<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Dick Cheney is My Hero 

What does a classy Vice President do when he's likely just days away for indictment for treason? Most politicians would cover their ass. Not Dick Cheney. He lives up to his name. He brushes himself off, goes out before the public, and demands the CIA be allowed to torture our enemies.

(0) comments

Monday, October 17, 2005

G.O.P.: The Grand Ol' Pissing Contest 

Well, damn. From the way Conservatives are acting, you would think that Bush nominated Ted Kennedy himself to the Supreme Court.

My current theory is that the Harriet Miers fights have next to nothing to do with Harriet Miers. I think that it is just Republican factions letting off steam at each other.

Traditionally, when one Party controls the Congress and the White House, there is an immediate rivalry between the branches of government. This was true when the "New Democrat" Clinton administration feuded with the traditional Liberal Congress. Clinton had to fight his own party to get Welfare Reform passed, as well as the NAFTA treaty.

However, in the current hyper-partisan zeitgeist of the country, the Republicans did not dare escalate their inner feuds. The MoveOn fanatics controlling the Democrats, they feared, would leap onto any weakness and devour the Conservative movement. Meanwhile, Bush spent his first term alienating Conservative goals with such dubious actions as imposing steel tariffs to protect the industry in Pittsburgh, giving millions in Farm Subsidies over the millions that farms in the Midwest already get, and dumping a whole lot more money into Medicare in a way that probably won't improve its value. Conservatives whined, but with Howard Dean and John Kerry growling at the door, they dared not endanger the president's standing.

Of course, the Congressional Republicans themselves have much to be ashamed of. Bush's tax cuts were passed narrowly, and will likely expire soon. Even worse, they abandoned him and crippled his second term by refusing to back him up on Social Security reform, an issue infinitely more important and more relevent to the Conservative cause than one Supreme Court nominee. If Bush is nervous to embrace Conservative causes, it is only because Congressional Conservatives proved to be pure cowards.

The Intellectual Base of the Conservative Movement (Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, National Review, Rush Limbaugh) wanted someone the Democrats would despise, even filibuster, because they want to fight the Democrats and the Liberals, and because they ain't elected to a damned thing. Their instant and noisy disaproval of Miers gave the Congressional Republicans cover to lash out at the Bush White House, something they have probably wanted to do for years. Bush doesn't care what any of these people think. Bush doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks. Conservatives love it when he shows this disdain toward the Liberals and the Democrats and the World Community at Large. They seem to like it a lot less when he shows it toward Conservatives.

I think the Conservatives are proving one thing: There is likely not going to be a McCain presidency. Conservatives are demonstrating that they are a potent force. They may distrust Miers, but they despise McCain. If he manages to win the Primaries, Conservatives may abandon him, much like they abandoned George H. Bush. The fear of a Clinton presidency didn't save the last Moderate Republican. It probably won't save the next.

(0) comments

Saturday, October 08, 2005

....Perhaps I am overly obsessed with ladies underwear? 

Ah, those wacky Christians are at it again.

Some Christian groups staged protests at the Tyson Corner Victoria Secret. Apparantly, it is smutty and wreaking havok on the mind of children, and is totally inappropriate for a family shopping center. You see, the mannequins are in their underwear, and in posing positions. Gee, Christians, and you have the nerve to wonder why no one ever takes you seriously?

First of all, I find it very hard for these mannequins to be obscene without genitalia. Otherwise, we are essentially talking about oversized Barbie dolls. How many of these concerned Christian women (and let's face it, we know that they are all women) have naked Barbies spread out over their house? All of them with girls between the ages of two and seven, I'd wager. And if they have young boys, those naked Barbies have probably been decapitated. Now THAT is unwholesome!

What exactly do the fat, Christian women with too much time on their hands fear that children might learn from the Victoria's Secret display? That women wear underwear? All department stores and box stores, even Fundementalist-run Wal-Mart, sell underwear. Like Victoria's Secret, they have mannequins in their skivvies, as well as photographs of hot models wearing the bras and thongs and such. Why not protest at the Softer Side of Sears?

Yeah, Victoria's Secret underwear is more sexually alluring. So what? There is nothing inherently wrong with sex. Its how we make new people, tolerate marriage, etc. Besides, from the little I understand about the female mind, I undersand that they like being able to buy pretty underwear (as opposed to men, who wear the same $2.50 pack of underwear until it becomes grey and threadbare).

What really bugs me though, is how ridiculous this makes Conservative thought look. The Christian outlook can be valuable when applied to issues such as Abortion, Patriotism, Charity, Gay Rights, and Law & Order. When they waste political credibility on the issue of underwear, they hurt their standing on issues that actually matter.

And of course, this is the stuff the local press covers, thus making the Christians look like assholes to the whole Washington DC area. And what did the ugly, fat Christian women accomplish? They gave Victoria's Secret a whole lot of free publicity, and made me write a blog that makes me feel like a pervert.

(2) comments

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Harriet Miers? What is the Deal? 

Bush finally committed his father's political sin. He alienated his base. Of course, he's not up for re-election, so it really doesn't concern him that much anymore.

Let me give the same disclaimer that I gave to John Roberts. I really don't know anything about Harriet Miers. I am wary of her, however, because she donated money to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign in 1987. Remember Al Gore? No? Well, imagine a man with the personality of Howard Dean mixed with the crazy politics of Ralph Nader. Then give it a monotone voice that would bore a hole in solid stone, and the complete inability to accept defeat like a man. Yeah, now you remember.

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders why the Bush/Rove team would nominate someone as sketchy as Miers. Most likely, in my opinion, is that Bush framed this nomination in the framework of the War on Terror. Bush doesn't look at politics as Republican/Democrat or even Conservative/Liberal. All that matters to him is the dynamics between Hawk/Dove (Hence his embracing of the pro-war Clinton family, despite their obvious distaste with him). While Bush was framing his strategy on the War on Terror, Miers was almost certainly whispering the legal dynamics in his ear. Bush knows that she would uphold any ideas she suggested to him, such as military tribunals, and the more useful aspects of the Patriot Act. Many Conservatives do not support expanding federal powers to help in the War. Judge Andrew Nepolitano from FoxNews and the American Conservative Union, for example, are both on record to be opposed to such tactics. I have no doubt that if given a choice between a dovish Pro-Life judge or a hawkish member of NARAL, Bush would choose the Hawk every time.

However, a more skeptical part of me wonders if they want her to fail. The Democrats are itching for some claim to victory. It may be that the administration found someone exactly fitted to the mold that the Democrats demanded: Female, moderate, non-Catholic. They may have predicted that Liberal Groups would attempt to destroy her, regardless. If so, they have not yet taken the bait. NARAL and NOW both seem cautiously optimistic about her (another reason not to trust her), and MoveOn is too stupid to even acknowledge her (at least, at the time of this posting). Of course, Rove can always count on Michael Moore and the New York Times to smear up trouble and drag the what-passes-for-mainstream-Left into the realms of lunacy, with or without credible evidence. Rove may be hoping that the Democrats will waste all of their political capital destroying Miers, so that Bush can put a true Conservative onto the Bench. Of course, if Rove really is trying to set Miers up for a Borking (political meaning, gentlemen. Get your mind out of the gutter), then I'd have to agree with the Left that he is pure evil.

Finally, it is possible Bush is trying to fulfill his original campaign promise to "Be a Uniter, not a Divider" by nominating a Liberal. If so, he did so by breaking his re-election promise to "only nominate strict constructionalists to the bench." If so, he united the country in thinking he is a schmuck. It is undeniable that Conservatives are livid. Rush Limbaugh called him weak yesterday, although today he says Bush is trying to be sneaky. Ann Coulter decided she hates Republicans over this. Even Republican-Chorus-Boy Sean Hannity has found little good to say about Miers, although he's smart enough not to leave a paper trail about his opinions for obnoxious bloggers to find.

(0) comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?