Thursday, January 29, 2009

Limbaugh does the Republican Party a service

His Emanence Rush Limbaugh is acting as the de facto head of the Rethuglican Party (while they wait to see what racist/xenophobe/homophobe/CRW exemplar will get the RNC chair nod). Others disagree on terms (but I suspect not on substance); as the S.F. Chronicle puts it:
But while an Oval Office shout-out may temporarily elevate a man who refers to himself as El Rushbo, it doesn't make Limbaugh the de facto leader of the Republican Party or the conservative movement. He is, analysts say, a "conveyer belt" of information, influencer of the wider talk radio universe and an outside-the-Beltway party whip who reins in wayward Republicans - as in those veering toward political moderation.

"Whenever a national party is in search of its identity, its mojo, figures like Rush will fill the vacuum," said Mike Franc, a vice president for government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "But in this situation, he doesn't fill the idea. He's more of an idea aggregator."

The real rebuilding of the conservative brand begins Friday when the Republican Party chooses who will be its new party chair. In the absence of a GOP president, House speaker or Senate majority leader, that person will become the face of Republicanism on cable and network chat shows, the party's chief fundraiser and one of conservatism's leaders at a time in which the movement is desperately searching for some leadership.
Well and fine, but the article inadvertently lets slip El Rushbutt's greatest contribution to the Rethuglican Party:
In Congress, Franc of the Heritage Foundation said, many lawmakers pine for Limbaugh's ability to translate complicated policy into simple language and place it in a conservative framework. "There is a lot of Rush-envy there," said Franc, a former staffer for former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a leader of the mid-1990s Republican revolution.
[appropriate emphasis added]

What can I say? I can't argue the need.... ;-)

Maybe the Democrats can give him a hand and not write any bills with words of more than two syllables, at the most.

Negotiating with Republicans

D: "OK, we've won the last two Congressional elections convincingly, we have the presidency, but let's not let the past trouble us. We want to work for the good of the country, and we're willing to listen to your ideas and let you sit at the table and work together with us...."

R: <*snarl*> <*growl*> "Ayers." "Barack the Magic Negro." "You want us to bend over..."

D: "No, really. We want to work with you. We don't want you to feel left out and angry...."

R: "Tax cuts. We want tax cuts. More tax cuts. Yeah, and money for big bidness execs. No abortions. No sex even...." <*grumble*> <*snort*>

D: "OK, tell us what you want; what's your position, and maybe we can find some middle ground."

R: "We want tax cuts!!!! And abortion is abhorrent! No money for family planning of any kind!!!!"

D: "OK, we'll toss in a sop to you in the spirit of bipartisanship. We'll take out the family planning funds for now, even though it will save the government money. And you can have some tax cuts too. Deal?"

<* Republicans take the tax cuts and the nix of family planning, gobble them down and then bite the Democrats' hands *>

D: "Owwww. That hurt!!! Look, we're really trying to compromise here. What more do you want?"

R: "Tax cuts. We want tax cuts. More tax cuts. Yeah, and money for big bidness execs. No abortions. No sex even. And we want offshore-drilling. And no environmental regulations. And no mortgage relief for those losers...." <*grumble*> <*snort*>

D: "I don't think you understand how negotiations proceed. You're supposed to find some place in the middle where we both can agree, not add additional demands."

R: "Tax cuts. We want tax cuts. More tax cuts. Yeah, and money for big bidness execs. No abortions. No sex even. And we want offshore-drilling. And no environmental regulations. And no mortgage relief for those losers. And conservatives appointed to the executive and the judiciary. " <*grumble*> <*snort*>

D: "You just got trounced in the last two elections? Why do you keep demanding more?!?!?"

R: <*growl*> <*snap*> <*lunges at chain*>....
The big error was this: "What more do you want?"

WGAF? Really. The correct question is "if you won't even take what we already gave you, why should we even listen to you?"

Glenn Greenwald lays it out well. Time for the Democrats to say, "here's what a negotiation is; you can take what we offer you, or we'll just take it from here and you can let history run you over."

Wednesday, January 28, 2009


That is to say, "bipartisanship, my a$$".

The Rethuglicans have no desire to be "bipartisan". They care about party power above nation, about personal slights and vendettas above honour, and about themselves and their hallucinatory ideals of the 'perfect nation' above all else, everyone else be damned.

His Emanence Rush Limbaugh has said it plainly (regarding Obama): "I hope he fails." But that means that Obama fails to dig us out of the mess we're in. Limbaugh doesn't want Obama to be able to do that; that would be bad for Rethuglican chances in 2010.

So Obama goes for a sit-down with the Republican congresscritters, all "make nice" and "bipartisanship". What happens? The Rethuglicans vote 177 to nothing against the stimulus bill. Lock-step antagonism.

Then the whiny RW talk radio jerk Mark Levin insists that that black is white and up is down. He insists that that the vote against the bill was "bipartisan" -- supposedly because it garnered 11 Democrats voting against as well (but still passed handily), whereas only Democrats voted for it. What was really not "bipartisan" was the Republican lock-step voting; none of the Republicans would cross party lines and vote for the bill.

Levin then let slip the real sentiment: "We have two years to get back at them, to either reward them or punish them for their vote."

They don't care about anything else. They're just mad and are going to hold their breath until they turn blue. Fine. Let them. Screw them, in fact. They can go outside and have their hissy fit, and let the adults get on with business.

OK, got that, folks? No more "hands across the table". They're just gong to bite it. Harry? Nancy? Barack? Is it clear yet?!?!?

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

A warm welcome...

... to the U.S. Department of Justice. Under new and better management, I hear. And thanks for stopping by. Feel free to look around, and I welcome any comments. Let me know too if I can be of help, or you're looking for anything in particular. Can I recommend some of my favourite posts (assuming you didn't just come for the pretty pictures):

Torture can be just the ticket ... just keep it illegal, please.
The "Ticking Time Bomb" as a legal defence
The "Ticking Time Bomb" ... in theory and in practise

The "Torture Justification" explained
The "torture files" redux
The "Nürnberg defence"
Exporting kangaroo ... courts

A maladministration flack struggles with his PAA/FISA "talking points"....

"Scalia" is Italian for "Torquemada"

Dubya's consigliere knows his job....
Once again, our "Attorney General" unclear on the concept
Nixon redux: "It's not a crime if nothing was done about it..."
Nixon re-redux: "When the preznit's consigliere says it's OK..."

"Sentence first -- verdict afterwards"

Federalist Society star David Sentelle piles on....

"Witness tampering" and "obstruction of justice"

and last, but not least:

Just wanted to say "hi!"


Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Justice Oprah

And in the "some losers are too stoopid to breathe" department, we have this pathetic "appeal to higher authority":
01/19/09: PRESS RELEASE - Berg sends 2nd letter to Oprah, stressing that she is one that can have Obama withdraw his name to avoid damage to racial relations in the U.S. for years to come because when the truth comes out that Obama does “not” meet the “qualifications” for President as Obama is “not” “natural born” we are headed for a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ by having an ‘ineligible’ President

(Contact information and PDF at end)

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/19/09) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, in the U.S. Supreme Court is still pending as well as two [2] other cases, announced today that he wrote a 2nd letter to Oprah requesting her to speak with Obama to withdraw his name before our country is in a Constitutional Crisis as Obama’s lack of ‘constitutional qualifications’ for President. 1st letter was dated November 7, 2008 and the 2nd today, January 19, 2009. [A copy of the two [2] letters are at the end of this Release]
Philip Berg's a certified loony-toon, and having gotten his butt kicked every which way 'til Friday by every court in the land (including the U.S. Supreme Court), he's decided to take it to the next level. ROFLMAO.

The sad thing is that this insanity is contagious: I listened to KSFO-560 (RW talk radio) a week back or so, and the RW foamer talk-show host was going on and on about the grave constitutional crisis we were facing should we inaugurate Obama..... More like a Thorazine crisis, if you ask me.

They were right!!!

The RW foamers were screaming "beware! beware!"; that (now) President Obama was a hard-core leftie.

Watching him sign the nominations for his cabinet, I see that they were right.  They are indeed right.  And Obama's definitely a leftie.