By Rick Morris
Rumors have run rampant for years now that the Bush administration plans an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities before it leaves office in January 2009. Certainly, the move by the mullahs to acquire nuclear weapons is a frightening one that should be focusing our energies on how best to protect our interests in the Persian Gulf.
But military intervention is not the only avenue open to us in the area. My longtime friend Scott Pullins has announced that his Pullins Report is part of a wide coalition dedicated to pursuing other means of addressing our very real issues with the regime in Tehran.
Ironically, while I'm a bit unsure as to the utility of free and unfettered talks with Iran right now, I support Scott's general efforts 100%. As with his stance on the treatment of detainees, I may differ with him here and there, but I think his general focus is exactly right.
He and I have traveled down parallel political paths, which helps me to understand and to support his present direction a bit better. We were both of college age at the end of the Cold War and we were both very hawkish given the realities of the day. Essentially, while shooting in that war was rare and generally confined to proxies (i.e. Vietnam, Afghanistan), it really WAS a war and we needed to be on a war footing when dealing with a grim enemy which hungered for nothing less than world domination. Ronald Reagan's method of confronting the Soviets directly, which was totally unprecedented, was appropriate and it worked -- and Scott and I supported him.
But we are now in a different time. The conservative movement long ago fractured into the (completely dominant) neoconservative wing and my paleocon wing. The neocons never moved from the "war footing" mentality and seemed well before 9/11 to be searching for any excuse to project American military might upon the world. For all the talk about how Eeee-Vil Republicans tried to destroy the Clintons with the impeachment saga, the neocons stood behind Bubba steadfastly as he wagged the dog with a completely unnecessary war in the Balkans in 1999.
George W. Bush, about whom I can honestly say I was skeptical from the very beginning given my aversion to Republican Establishment figures, came to office promising a humble, respectful foreign policy. But, as the cliche goes, "9/11 changed everything."
The foreign policy "realists" that Scott and I scorned in our youth were wrong then -- I will always believe that. But, given today's circumstances, they are right in this climate.
I have said on The FDH Lounge program that George W. Bush and Bill Clinton each accomplished the same dubious action -- by opposite means. Clinton destroyed American deterrence in the '90s by turning a blind eye to each successive attack by bin Laden and establishing us as a paper tiger. Bush destroyed American deterrence by getting us bogged down in Iraq from the end of the first phase of the war in April '03 until he FINALLY delivered the surge in 2007 -- thus reestablishing us as a paper tiger after restoring our global prestige by winning swiftly in Afghanistan in late 2001. Imperial overreach and pacifism both lead to disaster and to America's enemies licking their chops.
The neocons are right in the very narrow sense about staying on the offensive against Al Qaeda worldwide and this is a job that our special forces should continue to be pursuing in every nook and cranny of the globe regardless of who gets elected president in November (although I'm admittedly scared that Barack Obama will not agree with this basic common-sense point). But starting full-on conflagrations against other governments without fully thinking through the consequences -- haven't we been here before? Every Deskbound Rambo who proclaimed in 2002-2003 that Iraq would be a cakewalk should be permanently prohibited from being taken seriously.
George W. Bush and Karl Rove, who openly dreamed of creating another longstanding Republican dynasty in the mold of William McKinley, have seen their dreams die in the sands of the Middle East much in the same way that Jimmah Carter's aspirations did. To the extent that their militaristic brand of neoconservatism is left to define the Republican party and the broader American Right, then the party and the movement will never recover. That's why, in addition to personal friendship, I support Scott's efforts as strongly as I do. The school of thought about what's best for this country, as well as the country itself, is too important to be left to the rotting corpse known as GOP leadership. Whether you support every individual thread of anti-neocon policy, it's time to get with the program and work for the clear best interests of this country. If opposition to rampant militarism is ceded to the peaceniks and pinkos, we all lose.
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Bob Dole doesn't like two-faced weasels
By Rick Morris
Let's get this straight right away. Scott McClellan was perhaps the worst White House spokesman of the last century. His bumbling, buffoonish hemming and hawing from the podium day after day set a new standard for public ineptitude. Babies crying for their soiled diapers to be changed thought this clown was helpless and pathetic.
But, America being America, he's been able to cash in on his complete inability to fulfill even minor professional standards in the performance of his job.
All of the so-called "revelations" in his book fall into what might be called, in deference to family-friendly standards, "No S, Sherlock territory." Yes, this administration made a decision to get us into war without an imminent threat and played the Dean Smith Four Corners Offense for almost four years prior to the surge in the desert of Mesopotamia while we lost untold blood, treasure and deterrence capacity. Yes, the federal response to Katrina was putrid and down to the almost impossibly low standard of the hopelessly feeble and corrupt state and local governments.
However, McClellan shows himself to be completely gutless in his inability to walk away from this job believing that the president was in the wrong. In this way, Bob Dole is justified in his outrage that this piddling little turd was able to profit from his two-faced behavior.
As a RINO par excellence, McClellan whines and sobs about the Bush Administration's reluctance to "govern from the center," conveniently ignoring all of the left-wing sellouts of the past eight years (big spending, sacrificing poor kids to the alter of Big Labor in the voucher-free No Child Left Behind abomination, trying to put a moderate establishment weenie on the Supreme Court before conservatives howled, etc.) because they don't fit his narrative.
Who can blame him for trying to change the subject, though, especially when he knows that know-nothing jerks like OlbyLoon are going to give him a pass for all of his historical revisionism? The fact is that Scott McClellan was the personification of this administration's failure to live up to any kind of potential whatsoever. As I've stated previously, I voted third-party in the 2000 presidential election out of conviction that the Republican Party had erred tremendously in opting to sublimate its interests to those of the Bush Dynasty. But I did root for the Bush team to succeed in the first term, and saw signs after 9/11 that they just might prove me wrong after all and be up to the job. Sadly, they were not, and by the time the 2004 election rolled around I was pulling the lever in that direction solely out of abject fear of the prospect of radical pacifist, Jimmy Carter's Second Term John Kerry (although an argument could certainly be made that since Kerry would also have been an abject failure these past four years that the country might be better off right now had he won since we'd be poised to expressly repudiate his vision instead of being about to embrace it potentially in the form of Barack Obama -- but that's a different story for a different time).
The disillusionment that I felt with the Bush Administration during McClellan's tenure at the podium originated with their policies and follow-through, or lack thereof, but deepened substantially at their complete lack of competence in allowing this no-talent hack to stumble inarticulately day after day in front of the brutal jackals of the press. Not only could this crew not carry out policies in a capable manner, they could not communicate even a basic vision with any polish whatsoever. As a writer, that offended me greatly.
So to sum up: Scott McClellan didn't demonstrate the Bush Administration's incompetence through the contentions in his book that came out this past week. He demonstrated it by keeping his job for three years.
Let's get this straight right away. Scott McClellan was perhaps the worst White House spokesman of the last century. His bumbling, buffoonish hemming and hawing from the podium day after day set a new standard for public ineptitude. Babies crying for their soiled diapers to be changed thought this clown was helpless and pathetic.
But, America being America, he's been able to cash in on his complete inability to fulfill even minor professional standards in the performance of his job.
All of the so-called "revelations" in his book fall into what might be called, in deference to family-friendly standards, "No S, Sherlock territory." Yes, this administration made a decision to get us into war without an imminent threat and played the Dean Smith Four Corners Offense for almost four years prior to the surge in the desert of Mesopotamia while we lost untold blood, treasure and deterrence capacity. Yes, the federal response to Katrina was putrid and down to the almost impossibly low standard of the hopelessly feeble and corrupt state and local governments.
However, McClellan shows himself to be completely gutless in his inability to walk away from this job believing that the president was in the wrong. In this way, Bob Dole is justified in his outrage that this piddling little turd was able to profit from his two-faced behavior.
As a RINO par excellence, McClellan whines and sobs about the Bush Administration's reluctance to "govern from the center," conveniently ignoring all of the left-wing sellouts of the past eight years (big spending, sacrificing poor kids to the alter of Big Labor in the voucher-free No Child Left Behind abomination, trying to put a moderate establishment weenie on the Supreme Court before conservatives howled, etc.) because they don't fit his narrative.
Who can blame him for trying to change the subject, though, especially when he knows that know-nothing jerks like OlbyLoon are going to give him a pass for all of his historical revisionism? The fact is that Scott McClellan was the personification of this administration's failure to live up to any kind of potential whatsoever. As I've stated previously, I voted third-party in the 2000 presidential election out of conviction that the Republican Party had erred tremendously in opting to sublimate its interests to those of the Bush Dynasty. But I did root for the Bush team to succeed in the first term, and saw signs after 9/11 that they just might prove me wrong after all and be up to the job. Sadly, they were not, and by the time the 2004 election rolled around I was pulling the lever in that direction solely out of abject fear of the prospect of radical pacifist, Jimmy Carter's Second Term John Kerry (although an argument could certainly be made that since Kerry would also have been an abject failure these past four years that the country might be better off right now had he won since we'd be poised to expressly repudiate his vision instead of being about to embrace it potentially in the form of Barack Obama -- but that's a different story for a different time).
The disillusionment that I felt with the Bush Administration during McClellan's tenure at the podium originated with their policies and follow-through, or lack thereof, but deepened substantially at their complete lack of competence in allowing this no-talent hack to stumble inarticulately day after day in front of the brutal jackals of the press. Not only could this crew not carry out policies in a capable manner, they could not communicate even a basic vision with any polish whatsoever. As a writer, that offended me greatly.
So to sum up: Scott McClellan didn't demonstrate the Bush Administration's incompetence through the contentions in his book that came out this past week. He demonstrated it by keeping his job for three years.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sore loser Gore hurts Democrats 8 years later
By Rick Morris
It's commonly accepted that the Democratic battle for president is the messiest since 1980, if not 1968 (and folks, we're headed for some Days of Rage out in Denver if Obama gets this nomination ripped from him). Everyone attributes two factors for this state of affairs:
1. The volatility of the usual Democratic obsession with identity politics being mixed with the certainty that either the first black or first woman candidate will be nominated.
2. The unparalleled ambition and ruthlessness of the Clintons.
But everyone's forgetting the vital third element in the equation, and this amnesia is surprising because it related directly to the rage Democrats have felt against George W. Bush since his first national campaign:
3. The legacy of the tactics deployed by Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election -- or rather, his refusal to accept the outcome of the 2000 election.
You remember the conduct of Sore-Loserman in the aftermath of the vote, don't you? The transformation of infantile drivel such as "the will of the people" becoming the official mantra of the Democrat party?
[Side note, Dick Nixon legitimately had the 1960 election stolen from him by crooks manipulating the "graveyard vote" in Illinois and Texas. Four decades later, Gore lost primarily because some of his core voters were illiterates who couldn't understand a simple butterfly ballot. Nixon refused to contest the election and conceded so our country wouldn't be divided at a time of peril in the Cold War. Regardless of what voters intended in their hearts, Gore lost the election by losing Florida and yet divided our country with relish at a vulnerable time when his president had spent eight years not facing up to the terrorist threat plaguing our nation. And yet it's Gore who gets made into a secular saint by the simpletons who comprise the ranks of "opinion leaders" in the U.S.A.]
Gore ran around the country trumpeting the fact that he won the popular vote, which is Constitutionally irrelevant under our system of government. Democrats demagogued the Electoral College, pronouncing it an anachronism when it suited their purposes. One of the chief phonies at the time was Hillary Clinton, who pronounced it undemocratic and who is now being blocked from the nomination by other phonies who pronounce her efforts undemocratic. Yes, there is a God and He has a sense of Karmic humor!
Gore picked a fight in a game of chicken he knew he could not possibly win, for it was certain that even if the U.S. Supreme Court backed the partisan hacks on the Florida Supreme Court and allowed the little old ladies with hatpins surreptitiously poking holes in the chads to steal the election that the House of Representatives would vote to recognize the legal Katherine Harris slate of electors. So he had no chance -- not immediately that is, as the clear endgame was to bloody up Bush for a rematch four years later and that scenario would have played out had Gore not chickened out when Bush was still in his post-9/11 popularity phase.
By posing as if they were the only ones concerned with "counting all the votes," Democrats ended up creating an extra standard in all elections. Now, even though the rules don't give Barack Obama any edge whatsoever because of it, he can claim a Divine Mandate because he's ahead in the popular vote and elected delegate count. Hillary has to augment her logical argument with "the rules say nothing about those factors" with more of her patented say-anything drivel like "caucuses are undemocratic."
By working so hard to delegitimize the winner of the 2000 presidential election (and I pronounce Bush the rightful winner of the election despite the fact that I did not vote for him, but rather, Patrick J. Buchanan), Democrats created a set of circumstances where tactics unexceptional by historical standards would call for the language of delegitimization to be invoked. The bitter fruit they are now choking on can best be called their just desserts.
It's commonly accepted that the Democratic battle for president is the messiest since 1980, if not 1968 (and folks, we're headed for some Days of Rage out in Denver if Obama gets this nomination ripped from him). Everyone attributes two factors for this state of affairs:
1. The volatility of the usual Democratic obsession with identity politics being mixed with the certainty that either the first black or first woman candidate will be nominated.
2. The unparalleled ambition and ruthlessness of the Clintons.
But everyone's forgetting the vital third element in the equation, and this amnesia is surprising because it related directly to the rage Democrats have felt against George W. Bush since his first national campaign:
3. The legacy of the tactics deployed by Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election -- or rather, his refusal to accept the outcome of the 2000 election.
You remember the conduct of Sore-Loserman in the aftermath of the vote, don't you? The transformation of infantile drivel such as "the will of the people" becoming the official mantra of the Democrat party?
[Side note, Dick Nixon legitimately had the 1960 election stolen from him by crooks manipulating the "graveyard vote" in Illinois and Texas. Four decades later, Gore lost primarily because some of his core voters were illiterates who couldn't understand a simple butterfly ballot. Nixon refused to contest the election and conceded so our country wouldn't be divided at a time of peril in the Cold War. Regardless of what voters intended in their hearts, Gore lost the election by losing Florida and yet divided our country with relish at a vulnerable time when his president had spent eight years not facing up to the terrorist threat plaguing our nation. And yet it's Gore who gets made into a secular saint by the simpletons who comprise the ranks of "opinion leaders" in the U.S.A.]
Gore ran around the country trumpeting the fact that he won the popular vote, which is Constitutionally irrelevant under our system of government. Democrats demagogued the Electoral College, pronouncing it an anachronism when it suited their purposes. One of the chief phonies at the time was Hillary Clinton, who pronounced it undemocratic and who is now being blocked from the nomination by other phonies who pronounce her efforts undemocratic. Yes, there is a God and He has a sense of Karmic humor!
Gore picked a fight in a game of chicken he knew he could not possibly win, for it was certain that even if the U.S. Supreme Court backed the partisan hacks on the Florida Supreme Court and allowed the little old ladies with hatpins surreptitiously poking holes in the chads to steal the election that the House of Representatives would vote to recognize the legal Katherine Harris slate of electors. So he had no chance -- not immediately that is, as the clear endgame was to bloody up Bush for a rematch four years later and that scenario would have played out had Gore not chickened out when Bush was still in his post-9/11 popularity phase.
By posing as if they were the only ones concerned with "counting all the votes," Democrats ended up creating an extra standard in all elections. Now, even though the rules don't give Barack Obama any edge whatsoever because of it, he can claim a Divine Mandate because he's ahead in the popular vote and elected delegate count. Hillary has to augment her logical argument with "the rules say nothing about those factors" with more of her patented say-anything drivel like "caucuses are undemocratic."
By working so hard to delegitimize the winner of the 2000 presidential election (and I pronounce Bush the rightful winner of the election despite the fact that I did not vote for him, but rather, Patrick J. Buchanan), Democrats created a set of circumstances where tactics unexceptional by historical standards would call for the language of delegitimization to be invoked. The bitter fruit they are now choking on can best be called their just desserts.
McCain's realistic hope - Democrats blow it
By Rick Morris
The domestic economy is circling the drain and the global economy could well be on the way to following it. The country is at war and 3 1/2 years of George W. Bush trying to apply the "Dean Smith Four Corners Defense" to a bogged-down situation where outclassed terrorists are killing us with IEDs had left him, in the words of one insolent commentator, as less popular than gonorrhea.
Plus, this country doesn't elect politicians of the same party for three consecutive terms even in good times; aside from George Herbert Walker Bush gravy-training Reagan's third term in 1988 (was there even one person in America who voted for that clueless dipstick because they were psyched to have his penny loafers shuffling through the Oval Office every day?), it hasn't happened since FDR was winning like 47 elections in a row back in the day. So even under ideal circumstances, John McCain would probably be screwed this year, right?
Probably. But not necessarily.
There is ample precedent in this country for one political party being pronounced dead and buried only to be revived by the complete and utter incompetence of the other. Granted, things are looking so bad right now that even the Seventies are pointing and laughing and saying, "Man, what an f'd up decade!" But to deny that the Democrats could screw up badly enough to hand it to McCain is to ignore several such precedents in the last few decades:
^ 1964: LBJ massacres Barry Goldwater in the presidential election, and pundits are righting off the Republican party forever for nominating a "right-wing nut." Two years, later, Vietnam and a domestic civil war manifesting itself in the form of riots and anti-war extremism almost costs the Democrats control of Congress and in 1968, Richard Nixon of all people is elected president under the Republican banner.
^ 1972: Nixon is riding high, thrashing George McGovern in a mirror image of the curb stomping the GOP got from LBJ eight years before. He is invincible, King of the World, and the Democrats are a hapless mess. Until, uh, that Watergate thing. He resigns in disgrace in '74 and the Republicans get wiped out in the midterm elections that fall.
^ 1974: If Dubya is less popular than gonorrhea right now, Nixon was trailing jock itch in the polls that year after resigning in disgrace and seeing his party get buried that year in Congressional elections. But then Gerald Ford rallied in '76 to almost win re-election (El Klutzo shouldn't have checked off "Yes" on the "Debate RSVP" that year, though) and Reagan put a huge beatdown on Jimmah Carter in 1980.
^ 1992: The walking coma known as the first Bush Administration ended in ignominy, as a shyster country lawyer from Arkansas won over a nation and came in with much momentum. Having seen Carter get hamstrung by bad relations with Bob Byrd and Tip O'Neill, however, Bill Clinton loudly proclaimed himself the huckleberry for Democratic Congressional leaders and his party got drilled in the '94 midterms, losing both houses of Congress in a historic rout.
^ 2004: George W. Bush was headed for the same one-term status as his mediocre father. The war was being perceived as a mistake, Abu Ghraib gave the America-haters in the domestic and world media with enough rope to hang us and the economy was still largely perceived as sluggish. But in an example of the Feiler Faster Thesis and in a supreme example of good luck, his many deficiencies were overshadowed by the national disaster that was the John Kerry campaign. Dubya became the first president since his father 16 years ago to be elected with an outright majority of the popular vote.
So there you have it. Numerous examples in our recent history of how one political party blew it badly enough to be down forever only to be revived by the mistakes and foibles of the opposition. As a matter of fact, the majority of recent reversals of fortune in this country have resulted in unforced errors being exploited successfully by the other side. So while others may be quick to minimize the effects of an increasingly bloody and bitter battle between Hillary and Obama for the Democratic nomination, I see the chaos for what it is: John McCain's greatest -- and only -- chance.
The domestic economy is circling the drain and the global economy could well be on the way to following it. The country is at war and 3 1/2 years of George W. Bush trying to apply the "Dean Smith Four Corners Defense" to a bogged-down situation where outclassed terrorists are killing us with IEDs had left him, in the words of one insolent commentator, as less popular than gonorrhea.
Plus, this country doesn't elect politicians of the same party for three consecutive terms even in good times; aside from George Herbert Walker Bush gravy-training Reagan's third term in 1988 (was there even one person in America who voted for that clueless dipstick because they were psyched to have his penny loafers shuffling through the Oval Office every day?), it hasn't happened since FDR was winning like 47 elections in a row back in the day. So even under ideal circumstances, John McCain would probably be screwed this year, right?
Probably. But not necessarily.
There is ample precedent in this country for one political party being pronounced dead and buried only to be revived by the complete and utter incompetence of the other. Granted, things are looking so bad right now that even the Seventies are pointing and laughing and saying, "Man, what an f'd up decade!" But to deny that the Democrats could screw up badly enough to hand it to McCain is to ignore several such precedents in the last few decades:
^ 1964: LBJ massacres Barry Goldwater in the presidential election, and pundits are righting off the Republican party forever for nominating a "right-wing nut." Two years, later, Vietnam and a domestic civil war manifesting itself in the form of riots and anti-war extremism almost costs the Democrats control of Congress and in 1968, Richard Nixon of all people is elected president under the Republican banner.
^ 1972: Nixon is riding high, thrashing George McGovern in a mirror image of the curb stomping the GOP got from LBJ eight years before. He is invincible, King of the World, and the Democrats are a hapless mess. Until, uh, that Watergate thing. He resigns in disgrace in '74 and the Republicans get wiped out in the midterm elections that fall.
^ 1974: If Dubya is less popular than gonorrhea right now, Nixon was trailing jock itch in the polls that year after resigning in disgrace and seeing his party get buried that year in Congressional elections. But then Gerald Ford rallied in '76 to almost win re-election (El Klutzo shouldn't have checked off "Yes" on the "Debate RSVP" that year, though) and Reagan put a huge beatdown on Jimmah Carter in 1980.
^ 1992: The walking coma known as the first Bush Administration ended in ignominy, as a shyster country lawyer from Arkansas won over a nation and came in with much momentum. Having seen Carter get hamstrung by bad relations with Bob Byrd and Tip O'Neill, however, Bill Clinton loudly proclaimed himself the huckleberry for Democratic Congressional leaders and his party got drilled in the '94 midterms, losing both houses of Congress in a historic rout.
^ 2004: George W. Bush was headed for the same one-term status as his mediocre father. The war was being perceived as a mistake, Abu Ghraib gave the America-haters in the domestic and world media with enough rope to hang us and the economy was still largely perceived as sluggish. But in an example of the Feiler Faster Thesis and in a supreme example of good luck, his many deficiencies were overshadowed by the national disaster that was the John Kerry campaign. Dubya became the first president since his father 16 years ago to be elected with an outright majority of the popular vote.
So there you have it. Numerous examples in our recent history of how one political party blew it badly enough to be down forever only to be revived by the mistakes and foibles of the opposition. As a matter of fact, the majority of recent reversals of fortune in this country have resulted in unforced errors being exploited successfully by the other side. So while others may be quick to minimize the effects of an increasingly bloody and bitter battle between Hillary and Obama for the Democratic nomination, I see the chaos for what it is: John McCain's greatest -- and only -- chance.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Live Blogging: Night of Too Many Stars-part 2
By Jason Jones
It's gift giving time…
It's gift giving time…
Will Arnett goes through the gifts given for price point donations-
$50 Donations-a “Night of Too Many Stars” oven mitt.
$100 Donations-a “Night of Too Many Stars” ski mask.
-Blue Man Group musical performance.
Kevin James in blue face masquerading as the fat member of the Blue Man Group. If that alone wasn’t funny enough, he and Jerry Stiller comprised a short segment of a scene from a King of Queens episode.
-Shades of our current Political segment on The FDH Lounge (Sunday nights
-One of my favorite characters of all time, President George W. Bush, played by Will Ferrell.
>Will Ferrell:“…ah hayell I’m out in seven months, I don’t have to talk all president-y, how’s it hanging wiseass?”.
>Jon Stewart: “As you come to the end of your second term, are you in a reflective mood?”
>Will Ferrell (George W. Bush): “Hayell no Jon, I’m pumped as SH**! This is a victory lap, I won the Daytona 500 and its smokey burnout time. I’m going to crack a bud, watch a Rangers game and walk around my house naked. I might even rub one out.”
>Jon Stewart: “Sir, could you please watch the language we have children and, just please watch the language."
>Will Ferrell: “You know what Jon, No, I will not watch the language. You’ve been roasting my ayass for seven years now…and its payback time. I’m out now, and I can’t be punished for fraud or abuse of power. So, I’m going to have the
>Jon Stewart: “Previous presidents have all written memoirs wanting to tell their story, do you have any idea when you will start writing yours?”
>Will Ferrell: “I actually finished mine, Jon. Uh, they will be sold only as a book on tape narrated by Vin Scully and Joe Morgan. I don’t want to ruin it for you, but Osama gets what’s coming to him. This book is going to make a great movie, it’s a cross between Harry Potter, Die Hard and
>Jon Stewart: “Most presidents open a library to house their writings and chronicle their time in office, any idea when you might be opening a library?"
>Will Ferrell: “The Bush Library will actually be not just a library, but more of a library slash paintball range.”
>Jon Stewart: “As you go out of your presidency, are there any lessons you’ve learned? after seven years of leading the most powerful nation in the world, what lessons have you learned? Do you have any lessons?”
>Will Ferrell: “…, …., Nope."
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Ron Paul withdrawal story FAQ
By Rick Morris
Yesterday, I reported on our blog a straight news story about the Ron Paul campaign for president shutting down under the pressure of his congressional reelection campaign back home. As I fully anticipated, this has touched off a storm of reactions both in the wider Internet world and also to some extent here in our comment section. In order to correct the false statements about our blog that are being made, I decided that the most comprehensive and (equally important) least dreary way to correct the record would be in the form of an FAQ with the questions being posed (accusingly) by A Typical Ron Paul Supporter. Now, before anyone complains that I am lumping all Paul supporters together, that is untrue. I know that there are many sane and measured ones, but they are hugely atypical. Scan the Web and you'll see I'm right.
Frankly, the conclusions being drawn about me and my associates are clearly the work either of those with no capacity for reading comprehension (possibly) or are coming from extremely lazy folks who don't feel the need to educate themselves at all before they bellow incoherently out their cakeholes (more likely). In either event, the copious links in my answers should aid greatly in educating folks, at least those (likely few) capable of absorbing such a schooling.
Without any further ado, the questions and answers:
Q: We Ron Paul supporters know that you're just another ranting neocon ...
A: Hold up there, Chachi, you can't get me on that. I've said many times here that I'm a proud paleocon ...
Q: Did not!
A: Excuse me, yes I have. I did it this time, too.
Q: Did not!!!!!
A: Ooohkay. I heard this was how you Ron Paul people argued. Anyway, I'll get back to the point about my political philosophy and how that's relevant. Let's start with how this story came to be.
Q: Yes, let's do just that, you Tool of the GOP Beltway Power Elite!
A: Tool of the Beltway Power Elite (chuckles). Wow, didn't think I'd live long enough to hear myself called that. I'm certainly a shamefully ineffective one, then, having called Junior Bush less popular than gonorrhea right here just a few days ago. I'm a lot closer to getting myself audited by the IRS than I am to getting invited over to the White House to watch Texas Rangers games with Dubya. But don't let the facts get in the way of your name-calling. OK, back to the account. I was called out of the blue yesterday by the source I referenced in the story, someone with access to Paul's congressional campaign. This is someone I previously knew to be involved in the story in the Texas 14th and someone I've dealt with previously in a number of ways -- and I'm not going to be any more specific than that. I don't burn sources. Now, from what I read from Justin Higgins at Right on the Right, he very likely had the same source I did as I was also quoted the specific numbers from the internal poll, 43-32 Peden. I chose not to make mention of that as I wasn't sure at the time that exposing the specifics of the poll numbers wouldn't burn my source. As I piece together the timeline, it speaks well of Justin's character that he gave credit to us for being first on the story because he probably got his info not long after me and very easily could have pulled a "yoink" on us, but he chose not to. Well played, Justin, I appreciate that.
Q: Blah blah blah, you and your boring facts. Do you have a point?
A: Yes, actually, I do. I, a previously established paleocon, ran a straight news story here without any agenda whatsoever. I received the information, then, lacking any other sources involved in that race, I relied on the research I could do in the public domain to see if I believed it. I am, I must say, one heck of a researcher, and I found pieces of information to corroborate at least this general trend. As this blog entry indicates, Paul had already indicated that he was scaling back his presidential campaign -- and that was before his people got the shocking results of the internal poll! So given what he had been saying recently, combined with this new information, yes, I was convinced.
Q: Still convinced?
A: Glad you asked so I could state it loudly and clearly: yes, I am convinced we will see Ron Paul withdraw from the presidential race before March 4. I am fully and personally accountable for that and if I am proven wrong (which I will not be), then the fault is mine and mine alone and I will not make unsubstantiated assertions such as, "Well he was going to drop out but reconsidered." Nope. I've got my story and I'm sticking to it.
Q: Even despite these denials in the comment section of your story thread?
A: Oh, touche, one person flatly says it's not true with no evidence, one person quotes a pro forma campaign denial and some Johnny Anonymous wants us to believe he talked to a key decision-maker in the organization. Well, I'll say this for them, they're as credible as any other Ron Paul supporters I've ever seen!
Q: Somehow I don't think that's a compliment.
A: You got that right. Anyhoo, let's move on to the falsehoods about this site. After I posted the news story, my colleague Tony Mazur posted a column about his ill feelings about the Paul campaign. Now, this site is mostly analysis; we don't break much original news like the Paul story here just because we're not inclined to put the resources into it. We prefer to focus on what we do well, which is to break down anything relevant going on regardless of subject. So Tony was merely doing what we do here, giving his two cents worth on the Ron Paul "Revolution." Somehow, that gets made by many to be justification for trashing the validity of our story. Some comprehension-challenged Einstein even posted in the thread for my story that MY hatred was causing me to spread propaganda. TONY said that he hated the Ron Paul supporters. Learn to read, doofus.
Q: Speaking of which, I'm sure you're censoring the comment section here.
A: Actually, no, I haven't had to disallow any comments yet. In the words of the great Brodie Bruce, "the usual vault rules apply." Keep the language at least PG-13 and stay away from any extremely over-the-top personal attacks and we'll publish it. I make no apologies for controlling which comments get posted here because we were hit with a spam attack previously, but we'll publish even ones we disagree with as long as they meet the very basic, very generous above criteria.
Q: Well, what are your feelings about Ron Paul? You say you are a paleocon.
A: Yes, I am a paleocon as I have said. Now, I was never a Ron Paul supporter because I believed strongly in the candidacy of Fred Thompson. Plus, while I'm with Paul on many of his domestic policies, I'm against him on foreign affairs. While I'm certainly not a neocon, and I ripped them a third cornhole here, my sense of "conservative realpolitik" does not extend to the point of what I believe to be Paul's isolationism and liberal pacifism. It's one thing to say as I did that if I could magically unilaterally turn back the hands of time and prevent mistakes that I would have kept us from going into Iraq, it's quite another thing to be in favor of capriciously quick withdrawal of our troops regardless of facts on the ground and to be such a hippie that you would have been against the Civil War. I'm not with him on nearly enough to be a supporter of his, but I do have a soft spot for politicians to the right of the Republican Establishment (as he is domestically) who are willing to play the irritant role. I said so right here.
Q: Liar! You, sir, are a lying liar who lies! I have read attacks on Ron Paul right here on your very blog!
A: Yes. You most certainly have. Our Senior Editor Jason Jones denounced him pretty harshly right here (plus, when he was discussing his most hated political figures with me today, he referred to him as "Mitt Romney's red-headed bastard brother"). And we already covered the fact that Tony disemboweled him with his keyboard right here. Frankly, out of all of The Dignitaries of The FDH Lounge, only Nate Noy has been known to agree with me on any of the areas of domestic policy where I think Paul is right, so I'm in the minority around here. But guess who has posted more political columns here than anyone else? That's right, it was me! So you can't accurately call something a Paul-hating blog when the most prolific political columnist on that blog doesn't even remotely hate Paul. Nice try.
Q: But (long pause) ... you're saying your blog had nice things to say about Paul and also mean things? Hulk confused!
A: Yes, we have had both good and bad things to say about Ron Paul. I hope this doesn't cause your uncomprehending head to explode. I have had some (moderately) good and (moderately) bad things to say about the congressman and Jason and Tony have unloaded on him with both barrels. Here's a hint, though. CHECK THE F'ING BYLINE!!! We all speak for ourselves around here! Aren't you Ron Paul "Revolutionaries" supposed to believe in autonomy and being accountable for your own opinions and lives? Well, we practice that around here. The straight news story I wrote had nothing to do with any opinion piece penned by any columnist around here before or since. The same is true in reverse, of course, and nobody else around here should get the sack dance performed on them except me if I am proven wrong (which again, I won't be).
Q: How can you be even somewhat sympathetic to Ron Paul and harsh on his supporters like you do?
A: Because you are like a freaking cult. Y'know, I'm a Constitutionalist, too. I holler about the Tenth Amendment myself all the time. I get all worked up about the original intent of the Founding Fathers. So I'm with Ron Paul there and I appreciate that he's the rare libertarian who doesn't think it's cool to use forceps to squash the skull of an unborn baby. But for me or anyone else who disagrees with RP on even some issues, why we're Enemies of the Republic! You people are by and large fanatics who would make even Tom Cruise say, "Whoa, back away from the Kool-Aid, fellas!" At this rather cynical point of my evolution as a political observer, there aren't many politicians I can get behind at all. But the ones I support -- I'd never, ever reflect on them as poorly as you folks reflect on Ron Paul. It's like I stated to Jason in our aforementioned conversation: "I don't think Ron Paul is a kook, but his followers sure are."
Q: Hey ... why am I getting this warm, pleasant feeling in my head? I've never had that before.
A: It's called knowledge. I'm glad I could impart some on ya.
Yesterday, I reported on our blog a straight news story about the Ron Paul campaign for president shutting down under the pressure of his congressional reelection campaign back home. As I fully anticipated, this has touched off a storm of reactions both in the wider Internet world and also to some extent here in our comment section. In order to correct the false statements about our blog that are being made, I decided that the most comprehensive and (equally important) least dreary way to correct the record would be in the form of an FAQ with the questions being posed (accusingly) by A Typical Ron Paul Supporter. Now, before anyone complains that I am lumping all Paul supporters together, that is untrue. I know that there are many sane and measured ones, but they are hugely atypical. Scan the Web and you'll see I'm right.
Frankly, the conclusions being drawn about me and my associates are clearly the work either of those with no capacity for reading comprehension (possibly) or are coming from extremely lazy folks who don't feel the need to educate themselves at all before they bellow incoherently out their cakeholes (more likely). In either event, the copious links in my answers should aid greatly in educating folks, at least those (likely few) capable of absorbing such a schooling.
Without any further ado, the questions and answers:
Q: We Ron Paul supporters know that you're just another ranting neocon ...
A: Hold up there, Chachi, you can't get me on that. I've said many times here that I'm a proud paleocon ...
Q: Did not!
A: Excuse me, yes I have. I did it this time, too.
Q: Did not!!!!!
A: Ooohkay. I heard this was how you Ron Paul people argued. Anyway, I'll get back to the point about my political philosophy and how that's relevant. Let's start with how this story came to be.
Q: Yes, let's do just that, you Tool of the GOP Beltway Power Elite!
A: Tool of the Beltway Power Elite (chuckles). Wow, didn't think I'd live long enough to hear myself called that. I'm certainly a shamefully ineffective one, then, having called Junior Bush less popular than gonorrhea right here just a few days ago. I'm a lot closer to getting myself audited by the IRS than I am to getting invited over to the White House to watch Texas Rangers games with Dubya. But don't let the facts get in the way of your name-calling. OK, back to the account. I was called out of the blue yesterday by the source I referenced in the story, someone with access to Paul's congressional campaign. This is someone I previously knew to be involved in the story in the Texas 14th and someone I've dealt with previously in a number of ways -- and I'm not going to be any more specific than that. I don't burn sources. Now, from what I read from Justin Higgins at Right on the Right, he very likely had the same source I did as I was also quoted the specific numbers from the internal poll, 43-32 Peden. I chose not to make mention of that as I wasn't sure at the time that exposing the specifics of the poll numbers wouldn't burn my source. As I piece together the timeline, it speaks well of Justin's character that he gave credit to us for being first on the story because he probably got his info not long after me and very easily could have pulled a "yoink" on us, but he chose not to. Well played, Justin, I appreciate that.
Q: Blah blah blah, you and your boring facts. Do you have a point?
A: Yes, actually, I do. I, a previously established paleocon, ran a straight news story here without any agenda whatsoever. I received the information, then, lacking any other sources involved in that race, I relied on the research I could do in the public domain to see if I believed it. I am, I must say, one heck of a researcher, and I found pieces of information to corroborate at least this general trend. As this blog entry indicates, Paul had already indicated that he was scaling back his presidential campaign -- and that was before his people got the shocking results of the internal poll! So given what he had been saying recently, combined with this new information, yes, I was convinced.
Q: Still convinced?
A: Glad you asked so I could state it loudly and clearly: yes, I am convinced we will see Ron Paul withdraw from the presidential race before March 4. I am fully and personally accountable for that and if I am proven wrong (which I will not be), then the fault is mine and mine alone and I will not make unsubstantiated assertions such as, "Well he was going to drop out but reconsidered." Nope. I've got my story and I'm sticking to it.
Q: Even despite these denials in the comment section of your story thread?
A: Oh, touche, one person flatly says it's not true with no evidence, one person quotes a pro forma campaign denial and some Johnny Anonymous wants us to believe he talked to a key decision-maker in the organization. Well, I'll say this for them, they're as credible as any other Ron Paul supporters I've ever seen!
Q: Somehow I don't think that's a compliment.
A: You got that right. Anyhoo, let's move on to the falsehoods about this site. After I posted the news story, my colleague Tony Mazur posted a column about his ill feelings about the Paul campaign. Now, this site is mostly analysis; we don't break much original news like the Paul story here just because we're not inclined to put the resources into it. We prefer to focus on what we do well, which is to break down anything relevant going on regardless of subject. So Tony was merely doing what we do here, giving his two cents worth on the Ron Paul "Revolution." Somehow, that gets made by many to be justification for trashing the validity of our story. Some comprehension-challenged Einstein even posted in the thread for my story that MY hatred was causing me to spread propaganda. TONY said that he hated the Ron Paul supporters. Learn to read, doofus.
Q: Speaking of which, I'm sure you're censoring the comment section here.
A: Actually, no, I haven't had to disallow any comments yet. In the words of the great Brodie Bruce, "the usual vault rules apply." Keep the language at least PG-13 and stay away from any extremely over-the-top personal attacks and we'll publish it. I make no apologies for controlling which comments get posted here because we were hit with a spam attack previously, but we'll publish even ones we disagree with as long as they meet the very basic, very generous above criteria.
Q: Well, what are your feelings about Ron Paul? You say you are a paleocon.
A: Yes, I am a paleocon as I have said. Now, I was never a Ron Paul supporter because I believed strongly in the candidacy of Fred Thompson. Plus, while I'm with Paul on many of his domestic policies, I'm against him on foreign affairs. While I'm certainly not a neocon, and I ripped them a third cornhole here, my sense of "conservative realpolitik" does not extend to the point of what I believe to be Paul's isolationism and liberal pacifism. It's one thing to say as I did that if I could magically unilaterally turn back the hands of time and prevent mistakes that I would have kept us from going into Iraq, it's quite another thing to be in favor of capriciously quick withdrawal of our troops regardless of facts on the ground and to be such a hippie that you would have been against the Civil War. I'm not with him on nearly enough to be a supporter of his, but I do have a soft spot for politicians to the right of the Republican Establishment (as he is domestically) who are willing to play the irritant role. I said so right here.
Q: Liar! You, sir, are a lying liar who lies! I have read attacks on Ron Paul right here on your very blog!
A: Yes. You most certainly have. Our Senior Editor Jason Jones denounced him pretty harshly right here (plus, when he was discussing his most hated political figures with me today, he referred to him as "Mitt Romney's red-headed bastard brother"). And we already covered the fact that Tony disemboweled him with his keyboard right here. Frankly, out of all of The Dignitaries of The FDH Lounge, only Nate Noy has been known to agree with me on any of the areas of domestic policy where I think Paul is right, so I'm in the minority around here. But guess who has posted more political columns here than anyone else? That's right, it was me! So you can't accurately call something a Paul-hating blog when the most prolific political columnist on that blog doesn't even remotely hate Paul. Nice try.
Q: But (long pause) ... you're saying your blog had nice things to say about Paul and also mean things? Hulk confused!
A: Yes, we have had both good and bad things to say about Ron Paul. I hope this doesn't cause your uncomprehending head to explode. I have had some (moderately) good and (moderately) bad things to say about the congressman and Jason and Tony have unloaded on him with both barrels. Here's a hint, though. CHECK THE F'ING BYLINE!!! We all speak for ourselves around here! Aren't you Ron Paul "Revolutionaries" supposed to believe in autonomy and being accountable for your own opinions and lives? Well, we practice that around here. The straight news story I wrote had nothing to do with any opinion piece penned by any columnist around here before or since. The same is true in reverse, of course, and nobody else around here should get the sack dance performed on them except me if I am proven wrong (which again, I won't be).
Q: How can you be even somewhat sympathetic to Ron Paul and harsh on his supporters like you do?
A: Because you are like a freaking cult. Y'know, I'm a Constitutionalist, too. I holler about the Tenth Amendment myself all the time. I get all worked up about the original intent of the Founding Fathers. So I'm with Ron Paul there and I appreciate that he's the rare libertarian who doesn't think it's cool to use forceps to squash the skull of an unborn baby. But for me or anyone else who disagrees with RP on even some issues, why we're Enemies of the Republic! You people are by and large fanatics who would make even Tom Cruise say, "Whoa, back away from the Kool-Aid, fellas!" At this rather cynical point of my evolution as a political observer, there aren't many politicians I can get behind at all. But the ones I support -- I'd never, ever reflect on them as poorly as you folks reflect on Ron Paul. It's like I stated to Jason in our aforementioned conversation: "I don't think Ron Paul is a kook, but his followers sure are."
Q: Hey ... why am I getting this warm, pleasant feeling in my head? I've never had that before.
A: It's called knowledge. I'm glad I could impart some on ya.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Politically Incorrect Icons of Yesteryear: Looney Tunes
By Tony Mazur
Remember waking up on Saturday mornings and you made yourself an overflowing bowl of cereal and turned the TV on? Because you're young and you don't know any better, you turned up the TV really loud, waking up your parents. You knew what channel had the Saturday morning cartoons. From 6:00 until noon, the house permeated sugar cereal and the sounds of falling anvils and TNT.
If you're between the ages of 10 and 80, you grew up with the Looney Tunes. I grew up watching all of the shorts. So did my father. He even has a tattoo of Yosemite Sam on his bicep. We all know the characters; Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Speedy Gonzales, Foghorn Leghorn, Sylvester the Cat, Tweety, the Road Runner, Wile E. Coyote, Pepe Le Pew, Elmer Fudd, the Tasmanian Devil (Taz), and much, much more.
As of a few years ago, all Looney Tunes have been removed from syndication. They had a great run from the 1950s until approximately 2001, last shown on Ted Turner's Cartoon Network. My dad and I were devastated when we noticed Cartoon Network replaced Merrie Melodies in favor of Courage, The Cowardly Dog.
Looney Tunes has encountered much controversy over the years. Well, actually the last few years. Special interest groups have come out against the cartoons, saying the amount of stereotypes displayed in the cartoons is deplorable. Speedy Gonzales cartoons were pulled from syndication in 1999 because of their alleged stereotyping of Mexicans. In the early cartoons, some characters danced around in blackface. During World War II, many anti-German shorts were shown at movie theaters to pep the spirits of the soldiers.
Another criticism of the Looney Tunes is the incessant violence throughout. Guns, cannons, mousetraps, hammers, etc., were used as a form of slapstick humor. In one particular cartoon, Rabbit Fire (a.k.a. Wabbit Season, Duck Season), Elmer Fudd shoots Daffy Duck in the face a few times, knocking his bullet-holed bill off of his face. ABC replaced the scene with still frames, but CBS and the former WB network cut out the entire scene.
I miss the Looney Tunes. Today's cartoons don't even hold a candle compared to Chuck Jones and Tex Avery shorts. I really do not think these cartoons transcended into real-life violence. I don't think kids hit each other with garden hoes and wooden mallets after watching animated mice do the same to hungry cats.
I think it was absurd that the networks censored Speedy Gonzales cartoons. Can we just admit that racial humor is funny? Isn't that why Chappelle's Show was so successful?
I'm tired of this political correctness. There is no more humor in our society. You can't make fun of blacks, gays, Jews, women, Muslims, etc., but it's fine and dandy to make fun of white men, especially President Bush. The key to having a successful television commercial nowadays is to include talking or singing animals or babies. And if a spot features a singing animal AND baby, well, hold onto your socks, folks!
And so, we salute the Looney Tunes as they drift away from our society, along with culture and comedy. I guess I'll just have to buy all the DVDs...
Remember waking up on Saturday mornings and you made yourself an overflowing bowl of cereal and turned the TV on? Because you're young and you don't know any better, you turned up the TV really loud, waking up your parents. You knew what channel had the Saturday morning cartoons. From 6:00 until noon, the house permeated sugar cereal and the sounds of falling anvils and TNT.
If you're between the ages of 10 and 80, you grew up with the Looney Tunes. I grew up watching all of the shorts. So did my father. He even has a tattoo of Yosemite Sam on his bicep. We all know the characters; Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Speedy Gonzales, Foghorn Leghorn, Sylvester the Cat, Tweety, the Road Runner, Wile E. Coyote, Pepe Le Pew, Elmer Fudd, the Tasmanian Devil (Taz), and much, much more.
As of a few years ago, all Looney Tunes have been removed from syndication. They had a great run from the 1950s until approximately 2001, last shown on Ted Turner's Cartoon Network. My dad and I were devastated when we noticed Cartoon Network replaced Merrie Melodies in favor of Courage, The Cowardly Dog.
Looney Tunes has encountered much controversy over the years. Well, actually the last few years. Special interest groups have come out against the cartoons, saying the amount of stereotypes displayed in the cartoons is deplorable. Speedy Gonzales cartoons were pulled from syndication in 1999 because of their alleged stereotyping of Mexicans. In the early cartoons, some characters danced around in blackface. During World War II, many anti-German shorts were shown at movie theaters to pep the spirits of the soldiers.
Another criticism of the Looney Tunes is the incessant violence throughout. Guns, cannons, mousetraps, hammers, etc., were used as a form of slapstick humor. In one particular cartoon, Rabbit Fire (a.k.a. Wabbit Season, Duck Season), Elmer Fudd shoots Daffy Duck in the face a few times, knocking his bullet-holed bill off of his face. ABC replaced the scene with still frames, but CBS and the former WB network cut out the entire scene.
I miss the Looney Tunes. Today's cartoons don't even hold a candle compared to Chuck Jones and Tex Avery shorts. I really do not think these cartoons transcended into real-life violence. I don't think kids hit each other with garden hoes and wooden mallets after watching animated mice do the same to hungry cats.
I think it was absurd that the networks censored Speedy Gonzales cartoons. Can we just admit that racial humor is funny? Isn't that why Chappelle's Show was so successful?
I'm tired of this political correctness. There is no more humor in our society. You can't make fun of blacks, gays, Jews, women, Muslims, etc., but it's fine and dandy to make fun of white men, especially President Bush. The key to having a successful television commercial nowadays is to include talking or singing animals or babies. And if a spot features a singing animal AND baby, well, hold onto your socks, folks!
And so, we salute the Looney Tunes as they drift away from our society, along with culture and comedy. I guess I'll just have to buy all the DVDs...
Sunday, February 10, 2008
With friends like W, McCain doesn't need enemies
By Rick Morris
This guy is who's calling you a true conservative? The guy whose many deviations from sound public policy have led to a position in the public opinion polls showing him as slightly less popular than gonorrhea?
I'm going to assume that the talking points McCain sent to Dubya got lost in the mail. If he was looking for a real boost from "The Decider," the statement would have read, "This guy's not nearly the squish on conservative policies I am. Why, if you elect that right-wing maniac, he's bound to do radical things like cut spending and restore the school voucher system I squashed!"
Having either President Bush vouch for your conservative credentials is much like having Kobe Bryant praise you as an unselfish teammate.
This guy is who's calling you a true conservative? The guy whose many deviations from sound public policy have led to a position in the public opinion polls showing him as slightly less popular than gonorrhea?
I'm going to assume that the talking points McCain sent to Dubya got lost in the mail. If he was looking for a real boost from "The Decider," the statement would have read, "This guy's not nearly the squish on conservative policies I am. Why, if you elect that right-wing maniac, he's bound to do radical things like cut spending and restore the school voucher system I squashed!"
Having either President Bush vouch for your conservative credentials is much like having Kobe Bryant praise you as an unselfish teammate.
Redemption for right wing leaders
By Rick Morris
The fawning embrace given to Mitt Romney by so-called conservative leaders (bloggers, talk radio hosts, activists/lobbyists) was deeply damaging to their own credibility – but it was also unfortunately hurtful to the interests of the larger movement they claim to represent. While I’m not losing sleep about the harm done to the reputations of those like Hugh Hewitt who so consistently demeaned and undermined legitimate candidates in the race, I do recognize their power to diminish the future of this country since so many give them credit for speaking for the conservative movement. I do think the revolt against these people was a positive development, as the arrogance we’ve seen on display indicates that they’ve lost touch with those they purport to lead. Every intellectual revolution, such as this one that started with Goldwater, Buckley and Reagan back in the early ‘60s, eventually ossifies and becomes exactly that which it was supposed to oppose. For right-wingers, the Romney bandwagon of 2007-08 was the Animal Farm moment.
Herewith, my free advice for how these luminaries can get out of the hole they’ve dug for themselves and American conservatism:
^ Have the humility to read this column all the way through. Already, there are signs that the grand poobahs still don’t get it and want to foist the Mittster on us again four years hence. In this article, it is revealed that, in an insanely presumptuous and egomaniacal move, American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene took it upon himself to personally welcome Romney into the conservative movement at C-PAC. [Side note to Davey: You did nothing but induct him as a member of your little Beltway boys club. It’s very interesting that you have such contempt for the fact that a majority of conservatives in this country rejected your pet and would never call him one of their own. Who died and left you as The Sultan of American Conservatism? I’m just wondering if you put him through some rituals as part of a ceremony, such as “pinky swears” or a quiz on Bill Buckley’s five favorite Latin phrases.]. The continued arrogance of those who refuse to “get it” about Romney is unbelievable, inasmuch as they should be able to read the cold hard facts; if Mitt were the “great right hope,” then McCain and Huck put together wouldn’t have been able to stop him and he would have been more than a doormat in the bastion-of-conservatism Southern states. Leveling spurious charges of religious bigotry against the folks you clearly perceive to be nothing more than Flyover Country peasants won’t get you anywhere either. You need to accept the fact that the work many of you did for Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1976 could very well be invalidated by the destructive moves you’ve pulled lately and in some cases persist in doing.
^ Crawl out of your echo chamber and be willing to defend your opinions. This piece of advice applies mostly to the talk radio potentates, most of whom hide behind the skirts of their call-screeners. Take a lesson from Michael Medved, who not only accepts calls from those unfriendly to his point of view but specifically seeks them. You have to get in fighting trim and go beyond accepting arse-kissing missives from vapid folks like “Dittoheads” and be willing to mix it up and articulate your principles in a consistent manner or learn to deal with irrelevance in a world fast leaving you behind.
^ Take an honest look at where you went wrong. Most of you were silent when you had a chance to boost Fred Thompson. Some of you, like Hewitt, actively slimed him. Regardless of how far off the reservation you went, you damaged the advancement of vital American causes. You did so in the false belief that you were embracing a candidate as sleek and supercharged as the American Motors company his father once ran. Instead, you ended up climbing aboard an Edsel that could not meet any necessary performance standards (justifying the megabucks investment in the early state contests, connecting with voters on any level, finding explanations for a myriad of conveniently-timed policy changes, creating an even moderately-successful campaign message). At long last, you need to admit that you picked the wrong “vehicle” and stop blaming others for the inevitable crash into the ditch.
^ Stop bashing populism. This edict applies specifically to good old El Rushbo, who denounced populism as part of his intellectually dishonest critique of Huck. One wonders exactly what he considers his denunciation of entities such as Nancy Pelosi and the “intellectual elites!” I realize that I speak as a member of the paleoconservative wing of the movement, which unfortunately accounts for a small minority, but let it be said once and for all that populism is a good thing! Certainly, Rush doesn’t like the concept when it’s turned on him, but that should have been an early sign that he was in the wrong. Some types of populism, such as the economic form of it that panders to folks of an illiterate mentality, are idiotic. But always, in making a choice between the people and their leaders who are pushing them down the primrose path, I side with the people and anyone aspiring to lead the conservative movement must also do no less.
^ Speak truth to power. The conservative intelligentsia has spent the last seven years toadying up to the Bush crew at all costs – Limbaugh and Hannity in particular come to mind. They’ve overlooked a host of offenses against sound policy but now ask us to get outraged about ones made by John McCain! [Another aside: how the heck does George W. Bush get a hero’s welcome at C-PAC from the same audience of “purists” who had to be begged not to chuck tomatoes at McCain? Again, not that McCain’s Mr. Right himself, but he’s made no more transgressions than Dubya and arguably has had less. But Bush pretends harder to be a consistent conservative than McCain does and appeases the sheep that way. Quite a shame the way the psychology works]. A little less worry about access to the Bushies and a little more pressure to do the right thing would have been better for the country, even if the individuals involved wouldn’t get invited to as many ice cream socials. The idea isn’t to be loved by the political elite, it’s to keep them honest. You people don’t need my admonition to hold McCain’s feet to the fire; it’s a tragic shame for our country that you chose not to apply the same standard to “The Decider.”
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Super Tuesday Liveblogging-Waiting on California
by Jason Jones
Almost 2 hours since the last post, the results have changed more closely toward my favor. I want to address the delegate issue. Clearly, I do not agree with the delegate aspect at all. The House of Representatives members are determined by population per state. The American way is to have balance, that balance is found in the Senate; 2 across the board. In my simplistic way of thinking, whoever wins the most states wins, period. This happens in some fantasy sports. If one person dominates, we alter the rules to make it fair. The analogy is this, if Barack Obama wins 46 states and Hillary Clinton gets 4, there should be no wayClinton California Texas New York Florida
Almost 2 hours since the last post, the results have changed more closely toward my favor. I want to address the delegate issue. Clearly, I do not agree with the delegate aspect at all. The House of Representatives members are determined by population per state. The American way is to have balance, that balance is found in the Senate; 2 across the board. In my simplistic way of thinking, whoever wins the most states wins, period. This happens in some fantasy sports. If one person dominates, we alter the rules to make it fair. The analogy is this, if Barack Obama wins 46 states and Hillary Clinton gets 4, there should be no way
I am still, like most of you, waiting for
John McCain-AZ, CT, DE, IL, NJ, NY, OK
Mittens
Mike
Barack Obama-AL, CO, CT, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, ND, UT
Hillary Clinton-AZ, AR, MA, NJ, NY, OK, TN
The math nerds at Fox News are reporting that even if McCain/Obama lose
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Romney hypocrites: sit down and shut up!
By Rick Morris
With the whiff of desperation in the air, the followers of Objectively Unfit Mitt (click here for 50 great reasons to vote against Romney) are insulting the intelligence of every voter on the right by proclaiming the superior purity of their hearts and they are also quite busy demeaning everyone opposed to their hollow hero as a squish or tool of the media or worse.
Well, I've had about all I can take from these posers and it's time to hang them with their own words.
Let's be quite unambiguous about this: the betrayers on the right who have thrown in with Mitt Romney's attempt to dupe the American people and are now daring to present themselves as "more conservative than thou" have transgressed against conservative policy way more than I ever have in my voting record or support of candidates -- and that's true of countless other citizens as well.
Because of space consideration, I'm going to limit this to one apiece, but here are several reasons that the leading opinion-shapers on the right who are trying to shove Mittens down our throats have PREVIOUSLY proven that they are not to be trusted.
^ Rick Santorum, who courts an image of the purest of the pure right-wingers, is a complete phony who colluded with Dubya and the D.C. power brokers to save Arlen Spector's worthless RINO hyde in the '04 primary.
^ Rush Limbaugh bashed Pat Buchanan and other challengers to Bob Dole in '96 and H.W.'s boy in '00 in faithful, unquestioning service to the Washington Republican Establishment he now amusingly claims to have always opposed.
^ Hugh Hewitt -- ah, how do you limit yourself to just one of his intellectually dishonest bon mots -- OK, here we go -- he, the self-professed arch-nemesis of all things "MSM," took to the New York Times editorial page to whimper about how the conservative movement had lost its moorings by depriving America of That Future Hall of Fame Supreme Court Justice, Harriet Miers.
^ I lied, here's another one about "El Rushbo": he took an elitist stand disregarding the wishes of the American people regarding the Dubai ports fiasco.
^ Michelle Malkin played the fool during Hurricane Katrina by assuming that just because state and local authorities, under the control of Democrats were incompetent (they were) that the Feds, controlled by Dubya Who Can Do No Wrong were competent (they were not): "Contrary to the usual Bush-deranged kvetching, the president is on the job."
^ Sean Hannity, whose Bush-era sniveling sycophancy is second to none, praised the PRE-SURGE state of affairs in the Middle East in his customary slavish terms in 2004.
^ Mark Levin, maybe the most holier-than-thou basher of anti-Romney Republicans, was so big a pro-Bush sellout that he tried to drag down the Gipper by using him as cover for George W's misadventures.
As has been documented previously on this esteemed blog, Fred Thompson was The One True Hope of The Right in this election cycle and the above members of Mendacious Mitt's Choir failed to "mount up and ride to the sound of the guns" when they legitimately had a chance to stand up for the future of this country. To them, and the other nauseating "opinion leaders" on the right who want to lead us down the primrose path as they demonstrably have before:
Sit down and shut up.
With the whiff of desperation in the air, the followers of Objectively Unfit Mitt (click here for 50 great reasons to vote against Romney) are insulting the intelligence of every voter on the right by proclaiming the superior purity of their hearts and they are also quite busy demeaning everyone opposed to their hollow hero as a squish or tool of the media or worse.
Well, I've had about all I can take from these posers and it's time to hang them with their own words.
Let's be quite unambiguous about this: the betrayers on the right who have thrown in with Mitt Romney's attempt to dupe the American people and are now daring to present themselves as "more conservative than thou" have transgressed against conservative policy way more than I ever have in my voting record or support of candidates -- and that's true of countless other citizens as well.
Because of space consideration, I'm going to limit this to one apiece, but here are several reasons that the leading opinion-shapers on the right who are trying to shove Mittens down our throats have PREVIOUSLY proven that they are not to be trusted.
^ Rick Santorum, who courts an image of the purest of the pure right-wingers, is a complete phony who colluded with Dubya and the D.C. power brokers to save Arlen Spector's worthless RINO hyde in the '04 primary.
^ Rush Limbaugh bashed Pat Buchanan and other challengers to Bob Dole in '96 and H.W.'s boy in '00 in faithful, unquestioning service to the Washington Republican Establishment he now amusingly claims to have always opposed.
^ Hugh Hewitt -- ah, how do you limit yourself to just one of his intellectually dishonest bon mots -- OK, here we go -- he, the self-professed arch-nemesis of all things "MSM," took to the New York Times editorial page to whimper about how the conservative movement had lost its moorings by depriving America of That Future Hall of Fame Supreme Court Justice, Harriet Miers.
^ I lied, here's another one about "El Rushbo": he took an elitist stand disregarding the wishes of the American people regarding the Dubai ports fiasco.
^ Michelle Malkin played the fool during Hurricane Katrina by assuming that just because state and local authorities, under the control of Democrats were incompetent (they were) that the Feds, controlled by Dubya Who Can Do No Wrong were competent (they were not): "Contrary to the usual Bush-deranged kvetching, the president is on the job."
^ Sean Hannity, whose Bush-era sniveling sycophancy is second to none, praised the PRE-SURGE state of affairs in the Middle East in his customary slavish terms in 2004.
^ Mark Levin, maybe the most holier-than-thou basher of anti-Romney Republicans, was so big a pro-Bush sellout that he tried to drag down the Gipper by using him as cover for George W's misadventures.
As has been documented previously on this esteemed blog, Fred Thompson was The One True Hope of The Right in this election cycle and the above members of Mendacious Mitt's Choir failed to "mount up and ride to the sound of the guns" when they legitimately had a chance to stand up for the future of this country. To them, and the other nauseating "opinion leaders" on the right who want to lead us down the primrose path as they demonstrably have before:
Sit down and shut up.
Monday, January 28, 2008
My Thoughts on the State of the Union Address
By Tony Mazur
In his eighth and final State of the Union Address, President Bush came out firing, flared nostrils and all.
I'm not a big fan of the non-stop applause breaks (there were roughly 70 of them). But when you look into the crowd from the overhead camera, you can see the divided room. The Republicans are standing and clapping, while the Democrats sat there, nodding off like Bill Clinton at a Martin Luther King, Jr. Ceremony.
Anyways, onto my thoughts.
President Bush brought up the fact that elementary school students are scoring higher on test scores than ever before. That includes African Americans and Hispanics. Democrats ripped on the president, saying the No Child Left Behind Act was a waste of time and money. It appears to be working now, isn't it?
Another topic was the Patriot Act. Since September 11th, 2001, there hasn't been an attack on American soil. We can thank the Patriot Act for that. There has been attempts to attack Los Angeles and other major cities in the United States, with no success. They tapped the terrorists' phone lines to stop the attack before it even started. They weren't tapping Joe Blow's cell phone in Middleburg Heights, Ohio. And if they were, what do you have to hide?
I'm glad Mr. Bush brought up the fact that we can find stem cells without aborting babies. You can find stem cells anywhere, not just from an unborn fetus. Us conservatives were all about stem cell research. We just didn't want to kill babies to do so, and we also do not want the federal government funding the research.
Can we start drilling for oil in America? Can we?
I only questioned a couple of parts in President Bush's speech. One of them was global warming. Global warming is a non-issue. Unless you can convince China to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released, don't waste your time. Not surprisingly, the Democrats stood up and cheered loudly when the term "global warming" was brought up.
The President brought up an interesting stat. More than half of the World's food aid comes from the United States. I understand that we are global power, but can we stop being the global police? AIDS is running rampant in Africa, and it won't stop no matter how much money you send overseas.
I'm still not completely happy with President Bush's stance on immigration. I'm all about bringing Mexicans into America to give them jobs, but they should go through an extensive process before receiving a green card. Either they take these strides, or build a giant wall on the banks of the Rio Grande.
I personally think the recession is a bit phony. Just throwing that out there. Tell me what you think.
All in all, I think it was a good speech. President Bush has less than a year left in the White House until he hands it over to the next gentleman. His approval rating may be low right now (who regulates the approval ratings, anyway?), but I feel that in the next 10-15 years, George W. Bush will be vindicated as a great president. Wait and see.
In his eighth and final State of the Union Address, President Bush came out firing, flared nostrils and all.
I'm not a big fan of the non-stop applause breaks (there were roughly 70 of them). But when you look into the crowd from the overhead camera, you can see the divided room. The Republicans are standing and clapping, while the Democrats sat there, nodding off like Bill Clinton at a Martin Luther King, Jr. Ceremony.
Anyways, onto my thoughts.
President Bush brought up the fact that elementary school students are scoring higher on test scores than ever before. That includes African Americans and Hispanics. Democrats ripped on the president, saying the No Child Left Behind Act was a waste of time and money. It appears to be working now, isn't it?
Another topic was the Patriot Act. Since September 11th, 2001, there hasn't been an attack on American soil. We can thank the Patriot Act for that. There has been attempts to attack Los Angeles and other major cities in the United States, with no success. They tapped the terrorists' phone lines to stop the attack before it even started. They weren't tapping Joe Blow's cell phone in Middleburg Heights, Ohio. And if they were, what do you have to hide?
I'm glad Mr. Bush brought up the fact that we can find stem cells without aborting babies. You can find stem cells anywhere, not just from an unborn fetus. Us conservatives were all about stem cell research. We just didn't want to kill babies to do so, and we also do not want the federal government funding the research.
Can we start drilling for oil in America? Can we?
I only questioned a couple of parts in President Bush's speech. One of them was global warming. Global warming is a non-issue. Unless you can convince China to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released, don't waste your time. Not surprisingly, the Democrats stood up and cheered loudly when the term "global warming" was brought up.
The President brought up an interesting stat. More than half of the World's food aid comes from the United States. I understand that we are global power, but can we stop being the global police? AIDS is running rampant in Africa, and it won't stop no matter how much money you send overseas.
I'm still not completely happy with President Bush's stance on immigration. I'm all about bringing Mexicans into America to give them jobs, but they should go through an extensive process before receiving a green card. Either they take these strides, or build a giant wall on the banks of the Rio Grande.
I personally think the recession is a bit phony. Just throwing that out there. Tell me what you think.
All in all, I think it was a good speech. President Bush has less than a year left in the White House until he hands it over to the next gentleman. His approval rating may be low right now (who regulates the approval ratings, anyway?), but I feel that in the next 10-15 years, George W. Bush will be vindicated as a great president. Wait and see.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
It's America's loss, not Fred's
By Rick Morris
Fair warning: Bitterness Alert!
Every four years, you always hear people whining about the choice for president. "I can't believe it's Bush and Kerry. Can't we do better than that?" Four years before that, people were appalled by the choice between Bush and Gore. And on and on it goes.
Almost invariably, though, this country generally has at least a decent chance to do better, but rejects it in favor of a flashier or better-funded empty suit. The USA blew it again today when Fred Thompson dropped out of the race. Hence, history will repeat itself later this year when people are crying about the pathetic choice foisted upon this nation by the Democrats and Republicans.
Fred had it all: he possessed common-sense ideas that have been validated over the decades, he took on volatile issues like entitlement reform, he was a solid communicator and he treated the American public with decency and respect and had the courage to ask the same in return. This country, and in particular the Republican Party and the conservative movement, chose instead to their everlasting shame to continue their pattern (broken only by Reagan) of foisting crappy mediocrities on this land of ours.
Some of my friends who are Republican insiders, including some members of The FDH Lounge family, believe in the "Jim Rome Scoreboard Theory of Politics." That is, if you're the last man standing, that you're the best man because you proved your worth by going through the gauntlet. Scoreboard!
I couldn't disagree more.
Fred Thompson was the best man and it is only a broken system that kept him from being able to break through the glass ceiling put on him by the jerks in the media and the political class. His failure is an INDICTMENT of our political system. This is one reason that, although I don't like it, I'm not as consumed with hatred for McCain-Feingold as my aforementioned friends. Granted, the law is unconstitutional and was a bad idea. But unlike my friends, I refuse to glorify the present system and pretend there's nothing wrong with it. Winning a nomination by being the best at conspiring in smoke-filled rooms with party puppet-masters is the proven way to get ahead -- as the nominations of both political parties have shown over the past few decades. But it is nothing for our country to be proud of, as it is evidence that our democracy is broken. Now before any of my friends get the urge to go more-conservative-than-thou on me for appropriating the language of The Nation magazine for my critique, let me remind them that our Founding Fathers, whom we on the right respect greatly, did not intend for the pursuit of our nation's highest office to be just another game of casino capitalism.
Political pundits are now wondering where the Thompson support will end up now. As for me, I am disregarding early indications that Thompson will not make an endorsement and I anticipate that he will endorse John McCain -- and, given the prominent right-wingers (i.e. Gramm/Kemp/Coburn) who have recently surrounded McCain and figure to serve as his braintrust if elected president, I will probably give McCain my reluctant support as well.
I do want to beg any of my fellow Fred supporters, who have by definition been smart enough not to get hoodwinked by Say-Anything Mittens (rumor has it he's going around saying he's the only person who can get Axl Rose to release the Chinese Democracy album!) not to give into this vile fraud of a campaign at this late hour. Not only are Romney's convictions demonstrably only an inch deep, the rotten Romney campaign should pay a price for the whisper campaign waged about Fred's viability from Day One -- with the low point being the cancer-mongering put forth by one of their chief mouthpieces. This nation today suffered the loss of its best candidate for president -- let's not compound the error by awarding the GOP nomination to a denizen of the political gutter.
Fair warning: Bitterness Alert!
Every four years, you always hear people whining about the choice for president. "I can't believe it's Bush and Kerry. Can't we do better than that?" Four years before that, people were appalled by the choice between Bush and Gore. And on and on it goes.
Almost invariably, though, this country generally has at least a decent chance to do better, but rejects it in favor of a flashier or better-funded empty suit. The USA blew it again today when Fred Thompson dropped out of the race. Hence, history will repeat itself later this year when people are crying about the pathetic choice foisted upon this nation by the Democrats and Republicans.
Fred had it all: he possessed common-sense ideas that have been validated over the decades, he took on volatile issues like entitlement reform, he was a solid communicator and he treated the American public with decency and respect and had the courage to ask the same in return. This country, and in particular the Republican Party and the conservative movement, chose instead to their everlasting shame to continue their pattern (broken only by Reagan) of foisting crappy mediocrities on this land of ours.
Some of my friends who are Republican insiders, including some members of The FDH Lounge family, believe in the "Jim Rome Scoreboard Theory of Politics." That is, if you're the last man standing, that you're the best man because you proved your worth by going through the gauntlet. Scoreboard!
I couldn't disagree more.
Fred Thompson was the best man and it is only a broken system that kept him from being able to break through the glass ceiling put on him by the jerks in the media and the political class. His failure is an INDICTMENT of our political system. This is one reason that, although I don't like it, I'm not as consumed with hatred for McCain-Feingold as my aforementioned friends. Granted, the law is unconstitutional and was a bad idea. But unlike my friends, I refuse to glorify the present system and pretend there's nothing wrong with it. Winning a nomination by being the best at conspiring in smoke-filled rooms with party puppet-masters is the proven way to get ahead -- as the nominations of both political parties have shown over the past few decades. But it is nothing for our country to be proud of, as it is evidence that our democracy is broken. Now before any of my friends get the urge to go more-conservative-than-thou on me for appropriating the language of The Nation magazine for my critique, let me remind them that our Founding Fathers, whom we on the right respect greatly, did not intend for the pursuit of our nation's highest office to be just another game of casino capitalism.
Political pundits are now wondering where the Thompson support will end up now. As for me, I am disregarding early indications that Thompson will not make an endorsement and I anticipate that he will endorse John McCain -- and, given the prominent right-wingers (i.e. Gramm/Kemp/Coburn) who have recently surrounded McCain and figure to serve as his braintrust if elected president, I will probably give McCain my reluctant support as well.
I do want to beg any of my fellow Fred supporters, who have by definition been smart enough not to get hoodwinked by Say-Anything Mittens (rumor has it he's going around saying he's the only person who can get Axl Rose to release the Chinese Democracy album!) not to give into this vile fraud of a campaign at this late hour. Not only are Romney's convictions demonstrably only an inch deep, the rotten Romney campaign should pay a price for the whisper campaign waged about Fred's viability from Day One -- with the low point being the cancer-mongering put forth by one of their chief mouthpieces. This nation today suffered the loss of its best candidate for president -- let's not compound the error by awarding the GOP nomination to a denizen of the political gutter.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Mittens' Say-Anything Campaign
By Rick Morris
Answer the question honestly. With the amount of mud already slung by the Mitt Romney campaign, aren't you expecting to hear any minute that his operatives have been push-polling asking South Carolina voters if they're comfortable knowing that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black baby?
Team Mittens can deny all they want that they've been behind the vicious smears attacking McCain in South Carolina this time around, many of which echo directly those working "on behalf of" George W. Bush eight years ago. Those fevered-pitch denials would carry a lot more weight if not for the millions of dollars of distorting negative ads out of Daddy's Fortune that the Flip-Flopper-in-Chief hadn't dumped on his opponents in the first few presidential contests of this election cycle. And yet the Trust Fund Baby is crying in his creme brulee about a McCain mailer that accurately represents the Reprehensible Romney Record in Massachusetts.
Don't buy the distractions, the claims of the high moral road or anything else that Willard Mitt's crew of Establishment Puppetmasters are putting out at the eleventh hour. When it comes to sleazy, morally bankrupt attacks being run from the shadows in this campaign, the Romney record suggests that he should be considered guilty until proven innocent.
Answer the question honestly. With the amount of mud already slung by the Mitt Romney campaign, aren't you expecting to hear any minute that his operatives have been push-polling asking South Carolina voters if they're comfortable knowing that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black baby?
Team Mittens can deny all they want that they've been behind the vicious smears attacking McCain in South Carolina this time around, many of which echo directly those working "on behalf of" George W. Bush eight years ago. Those fevered-pitch denials would carry a lot more weight if not for the millions of dollars of distorting negative ads out of Daddy's Fortune that the Flip-Flopper-in-Chief hadn't dumped on his opponents in the first few presidential contests of this election cycle. And yet the Trust Fund Baby is crying in his creme brulee about a McCain mailer that accurately represents the Reprehensible Romney Record in Massachusetts.
Don't buy the distractions, the claims of the high moral road or anything else that Willard Mitt's crew of Establishment Puppetmasters are putting out at the eleventh hour. When it comes to sleazy, morally bankrupt attacks being run from the shadows in this campaign, the Romney record suggests that he should be considered guilty until proven innocent.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Live Blogging: Comedy Central’s Last Laugh ‘07
By Samantha Jones
Last Laugh '07 started off with a pretty tasteless cartoon open that touched on the following subjects....
-Senator Larry Craig
-The iPhone
-Don Imus
-George W. Bush
-George W. Bush wiping his ass with the Bill of Rights
-Dick Cheney
-Osama Bin Laden
-The Soprano's Finale
-David Hasselhoff
The whole open centered around "what's up the president's ass". It was all just one huge gross poop joke. Now, I like poop jokes as much as the next guy, but this was just bad.
Lewis Black did a little opening bit, mostly about the president. He did talk about the disabled veterans not getting their checks, which is were you get the "I can download 13 million vagina's in a minute, but they can't get their checks" joke from the promo.
Cue first commercial break.
The online pole question, "Who is the biggest failure of 2007" was posted by Lewis Black. The choices - Britney Spears, Michael Vick, President Bush, and the Soprano's Finale. My vote? All of the above.
Dave Attell was up next. His subjects of choice were the following:
-Getting older
-Dog the Bounty Hunter saying the N-word
-Michael Vick
-Al Gore receiving the Nobel Prize
-Vanessa Hudgens nude photo
After that, he went into his usual gross stuff, talking about porn and such.
I like Dave Attell. Insomniac used to be one of my favorite shows. He did have a funny moment here and there, but nothing you'll want to quote around the water cooler. This time around, he wasn't really that funny.
Cue second commercial break.
DL Hughley was up next with.....
-How much white people love dogs
-OJ Simpson
-Barry Bonds
-Chinese imports
-the N-word
-Isiah Thomas
-the Presidential race
-Alec Baldwin
-How kids are soft and weak these days
-Teachers having sex with kids
-Star Jones having gastric bypass surgery
Holy crap did he run through a lot of material. It was hard to keep up with how fast he talked. Again...nothing that funny.
Cue third commercial break.
And now, the man I was waiting for...Lewis Black...
-Global warming
-Scooter Libby
-Alberto Gonzales
-Senator Larry Craig
-Michael Vick
-OJ Simpson
They broke up his set with the fourth commercial break.
Aaaaaaand....we're back with more Lewis Black...
-The 2008 Elections, where he said we should vote for Santa
-We need one headline on the front page of the newspaper that makes you "laugh until coffee shoots out of your nose". A headline like "Hippo eats Dwarf".
Lewis Black then dedicated the show to the men and women of the armed forces in an unusual serious moment.
Fifth commercial break...
And the biggest failure was.....George W. Bush. Big surprise.
Back from break, they had podiums set up for a question and answer session. I didn't even bother writing down the questions because most of them were stupid and the answers were not funny.
I'm very disappointed in this year's Last Laugh. Previous years have been really funny, but this year was just awkward. Dave Attell was the drunk perverted guy, D.L. Hughley was the rich black guy who thinks he's still in the hood, and Lewis Black was the angry smart guy. Lewis Black was the the only person that actually made me laugh was Lewis Black. But then again, he could read the phone book and make me laugh.
Overall, the show isn't worth watching.
See you next year!
Last Laugh '07 started off with a pretty tasteless cartoon open that touched on the following subjects....
-Senator Larry Craig
-The iPhone
-Don Imus
-George W. Bush
-George W. Bush wiping his ass with the Bill of Rights
-Dick Cheney
-Osama Bin Laden
-The Soprano's Finale
-David Hasselhoff
The whole open centered around "what's up the president's ass". It was all just one huge gross poop joke. Now, I like poop jokes as much as the next guy, but this was just bad.
Lewis Black did a little opening bit, mostly about the president. He did talk about the disabled veterans not getting their checks, which is were you get the "I can download 13 million vagina's in a minute, but they can't get their checks" joke from the promo.
Cue first commercial break.
The online pole question, "Who is the biggest failure of 2007" was posted by Lewis Black. The choices - Britney Spears, Michael Vick, President Bush, and the Soprano's Finale. My vote? All of the above.
Dave Attell was up next. His subjects of choice were the following:
-Getting older
-Dog the Bounty Hunter saying the N-word
-Michael Vick
-Al Gore receiving the Nobel Prize
-Vanessa Hudgens nude photo
After that, he went into his usual gross stuff, talking about porn and such.
I like Dave Attell. Insomniac used to be one of my favorite shows. He did have a funny moment here and there, but nothing you'll want to quote around the water cooler. This time around, he wasn't really that funny.
Cue second commercial break.
DL Hughley was up next with.....
-How much white people love dogs
-OJ Simpson
-Barry Bonds
-Chinese imports
-the N-word
-Isiah Thomas
-the Presidential race
-Alec Baldwin
-How kids are soft and weak these days
-Teachers having sex with kids
-Star Jones having gastric bypass surgery
Holy crap did he run through a lot of material. It was hard to keep up with how fast he talked. Again...nothing that funny.
Cue third commercial break.
And now, the man I was waiting for...Lewis Black...
-Global warming
-Scooter Libby
-Alberto Gonzales
-Senator Larry Craig
-Michael Vick
-OJ Simpson
They broke up his set with the fourth commercial break.
Aaaaaaand....we're back with more Lewis Black...
-The 2008 Elections, where he said we should vote for Santa
-We need one headline on the front page of the newspaper that makes you "laugh until coffee shoots out of your nose". A headline like "Hippo eats Dwarf".
Lewis Black then dedicated the show to the men and women of the armed forces in an unusual serious moment.
Fifth commercial break...
And the biggest failure was.....George W. Bush. Big surprise.
Back from break, they had podiums set up for a question and answer session. I didn't even bother writing down the questions because most of them were stupid and the answers were not funny.
I'm very disappointed in this year's Last Laugh. Previous years have been really funny, but this year was just awkward. Dave Attell was the drunk perverted guy, D.L. Hughley was the rich black guy who thinks he's still in the hood, and Lewis Black was the angry smart guy. Lewis Black was the the only person that actually made me laugh was Lewis Black. But then again, he could read the phone book and make me laugh.
Overall, the show isn't worth watching.
See you next year!
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Huckabee, McCain and GOP double standards
By Rick Morris
The continuing assaults on Mike Huckabee and John McCain as less-than-authentic conservatives in the Republican race for president are indicative of a general stupidity that has long affected the right side of the political spectrum when it comes to selecting this nation's chief executive.
As listeners to The FDH Lounge program are aware, I am not endorsing either candidate, instead preferring Senator Fred Thompson. But the hypocritical piling-on that so-called conservative entities such as the Club For Growth are engaging in at the expense of Huck and McCain illuminates a much, much bigger problem for Republicans. The clear and simple truth is that either man would easily make a better president than the two empty suits that the party establishment seems determined to cram down everyone's throats, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
True, Huckabee supported tax hikes as governor of Arkansas and has an economic record that would not work well if he attempted to replicate it on the national stage. He has, however, supported a flat tax plan that would mandate a fiscally conservative path as president. Fears that he would bring the "Razorback Style" to D.C. are completely unfounded and disingenuous, since Republicans of all stripes learned the lesson of the first President Bush that tax hikes are a one-way route to defeat for re-election. Even the second President Bush, with his countless deviations from conservative governance, wasn't dumb enough to chase a tax hike and neither would Huckabee.
And McCain does have a boatload of annoyances to his dubious credit as well, from the blatantly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold monstrosity to the "Gang of 14" judicial deal of 2005, but he's also the biggest foe of pork-barrel politics ever to run for president. While he opposed the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, his overall economic record has been exceptionally conservative.
Both Huckabee and McCain have been unwavering in their support of the unborn and both have supported marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Frankly, however, we have seen just how little social conservatism matters to the insiders and vile interests who control the Republican party.
On social issues, Rudy Giuliani is the most liberal major candidate for president in the Republican party since Nelson Rockefeller. Mitt Romney now claims to be conservative on each of these issues, but was a proud and unapologetic liberal on all of them when he was governor of Massachusetts. As I have noted with my FDH partner Jason Jones, he is fairly libertarian on social issues and I am not -- but neither one of us trusts Romney because he sounded like Jason when it was convenient in the Bay State and now he sounds like me when it is convenient on the national scene. Additionally, while this is an unpopular point to make in this sensitive day and age, Romney represents what would be the largest break ever with our nation's rule by individuals under the traditional Judeo-Christian banner.
And yet, sellout "conservative leaders" are trampling each other for the disgraceful opportunities to climb aboard the Giuliani and Romney bandwagons and lyingly bash Huckabee and McCain as less conservative. In many cases, this can be tied back to the old adage that no matter how pure at heart these pretenders claim to be, all they ever really want is the glory and influence of being associated with a winner. Witness Rush Limbaugh's hit jobs on Pat Buchanan and John McCain in 2000 to clear the way for Junior because El Rushbo thought he smelled a winner -- all the while hypocritically denying that he was making a specific endorsement for president -- and the move of influential "conservative leader" Ralph Reed to endorse Bob Dole in 1996 when he was pretty much the most liberal candidate in the field. In this election cycle, Hugh Hewitt has insulted everyone's intelligence at every turn, professing neutrality while breaking out the kneepads for Master Mitt at every turn. Examples of this sad phenomenon, the tendency of sellout conservatives to kneecap the greater good of the movement for their own selfish reasons, are unfortunately endless.
The picture gets worse, however, when you factor in petty personal issues and other inexplicable matters. Dr. James Dobson, allegedly the purest of the pure in terms of conservative leadership in this country, took cheap shots at Fred Thompson apparently for the "sin" of puckering up insufficiently to kiss his tuckess. This occurrence was even more sickening given the fact that Thompson was considered at the time a highly viable alternative to Giuliani and Romney and this did not impede Dobson's selfish grudge one iota.
The inescapable truth is that most conservative leaders are being unveiled as complete phonies in this election cycle. They are willing to foist Giuliani or Romney on the public notwithstanding the fact that both would be completely unreliable as president and neither is electable in the first place (neither can turn out the party base in the South, Giuliani because of his social positions and Romney because he represents the aforementioned deviation from the American Judeo-Christian tradition). They bury Huckabee and McCain at every turn for their supposed heresies while turning a willful blind eye to the far worse actions of their liberal Northeast pets. They brand Thompson as unelectable because of some supposed foibles with his campaign and his campaign style, all the while pretending to be ignorant to the fact that their attacks will in large part be responsible in the unfortunate event he is unable to secure the nomination.
The double standard applied is nothing short of sickening. Apparently in the Republican party, the only allowable policy crimes are against the social conservatives, not the economic ones. The party is never going to shake its image of putting Wall Street above Main Street if it keeps urinating on social conservatives and only wailing about policy failings involving monetary interests.
A great many conservative voters, myself definitely included, long ago accepted the notion that the vast majority of Republican politicians are worthless frauds who talk a good game but sell us out at the first opportunity. The wonderful conservative pundit M. Stanton Evans long ago coined "Evans' law," which states that "Whenever one of 'our people' reaches a position of power where he can do us some good, he ceases to be one of 'our people.'" However, we don't apply the same standard of suspicion to those advocates in right-wing interest groups claiming to speak for us. It's time we started, because most of them are proving to be every bit as harmful as the charlatans they have put in office.
The continuing assaults on Mike Huckabee and John McCain as less-than-authentic conservatives in the Republican race for president are indicative of a general stupidity that has long affected the right side of the political spectrum when it comes to selecting this nation's chief executive.
As listeners to The FDH Lounge program are aware, I am not endorsing either candidate, instead preferring Senator Fred Thompson. But the hypocritical piling-on that so-called conservative entities such as the Club For Growth are engaging in at the expense of Huck and McCain illuminates a much, much bigger problem for Republicans. The clear and simple truth is that either man would easily make a better president than the two empty suits that the party establishment seems determined to cram down everyone's throats, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
True, Huckabee supported tax hikes as governor of Arkansas and has an economic record that would not work well if he attempted to replicate it on the national stage. He has, however, supported a flat tax plan that would mandate a fiscally conservative path as president. Fears that he would bring the "Razorback Style" to D.C. are completely unfounded and disingenuous, since Republicans of all stripes learned the lesson of the first President Bush that tax hikes are a one-way route to defeat for re-election. Even the second President Bush, with his countless deviations from conservative governance, wasn't dumb enough to chase a tax hike and neither would Huckabee.
And McCain does have a boatload of annoyances to his dubious credit as well, from the blatantly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold monstrosity to the "Gang of 14" judicial deal of 2005, but he's also the biggest foe of pork-barrel politics ever to run for president. While he opposed the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, his overall economic record has been exceptionally conservative.
Both Huckabee and McCain have been unwavering in their support of the unborn and both have supported marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Frankly, however, we have seen just how little social conservatism matters to the insiders and vile interests who control the Republican party.
On social issues, Rudy Giuliani is the most liberal major candidate for president in the Republican party since Nelson Rockefeller. Mitt Romney now claims to be conservative on each of these issues, but was a proud and unapologetic liberal on all of them when he was governor of Massachusetts. As I have noted with my FDH partner Jason Jones, he is fairly libertarian on social issues and I am not -- but neither one of us trusts Romney because he sounded like Jason when it was convenient in the Bay State and now he sounds like me when it is convenient on the national scene. Additionally, while this is an unpopular point to make in this sensitive day and age, Romney represents what would be the largest break ever with our nation's rule by individuals under the traditional Judeo-Christian banner.
And yet, sellout "conservative leaders" are trampling each other for the disgraceful opportunities to climb aboard the Giuliani and Romney bandwagons and lyingly bash Huckabee and McCain as less conservative. In many cases, this can be tied back to the old adage that no matter how pure at heart these pretenders claim to be, all they ever really want is the glory and influence of being associated with a winner. Witness Rush Limbaugh's hit jobs on Pat Buchanan and John McCain in 2000 to clear the way for Junior because El Rushbo thought he smelled a winner -- all the while hypocritically denying that he was making a specific endorsement for president -- and the move of influential "conservative leader" Ralph Reed to endorse Bob Dole in 1996 when he was pretty much the most liberal candidate in the field. In this election cycle, Hugh Hewitt has insulted everyone's intelligence at every turn, professing neutrality while breaking out the kneepads for Master Mitt at every turn. Examples of this sad phenomenon, the tendency of sellout conservatives to kneecap the greater good of the movement for their own selfish reasons, are unfortunately endless.
The picture gets worse, however, when you factor in petty personal issues and other inexplicable matters. Dr. James Dobson, allegedly the purest of the pure in terms of conservative leadership in this country, took cheap shots at Fred Thompson apparently for the "sin" of puckering up insufficiently to kiss his tuckess. This occurrence was even more sickening given the fact that Thompson was considered at the time a highly viable alternative to Giuliani and Romney and this did not impede Dobson's selfish grudge one iota.
The inescapable truth is that most conservative leaders are being unveiled as complete phonies in this election cycle. They are willing to foist Giuliani or Romney on the public notwithstanding the fact that both would be completely unreliable as president and neither is electable in the first place (neither can turn out the party base in the South, Giuliani because of his social positions and Romney because he represents the aforementioned deviation from the American Judeo-Christian tradition). They bury Huckabee and McCain at every turn for their supposed heresies while turning a willful blind eye to the far worse actions of their liberal Northeast pets. They brand Thompson as unelectable because of some supposed foibles with his campaign and his campaign style, all the while pretending to be ignorant to the fact that their attacks will in large part be responsible in the unfortunate event he is unable to secure the nomination.
The double standard applied is nothing short of sickening. Apparently in the Republican party, the only allowable policy crimes are against the social conservatives, not the economic ones. The party is never going to shake its image of putting Wall Street above Main Street if it keeps urinating on social conservatives and only wailing about policy failings involving monetary interests.
A great many conservative voters, myself definitely included, long ago accepted the notion that the vast majority of Republican politicians are worthless frauds who talk a good game but sell us out at the first opportunity. The wonderful conservative pundit M. Stanton Evans long ago coined "Evans' law," which states that "Whenever one of 'our people' reaches a position of power where he can do us some good, he ceases to be one of 'our people.'" However, we don't apply the same standard of suspicion to those advocates in right-wing interest groups claiming to speak for us. It's time we started, because most of them are proving to be every bit as harmful as the charlatans they have put in office.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Putin the Czar tries to restart the Cold War
By Rick Morris
As Mad Vlad Putin goes through the motions of the farce called Russian “democracy,” he has demonstrated yet again that his move from president to prime minister will change nothing and he will continue to wield the real power. His latest campaign stunt shows the price the world will pay for the route he has chosen to hang on to power.
The denunciation he made of the West (read:
Putin’s emerging Hitler Youth equivalent has been chronicled here previously and is a vital part of his wicked plan. And the rhetoric about the conspiracies of other nations has been lapped up like vodka by the denizens of this arrogant nation.
If the America-baiting was simply serving as red meat to pacify the people and neutralize internal opposition to the Putin Cult of Personality, it would be bad enough. But Putin is also walking the walk in international affairs, forging agreements with the tyrants of
I will maintain again, though, that the unilateralism of the Bush administration played right into Putin’s hands. Clearly, Putin wanted to go down this path all along, but an American policy of trying to install military bases in former Soviet satellite countries did not help matters. When dealing with an insidious head of state who is acting as a de facto enemy, the
Monday, November 5, 2007
Pakistan debacle exposes our overreach
By Rick Morris
I wonder how many people heard the news that Pakistan President/General Pervez Musharraf’s seizure of power over the weekend and assumed that he led off his announcement with a little sample from Jay-Z (THIS … IS … STATE OF
Regardless, the move represents a major black eye for the
In justifying the Iraq War, Bush administration officials disparaged the policies of their predecessors (including the president’s father!) over several decades in “tolerating” the repressive regimes of the
Although it’s hard to remember clearly though the fog of our hard times in Iraq over the next two years, George Bush did have some momentary wind at his back as he took his victory lap in early 2005. Iraqi elections had just been held, and the images of jubilant voters waving their ink-stained purple fingers at the camera were compelling. Also at about that time, in a part of the world not far away, the Orange Revolution in
But inevitably, the moment did not last and the world was reminded again why sager minds had resisted the suicidal path of placing Wilsonian democracy above all else that Bush had embraced. Homicidal Hamas won the Palestinian elections and turned the Gaza Strip into even more of a terrorist hub than it had been previously (which really says something!). Iraqis subsequently elected tribal leaders and warlords to their government who, to put it mildly, had no appreciation for the sacrifices our country had laid down for them. The democratic experiment in
Granted, we had no choice but to promote democracy in
Our previous Iraq War FAQ column addressed the crumbling of our military deterrence in the sands of
^ While pronouncing democracy as a vital and non-negotiable concept in our dealings with repressive regimes, we never seriously challenged
^ We talked tough on
^ Now, we have rewarded Musharraf’s backsliding from democracy not with the calm backroom diplomacy that would have been available to us had we not made such a fetish out of imposing complete democracy anywhere as soon as possible but with the impotent whining of a country whose bluff has just been called – and the world noticed.
In its haste to pronounce George W. Bush as the Ronald Reagan of his time, a designation that could have seemed fair for as long as six months after 9/11 but now seems a grotesque insult to the Great Communicator, the American right has embraced the imperial overreach that has so damaged our national interest these past few years. This is largely because the neoconservative wing of the movement has taken hold almost completely in the 2000s and driven out the traditional adherents of the Old Right, who believed that the only relevant question to ever be asked was “does this serve
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Decade's most influential people in the world
By Rick Morris
Since we passed the 3/4 mark of the decade a few months ago (to little fanfare), I hatched an idea for a blog post about the most influential sports figures of the decade, largely because I firmly believe that the individual befitting that award goes unmentioned by all. But it occurred to me that a list of the most influential people in the world as a whole would be interesting as well.
I'm basing these rankings on the amount of influence these individuals have had over the ways we live, the ways that society functions and the ways society will function in the future. These influences can be for good or ill -- influence is influence, after all.
First of all, I want to give honorable mention to Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim, the founders of YouTube. When the history is finally written about the technological advances of our day, I'm convinced that they will be on a very short list of the most important innovators. While Internet video certainly existed before YouTube came about in 2005, it wasn't nearly as mainstream. The invention of this website dovetailed nicely with the explosion in various types of broadband availability and served as THE entity most important in developing video-on-demand on the Internet. Quite simply, Hurley, Chen and Karim created something that will affect the way we consume media far into the future.
5. (TIE) Vladimir Putin and Howard Dean. Surely, this is an odd couple if ever there was one! But since my rankings were only five-deep, I could not choose between them for the final spot.
Let's examine Putin first. For several decades leading up to the Nineties, the leader of the USSR would have had to make such a list. For example, could a Top Five of the Eighties have not included both Reagan and Gorbachev? Unlikely. But as the Soviet Union faded into history, it took with it its vast influence over the world. Russian President Boris Yeltsin would certainly not have made such a list in the Nineties, at the low ebb of power for that country in the last hundred years. But Putin's Russia has roared back with a vengeance this decade, taking advantage of openings caused by ramifications of American foreign policy mistakes. While Russia has asserted itself as a key player on the world stage, make no mistake, the means it has chosen will be a major cause of strife and a threat to free societies in the years to come. The old Soviet axis seems to be reconstituting in a way, as Putin gathers up any adversaries of the U.S. that he can find to befriend (Iran, Venezuela and to a certain extent China). Also, his regime is taking on disturbing fascist tendencies at home, as our blog post from August documented. Even after his term as president ends next year, Mad Vlad will continue pulling the strings in the Kremlin and the effects of just the actions he's already set in motion will already be extraordinarily far-reaching.
Now to Howard Dean, who emerged from complete obscurity as governor of the gay-friendly state of Vermont to become one of the most important American political figures of the last 50 years. While he's best-known nationally as a punchline with his infamous speech after the Iowa caucuses in 2004, Dean actually emerged from that election cycle as an enormous transforming figure in the political system. In the months following the end of the first phase of the war in Iraq, when George Bush was appearing in front of "Mission Accomplished" signs and the public was still savoring the heady feeling of having deposed Saddam Hussein, Dean rode his opposition to the war to the front of the pack in the Democratic presidential field. This was made possible in large part by Dean harnessing the nascent blog movement and the organizing power of the Internet to level the financial playing field with an absolute blizzard of small-time contributors. By combining grass-roots political practices with the technological possibilities of the Web, Dean managed to bring the antiwar movement into the mainstream and changed forever the ability of political insiders in both parties to dictate party nominations by fiat. Personally, I regard the former as a great negative and the latter as a great positive, but the far-reaching influence is undeniable and led to his selection as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
4. Osama bin Laden. I imagine that an explanation of bin Laden's influence in the 2000s needs little elaboration. The fact that he's not #1 on the list is certainly a measure of the extremely consequential presidency we've lived under for the last seven years. The phrase "9/11 changed everything" became a cliche long ago, but as I always say, cliches get to be cliches because they are true. OBL belongs on the list if for no other reasons than the fear he instilled by launching the first attack on the American mainland since the War of 1812 and the resulting security measures that followed -- and those factors are just the tip of the iceburg. There's certainly a spot waiting for bin Laden in Hades, but in the meantime, he resides both in the hinterlands of Pakistan and at #4 on our list of the decade's most influential people.
1. (TIE) George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. For one man to trump bin Laden's influence this decade in the aftermath of 9/11 would have seemed unlikely, but three would have seemed preposterous! Yet, the style of governance in America the last seven years has made it so. Bush is, as he says, "The Decider," and must therefore be listed here as the man with the final word. But his chief deputies belong right with him for the directions they've successfully pushed for him to adopt, Cheney in foreign policy and Rove in domestic policy.
First, Cheney. He and his neoconservative fellow-travelers persuaded Bush to enter into war in Iraq. Effects of this conflict will be felt for decades. Most are negative, from the diminishing of our deterrent threat around the world to hostility stirred up in Arab countries to the trillions of dollars we are sending over there to the fact that the American people were able to turn against a war so quickly after 9/11. Cheney was the chief backer of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the successes of 2007 would never have occurred if Rumsfeld had not been forced out and the surge policy inserted in. The positive side of the ledger for Cheney is mostly in his rare forays into domestic policy, such as pushing Bush to pursue positive tax policies (leaving aside the disastrous spending ones).
Rove, while no longer in government, did more to shape Bush's theories on government than any other figure. Like the Clintons, he merged policy with politics in a crude manner. Unlike the Clintons, he was not quite so skilled at it. True, he helped Bush manage to slip across the finish line in 2004, although the jury is out about whether it could have been accomplished against a candidate better than the pathetic John Kerry. Rove's notion of "compassionate conservatism," a feel-good compilation of contradictory blather, became Bush's domestic governing philosophy and ultimately his political undoing along with the Iraq mess. Rove had greedy dreams of stitching together a Republican dynasty like the one in the early 1900s, but he sold the conservative soul to do so. From education (the horrific "No Child Left Behind" boondoggle and reprehensible sellout of poor kids by abandoning vouchers in the face of bullying from Ted Kennedy) to health care (burdening generations to come with the asinine Medicare prescription drug fiasco) to spending (completely condoned as long as Republicans were operating Congress and operating the old pork dispenser) to immigration (let the illegals flow in unchecked so that Big Business contributors can hire them for 10 cents per hour) to the basic issue of competence in government (Katrina, which in fairness was also victimized by state and local lack of government), the Rove/Bush philosophy of trying to build a permanent majority by being all things to all people did nothing but alienate the base. Their tone-deaf White House political apparatus was constantly a day late and a dollar short in answering Democratic attacks after the 2004 reelection campaign and led straight to the debacle of 2006. There would be no Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid were it not for the bumbling of this Republican trinity. Even as they fade into history, however, their legacy will loom strong for at least a quarter century. And that gives them a collective influence the likes of nobody else this decade.
Since we passed the 3/4 mark of the decade a few months ago (to little fanfare), I hatched an idea for a blog post about the most influential sports figures of the decade, largely because I firmly believe that the individual befitting that award goes unmentioned by all. But it occurred to me that a list of the most influential people in the world as a whole would be interesting as well.
I'm basing these rankings on the amount of influence these individuals have had over the ways we live, the ways that society functions and the ways society will function in the future. These influences can be for good or ill -- influence is influence, after all.
First of all, I want to give honorable mention to Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim, the founders of YouTube. When the history is finally written about the technological advances of our day, I'm convinced that they will be on a very short list of the most important innovators. While Internet video certainly existed before YouTube came about in 2005, it wasn't nearly as mainstream. The invention of this website dovetailed nicely with the explosion in various types of broadband availability and served as THE entity most important in developing video-on-demand on the Internet. Quite simply, Hurley, Chen and Karim created something that will affect the way we consume media far into the future.
5. (TIE) Vladimir Putin and Howard Dean. Surely, this is an odd couple if ever there was one! But since my rankings were only five-deep, I could not choose between them for the final spot.
Let's examine Putin first. For several decades leading up to the Nineties, the leader of the USSR would have had to make such a list. For example, could a Top Five of the Eighties have not included both Reagan and Gorbachev? Unlikely. But as the Soviet Union faded into history, it took with it its vast influence over the world. Russian President Boris Yeltsin would certainly not have made such a list in the Nineties, at the low ebb of power for that country in the last hundred years. But Putin's Russia has roared back with a vengeance this decade, taking advantage of openings caused by ramifications of American foreign policy mistakes. While Russia has asserted itself as a key player on the world stage, make no mistake, the means it has chosen will be a major cause of strife and a threat to free societies in the years to come. The old Soviet axis seems to be reconstituting in a way, as Putin gathers up any adversaries of the U.S. that he can find to befriend (Iran, Venezuela and to a certain extent China). Also, his regime is taking on disturbing fascist tendencies at home, as our blog post from August documented. Even after his term as president ends next year, Mad Vlad will continue pulling the strings in the Kremlin and the effects of just the actions he's already set in motion will already be extraordinarily far-reaching.
Now to Howard Dean, who emerged from complete obscurity as governor of the gay-friendly state of Vermont to become one of the most important American political figures of the last 50 years. While he's best-known nationally as a punchline with his infamous speech after the Iowa caucuses in 2004, Dean actually emerged from that election cycle as an enormous transforming figure in the political system. In the months following the end of the first phase of the war in Iraq, when George Bush was appearing in front of "Mission Accomplished" signs and the public was still savoring the heady feeling of having deposed Saddam Hussein, Dean rode his opposition to the war to the front of the pack in the Democratic presidential field. This was made possible in large part by Dean harnessing the nascent blog movement and the organizing power of the Internet to level the financial playing field with an absolute blizzard of small-time contributors. By combining grass-roots political practices with the technological possibilities of the Web, Dean managed to bring the antiwar movement into the mainstream and changed forever the ability of political insiders in both parties to dictate party nominations by fiat. Personally, I regard the former as a great negative and the latter as a great positive, but the far-reaching influence is undeniable and led to his selection as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
4. Osama bin Laden. I imagine that an explanation of bin Laden's influence in the 2000s needs little elaboration. The fact that he's not #1 on the list is certainly a measure of the extremely consequential presidency we've lived under for the last seven years. The phrase "9/11 changed everything" became a cliche long ago, but as I always say, cliches get to be cliches because they are true. OBL belongs on the list if for no other reasons than the fear he instilled by launching the first attack on the American mainland since the War of 1812 and the resulting security measures that followed -- and those factors are just the tip of the iceburg. There's certainly a spot waiting for bin Laden in Hades, but in the meantime, he resides both in the hinterlands of Pakistan and at #4 on our list of the decade's most influential people.
1. (TIE) George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. For one man to trump bin Laden's influence this decade in the aftermath of 9/11 would have seemed unlikely, but three would have seemed preposterous! Yet, the style of governance in America the last seven years has made it so. Bush is, as he says, "The Decider," and must therefore be listed here as the man with the final word. But his chief deputies belong right with him for the directions they've successfully pushed for him to adopt, Cheney in foreign policy and Rove in domestic policy.
First, Cheney. He and his neoconservative fellow-travelers persuaded Bush to enter into war in Iraq. Effects of this conflict will be felt for decades. Most are negative, from the diminishing of our deterrent threat around the world to hostility stirred up in Arab countries to the trillions of dollars we are sending over there to the fact that the American people were able to turn against a war so quickly after 9/11. Cheney was the chief backer of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the successes of 2007 would never have occurred if Rumsfeld had not been forced out and the surge policy inserted in. The positive side of the ledger for Cheney is mostly in his rare forays into domestic policy, such as pushing Bush to pursue positive tax policies (leaving aside the disastrous spending ones).
Rove, while no longer in government, did more to shape Bush's theories on government than any other figure. Like the Clintons, he merged policy with politics in a crude manner. Unlike the Clintons, he was not quite so skilled at it. True, he helped Bush manage to slip across the finish line in 2004, although the jury is out about whether it could have been accomplished against a candidate better than the pathetic John Kerry. Rove's notion of "compassionate conservatism," a feel-good compilation of contradictory blather, became Bush's domestic governing philosophy and ultimately his political undoing along with the Iraq mess. Rove had greedy dreams of stitching together a Republican dynasty like the one in the early 1900s, but he sold the conservative soul to do so. From education (the horrific "No Child Left Behind" boondoggle and reprehensible sellout of poor kids by abandoning vouchers in the face of bullying from Ted Kennedy) to health care (burdening generations to come with the asinine Medicare prescription drug fiasco) to spending (completely condoned as long as Republicans were operating Congress and operating the old pork dispenser) to immigration (let the illegals flow in unchecked so that Big Business contributors can hire them for 10 cents per hour) to the basic issue of competence in government (Katrina, which in fairness was also victimized by state and local lack of government), the Rove/Bush philosophy of trying to build a permanent majority by being all things to all people did nothing but alienate the base. Their tone-deaf White House political apparatus was constantly a day late and a dollar short in answering Democratic attacks after the 2004 reelection campaign and led straight to the debacle of 2006. There would be no Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid were it not for the bumbling of this Republican trinity. Even as they fade into history, however, their legacy will loom strong for at least a quarter century. And that gives them a collective influence the likes of nobody else this decade.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Ohio GOP a stupid microcosm of national party
By Rick Morris
Ohio, considered the quintessential bellweather state in recent presidential elections, is often referred to as a microcosm of the nation. With its blend of urban and rural and representation from most of the country's major ethnic groups, the designation seems to fit.
Unfortunately for any folks with a rightist orientation such as myself, the complete incompetence and utter small-minded failure of imagination of Republican leaders in Ohio is mirrored by the national picture. Political observers everywhere are familiar with the lengthy bill of indictment against the national Republican party during the Bush years, from the arrogant pork-barrel spending in the "heady" days of one-party rule to the inability to carry out working governance in post-Katrina Louisiana or effective policies (prior to 2007) in Iraq to the overall tin-eared, ham-handed political machinations that have done nothing but empower Democrats and lead to a Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid.
But in Ohio, a sad similar inability to stop shooting itself in the foot afflicts the GOP.
Today's Cleveland Plain Dealer informs us of a plan, openly admitted to by the Einsteins at the Ohio Republican Party, to attempt to call the bluff of newly elected Democratic state officeholders with a mountain of public records requests and threaten lawsuits if the issues are not settled expeditiously. Also, in an editorial, the PD writes about the pathetic attempts by the barely-alive Cuyahoga County Republican Party to target Dennis Kucinich not in his next election -- but in a freaking recall!
As for the public records plot: if the too-clever-by-half dime-store Machiavellis who have been running this operation into the ground for over a decade can't figure out that they're only making martyrs of the Democrat officeholders with this stunt, then they're too stupid to live. And spare me the whining about how the "lib-rul media" is just trying to make the Republicans look bad on this. Yes, they most certainly are, but idiot Republicans don't have to keep handing them the ammunition to do so.
The party needs to realize that after years of governance by stiffs like Bob Taft, Betty Montgomery and George Voinovich, who all cared about nothing but polls and the politics of expediency, the public has no tolerance for the shenanigans of the GOP. Whether it be on a national or local level, the Republicans will NEVER NEVER NEVER beat the Democrats at their own game of shameless opportunism. The Columbus insiders who have aided and abetted the assassination of the Republican brand over the last decade need to realize that further alienating voters with political gamesmanship will not elevate the party back to power in the statewide offices and prevent what appears to be an inevitable loss of the House of Representatives next year. Winning with the superiority of public policy ideas will do that.
While I'm not a big fan of Newt Gingrich due to the fact that he talked a big game about government reform but accomplished little as Speaker back in the day, he is right that Nicolas Sarkozy had to overcome the enormous hurdle caused by Vichy French President Jacques Chirac's tarnishing of the UMP party label in his successful candidacy for President of France. Finally freed from the reign of the spineless and pathetic Governor Bob Taft, the Ohio Republican Party in 2007 needed to chart a new course, one built on demonstrating how conservative ideals of limited governance were the best means to carry the state forward. At every opportunity, however, the fools in charge never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. By not having the patience to wait out the honeymoon periods of Ohio's statewide officeholders, the party has played into their hands by making them sympathetic figures and has cast itself as a propagator of government waste as statewide employees scurry to carry out their tasks at the expense of actual duties. Well played!
And as for the recall of Kucinich, the Plain Dealer makes a good point (I can't believe I'm saying that, as Cleveland's Morning Mediocrity is not known for brilliant and pungent analysis) about how targeting the worst congressman in America with AN ACTUAL CANDIDATE AT THE BALLOT BOX is the way to demonstrate displeasure with his asinine antics. But why do that when you can grandstand with a recall campaign in the interim, then shirk into the default mode of dredging up an anonymous victim willing to play cannon fodder and collect 20% of the vote and no campaign contributions whatsoever against Kucinich next November?
For people like myself who don't like being governed by liberal ideas, these are the people who stand between us and that reality. God help us.
Ohio, considered the quintessential bellweather state in recent presidential elections, is often referred to as a microcosm of the nation. With its blend of urban and rural and representation from most of the country's major ethnic groups, the designation seems to fit.
Unfortunately for any folks with a rightist orientation such as myself, the complete incompetence and utter small-minded failure of imagination of Republican leaders in Ohio is mirrored by the national picture. Political observers everywhere are familiar with the lengthy bill of indictment against the national Republican party during the Bush years, from the arrogant pork-barrel spending in the "heady" days of one-party rule to the inability to carry out working governance in post-Katrina Louisiana or effective policies (prior to 2007) in Iraq to the overall tin-eared, ham-handed political machinations that have done nothing but empower Democrats and lead to a Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid.
But in Ohio, a sad similar inability to stop shooting itself in the foot afflicts the GOP.
Today's Cleveland Plain Dealer informs us of a plan, openly admitted to by the Einsteins at the Ohio Republican Party, to attempt to call the bluff of newly elected Democratic state officeholders with a mountain of public records requests and threaten lawsuits if the issues are not settled expeditiously. Also, in an editorial, the PD writes about the pathetic attempts by the barely-alive Cuyahoga County Republican Party to target Dennis Kucinich not in his next election -- but in a freaking recall!
As for the public records plot: if the too-clever-by-half dime-store Machiavellis who have been running this operation into the ground for over a decade can't figure out that they're only making martyrs of the Democrat officeholders with this stunt, then they're too stupid to live. And spare me the whining about how the "lib-rul media" is just trying to make the Republicans look bad on this. Yes, they most certainly are, but idiot Republicans don't have to keep handing them the ammunition to do so.
The party needs to realize that after years of governance by stiffs like Bob Taft, Betty Montgomery and George Voinovich, who all cared about nothing but polls and the politics of expediency, the public has no tolerance for the shenanigans of the GOP. Whether it be on a national or local level, the Republicans will NEVER NEVER NEVER beat the Democrats at their own game of shameless opportunism. The Columbus insiders who have aided and abetted the assassination of the Republican brand over the last decade need to realize that further alienating voters with political gamesmanship will not elevate the party back to power in the statewide offices and prevent what appears to be an inevitable loss of the House of Representatives next year. Winning with the superiority of public policy ideas will do that.
While I'm not a big fan of Newt Gingrich due to the fact that he talked a big game about government reform but accomplished little as Speaker back in the day, he is right that Nicolas Sarkozy had to overcome the enormous hurdle caused by Vichy French President Jacques Chirac's tarnishing of the UMP party label in his successful candidacy for President of France. Finally freed from the reign of the spineless and pathetic Governor Bob Taft, the Ohio Republican Party in 2007 needed to chart a new course, one built on demonstrating how conservative ideals of limited governance were the best means to carry the state forward. At every opportunity, however, the fools in charge never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. By not having the patience to wait out the honeymoon periods of Ohio's statewide officeholders, the party has played into their hands by making them sympathetic figures and has cast itself as a propagator of government waste as statewide employees scurry to carry out their tasks at the expense of actual duties. Well played!
And as for the recall of Kucinich, the Plain Dealer makes a good point (I can't believe I'm saying that, as Cleveland's Morning Mediocrity is not known for brilliant and pungent analysis) about how targeting the worst congressman in America with AN ACTUAL CANDIDATE AT THE BALLOT BOX is the way to demonstrate displeasure with his asinine antics. But why do that when you can grandstand with a recall campaign in the interim, then shirk into the default mode of dredging up an anonymous victim willing to play cannon fodder and collect 20% of the vote and no campaign contributions whatsoever against Kucinich next November?
For people like myself who don't like being governed by liberal ideas, these are the people who stand between us and that reality. God help us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)