41 percent--must have been a terrible shock. Every time Kerry denies that he's going to ditch Edwards, we'll regard it as further proof that he's secretly considering it. Isn't that the New York Times standard for Cheney news? Maybe Hillary Clinton hasn't been assigned a slot to speak at the Dem convo because she's going to be giving the veep acceptance speech! John Edwards, watch your back!
We're giving Miller the benefit of the doubt and assuming that his Hillary speculation was meant to be satirical, but John "Soapbox" Derbyshire, as always, can be counted on not to get the joke:
RE: KERRY DUMPS EDWARDS [John Derbyshire]
J.J.: This raises the Dick Morris point: Strategically, the Clintons must wish for the Democratic ticket to lose in November. (or Hillary will be shut out until 2012.) How much effort will the Clintons put in to make that happen? Plausible answers range all the way from "none at all" to "a very great deal"; but does anyone believe the Clintons haven't been thinking hard about it?
Um, hi, John, I'm raising my hand. John, I'm over here. John. John. Christ, are we really rehashing this again?
Yup, and it turns out maybe Miller wasn't being satirical after all:
FUTURE RECRIMINATIONS [John J. Miller]
Derb: Kerry picking Edwards was bad news for the Clinton crowd. If Kerry loses, Edwards immediately becomes a frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic nomination--a credible challenger to H.R.H. H.R.C. That would not have happened with a figure like Dick Gephardt, or possibly Joe Biden or Bob Graham (two other purported short-list guys). So if Kerry does in fact lose, expect a large number of Democrats to dump on Edwards, whether he deserves it or not. He will get a heap of blame for the loss, not for anything he did, but for what he will be in a position to do (i.e., deny HRC what is rightfully hers).
Isn't anyone struck by how funny it is that the only people giving two rips about Hillary's alleged presidential ambitions are the right-wingers? As recently as this past February they were insisting Hillary was still going to run for president. Why should anyone put any stock in what they have to say now?
But GWBWYPGN?!, for our part, gives a hearty "attaboys" to this ongoing obsession. Y'all just keep going nuts over non-issues like gay marriage and Hillary's presidential ambitions and John Kerry's knowledge of Red Sox trivia. Whatever distracts you from, you know, that election thing we have going on this year.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 9:17 AM
Everything I need to know in life I learned from "Billy Madison"
Frequent comments-thread denizen DAve once likened arguing on the Internet to the Special Olympics: "Even if you win, you're still retarded." GWBWYPGN?! is humbled to announce that, mostly for lack of anything better to do while we wait for various doctors and University faculty to not return our phone calls and/or e-mails, we've made the mistake of getting into some of these arguments ourselves.
Mea culpa aside, though, we've really taken a bullet for you lefties here, because we're giving you an inside look at what passes for intelligent debate on the right wing of the blogosphere. Take notes on these incisive conservative talking points so that you can come up with a satisfactory rebuttal should you ever find yourself mired in such a "debate":
Hey everybody, I'm glad i could caause [sic] an uproar becasue [sic] some liberal nutcase pussies arent [sic] getting their way around the world. It seems when the economy is good, we are kicking terrorist ass, and the Republican party is about to win another election the liberal-democrats get all hopped on emotions and show their true colors. I love it. I love seeing these pathetic nerds try to engage in an arguement [sic] they already lost, with a kid( who is correct most of the time). Face it, im [sic] a kid on a website [sic] havin some fun letting the world know conservatism is on the rise, and these computer nerd faggot liberals have no lives and try to battle me. Its [sic] a joke, it really is. Love it or Leave it Baby!!! If you dont ride with the cowboy, get away from the cowboy. In lamens [sic] terms ( for you half-witted liberal faggots) if you dont [sic] like America, you think we are a fat, imperialistic nation then pack your hippy ass bags and get the fuck out!!! ("Urban Cowboy," a commenter on adamyoshida.com)
Oh, and F—- Kerry’s service, OK? Is that strident? Over the top? The words of an angry young man?
Whatever. It’s my opinion of an ambitious, opportunistic, jacka$$ that couldn’t wait to get out of Vietnam early and take his place of entitlement in life by stabbing and then walking on the backs of soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen while he was still a commissioned reservist (and “marrying up”).
I give him as much credit as his attack dogs give his critics.
Oh and no, I’m not voting for the pr!ck come November. ("Tim," commenter on Politics 101)
And now you want to shove a trial lawyer that has made 152 million bucks raping the judicial system down our throats? The cost of business has been raised 121 billion bucks this year alone by asshats just like him Dougie Boy. And guess who pays the tab? The common man through higher prices and you are the champion of the people. Yeah right! Kiss my grits Dougie. And bite me while you're at it!
Don't you wish duelling was legal again? It would definitely solve a lot of problems. I could just picture you pissing your pants with a rapier or duelling pistol in your hand! Now there's a mental image! LMAO! ("JarheadDad," commenter on Blackfive.net)
Good for Mike Ditka. It's nice to finally see someone who isn't afraid to stand up for what's right.
And hey, Jim, this isn't the Kerry blog; save talk of your ass for the lefties and the Log-licking Republicans.
And honestly, who really cares about the Abu-blah blah fraternity pranks? They started this war, didn't they? ("wade tabor," commenter on Perry on Politics)
To recap, the right-wing talking points for this past week are: liberals are all fags; fuck John Kerry's service; kiss my grits and bite me; and Abu Blah Blah started the war, or something.
On second thought, don't bother compiling rebuttals to any of this. Learn from our experience. Sometimes you just have to forget about engaging in reasoned debate and realize that the only worthwhile response can be found in the dialogue of "Billy Madison," one of the single greatest films of all time:
. . . What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 8:17 AM
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Make it stop
"Isn't that the ultimate homeland security? To defend the sanctity of marriage?" — Rick Santorum
That's right. We don't need more intelligence funding, better airport security, or tighter border controls. We don't even need a democratic Iraq. A ban on gay marriage shall protect us from Osama bin Laden!
You're not really going to re-elect this half-wit in two years, are you, Pennsylvania? Are you?
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 3:44 PM
Deep-sixed
The gay-marriage amendment is dead as disco, for the time being at least: The motion today to cut off debate and go for a vote failed by a 50-48 margin. That means the amendment's proponents couldn't even get a simple majority, much less the 60 they needed to proceed.
And consider that this was just a procedural vote, not a vote on the substance of the amendment itself. Some of the people who voted yes on ending debate today were folks like Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) who said they'd be unlikely to support the amendment in the event that the bill itself came up for an actual vote. Not only that, but the amendment itself would need 67 yes votes as opposed to just 60 to make it to the president's desk.
Anyway, the six Republicans who voted to scuttle the amendment and who will presumably have darts thrown at their pictures tonight by Gary Bauer were Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, and good ol' John McCain of Arizona. (If there was any doubt that McCain had pretty much sunk himself as a last-resort Cheney replacement on the Republican ticket, this should erase that. Not that McCain is throwing himself off any bridges because of it, we're sure.)
The supporters of the amendment say they'll be bringing it up again before the end of the year. Whatever, bitches. Please don't throw us in that briar patch, yadda yadda, blah, zzzz. There's just no issue too idiotic for the Republicans to completely implode over it, is there?
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 2:25 PM
Where's Dick Cheney when you need him . . .
. . . to deliver a richly deserved "go fuck yourself" to Fox News's John Moody, whose awe-inspiringly blatant memos directing his news staff to skew their coverage to the right included helpful suggestions like this gem:
Err on the side of doing too much Iraq rather than not enough. Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there?
Shorter John Moody: Quit getting all bunged up about soldiers dying in Iraq, you pansies, you're embarrassing us. Jesus freaking Christ. And these are the people who claim to have so much love and respect for our troops? Guess it's OK to respect and celebrate the sacrifices of the troops right up to the point they step aboard that chartered 747 to Baghdad — after that, they're as expendable as Styrofoam packing peanuts.
Clearly, Moody is eminently qualified to be the Grand Marshall of the All-GOP Veterans' Day Parade that GWBWYPGN?! is organizing for Nov. 11. But there are plenty of other candidates vying for that coveted spot, and they are as follows:
As for the others, cast your vote for your favorite and we'll announce the winner between now and the big day!
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 11:59 AM
Next thing you know he'll be accompanying Hillary to her monthly Friedrich Engels Fan Club meetings
In uncovering George W. Bush's secret Communist agenda, Sadly, No!, like Keebler snacks, is uncommonly good today.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 9:22 AM
Fine dumb cannibals
According to Andrew Sullivan, Gary Bauer has the fava beans and the nice chianti ready to go, and he's just waiting for his own party to hop onto his plate:
Any senator of either party who votes against traditional marriage will be opposed for reelection by the Campaign for Working Families Political Action Committee. If a dozen or more Republican senators jump ship on this fundamental issue it will be a sad day for the Party of Lincoln and Reagan and it could go a long way to causing an electoral disaster for the party in November.
Wow. As John Travolta said in "Pulp Fiction," "That's a bold statement." A dozen or more Republicans, huh? Well, let's take a look at a preliminary list of Republican senators who have either come out in opposition to the gay-marriage amendment or said such an amendment probably isn't necessary:
Lamar Alexander (Tennessee)
George Allen (Virginia)
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colorado)
Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Mike Crapo (Idaho)
Judd Gregg (New Hampshire)
Chuck Hagel (Nebraska)
Richard Lugar (Indiana)
John McCain (Arizona)
Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania)
John Sununu (New Hampshire)
John Warner (Virginia)
That's 14 senators, Gary. Ouch. Are you really going to oppose all those folks for re-election? Five of them — Campbell, Crapo, Gregg, McCain, and Specter — are up for re-election in 2004. Let's say you have a hand in two of those guys losing. If Barack Obama replaces Pete Fitzgerald in Illinois, as all signs indicate he will, all of a sudden the Senate is 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans (including whoever replaces Zell Miller), and one progressive-leaning independent. That what you want, Gary?
Moreover, as Sullivan correctly pointed out, this fakakta amendment is proving to be more of a wedge issue for Democrats than Republicans. All the Dems in the Senate (save for Zell, and he doesn't count) are against the amendment, while as you've seen, the forces on the conservative side are busy beating each other's guts out over it. And for what? When the smoke clears, they will have deepened a rift in their party with nothing to show for it other than a future answer in the Jeopardy! category "Failed Constitutional Amendments."
Andy asks, "Could Bush have destroyed the relationship between gays and the GOP, and wrecked what reputation he has left as a uniter rather than divider for . . . nothing?" With Gary Bauer's willing assistance, Andy, yes he certainly could have. Think of the Republicans as Wile E. Coyote and the gay-marriage amendment as one of those big red rockets delivered in a wooden crate from the Acme Corporation. The GOP is about to be standing there with a blackened face holding an exploded rocket shell, and while he sits there smoldering and wondering what the fuck happened, the Roadrunner's going to zip right on by. Meep meep, bitches.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 8:20 AM
Shudder to think
Not to sound too Chicken-Little alarmist here, but isn't it possible that by talking so openly about the possibility of postponing the November elections in the event of a major terrorist attack, the Bush administration has dramatically increased the probability that such an attack will happen in the first place?
Think about it from the point of view of an Islamic extremist: As a sworn enemy of America, your ultimate goal in pretty much anything you do as a member of al-Qaeda as to disrupt that country's normal functioning as much as possible. Certainly there's an opportunity for that with the November elections, and now the terrorists know that by mounting an attack right before the election, there's a very good chance the Bush administration will postpone the balloting. And postponed elections are something that have never happened in the history of this country.
You're an al-Qaeda operative. Completely independent of whether you'd want to swing the election for Bush or Kerry (which we can argue about all day, some other time), you now have the opportunity to disrupt the very foundation of American democracy in a fashion in which it has never been disrupted in its 228-year history.
Wouldn't you take it?
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 8:12 AM
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
I'm not saying . . . I'm just saying
Look, there have been some nasty rumors going around lately, and we wanted to nip this thing in the bud right here, right now. We at GWBWYPGN?! have never said we disavow our belief that the Georgia Bulldogs are the greatest team in the history of college football. We have merely said we'll abide by our friend Jamie's decision to dress us up in blue and orange, force us to do the Gator chomp, and worship at a shrine composed of photographs of Steve Spurrier.
Dick Cheney has never said he disavows his belief that marriage should remain a matter for the states. He has merely said he'll abide by George Bush's decision to prevent any state from enacting marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay citizens through a federal amendment.
If we were to do a Shorter Andrew Sullivan, it might be something along the lines of, "Dick Cheney still believes gay marriage should be a matter for the states, he's just supporting Bush's effort to take any say in the matter completely out of the states' hands." Yeah, makes sense to us!
What we have here, clearly, is another manifestation of Sully's acute case of battered-spouse syndrome. But it's also an example of what we like to call the I'm Not Saying, I'm Just Saying™ rhetorical strategy. Kristen, Official Bestest College Drinking Buddy of GWBWYPGN?!, has this thing where she'll talk shit about somebody and then insist that she's not trying to insinuate he/she is a bad person — followed immediately by an implication that completely contradicts the first one. Example: "I still can't believe she had sex with two different guys on consecutive nights. While she was staying at her parents' house, for shit's sake. I mean, I'm not saying she's a slut, I'm just saying she needs to quit whoring around all the damn time." The phrase "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" has become something of a time-honored catch phrase around our circle of friends, and . . . well, you don't give a rat's ass, do you.
But anyway, I'm Not Saying, I'm Just Saying™ is kind of like what Andy is attempting to do here. Dick Cheney doesn't think gay marriage should be decided at the federal level. He's just standing by Bush's efforts to decide gay marriage at the federal level. Somewhere in here there's a perfect opening for an update on our blossoming relationship with Keira Knightley, we just haven't decided what it is yet.
The Republican Party hasn't disavowed their belief in less government spending and lower deficits. They're simply abiding by Bush's decision to increase non-defense discretionary spending by more than 12 percent and run the national debt up above $7 trillion.
George W. Bush hasn't disavowed his belief in an independent Palestinian state. He's simply abiding by Ariel Sharon's decision to indiscriminately kill innocent Palestinians and reduce the rest to the status of fourth-class citizens.
Bush hasn't disavowed his belief in the importance of a patients' bill of rights. He's simply refused to support such a piece of legislation or sign it any time it's come across his desk.
See? It's easy and fun, and it's way better than Andrew Sullivan's posts, which may have been found to cause cancer in lab rats. I'm not saying, I'm just saying!™
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 8:28 AM
Saddam refused to open his country to inspections, Bush said.
"So I had a choice to make: either take the word of a madman or defend America. Given that choice I will defend America.''
From Bush's own national address on March 17, 2003: "For their own safety, all foreign nationals — including journalists and inspectors — should leave Iraq immediately."
Mohammed El-Baradei, the UN's chief nuclear-weapons inspector, later that day: "Late last night . . . I was advised by the US government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad."
I don't know, maybe Bush's campaign speeches are funnier if you imagine Jon Lovitz reading them.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 1:09 PM
Then they came for the budding would-be novelists . . .
More news from the annals of national security: Here's the story of a dude in Texas who got rounded up by airport security because of something he had written in the margin of a crossword puzzle while waiting for his plane to take off.
Now, look, we're not saying that the written word "bomb" shouldn't have aroused any suspicion whatsoever. But apparently it didn't arouse enough suspicion to keep the freaking flight from taking off — note that the writer was only accosted by security after he'd landed back in Dallas. And even after landing safely on an un-bombed flight, even after explaining why he'd written what he'd written, even after convincing the Transportation Security Administration he presented no threat, the writer was still put on the Homeland Security "watch list" anyway.
Another example of "digital brownshirts" rearing their ugly heads? Not necessarily. But at the very least it's evidence that our watch list is being abused by some to punish people who annoyed them for a couple hours. And yeah, it matters.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 12:27 PM
Won't somebody please think of the sheep?
The always-terrific Jay Bookman at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a modest proposal for dealing with this whole gay marriage amendment hoo-ha. If what really worries the right wing about gay marriage is the fact that it will lead to legalized bestiality — and that's precisely what they all seem to be worried about, if their identical talking points are any indication — then let's put the, uh, horse before the cart and first pass an anti-bestiality amendment.
Come on, who wants to step up to the plate and get out in front on this issue? Anybody? Rick Santorum? Yeah, come on, you know you do.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 10:52 AM
Sunday, July 11, 2004
OK, but what about Cheney? You like Cheney, right? . . . Oh, f$#! it.
(Psst! George! Better get your ass down there and chop some more wood, quick!)
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 6:09 PM
And so it continues (Or, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you)
We didn't postpone the 1944 election, when we were at the height of World War II. We didn't postpone the 2002 Congressional elections, either, and that was barely a year after 9/11, for Christ's sake. So why are some people in such an all-fired hurry to postpone or cancel the election now?
Look, we're prepared to accept that, as Ian Fleming once said, once might be happenstance, and twice might be a coincidence. But if we hear this "let's postpone the election" idea a third time, we're going to assume, as Fleming also said, that it's enemy action.
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 12:35 PM
WWOBLD? (II)
# Once again back is the incredible Doug at 12:06 PM
