Gimme that old slime and religion

By Capt. Fogg



The Republican circus' Big Top is beginning to fill with snarling dogs, rooting hogs and booming frogs fighting to get into the center ring -- the kind of things once relegated to side shows so as not to frighten young children and more 'sensitive' viewers.



Rick Perry is, as I write this, now announcing his candidacy from the State of South Carolina, where the First Civil War started with the booming of cannons 150 years ago. The Cold Civil War is heating up and so is the rhetoric. Rhetoric just as emotional and just as full of vain invocations of the common divinity. "It's time to get America working again" he says as though his party hadn't presided in ZERO job growth in the eight Republican years and as though we haven't had significant job growth since. Has Perry suggested anything positive or anything other than blind faith in what got us into this mess? Remember he's the guy who thinks the climate responds better to prayer than to carbon dioxide levels. So far it's still not raining in Texas.





Not all the candidates, however, are quite so willing to engage in such a pitched battle on an even field. All the likely female contestants for instance -- like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich seem to prefer to come out slapping and eye gouging but should anyone be so unfair as to ask such inappropriate, unfair "Gotcha" questions as "which newspapers do you read" or just what Mrs. Bachman meant when she said:

"But the Lord said, 'Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.' "

Perhaps since she wears her religion, not only on her sleeve and on her shield like a crusader, but constantly suggests the superiority it gives her along with the right to make peremptory statements about how the rest of us live our lives, it's an appropriate question. It's the same Question President Carter asked of the Southern Baptist Church and not liking the answer, quit the church in which he was raised and spent his life. She'd have us believe she only meant "respect" contrary to the literal word she's so eager to worship. But she didn't say respect, now did she? Nor did the word of God she thinks she's quoting.



Suggesting both that it's offensively inappropriate for anyone to ask clarification of Bachmann and that her explanation would be far too nuanced for us heathen to understand, we have Roland Martin writing on CNN.com today.



Martin tells us she was asked by Byron York:

"As president, would you be submissive to your husband?"

Forgetting the "Billary" gambit directed against Bill Clinton, Childe Roland hesitates not a bit to be offended on behalf of Biblical literalists and for the shy, sensitive and ever-so-subtly nuanced Bachmann who brought the subject up in the first place.



I don't know how old Roland Martin is; whether he remembers the Republicans' question as to whether John Kennedy would obey the Pope instead of the Constitution or whether like the other hand-waving, special pleading, smoke and mirrors artists he can only take refuge in fog shrouded ineffability when someone asks a damned good question he wouldn't hesitate to ask of others.



It's a question asked only because she's a woman, asserts Martin rather tautologically. After all, men aren't ordered to obey their wives in the old books some people confuse with the US Constitution. Apparently he thinks men aren't even asked similar questions about the conflict between their beliefs about the the legitimacy of government, their credos and their ability to administer secular laws in a secular country they may disapprove of.



He's quite wrong of course. These questions are asked and not just by me -- and they are important questions to ask of a party that is insisting in ever louder voices that secularism is a problem and that the country rightly belongs only to those with suitable church affiliations.



(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Damned if you don't

By Capt. Fogg



Even in the mean, scummy world of American presidential campaigns, there are few examples of behavior more scurrilous than the personal attacks on Barack Obama and his wife and children. Central to the defamation were the attacks on his religion, descriptions of which which ranged from radical Christian anti-white crusades to militant, anti-Christian Islam. Of course these attacks are ongoing and virulent even while such a potential candidate as Mitt Romney is feigning shock and dismay at what seems to be a largely non-existent attack against him and his Mormon affiliations.



In a lurid article at Politico, titled Obama Plan: destroy Romney, Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin try to convince us that the Obama campaign staff is planning unconscionable and personal attacks on Romney's religion and character.



Shocking, I know. That sort of thing never happens in America and Republican campaigns never, ever fabricate stories about the war records or terrorist affiliations or high crimes or foreign influences or membership in weird religious cults or even the citizenship of their opponents.



None the less, there was an anonymous source or two we must trust as well as we trust the journalistic integrity of Politico. It's just political reality, says the article. He can't campaign on accomplishments so he has to get dirty and therefore he's already dirty. Seems logical even if it isn't actually the truth, much less fair or balanced reporting.

"And so the candidate who ran on “hope” in 2008 has little choice four years later but to run a slashing, personal campaign aimed at disqualifying his likeliest opponent."

No, he has little choice so he's already guilty of what we predict he will do: he'll be as bad as we Republicans. Those dirty Democrats want to go after Romney's poor record of getting rich while eliminating jobs as CEO of Bain Capital, for instance. They'd like to portray him as "weird" and personally awkward, and even stiff, perhaps like John Kerry was said to be by his GOP opponents. That's slashing for ya! And what about 'Romneycare' in Massachusetts?



Weird. It's a word used often by Obama campaign headquarters we're told. " there’s not a lot to like about Mitt Romney,” said Pete Giangreco who worked on Obama's 2008 campaign;

“There’s no way to hide this guy and hide his innate phoniness.”

Calling a candidate a phony just for being against what he used to be for? I mean how far below the belt will they punch? An "unidentified" source even suggested that Romney's personal awkwardness might turn off some voters -- outrageous!

"In a move that will make some Democrats shudder, Obama’s high command has even studied former President George W. Bush’s 2004 takedown of Sen. John Kerry."

says Politico. I admit - I'm shuddering, but with laughter.



Of course the Romneyites are already calling Obama "disgraceful" for doing what he hasn't done but they predict he will do since they've backed him into a corner -- and their outrage is justifiable. What could be worse, from a Republican perspective, than Democrats doing what Republicans did? And not actually having done it is no excuse! What could be worse than interrupting the personal attack on Obama with an attack on Romney, even if the personal attack on Romney as a "weird" Mormon is a fabrication?



But perhaps here's the grounds for impeachment they've been looking for since the day the oath of office was administered (improperly, they say.) Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) told a Tea Party rally that impeachment "needs to happen" but when asked for the grounds, he had to dissemble since bribery, treason and such things are hard to substantiate in the absence of guilt. Hey, use your imagination, Mike. Just predict he will!



(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Weiner resigns, hypocrisy reigns

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's a shame that it had to come to this, but there was really no other way it could end, not after the lies, not after so much more came out, not after his own party abandoned him, including Pelosi and Obama. (Though I would stress that it's the right, far more than the left, which is generally far more understanding of human frailty and certainly far less hypocritically moralizing, that tries to exploit such scandals for partisan gain, and that was evident throughout "Weinergate.")

Is there a double standard at work here? Of course. Weiner gets nailed for meeting women online, and essentially for behaving stupidly, while Republicans like Newt Gingrich and David Vitter -- despicable, hurtful hypocrites hiding behind their "family values" self-righteousness -- get away with far worse philandering and remain respected public figures, or respected at least by the media. How is it that Weiner has to resign while Gingrich is regarded as a leading conservative with Meet the Press as a frequent venue, as if he must of course be taken seriously, making millions and now running for president?

Not to excuse Weiner's stupidity, but that's what really pisses me off here.

Thoughts on Osama bin Laden's porn stash and American freedom

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So pornography has been found on those computers taken from Osama bin Laden's hideout. Does this prove his hypocrisy? Yes, if it was his, but, even if it was, I'm not sure it's such a shocking revelation. Would we really be surprised to learn that Osama didn't always live up to his extremist ideals?

Sure, he criticized the West for its lax morals and open sexuality, but hypocrisy aside, was he wrong? Consider, without prejudice (if possible), what he once wrote to the American people:

Your nation exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools, calling upon customers to purchase them. You plaster your naked daughters across billboards in order to sell a product without any shame. You have brainwashed your daughters into believing they are liberated by wearing revealing clothes, yet in reality all they have liberated is your sexual desire.

I realize it's not a popular to defend anything about the man, but was he wrong about this? I remain committed to liberal principles and to a liberal way of life, including the liberation of sexual desire and freedom to express ourselves however we please, but I am also troubled by the exploitation of women and sexualization of children that are polluting our culture and interfering with the mature, reasoned expression of our liberty.

This is a far more important issue than Osama's alleged hypocrisy. But try telling that to the media, which prefer titillation to any sort of mature, rational discussion of sexuality and, more broadly, of American and Western culture.

Quote of the Day: Alan Simpson on homophobes and hypocrites in the GOP

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And, oh, is this quotable. Here's the former Republican senator from Wyoming on Hardball yesterday:

Who the hell is for abortion? I don't know anybody running around with a sign that says, "Have an abortion! They're wonderful!" They're hideous, but they're a deeply intimate and personal decision, and I don't think men legislators should even vote on the issue.

Then you've got homosexuality, you've got Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We have homophobes on our party. That's disgusting to me. We're all human beings. We're all God’s children. Now if they're going to get off on that stuff -- Santorum has said some cruel things -- cruel, cruel things -- about homosexuals. Ask him about it; see if he attributes the cruelness of his remarks years ago. Foul.

Now if that's the kind of guys that are going to be on my ticket, you know, it makes you sort out hard what Reagan said, you know, "Stick with your folks." But, I'm not sticking with people who are homophobic, anti-women, moral values -- while you're diddling your secretary while you're giving a speech on moral values? Come on, get off of it.

No one ever accused Simpson of being verbally delicate, and while he doesn't really have anything to lose, he deserves a lot of credit for telling it like it is. It's just a wonder he still calls himself a Republican. Because, let's face it, there's an awful lot more he could have said.

Here's the clip:

Quote of the Day

By Mustang Bobby

Newt Gingrich to Chris Wallace on why he's not a hypocrite for impeaching Bill Clinton for lying about an affair while he, Mr. Gingrich, was having an affair and how screwing around on his wife made him the ideal person to impeach the president: 

WALLACE: I’ll ask you man-to-man. did you think to yourself I'm living in a really glass house? Maybe I shouldn't be throwing stones? 

GINGRICH: No. I thought to myself if I cannot do what I have to do as a public leader, I would have resigned. 

I'd call Mr. Gingrich a douchebag, but that would be an insult to all the other hygiene products in the world.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Fuck you, Peter King, you bigoted piece of anti-Muslim shit

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Too strong? Maybe. I'm sorry if I've injured your delicate sensibilities. (No, not really.) But King* deserves no less for what he's doing.

This former IRA enthusiast -- an avid supporter of terrorism and of a group that had an awful lot of American support even as it targeted a close American friend and was called a terrorist group by the U.S. government -- has ramped up his hatred of Muslims and is holding hearings on Capitol Hill on the supposed Muslim threat to America. (Both Stewart and Colbert had good bits on this last night.)

King is a loathsome little bigot who has stacked the deck not with experts, not with people who actually know something about Islam, the Muslim-American community (which of course shouldn't be treated as monolithic), and terrorism (including the far greater threat, right-wing domestic terrorism) but, predictably enough, with, if I may borrow the term, dittoheads, those who share his bigotry, his view that the Muslim community is festering with terrorists (not good Irish ones targeting Britain, but bad Muslim ones targeting America).

But he wasn't able to silence his own critics, including Rep. Keith Ellison, who delivered an emotional rebuttal to King's efforts:

The first Muslim elected to Congress broke into tears Thursdayas he delivered his opening remarks at a hearing on radicalization in theMuslim American community.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) became heavily emotional as hespoke about a 23-year-old New York Police Department cadet and paramedic namedMohammed Salman Hamdani.

Hamdani, a Muslim, was killed attempting to savepeople from the collapsing World Trade Center buildings on Sept. 11, 2001,following the terrorist attacks, Ellison said.

Here's some of what Ellison said, with the video below:

Let me close with a story, but remember that it's only one of many American stories that could be told. Mohammed Salman Hamdani was a 23-year-old paramedic, a New York City police cadet and a Muslim American. He was one of those brave first responders who tragically lost their lives in the 9/11 terrorist attacks almost a decade ago. As The New York Times eulogized, "He wanted to be seen as an all-American kid."

**********

Mr. Hamdani bravely sacrificed his life to try and help others on 9/11. After the tragedy some people tried to smear his character solely because of his Islamic faith. Some people spread false rumors and speculated that he was in league with the attackers only because he was Muslim. It was only when his remains were identified that these lies were fully exposed. Mohammed Salman Hamdani was a fellow American who gave his life for other Americans. His life should not be defined as a member of an ethnic group or a member of a religion, but as an American who gave everything for his fellow citizens.

* As I've stressed before, no, not that Peter King, that Peter King -- who seems to call himelf "Pete," perhaps to distinguish himself from the more famous other Peter King. Obviously.

Betsy Ross made me do it!

By Distributorcap

Former House Speaker and hypocritical adulterer Newt Gingrich is testing the waters for a presidential run as the Republican nominee in 2012 (well, testing the sewage of the GOP). Knowing full well his three marriages and infidelity would become an issue during the primary season (potentially against such hypocritical luminaries as moronic Putin-neighbor Sarah Palin, geographically challenged squirrel-eater Mike Huckabee, and health-care mandate-lover Mitt Romney), Gingrich decided to bring the issue to the forefront himself to dispose of it like a pamper filled with David Vitter kaka.

Gingrich went on -- of all places -- hypocritical misogynist ("feminism makes women kill their children") and nuke-Foggy Bottom encourager Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network (talk about an oxymoron).

Newt said that the flag, apple pie, baseball, and patriotism all forced him to cheat on wife #1 AND wife #2. In other words (with all due respect to Flip Wilson), that harlot, wench, and flag-nympho Betsy Ross made him do it.

You cannot make up this stuff. While Qaddafi bombs his own people in Libya, Gingrich drops this shit all over America. Yes, it is quite humorous, but it really isn't all that funny.

 

Craziest Republican of the Day: Bill Posey

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This is more stupid than crazy:

ThinkProgress recently spoke with [Rep. Bill] Posey [R-FL], who gained notoriety in 2009 for sponsoring the original "birther bill" in Congress. We asked the congressmen if he plans to turn down government-subsidized health insurance for himself in light of his push to repeal health care reform. His response: "I don't know. Am I a federal employee?"...

ThinkProgress followed up with Rep. Posey's press secretary George Cecala. Mr. Cecala confirmed for us that Congressman Posey is, indeed, a federal employee. In addition, despite Posey's attempts to evade the question, Mr. Cecala told us that the Florida Republican does accept government-subsidized and managed health care and has done so for his entire congressional career. When asked how the congressman would respond to the hypocrisy angle, Mr. Cecala told us "you can't just single out members of Congress and then just ignore other federal employees who receive the same benefits."

What does that have to do with it? The issue isn't that federal employees (including those in Congress) receive such benefits but that Republicans like Posey, along with a few Democrats, oppose the Affordable Care Act and are thus trying to deny adequate health insurance to tens of millions of Americans.

Posey is just one of many, many (if not all) Republicans on Capitol Hill who either deny that they receive government health care (that they'd never want to give up) or prefer to evade the issue altogether lest their utter hypocrisy be exposed.

It's hard to believe he doesn't know if he's a federal employee, but he's certainly got a massive sense of self-righteous entitlement, while basically telling tens of millions of Americans, those without his privileges, that they can go to hell.

Quote of the Day: Dana Milbank on Republican hypocrisy (and worse)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As the Republicans take over the House, it's time for some perspective. And Milbank's got it:

For incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor and his House Republicans, something strange happened on the way to Wednesday's "Opening Day" of the new Congress.

For two years, Cantor and his colleagues campaigned against high deficits. Now, in the new majority's first major act, they plan to vote to increase the deficit by $143 billion as part of a repeal of health-care reform. [Ezra Klein has more on this.]

For two years, Cantor and his colleagues bemoaned the Democrats' abuse of House rules to circumvent committees and to prevent Republicans from offering amendments. Now, Cantor confirmed on Tuesday, Republicans will employ the very same abuses as they attempt the repeal.

For two years, the Republicans complained about unrelenting Democratic partisanship. Now they're planning no fewer than 10 investigations of the Obama administration, and the man leading most of those has already branded Obama's "one of the most corrupt administrations" in history.

For two years, the Republican minority vowed to return power to the people. Now the House Republican majority is asking lobbyists which regulations to repeal, hiring lobbyists to key staff positions and hobnobbing with lobbyists at big-ticket Washington fundraisers.

Not that we could have seen this coming or anything. Right, American voters?

Happy New Year! Happy 112th Congress! Enjoy reaping what you have sown!