"You know, if I had a son he would look like Treyvon,"
said the president and I guess that's true to some extent. He'd have dark skin, of course, but I took it to mean that his son would be an ordinary looking, ordinary acting 17 year old and not a shooting gallery target.
Newt Gingrich took it differently because he saw the comment, which was clearly an attempt to show compassion and to suggest that he couldn't avoid putting himself in the place of the grieving father of Treyvon Martin, as an opportunity to launch another Fox-faux outrage. Hasn't the entire Republican reaction to the election of Barack Obama been a collection of phony, trumped up, fabricated and exasperatingly stupid outrages?
" Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be ok because it didn't look like him?"
said Newt to Sean Hannity on Fox News. Certainly Fox is the Cape Canaveral; the launch pad of most such desperate grasping at rhetorical straws -- the place where the unscrupulously ambitious launch calumny after slander after blatant lie, not because this president is beyond criticism, but because they, the Republican insiders, are themselves accessories before, during and after the fact of the collapse of our economy, the corruption and outrageous economic policies and the unjustified war that precipitated it and only wild claims can distract the public from remembering. Only wild, unsubstantiated and preferably ridiculous statements can rally the bigotry against honesty and decency.
So is the president suggesting that it was only a tragedy because a black kid was killed? Only a Republican could twist words and facts to make it seem so and only a man of the "I will never apologise for America" persuasion could reflect on the Republican support for segregation, opposition to civil rights for minorities, females and non-Christians and not see the killing as part of a continuum; part of a mentality they've been promoting for at least a century.
The gambit is an old and tired and disreputable one, as much so as is Gingrich himself and the others Fox News gives the megaphone to. "Is George Washington suggesting that he should be king?" In fact he suggested the opposite, but the question suggests that there is indeed a question. Is Newt Gingrich a dishonest, morally unscrupulous, hypocritical liar blinded by an unholy ambition and hunger for power? Does a newt shit in the swamp?
Argumentum ad ignorentiam: "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary") Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.
Argumentum ad Obaminem: special case of above or appeal to ignorance (where "ignorance" stands for: " all evidence to the contrary") May be used as a rationalization for libel or slander or accusation without evidence or most commonly: strongly contrary to all evidence or logic. An argument from authority in the absence of authority. Used frequently by Republican propagandists.
Argumentum ad Republican: A special pleading. It's only radical when Liberals like it or conversely: that argument doesn't apply to Republicans.
________________________
Forget the Superbowl commercials or the half-time show. Forget football. The most entertaining event of Superbowl Sunday was Newt Gingrich trying to convince his audience that Barack Obama is at war with the Catholic Church. Parroting the sentiment that a secular government refusing to bow to ecclesiastical pressure as the secular constitution demands, is a declaration of war, Newt, Gingrich, appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, Sunday, said the decision represented
“a radical Obama administration imposing secular rules on religion.”
Well I hate to bring it up, lest anyone esteem me to be needlessly argumentative, but all religious people and their organizations have always been subject to the secular law of the land and by constitutional law, none of us can be held to any religious restrictions, taboos or responsibilities by the government. You see, that's why we don't have laws about blasphemy and punishment for heretics. That's why we're not held to the Biblical command against eating Cheeseburgers or chitterlings or watching football on Sunday - or divorce which of course Newt knows as well -- just as we know by all evidence that Newt is the consummate opportunist and a veritable prince of duplicity.
Yes, of course people are very protective of their beliefs and rituals and practices and in our country as well as in most of the civilized world, they are allowed to be and protected in that right but that's only because there are no official religious laws and no special protection for church policies that do not comply with our secular laws and our rights and our protection from faith-based tyranny. Newt is following in the muddy footprints of those who continually argue against the religious neutrality and secular nature of our Republic in spite of all evidence and despite the law itself.
Please forgive me for stating the obvious and writing as if for a child, but we're talking about Newt Gingrich here and I may be talking to some who do indeed think the government should indeed take such a dim view of our personal liberty as to allow clergymen to deny us birth control or having music on Sunday or divorce or living where and with whom we please. In many places they did after all get away with that for years.
We're talking about Newt Gingrich here who, after playing with several religions in his effort to bed many women including his own high school teacher, presumes not only to speak for but to dictate Church dogma to Roman Catholics who in very large part do not agree with it.
"Every time you turn around secular government is closing in on and shrinking the rights of religious America,”
Said Newt -- who has turned around about 200 years too late. The right of "Religious America" to be the law of the land by diktat was eliminated by the first Amendment, if the rage against such tyranny by the Founding Fathers wasn't already enough to put a stop to it.
In fact, 98% -- nearly all American Catholic women who have sex have used "forbidden" birth control methods and a solid majority think the Church policy is wrong. I don't think they're going to back this flim-flam Lothario who while indulging in it himself, tried to impeach a president for extra-marital fellatio in any bid to have Washington embargo the local drug store in the name of religious "freedom." Not any more than they would have the government outlaw the kind of bed hopping, marital leapfrogging Gingrich is noted for even if they frown on it. Don't we wonder why Newt thinks Catholics are so damn stupid that they won't notice he's arguing both sides of the question?
Organized religion is about many things, but personal choice and freedom of thought has never been thought of highly, to say the least, by any of them. To have to explain to someone with a Doctorate and a writer of history books, something a slow schoolboy should know, that professed belief or membership in some religious group does not convey legal authority in the US is laughable, but of course Newt knows it. He knows a principle and constitutional law that's been around since our beginning isn't radical and it isn't about Obama. He knows he's a lair even if he doesn't know he's a disgrace. I think the voters know too.
If you're like me (and to be honest, I'm pretty sure that you aren't - but I digress), you have to have a certain fondness for Newton Leroy Mephistopheles Gingrich. I mean, he may be an evil, bloated troll and a complete abject failure as a human being, but he, more than anybody else in America except Mitt Romney himself, is working hard to help ensure the reelection of Barack Obama.
It's true that we liberals, progressives and real Americans can't afford to be complacent as we approach the election, but sweet flaming Baby Jesus on a popsicle stick! How can you not giggle like a schoolgirl watching the GOP flail away at each other like some kind of morally bankrupt Rock'em Sock'em Republicans?
Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican candidate: that's all but a mathematical certainty. But Newton (who is apparently blind to the open oozing wound where his soul might once have been) is charging in like a screaming toddler in the candy aisle, demanding to have his way, by golly! Dragging his animated wax replica of a wife behind him, he's going to keep stabbing away at Mitten's exposed back, trying to bring the Mechanical Mormon down.
Newton's faltering campaign is freshly energized by an influx of gambling money from a stereotypical mob boss straight out of Central Casting: Sheldon Adelson, who occasionally introduces himself as "the richest Jew in the world."
With all these stacks of fresh, clean money piling up in the back room, Newton's SuperPAC (which Newton has no connection to, except that he set it up and put former staffers in charge) put out a short film and website bashing away at Romney's record as a "job creator."
And things are just going to get better.
"This is going to be Armageddon – they are going to come in here with everything they've got, every surrogate, every ad, every negative attack," Gingrich said. "At the same time we'll be drawing a sharp contrast between a Georgia Reagan conservative and a Massachusetts moderate who's pro-gun control, pro-choice, pro-tax increase, pro-liberal judge, and the voters of South Carolina will have to look and decide."
And just because the Three Stooges have to have their Larry, the craziest of the evangelicals got together this weekend to decide on their favorite flavor of not-Romney, and it turned out to be Santorum Crunch. So we can look for waves of fun coming from that quarter, too.
All I have to say is, the Obama campaign should see if they can borrow some of these ads later on.
“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
“There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution"
-Newt Gingrich-
Really, Newt? Are you really a history professor? Do you really think we're that stupid?
It's getting hard to tolerate the stench coming out of the pre-caucus Republican cesspool; from Presidential candidates getting government funds -- our tax dollars -- to teach people how to pray away the gay and advocating the use of Federal might to stamp out all forms of pornography frowned on by their frowning religion and to legislate and limit and punish our personal relationships -- while griping about too much government interference and too much spending and too much social engineering. It's getting damned hard to tolerate morally, mentally and ethically bankrupt creeps like Newt Gingrich, who is quite happy to feed the malignant idiocy now consuming the remnants of our Republic by telling us that our constitution does not "mention" much less provide for a supreme court, Article III of the Constitution notwithstanding.
"We now have this entire national elite that wants us to believe that any five lawyers are a Constitutional convention. That is profoundly un-American and profoundly wrong.”
lies the moral multimillionaire elitist with the million dollar line of credit at the jewelry store and a string of illicit mistresses and abused ex-wives. That's profoundly un-American and profoundly wrong and profoundly Republican. But of course anyone who thinks the highest court is an extra-legal ad hoc assembly of five self-appointed members foisted on the public by "elitists" and with no constitutional authority can hardly be considered an elitist of any kind unless there's a ranking of candidates according to their ignorance and mendacity and greed. Perhaps Newt just forgot that the Supreme Court Justices are approved by Congress or perhaps he's just a lying tub of septic scum who thinks he's entitled by birth and party affiliation to feast on the corpse of America.
You can fool some of the people all of the time: you can fool a lot of them in fact. They're called Republicans. They're called perverts, they're called liars, thieves, embezzlers and saboteurs.
OK, let's be clear here. We want there to be no misunderstanding.
Are we clear on that? He misspoke. It wasn't what he meant to say. He was frazzled. That wasn't a planned speech; he just went off the cuff, and dropped the ball. He went out there, and just flubbed it. It was a mistake, now let it go.
Of course, context is important, right? So let's take a look at these impromptu, unrehearsed remarks that he regrets having said now.
("But," I hear you wailing, "that'll take forever! That fucker starts talking and just won't stop! I don't have that kind of time! Plus, his voice gives me the shingles!" Ah, but I wouldn't do that to you: this is just the money shot. Three minutes and two seconds (plus a 15 second ad, because MSNBC has to pay the bills).
. See that? Off his game. No way he could have rehearsed that, right? All that stammering and stuttering. He was winging it. Never would have said something like that. He was taken completely off-guard. Anybody who could say that was a prepared argument is just blind.
So let's repeat this for you. It's very important that you understand.
You got that? This has nothing to do with Newtie spending 15 hours on the phone with every Republican in Congress. The Koch brothers didn't say a word to him. It was a complete misunderstanding. He was tired, and had to squint to see through the glare off David Gregory's platinum helmet of hair. He opened his mouth, and some truth just fell out. That's so unlike him! It landed in a big pile of bullshit, but there it was, naked. For everybody to see. It was embarrassing, but that's our Newt. Big enough to look the camera in the eye and lie his ass off about it.
And by the way, don't make fun of Callista.
She can't help it. It's fucked up you're even talking about it.
Newt Gingrich has recently received a lot of flak for the complete reversal of his position on Libya within a three-week period. But I don’t think that the problem is entirely that Newtie is a venal, lying, opportunistic load of horse manure in an expensive suit. I think that he’s sick, and he needs to find a doctor right away.
Newton Leroy McPherson Gingrich has always stood in stark repudiation of every action he has ever taken. He had been in the House of Representatives for fifteen years when he wrote the "Contract On With America that demanded twelve-year term limits on members of Congress; and in the course of his remaining five years in Congress. led impeachment proceedings against President Clinton for having an affair, while he was actively cheating on his wife.
The man who served his first wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital for cancer surgery is now trumpeting the importance of "traditional marriage"; the man who was just quoted as saying "If you don't start with values, the rest of it doesn't matter," was the first Speaker of the House ever disciplined for ethics violations (for which he was fined $300,000).
But more recently, on February 22, he went on Fox & Friends to say:
I wish the administration — the Obama administration was as enthusiastic about democracy in ... as it was in Egypt, which was our ally.
Qadhafi’s been our enemy for years. This is an opportunity to replace that dictatorship, and I think the United States ought to be firmly on the side of the Libyan people in replacing this administration.“
Exercise a no-fly zone this evening... We don’t need to have NATO, who frankly, won’t bring much to the fight. We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.
But when Obama did exactly that, on March 23, Newt went on the Today Show to say:
I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.
So, not a complete reversal. He still wouldn’t have used the Europeans.
He’s offered several explanations for this, and they all contradict each other, too. On Twitter, for example:
On March 3rd, President Obama said publicly that “it’s time for Gadaffi to go.”
Prior to this statement, there were options to be indirect and subtle to achieve this result without United States military forces. I made this point on The Today Show this morning, saying “I would not have intervened…there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi…I would not have used American and European forces.”
The president, however, took those options off the table with his public statement.
So, no Europeans again, but now no Americans either. And now the president shouldn’t have opposed Qaddaffi.
At first, I thought that it was possible that there were no contradiction: Newt has always had one primary, overriding concern in all this. He is firmly opposed to whatever Obama does.
But now, it turns out that this is some kind of mental aberration in Gingrich’s brain: he has to contradict himself on every subject, and those contradictions are coming closer and closer together. On Sunday, this twice-divorced Catholic went to an evangelical Protestant church to explain that:
"I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."
He didn’t bother to explain where we would find these radical atheist Islamists, but I’m sure it made sense to him at the time.
Newtie needs a doctor before it’s too late. Before he accidentally says that he's happy to be alive, and his brain simply shuts down in stolid opposition to this idea.
What is it about the office of state attorney general that attracts autocratic social controllers who will violate your civil liberties and impose their ideas of:
What you can think?
What you can say?
What kind of person you ought to be?
Who is entitled to equal rights under law?
What constitutes academic freedom?
With whom you can sleep?
Who will be prosecuted and persecuted?
Here is my gallery of rogue state attorneys general who think the office confers a right to enforce dogma and social conformity and tyrannize over decent citizens:
Andrew Shirvell. The assistant attorney general in the State of Michigan has launched a personal vendetta against a gay student at the University of Michigan. Shirvell singled out Chris Armstrong, the first openly gay student to win election as president of the student assembly. In Shirvell’s twisted mind, winning a student election means Armstrong has become a public figure and a legitimate political target; and Shirvell thinks he is justified in superimposing Nazi swastikas over Armstrong’s photograph, in visiting Armstrong’s house at 1:30 AM, in smearing Armstrong’s parents and friends. Here is Anderson Cooper's interview of Shirvell:
This CNN interview affords us a clear and disturbing example of what mental health professionals call reaction formation. It is a fancy term for insisting that the pot is not a pot, at least in public, by adamantly persecuting the kettle. Here are other examples:
The anti-gay family values senator from Idaho whose ‘wide stance’ in a public restroom got him arrested in Minneapolis (Larry Craig);
The anti-gay cofounder of the Family Research Council who was caught with a male prostitute at Miami airport (George Rekers);
The former Speaker of the House who lead the impeachment of President Clinton over an affair with an intern while the Speaker himself was having an affair with an intern as his wife lay hospitalized and dying of cancer (Newt Gingrich).
Does Shirvell have reasons to be jealous? Meanwhile Shirvell’s boss, Michigan State Attorney General Michael Cox, thinks defamation, harassment, intimidation, and stalking are legitimate forms of free speech … if the victim happens to be gay and the perpetrator is an ally and colleague.
Next …
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli. Scarcely two weeks in office, AG Cuccinelli continued to represent a private client in court … thus committing a violation of professional ethics. Cuccinelli is all too willing to abuse his official powers to advance a radically ideological agenda that includes, among other things, a visceral hatred of environmental science. Drawing upon tactics reminiscent of the McCarthy era:
Cuccinelli filed what amounts to a subpoena ordering the University of Virginia to hand over … all available documents, computer code and data relating to Mann's research on the five grants. He also demanded all correspondence, including e-mails — from 1999 to the present — between Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, and dozens of climate scientists worldwide, as well as some climate sceptics. The order stated that Cuccinelli was investigating Mann's possible violation of the 2002 Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act — although no evidence of wrongdoing was given to explain invoking the law, which is intended to prosecute individuals who make false claims in order to access government funds.
Cuccinelli has filed briefs in federal court challenging EPA jurisdiction over greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. "We cannot allow unelected bureaucrats with political agendas to use falsified data [my bold] to regulate American industry and drive our economy into the ground,” he insists. His extremist agenda includes opposition to abortion, sex education, gay rights, and the recently enacted healthcare reform bill, which he has challenged in Federal court. Finally, Cuccinelli is a Birther.
Next ….
Tom Corbett. As Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania, Corbett seems to have an exceptionally thin skin - especially when accused of hypocrisy and misfeasance in office. To question Corbett’s integrity is tantamount to violating state law. Earlier this year, Corbett subpoenaed Twitter:
… to provide “any and all subscriber information” of the person(s) behind two accounts – @bfbarbie and @CasaBlancaPA – who have been anonymously criticizing [Attorney General Tom Corbett] …
The information that Twitter is ordered to provide includes “name, address, contact information, creation date, creation Internet Protocol address and any and all log in Internet Protocol address”.
Here are the Tweets that caused Corbett to issue his subpoena:
”Is it wrong to mix campaign work with taxpayer business? Apparently not when Tom Corbett does it - bonusgate #pagovrace”
“Quiz! Who sputters with indignation over failure to recuse from cases involving contributors? - #bonusgate #pagovrace”
These Twitter subscribers accuse Corbett of duplicity, hypocrisy, and conflict of interest in prosecuting political opponents for the same offenses committed by Corbett:
Sandy Segal said he didn’t know what to think when he received the letter this week.
The envelope, labeled as coming from “Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett,” bore the message: “Please give me your immediate attention.”
He opened it to find Corbett was seeking a contribution in his run for governor. Corbett is seeking the Republican nomination.
“It looked like a pretty official kind of letter to me, at least the envelope,” said Segal, 62, of Susquehanna Twp.
Segal, who said he is a Democrat, later saw small print at the bottom of the envelope that read, “Not Paid For At Government Expense.” On the back, the envelope says, “Corbett for Governor.”
As Corbett has led an investigation of lawmakers accused of using taxpayer money and resources to bolster election campaigns, he is increasingly taking criticism from Democrats on his campaign activities.
As a former lobbyist for Waste Management, Inc., Corbett has blocked community efforts to enforce environmental ordinances. Along with Cuccinelli, Corbett is also challenging the healthcare reform bill in Federal court.
Next …
Bill McCollum. The following is a true account of my personal experience with Florida’s Attorney General. On Wednesday, May 19, 2010, at approximately 2:30 PM, there was a loud knock on my front door; not the customary ‘tap, tap’ of a delivery person bearing packages, but a determined ‘bang, bang.’ When I looked through the security peephole, there was a fisheye image of two men standing outside. When I opened the door, they flashed badges and demanded answers to “a few questions” starting with: “Did you send an electronic message to Attorney General Bill McCollum?” For readers unfamiliar with Bill McCollum and the nature of my “electronic message,” let us recall the story of George Rekers and the infamous rent boy scandal that broke earlier this year (with commentaries by our own Bloggingdino and Captain Fogg). George Rekers is the disgraced neuropsychiatrist and Christian Fundamentalist cofounder of the Family Research Council who went on a European junket with a rent boy and was ‘outed’ by a Miami newspaper reporter. After the story broke, a liberal nonprofit group known as Progress Florida circulated this petition:
Tell Bill McCollum’ “We Want Our” Money Back!
Attorney General Bill McCollum gave $120,000 of our money to a discredited, anti-gay hypocrite named George Rekers. The courts had already deemed Rekers' "expertise’ junk science, and McCollum insisted on doubling Reker's pay to $120,000 from $60,000, ignoring the terms of a written agreement between Rekers and the cash-strapped Department of Children and Families. Finally, Rekers' anti-gay credentials were naturally called into question after he was caught traveling with a gay escort who advertised his services on a porn site. Bill McCollum wasted our tax dollars on a bigoted, ideological crusade that keeps children away from loving homes. Sign our petition below and tell McCollum: We want our money back!
Your intrepid Octopus went a step further. I linked to the website of the Florida Attorney General and used this online contact form to file a complaint against Bill McCollum ... accusing him of defrauding Florida taxpayers. Weeks later, in retaliation, McCollum dispatched two officers to my door with orders to tell me to STFU.
We might be inclined to view Messrs. Shirvell (slant rhymes with ‘gerbil’), Cuccinelli, Corbett, and McCollum as comical if there were no injustices, i.e. if no Americans were harmed by their brand of wedge politics. Regrettably, these AGs are ruthless social conservatives whose standard operating procedure includes bullying, harassment, and oppression.
Here is a grim statistic: The suicide rate among gay teenagers is 3 to 4 times higher than other youth – attributable to discrimination, bullying, and social ostracism at an emotionally fragile time in their lives. And here is my Charles Dickens prediction for a dystopian future if social conservatives and their rabid rabble gain control of our government:
Wedge politics, designed to demoralize and polarize the electorate, will lead to a sharp increase in bias crimes;
The repeal of Roe v. Wade will mean victims of rape and incest will be forced to bear the children of sexual predators;
If a woman has a naturally spontaneous miscarriage, she will be automatically suspected of murdering the fetus;
Women with expired or anencephalic fetuses will be forced carry them to full term, thus endangering their lives;
Victims of domestic violence will not be able to divorce their tormenters;
Poverty and violence will fill the streets.
I refuse to be intimidated or silenced by rogue politicians. If Messrs. Cox, Cuccinelli, Corbett, or McCollum object to the language of this post (and my surly attitude), I dare them to subpoena Blogger or Twitter and discover my true identity. I double dare them to dispatch henchmen to my door and harass me. At my station in life, what do I have to lose? If I chose martyrdom, the cause is worthy. In the end, bad actors on the political stage do not get to write the final drama, and historians do not treat demagogues and despots kindly.
It's remarkable and a bit sad that media outlets like MSNBC or NPR or the New York Times are so easily dismissed by the very people their job it is to expose as charlatans, liars, thieves, hypocrites and enemies of Democracy. There are so many possibilities to disembowel the people who are in turn disemboweling our values and our history and our nationhood and the very stability of our country, but bundled into a package like bad loans and labeled as Liberally biased, the non-Fox media simply give in, afraid to do what anyone who knows how to use Youtube can do they ignore the lies and emulate the deceivers or turn to celebrity gossip.
But of course in a different way, it's just as sad to see people like Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity shown as naked and pathetic as the newly clothed emperor by one of the only news programs with nothing to lose by telling the truth: The Daily Show. I had tears in my eyes Thursday night as the scrolling text of President Obama's Nuclear Position Report was followed by the Foxed up report clothed as a conversation between the very god of hypocrisy and America's own Rasputin. Using someone's own recorded words against him makes it very hard, in theory to drown out the truth with the usual brass band of Obamahate or simply continue to lie and deny with brass balls. why sad? because it doesn't matter, because the people who want to believe won't willingly leave their fantasy faith and view the real, sad world and because there are a lot of them and because they're angry as hell that Democracy overturned their perceived entitlement. As with evolution deniers, no amount of proof is enough even to raise the terrible spectre of doubt. For reasonable people seeing is believing, for Teabaggers, Fox Folk and the vermin who write viral e-mails, it's the other way around.
Yes, indeed, The United States pledges never to make or threaten a nuclear attack against a non-nuclear enemy save for the provision that a chemical or biological attack could exempt an enemy from that pledge, but within seconds we see Gingrich saying that we're endangered because a chemical or biological attack could not provoke a nuclear response. Within seconds we hear Hannity affirm "yes, that's what he said."
It's always quite an experience to see someone look you in the face and lie when you have proof positive that's just what it is. One feels betrayed, embarrassed, angry: one never wants to trust or listen to that person again. But not if you need that lie. Not if your entire life revolves around that lie.
Will MSNBC or CNN or the networks address the Fox crew's responsibility to report the truth? Would they risk running such dramatic proof that their competition is no more honest or reliable than the Legendary Iraqi Defense Minister? What will they say about Fox's assertions that our widely radical president will put us all in danger by reducing our huge stockpile of nukes, some over 40 years old, by a third, or by looking forward to a world without them? Will they, like Jon Stewart simply run clips of Ronald Reagan telling the world that he looks forward to a world without nuclear weapons and that we should reduce the count by one third as a first step? No, they won't. Reagan will remain right and Obama will, by being exactly the same be irrevocably wrong -- and a far left radical liberal trying to weaken our defenses. Truth is irrelevant.
According to Newt Gingrich, President Obama believes that words are a substitute for reality: he's referring to words the President never said, or words that the Hero Reagan also said. His smirking riff, only meant to perfume a pointless smear and to deflect notice that this is precisely what Newt is doing: knowingly lying about the President, creating a false substitute for reality and knowingly trying to enrage people against the elected government. As Roger Ailes said, they're about ratings.
Who in the "Liberal Media" is going to expose him as a seditious insurgent? Who on CNN is going to put together clips of McCain calling himself a Maverick and denying he ever called himself a Maverick? Clips of McCain telling us to avoid extremists like Jerry Falwell and then praising Jerry Falwell? McCain espousing views and then calling Obama an extremist for agreeing? Only an entertainment show, a fake news show. You won't often see such stunning journalism on a real news program or in a real paper or magazine, because it's quick, because it doesn't allow the concocted "balance" of dignifying a baseless lie as "another point of view," because you can't speculate and expatiate and flap your jaws hysterically about it all day and all night. That's not what journalism is any more. Truth isn't even what truth is any more and Journalism isn't journalism, it's entertainment, it's a Roman circus and we're not the lions.
"We’re borrowing more to spend more ... it defies any sensible economic policy that any of us ever learned through college."
said she to Insanity Hannity although that's been the main thrust of GOP economic policy since Reagan. Never mind that she didn't actually study economics in her long, picaresque romp through a series of fourth rate community colleges and hasn't any real idea of who owns what part of American industry. If she did, perhaps the failed beauty queen, failed VP candidate and desultory student would have to blush about Alaska's state ownership of oil and gas resources and her failure to bring capitalism to her state.
But that's OK. Former Speaker of the House and thoroughly dispicable human being Newt Gingrich says that whatever Obama may be driving us toward, President Barack Obama’s plan to fix the economy has “already failed” and “bowing to the Saudi King is not an energy policy.” Of course not, and Obama would agree. Playing basketball after hours isn't either, but neither is it supposed to be, any more than being a serial adulterer like Newt is a guarantee he means what he says. Of course none of us will get the chance to ask him whether Cheney's collusion with oil magnates about raising the price of oil is an energy policy either, but it helps that whatever Obama has been falsely accused of doing, he's failed to do it.
Rush Limbaugh isn't ready to call Sonia Sotomayor a failure yet, but he hopes she will be. Racist and hack yes, he's ready to say that, but as he does with our president and our nation, he hopes for a good, solid failure. And besides, of course, as with Michael J. Fox's Parkenson's disease, Ms. Sotomayor's recent broken ankle is certainly evidence of lack of character.
“Now, the question is, would a white, male judge have fractured his ankle in the same circumstances?”
No, actually the question is whether Rush can say anything at all without his racism and misogyny creeping through, but we won't embarrass him by asking it, not while he's back on the Vikes and babbling.
"Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate,"
Liddy said in a conservative fashion.
"That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."
Yes, Mr. Liddy, and the Lord knows that would be bad regardless of which Lord you mean, just like conspiring to overthrow democracy in the US and bragging about it -- which seems to be your main "conservative" credential.
Yes, 4 months is soon enough to talk about failure and face it -- who is more qualified to talk about failure than the Republicans?
