Will Frustrated Democrats burst into open surrender to Bush?
by JohnHuang2
Call me dumb, but I still can't make heads-or-tails of this crazy Supreme Court ruling -- the 'landmark' Lawrence v. Texas decision. The 6-3 blockbuster last Thursday sent shock waves across the political landscape. Conservatives charged the High Court had over-stepped its bounds, and I agree. Yet, I can't for the life of me understand what this case has to do with privacy or civil rights. And what on earth are all the Gay celebrations about?
"Gay revelers on Market Street on Sunday were giddy over last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling...and yet braced for what some say will be an inevitable backlash by conservatives," reports Tom Lochner in the Contra Costa Times Monday.
"Contingents from more than 100 cultural, musical, dance and ethnic organizations; politicians and other celebrities wound their way from Beale Street to the Civic Center in the annual San Francisco Pride parade, the culmination of a weeklong celebration," Lochner added.
"In New York, Atlanta, Seattle, San Francisco and other cities, revelers marked, danced, carried banners congratulating the Supreme Court for its landmark ruling, as rainbow flag-waving crowds lined the streets," chirped the Associated Press.
"`There's such a resonance, such a sense of movement,' said Marty Downs, a community organizer with the New York Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender," Trans-Trans gender, Can't remember My Gender "Community Center. `This year, it feels pretty political.'"
"`You couldn't ask for a better reason to come out and celebrate,'" said Philip Rafshoon, owner of Outwrite Bookstore in Atlanta's traditionally gay Midtown neighborhood."
Or how about this unfathomable piece of winding mumbo-jumbo by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, voting with the majority, `explaining' her decision to strike the Texas statute: "A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the state's moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review."
Huh?
Now, can somebody please tell me what the Equal Protection Clause, Gay pride, Lesbian, Gay, Bixsexual and Transgender Community centers have to do with the toppled dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein? The Texas statute was an anti-Saddamy law, no?
Oops! Never mind. My bad.
Kidding aside, regarding Lawrence v. Texas, all I can say is this: There goes that narrow-minded, far right-wing, ultra-conservative, anti-gay, anti-civil rights, election-stealing, pro-Bush, extremist SCOTUS again! In one term, this `extremist, far-right' Rehnquist court codified racial quotas, the Gay agenda, welfare programs while trampling states rights and shredding federalism to ribbons. If this `far-right' court gets any more `far-right,' Bush will have no choice but to sign an executive order... ;)
Meanwhile, "Ralph Nader, still blamed by many Democrats of draining critical votes from Al Gore in the 2000 race for the presidency, says he is seriously considering running in 2004," reports Tom Squitieri in USA Today.
Hold it right there! "Many Democrats" are saying that Nader drained "critical votes from Al Gore in the 2000 race?" What? How on earth did Nader drain "critical votes from Al Gore" on the Supreme Court -- the right-wing, extremist, fascist, election-stealing, pro-Bush cabal who cheated poor Al Gore? Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, O'Conner and Kennedy would've voted the same in 'Bush v Gore' whether Nader had run or not! ;)
Nader's "decision," Squitieri adds, "has the potential to vex Democrats who worry that he would divert some of their supporters and delight Republicans who think the same thing. Nader says he has moved closer to a repeat run as the Green Party nominee after concluding that Democrats have no one -- [no one! Not even Carol Moseley Braun! Not even Dennis Kucinich!] -- who can defeat President Bush." Squitieri notes that, "In 2000, Nader got 2,878,157 votes. That was 2.73% of the votes cast, a distant third place."
Okay, I know I'll get flamed to ashes for this, but here goes.
I firmly believe our election process is ill-served by marginal, third-party candidates "draining votes" from one candidate or the other. It distorts the political process on so many levels, frankly. Ross Perot undoubtedly cost Bush 41 his re-election, evidence shows. In light of this, and to ensure election '04 truly reflects the will of the people, I would urgently implore whoever the eventual Democrat nominee happens to be, to pull out of the race and avoid "draining critical votes from" Ralph Nader! ;)
Meanwhile, "Did Bill Clinton inflict some extra lashes on himself in Hillary Rodham Clinton's best-selling memoir?" asks the New York Daily News. "The former President may have taken a more active role than anyone suspected in the writing of `Living History,' insiders tell us."
"Sen. Clinton invited her husband's comments on her manuscript," adds the paper, citing a "person familiar with his blue-penciling." "But it's said that [Bill] went so far" as to recommend "the line: `I could hardly breathe. Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him...'"
"A source who saw an early draft of the manuscript recalls that the `gulping' phrase was not in the original copy: `It appeared from nowhere' after the book spent a night at the Clintons," the News notes.
Bill and Hillary! strongly denied in a sincerely worded "joint statement" drafted by their lawyer that "Bill had anything to do with that chapter," says the News.
I tend to believe Bill and Hillary!'s denial on this score. Hillary! had 3 ghost writers write her memoirs, right? And we have no reason to doubt the `gulping phrase,' no? Well, find out which of those 3 ghost writers Bill Clinton cheated on and you'll have the source of the `gulping phrase.' Piece of cake!
Democrats maintain that the 2000 Presidential election was stolen by several million voters in Florida who, by a 537-vote margin, voted for the Texas dude over Gore, which isn't fair; these evil voters in Florida persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court that just because Bush won more votes in Florida, that Bush won Florida. Not fair!
Well, Democrats aren't about to let defeat at the ballot box get in the way of 'victory' again. Not in California, anyway.
"When the 2000 presidential election melted down in Florida, Democrats were admittedly exhausted, caught off guard and outmaneuvered by Republicans," reports the San Francisco Chronicle this week.
Democrats were so "exhausted," so "caught off guard and outmaneuvered by Republicans" in Florida, that the very next day after the elections, Democrats flew plane-loads of lawyers into Florida to challenge the election that millions of Florida voters cheated poor Al Gore out of by voting for Bush.
"Now, Democrats are applying the lessons they learned 3,000 miles away to the potential recall of Gov. Gray Davis," adds the Chronicle.
"Over the past two weeks, Davis and his supporters have become more organized and focused, and unafraid of ground-level skirmishes. They have settled on a simple message -- that the recall is a right-wing coup attempt -- and started preparing a long-range public relations assault...In times like these, tactical advantage can be the key to winning public and legal support."
And who's behind this 'right-wing' coup plot? Rep. Darrell Issa, a conservative Republican from San Diego, that's who! Davis' powerful argument is simple and effective: If it weren't for these `right-wing' coup-plotters, led by Darrell Issa, I wouldn't have lied about the size of the budget deficit ($38 billion) before my re-election last November. If it weren't for these `right-wing' coup-plotters, led by Darrell Issa, California would not have the worst credit rating in the nation and wouldn't be doing business almost entirely on borrowed money. If it weren't for these `right-wing' coup-plotters, led by Darrell Issa, I wouldn't have had to triple the car tax and wouldn't be asking for $4.2 billion in additional tax hikes and billions owed to nursing homes and hospitals would not be going unpaid and tens of thousands of state workers would not be getting lay-off warning notices. The recall effort was even responsible for blackouts during energy crisis last year and the year before -- even before a recall effort was possible.
But now that Gov. "Davis and his supporters have become more organized and focused"; now that they've "settled on a simple message" -- I'm not hated because I'm a lousy governor, I'm a lousy governor because I'm hated! And every one is plotting against me! And Issa made me do it! -- is the new Davis public relations push convincing the voters? Yes! Miraculously, almost overnight, "Polls show that public support" for the new and improved Gov. Davis "has plummeted below 25 percent," reports the Washington Post Monday.
Gov. Davis, California's Weapon of Mass Dysfunction, is about to be terminated by the Terminator. Hasta la vista, baby!
"This new era of secrecy, lies, and deceit in the government and corporations [has] started to infect our states, our cities, our communities, our core values and beliefs," charged a leading expert on sociology and ethics in a published statement last week.
"We can not let our politicians and corporate CEOs get away with lying to us," wrote Barbra Streisand, recognized authority on morals and ethics, in her latest Truth Alert posted on her homepage.
Streisand, whose widely acclaimed contributions includes the now famed scholarly essay, Don't Attaq Irak!, the bible of anti-war activists before the war, wondered if America has entered "an era of trickle-down immorality, like trickle-down economics? The country sees their leader not telling the truth," falsely accusing Saddam Hussein, a barbaric, murderous dictator, of being a barbaric, murderous dictator -- all based on "faulty intelligence and exaggerated threats."
"The president is our leader, the figurehead of the country, a father figure," said Streisand. "Are the `children' supposed to follow his example?"
Saying mean and malicious things about Saddam -- mean and malicious things now shown to be false, but not held accountable -- sends "a message that you don't have to mean what you say, that you don't have to care about other people, that you can do whatever you have to do or say whatever you have to say to get ahead," observed Streisand, who defended Clinton during impeachment, arguing then that presidents don't have to mean what they say, that they can do whatever they have to do or say whatever they have to say' -- whatever it takes to keep them evil Republicans from winning.
Leveling her most serious charge, Streisand alleges that Bush's "lies and deceit have started to infect my life as well." In fact, Bush's 'lies and deceit' have started to infect her life for over 40 years! "I have read lies about myself and have had people take advantage of my position . . . but I have never sued anybody," she says. "Sometimes people" send Barbra books filled with lies about Barbra, but Barbra bravely takes it in stride. Barbra remembers one book that said Barbra once "walked onto a soundstage and fired everyone on the left side of the room, and other nonsensical stories like that." Barbra fired everyone on the right side of the room! Not the left! Evil people who write these evil books about Barbra "usually don't do their own research or verify facts -- they just perpetuate old lies" about Barbra.
"All lies," she says, "but I didn't sue because of the publicity, the headache, the expenses, the time . . ." Barbra couldn't weather the terrible publicity and headache of seeing her name vindicated and her accusers exposed as liars. For Barbra, far better it is to sacrifice in the name of a nobler, far worthier cause: Me, Barbra.
But that was then. Barbra now vows revenge for all the lies told about Barbra. "Like the character Howard Beale in the movie Network, `I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!'"
Here's the deal: "Years ago, I donated my 24-acre ranch with five homes on it to the California Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. Ever since I made that" selfless, noble, altruistic, generous, big-hearted, high-minded, ungrudging, kindly, lofty, humanitarian, benevolent self-sacrificing charitable "donation, lies" have been told "about the nature of that donation." Truth is, after shelling out a whopping $7.5 million for the ranch, Barbra got back an itty-bitty-teeny sum of $5.5 million in 'tax savings' over the 20-year life of the mortgage. In other words, Barbra "actually lost" a humongous "$2 million on the property." This charitable giving stuff actually cost her money! Giving that involves giving -- what's next?
So, what does any of this have to do with anything? Well, there's this "website mogul" publishing pictures of Barbra's home "identified with" Barbra's name, so now Barbra's decided to sue him after the "website mogul" refused requests to yank Barbra's name from his website. "We just want to be treated fairly," she says, "like the other coastal residences in the 11,000 photos on his site that are not identified by name. Why am I singled out and used to bring people to his site?"
Y'all may think this Barbra stuff is nothing more than a bunch of narcissist nonsense, well, think again. This ain't self-absorption, folks, this is national security!
Barbra, in a bombshell revelation, says this guy's website "is endangering homeland security by providing high definition, detailed photographs of high security facilities."
So, thanks to Bush's mean and malicious charges against Saddam -- mean and malicious charges now shown to be false and based on "faulty intelligence and exaggerated threats" -- this "website mogul" guy who, like Bush, is probably working for al-Qaeda (hiding in plain sight, too!) is posting pictures of 11,000 coastal residences, but what he really means to do is provide "high definition, detailed photographs of high security facilities" to endanger homeland security! No, wait...I take that back.
Bush lied about Saddam, right? Yes, he did. Has he paid a price for lying about Saddam? No, he hasn't. In other words, as Barbra so eloquently puts it, "The country sees their leader not telling the truth." So, this website mogul guy, taking his cue from Bush, "the figurehead of the country, the father figure," wakes up one morning and says, 'Hey, Bush lied about Saddam and Congress refuses to impeach him. So, no way can I take Barbra's name off my website because Trickle-Down immorality won't let me. The force of Trickle-Down is overwhelming. I can't help it. Want me to pull Barbra's name off my website? Impeach! Impeach! Then -- and only then -- will the power of Trickle-Down be broken and I can go back to being a good person again! With Trick-Down gone after Bush's impeachment, Sammy Sosa stops putting cork in his bat, Martha Stewart stops lying to investigators, Jayson Blair stops lying to readers, Hillary! stops lying to memoirs, Gray Davis stops lying to voters, Michael Jackson stops lying to fans ... well, you get the picture.
Laugh, but Barbra is on to something here, folks. The latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll shows only 65% of Americans consider Bush 'honest and trustworthy,' -- a catastrophic drop of 4 percentage points in one year! A year ago, a huge 69% considered Bush honest and trustworthy. This plunge in the numbers must be keeping Karl Rove up late at night.
Even more worrying for the White House, noticeable slippage in an area key to Bush's high job approval ratings: Only 75% of Americans consider Bush a 'strong and decisive leader.' One year ago, that number was 70%. Okay, no 'noticeable slippage,' but I wouldn't get too cocky if I were you. Barbra's got more Truth Alert masterpieces to publish, her spell-check is working, then we'll see what happens to the numbers! Bush's favorability rating is nothing to write home about either. Back in December, 68% of Americans had a favorable impression of Bush. That number has plummeted to 65% in the latest Gallup.
"An international force of up to 60,000 troops is needed in Iraq to halt the continuing violence, which will escalate if left unchecked, U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden warned Sunday," Reuters reports.
Biden's attack, the latest in a surge of attacks by Old Europe Democrats frustrated by Bush's sustained popularity despite the surge in attacks by Old Europe Democrats targeting Bush's sustained popularity, raises a serious question: Will growing hostile fire from frustrated, Old Europe Democrats burst into open surrender to Bush given the futility of defeating him?
Despite the surge of `Quagmire!' reports by Dan Rather night after night on the "Evening news," Bush's job approval rate holds steady at 61% in the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll, further enraging "patriotic" Democrats hoping the daily reports from Iraq of catastrophe would by now erode public support for Bush. Hasn't happened. The opposite has happened: 2 weeks ago, 51% of Americans said U.S. casualties in Iraq were at acceptable levels, according to a ABC News/Washington Post Poll. In the new Gallup, that number is 74%.
If Democrats plan to throw in the towel, there are few signs of it yet.
While Gephardt promises to sign an executive order ending all violence in Iraq, Sen. Biden blasted the White House for holding an "ideological fixation" against Europe for opposing military action.
Appearing on "Fox News Sunday, " Sen. Biden said "I want to see French, German, I want to see Turkish patches on people's arms sitting on the street corners, standing there in Iraq...We've got to get over this ideological fixation on the part of Mr. Rumsfeld and Cheney of not letting the Europeans and NATO come in."
Huh? Is this guy nuts, or what? He wants to see French, German and Turkish troops sitting on street corners, "standing there in Iraq"? Peace-keeping troops? What the heck peace is there to keep? Call me dumb, but how does Biden figure troops can sit around holding hands and playing chess right in the middle of the biggest quagmire since Vietnam? That's a war zone! Hundreds and hundreds of oil fires are raging; in Basra, you can hardly breathe, the air is so thick with smoke you can slice it. It'll be months before fires are contained -- that's assuming we win the war. Much of Baghdad lay in ruins, the air in the capital larded with deadly nerve agent and other chemicals released by Saddam Hussein, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians. Hospitals are morgues.Tens of thousands of U.S. troops lay dead or wounded on the battlefield, as Republican Guard forces sweep the country. After dozens of Scud missiles strikes (and more on the way), Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv smolder in rubble. In northern Iraq, Turkish and Kurdish forces slaughter each other as millions of Iraq refugees pour into Kuwait and Jordan.
Excuse me? What's that you say? No oil fires? No thick, choking smoke? Baghdad not in ruins? No hundreds of thousands of Iraqis civilians killed? No deadly nerve agent larding the air? All hospitals are open and running? More electricity in Baghdad now than before the war? No tens of thousands of U.S. G.I.s dead? Fewer killed this time than in Gulf War I? No Republican Guard sweeping the country? No Scud attacks on Israel, no civil war in northern Iraq? No refugees in Kuwait and Jordan?
Well, that explains it. Small wonder Biden's complaining.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
