November 4, 2006
Shorter Mike Gallagher: Republicans are always better than Democrats if you just leave out all the ones who have been indicted.
Dear god they're all stupid
Jonathan Schwarz sums up the entire right-wing blogosphere for the last few years or so.
November 3, 2006
Wow, does this take me back. It's been gone since 9/11 for obvious reasons, but I guess given the polls all bets are officially off. Yes, that's right, fellow travellers of the Balt-Wash corridor: the infamous
Jew "New Yorker" slam has returned.
For convenience, a brief list of the things the Allen campaign has blamed on Jim Webb in the last 24 hours:
-Having to beat up a guy
-Reports of being out of money
-Nasty partisanship of politics
-The 2006 Washington Redskins
-"On" lights on cameras being so damn hard to see
November 2, 2006
A point that prominent Democrats may want to start taking notice of very, very quickly: I'm sure a lot of them seem to feel very satisfied with not offering any support whatsoever to Ned Lamont in Connecticut, feeling that Joe Lieberman's incumbent's club guarantee to stay caucusing with the Dems means that no matter what happens, they keep the seat.
Except there's a rapidly-escalating problem with Joe Lieberman that local blogs have been covering in the the form of what is almost inarguably the most blatant illegal skirting of campaign finance law for the entire 2006 election season. We're not talking about not getting a receipt at McDonald's one day: Lieberman is refusing- not failing to account for, but refusing to account for- nearly four hundred thousand dollars in campaign funds.
I find it amazing that no one in the DSCC or the DNC seems to think that any perception of a mandate should the Democrats recapture the Senate might be somewhat tainted when its embraced prodigal son is under investigation for election fraud. It's a saddening sign that in addition to caring only about incumbency for people like Lieberman who have done nothing but spit on Democratic leadership for the last few years, the Democratic leadership seems to think November 7 is the last level of a video game in which victory automatically means a happy ending and no more tasks to be accomplished.
If Washington Dems wanted to show they aren't complete idiots- and granted, it's very rare when they actually do such a thing- they might have started demanding Lieberman explain himself lest they start backing the untainted candidate, I don't know... two weeks ago or so.
Must be an election coming up or something
And here we have former Congressman and current lunatic Bob Dornan, who just claimed on MSNBC that Pelosi once defended abortion by asking him "what would you do if your daughter was raped by a black man?"
Dornan's evidence to this is, of course, that he's nuts.
A brief reminder
In light of Ann Coulter's continuing legal troubles over her... umm... breaking the law, right-wingers are furious about how poor little Ann is being singled out, obviously because of her status as a conservative commentator.
A brief reminder is in order that she's most likely really being singled out because she's been under suspicion for voter fraud multiple times.
I would be inclined to think that yes, repeat offenders are given more prejudiced scrutiny by investigators, but no, I'm sure this is some grand conspiracy.
November 1, 2006
It's a good thing they're not angry about stupid statments or anything
John Boehner, Republican House Majority Leader, on John Kerry: "We're going to beat him to death."
Is he stumping for George Allen now?
You know, I've been reading on blogs for the last five years or so about how frustrating it is that Democrats don't push back against the GOP slime machine, and then one of them finally does and everyone screams how it's going to "ruin the election" and I just sit back and realize that Democrats really, really don't ever deserve to actually win an election, ever.
I really don't have any comment on the right-wing attacks on Kerry today, because honestly, what's the damn point? Pretending you don't know what every specific pundit on television and the internet is already going to say about this is like pretending you don't know who the Washington Times is going to endorse. It's the purple heart band-aids, 2006 edition. No one, save the crazy people Kerry specifically pointed out, actually thinks he hates the troops. They're still going to feign outrage anyway, just as they feigned outrage at Clinton's penis, feigned outrage at Chandra Levy, feigned outrage at Webb's novel, and so on. The Limbaughs and Malkins of this world, and all their little online wannabes, have a sociopathic desire to make politics a game in which the object is to actually hurt people. Victory is an icing, but I don't think they're as proud of Bush being re-elected as they are about the idea that they made Kerry, or his supporters, or some left-wing blogger, suffer. These are unhealthy people and as such I don't take their words as sage, rational insight.
So instead, a little something off my chest about Democrats.
Kerry wasn't my first choice for the '04 nominee. He wasn't even my third. But I never doubted for any moment in my life that he's not a good person, and if he'd been elected he'd have been a great President. In fact, I wish more progressives had actually understood Kerry was likely the most left-leaning President we'd have a shot at having for the next few decades.
He ran a shitty campaign, and for two years a lot of people on the left have been a bigger enemy of his prospects than the right. And I really have no goddamn clue why. Any casual glance at the overall 2004 results would indicate it was a GOP year... do people think Dean would have pulled it off? Clark? Edwards? It's nonsense. Rove's no genius, but his '04 strategy, and gay-bashing ballot initiatives meant to drive Evangelicals to the polls, worked. In a better world, and a better time, Kerry might have won. And maybe that time is 2008, maybe it's not. But he's probably going to try, and I think he should. And if his new strategy will be this kind of aggressive response, then my only hope is his primary opponents co-opt it.
I'm angered with Kerry's 2004 strategy, but at the same time I feel bad for him. He should have been President. The country should have cared more, believed more, thought more about this. And Kerry should have realized he was going to be hammered the way he was. Well, now they're doing it again, and I'm furious at any Democrat who thinks Kerry doesn't have the right to be pissed off about that.
There's an unwarranted hate of John Kerry from a lot of people on the left, and it defies all the other rhetoric they've made for so long to the point of making me wonder if a lot of them are just hypocrites. Howard Dean gets digital fellatio on a daily basis for his long-term, 50-state strategy. Yet Kerry may very well have opened the door to a new trend where- gasp!- Democrats actually fight back against right-wing bullshit, and it's deemed as detrimental to a week from now. You have no right to praise a long-term strategy if you don't admit that if all the Democrats from here to '08 start responding the way Kerry responded yesterday, we'll take the country in a landslide.
After '04 a lot of you savaged a man for not punching back against a smear job. If you're saying today that the same man would be a dangerous candidate for finally being willing to do it, you should admit you've been a liar for the last few years. And if you're pissed that I'm accusing you of lying, well, bite me. Because I'm not really angry at John Kerry today. I'm angry at the guys cancelling their appearances with him and proving they're just the weak-kneed Democrats Republicans need to win elections against. And that a lot of you aren't angry at those guys too when you were angry at Kerry up until 24 hours ago for the exact same reason is telling.
I don't believe in any nonsense rhetoric about candidates only having "one shot" at the White House. I don't believe that Kerry is a tainted candidate because of any gaffe or single statement any more than any other candidate that the left praises daily. And I certainly don't believe John Kerry shouldn't run again because people think the right might be mean to him again. Yesterday, Kerry's the one who fought back, while a bunch of timid Democrats in Iowa and Pennsylvania are the ones cutting and running from campaign appearances with him.
I have no idea if I'd vote for Kerry again. I really don't. Just as in '04, there's a list of candidates I'd like to see as our next President. But there's no one on the left who has any right to say he doesn't have the right to run for President again, and there's no one on the left who has any right to say he still wouldn't be a great President if he won.
And most important, there's no one on the left who has any right to suddenly be angry when a Democrat finally snaps back at Republican cowards trying to smear him and still have anything remotely credible to say about how Democrats should win elections.
This is exactly what you've been dreaming about for years, and if you're scared about it when you finally get it... well Jesus, that pretty much sums up why Democrats don't win elections, don't it.
October 31, 2006
I win at internet
After I posted Taco Mail the other week, my sister told me there wasn't anything I could possibly find on the internet that would be more awesome for her than that.
She completely forgot that... anything can happen on Halloween.
October 30, 2006
"A brief status report"
Hot on the heels of last week's reminder of how ineffective the left is at its non-existent voter fraud, we are reminded how ineffective the right is at its non-existent overwhelming control over all aspects of culture.
In some bizarre way, I kind of enjoy the idea that the right is constantly screaming its head off about TV shows and music artists, since if anything it means that's what they're spending they're time worrying about. Which is always good. I mean, they could actually be trying to affect the world or something. Yeesh.
Now buy some crap.
October 29, 2006
Oh, right... that
A brief reminder about George Allen's own contributions to dramatic culture:
Bear with me as I try to figure out this Jim Webb situation. Senator Allen and the mighty GOP cabal is making a big deal about several historical novels written by Jim Webb and endorsed by Senator McCain which depict the horrors of the Vietnam War. The horrors include sexual references and acts which many veterans observed in the war. This somehow proves Jim Webb's lack of character.
Am I getting it so far?
Good. Let's continue.
Senator Allen and many of his fellow right wing parrots never served in Vietnam or in any war for that matter and one of the only Republicans who did in fact serve in Vietnam is actually on the record claiming the book is a vivid depiction of the some of the war's atrocities.
Got it. But wait...
Senator Allen, meanwhile, made a cameo appearance in the awful movie Gods and Generals (in the interest of fairness, Stephen Lang, who played Stonewall Jackson, was brilliant). Gods and Generals, apart from being a preachy love letter to the Confederacy with an editorial pace making it seem only about two minutes shorter than the actual war, contained repeated instances of the word "darkies" to describe African-Americans while glorifying the generals who engaged in what technically amounted to an organized military and political insurrection against the United States. Senator Allen is seen in the movie singing the Bonnie Blue Flag lyric, "Hurrah! Hurrah! For Southern rights, hurrah!" implying, in part, the right to own slaves. Senator Allen, when you boil it right down, portrayed a traitor against the United States. An insurgent, if you will.