“Happy Memorial Day to All, including the Human Scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country, & to the Radical Left, Trump Hating Federal Judge in New York that presided over, get this, TWO separate trials, that awarded a woman, who I never met before (a quick handshake at a celebrity event, 25 years ago, doesn’t count!), 91 MILLION DOLLARS for “DEFAMATION.” She didn’t know when the so-called event took place – sometime in the 1990’s – never filed a police report, didn’t have to produce the “dress” that she threatened me with (it showed negative!), & sung my praises in the first half of her CNN Interview with Alison Cooper, but changed her tune in the second half – Gee, I wonder why (UNDER APPEAL!)? The Rape charge was dropped by a jury! Or Arthur Engoron, the N.Y. State Wacko Judge who fined me almost 500 Million Dollars (UNDER APPEAL) for DOING NOTHING WRONG, used a Statute that has never been used before, gave me NO JURY, Mar-a-Lago at $18,000,000 – Now for Merchan!”
The walking, talking, vacuum Marjorie Taylor Greene has again and again fashioned herself as the guardian-at-arms of her self-appointed House leadership office: Lady High Executioner of the Speaker of the House. She’s not yet met one she didn’t have her fangs out for, and she rarely shuts up about it, demanding attention. attention, and attention. In fact, she’s lately filed a so-called motion to vacate the chair, i.e., the Speaker’s chair, along with its ceremonial gavel. One suspects that she covets that prize – goodbye gavel, hello AR15. Nonetheless, yesterday, in her best dungeon speaking voice she laid down the law to House membership, especially to Mike Johnson, the present Speaker who was then trying to shepherd a group of military assistance bills through the House:
“I don’t care if the Speaker’s office becomes a revolving door. If that’s exactly what needs to happen, then let it be. But the days are over of the old Republican Party that wants to fund foreign wars and murder people in foreign lands, while they stab the American people in their face.”*
How’s that for high dudgeon? Though many in her own party wish she’d simply shut up and resign, they also know she’s a Trump favorite, perhaps on the short list of VP candidates. Of course, that’s ludicrous, but that’s where we are, isn’t it? Would you want an exceedingly bad tempered AR15 packing VP in your White House?
Although sentient beings criticize MTG for her magnetic attraction to conspiracy theories and for her abhorrence to what many for thousands of years have called facts, her indestructible armor has held up well. Media Matter’s Eric Hannoki, among other duties, seems tasked with keeping tabs on MTG’s various research endeavours, which resulted in what might be called a well worth reading citizen’s annotated guide to her disclosures on various murky matters, listing 28 areas where she has plenty to say. Here’s the kicker: his list is only complete through February 2, 2021! Imagine if, in the intervening years, she put her mind to it! And she did.
In 2022, she told supporters: “The government totally wants to provide surveillance on every part of your life. They want to know when you’re eating. They want to know if you’re eating a cheeseburger, which is very bad because Bill Gates wants you to eat his fake meat, which is grown in a peach tree dish. So you’ll probably get a little zap inside your body and that’s saying, ‘No no! Don’t eat a real cheeseburger, you need to eat the fake, the fake burger, the fake meat from Bill Gates.’”
I haven’t touched a cheeseburger since.
Also, in 2022, when criticizing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of spying on her colleagues, she confused the name of the Nazi secret police, the Gestapo, with a delicious Spanish chilled tomato soup, Gazpacho. With that, she sparked a boom in Gazpacho Police tee shirts, jewelry, and Nazi-themed soups, like Blitzkrieg Chili.
But Wait! There’s More!
Her conspiracy IQ, high as it is, is matched by her grasp of lawmaking, where one’s imagination needs some restraint if legislative proposals are to recognized, approved, and passed. And here, she’s covered herself in glory. In the present 118th Congress she’s sponsored some obviously essential proposals, including:
H.J.Res.95 – Declaring a state of war between certain cartels and the United States of America and making provision to prosecute the same.
H.Res.538 – Expunging the December 18, 2019, impeachment of President Donald John Trump. And, showcasing her principled and consistent stand on the concept and law of constitutional impeachment, she’s sponsored four eminently readable and well-thought out bills calling for the impeachment of President Biden, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Matthew M. Graves, United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, whose Senate trial concluded with both charges dismissed on day one.
H.R.5636 – Protect Children’s Innocence Act, o prohibit gender affirming care of minors.
H.Res.829 – Censuring Representative Rashida Tlaib for antisemitic activity, sympathizing with terrorist organizations, and leading an insurrection at the United States Capitol Complex.
But, Wait Again! There’s Still More!!
Continuing her Jewish space lasers crusade, MTG has offered this amendment to the Israel aid package, but not for Israel’s defense needs, but, rather, to build an anti-immigrant laser defense system on our southwest border in order to deep fry illegal border invaders. Some in Congress do not take her seriously.
Israel has some of the best unmanned defense systems in the world.
I’ve previously voted to fund space lasers for Israel’s defense.
America needs to take our national security seriously and deserves the same type of defense for our border that Israel has and proudly uses. pic.twitter.com/oDeDqTXvQQ
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) April 18, 2024
This is another posting from 2011 added here as I refill this newer version of the blog with posts since 2008 to 2019. Hope you find these “historical artifacts” interesting.
September 29, 2012
Where and how did Homer Simpson learn to call Mr. Montgomery Burns, his well-known boss, a “job creator”? It’s interesting. Springfield Hospital’s maternity ward reports that Burns, early this summer, emerged “reborn” as a new man, a job creator. Since then, rather than being known as merely a miserable conniving rat bastard nuclear power purveyor and destroyer of lives, Springfielders have had to reassess him. Warily, they’ve not yet embraced the new Mr. Burns, nonetheless, attempts on his life are no longer routine. Burns likes this. A lot. He can cut his security staff by 40%. “Excellent. Unloading the creeps during a recession adds unbounded joy to a procedure normally quite unextraordinary.”
Today, I was reminded of how this transformation came to be. It required no changes whatever to Monty’s wretched behavior. His unmatched disdain for people, puppies, and philanthropy? Intact. Disgust with slack-jawed troglodyte union organizers? Better than ever. Yet, reborn, Monty became a “Job Creator.” Sounds almost like a hale fellow well met. What happened? The explanation is all around us. Today, an email from former Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL), reminded me how easy this was to accomplish, and not just for Monty Burns.
The Bonfire of Poli-Speak. I get Alan Grayson. Most Democrats do not. Most Dems are now utterly centrist, which in the recent pre-Tea Party past was considered “right-leaning,” and “blue dog.” Alan Grayson is not centrist. His bona fides: he earned a 2.00 rating out of a possible 100.00 from Conservative.org for his voting record. Yes, a “2.” In November’s midterms, Grayson fell to GOP right winger Daniel Webster. Among hisbona fides? In 2005, while serving in the Florida Senate, the gallant Webster fought to keep Terry Schiavo in a persistent vegetative state. Today, in GOP circles, that is considered centrist.
Being in the D.C. area, I’m far distant from his district. As a fan, though, I and thousands of others get emails from time to time with his pithy (he puts the pith in pithy) observations of the current scene. His email today reminded me of a political communications consultant named Frank Luntz. He’s beloved by the GOP for his ability to manufacture dishonest but strangely pleasing phrases that hide what’s really going on underneath. The method is particularly effective when arrayed against the less well-informed, but even seasoned Democratic party boosters and wonks are routinely fooled. So, Luntz’s output is more than lying, and it’s also . . . less. That enigma makes his work for the GOP dangerous.
And that makes it a story worth telling. Monty Burns – and the Koch brothers – would prefer I not do so. . . So, let’s do!
You Say “Toe-MAY-toe,” I Say “Shut Up!“ I hadn’t thought much lately about Frank Luntz, the GOP’s de facto syntax professor and Minister of Truth & Public Enlightenment. His wordsmithery has impacted national political discussion by successfully redefining words and phrases used to discuss policy issues. The GOP, more than any others, has used Luntz’s sleight-of-hand to stake out their radical positions by literally changing the language used to debate them.
That, of course, is what’s meant by “framing” an issue. We all try it. Wives and husbands. Teenagers justifying almost anything. Progressives. Labor unions. Socialists. Tea Partiers. And so too the Democratic party, but without skill or persistence. Now here’s a discouraging truth: No group distorts language to their advantage better than the Luntz-inspired GOP. Democrats are late to the game on this, rarely understanding the national impact of the GOP’s expertly crafted assault on voters’ sense of personal responsibility and public morality, especially their commitment to neighbors, near and far. The result is deadly to Democratic party principles, with a pivotal election approaching.
Some say, “So what? Politicians lie. When not lying they’re thinking about lying.” Well, Luntz’s approach is not precisely a renewed dedication to downright lying, it’s not a prescription for lavish bullsh*tting either. None of this gambling with political language, of course, is new, either. The reigning method, though, is highly refined for the telecommunications-driven 21st Century. As never before, disguised untruth can be pushed to the media outlets in all its forms, 24/7. Beware Frank Luntz while praying for the Democrats to discover their own.
Why did the GOP congressional leadership send a snail-mail missive to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke? Haven’t they gotten the news about “e-mail”? Do they need pen pals that badly? Do they need a loan? Or what?
Imagine, these legendary GOP lunkheads suddenly looking for “ample data,” “quantifiable benefits,” “measurable outcomes,” and . . . evidence! Characteristically, in their letter below, they offer none of those to back up their assertions about the effects of Fed policies. They offer nothing but naked – and uncharacteristically weaselly – claims that “the Federal Reserve’s actions have likely led to more fluctuations and uncertainty in our already weak economy,” and “further intervention by the Federal Reserve could exacerbate current problems or further harm the U.S. economy.”
It’s not surprising this Gang of No would “instruct” the Fed this way. They speak for the bigger gang of GOP/TP Fed haters. In good times and in bad times they detest the Federal Reserve. Now, however, having consciously slowed the economy by blocking any meaningful – and temporary – fiscal stimulus, they must kneecap the Fed. And now. Why? To cut off monetary stimulus as well. They cannot win the White House in 2012 without a substantially weakening economy between now and November 2012. Moreover, the blatant, if hamfistedly muted, threat against Bernanke and the Fed inherent in their letter is as subtle as a Hustler billboard in Vatican Square.
One wonders, are they playing chicken with a depression? Are they actively courting one for political purposes alone? It seems unlikely to seek economic catastrophe, but, recall, they are batsh*t crazy. We ought never underestimate batsh*t, or crazy. Here’s their cris de coeur, dated September 19, 2011:
“Dear Chairman Bernanke,
It is our understanding that the Board Members of the Federal Reserve will meet later this week to consider additional monetary stimulus proposals. We write to express our reservations about any such measures. Respectfully, we submit that the board should resist further extraordinary intervention in the U.S. economy, particularly without a clear articulation of the goals of such a policy, direction for success, ample data proving a case for economic action and quantifiable benefits to the American people.
It is not clear that the recent round of quantitative easing undertaken by the Federal Reserve has facilitated economic growth or reduced the unemployment rate. To the contrary, there has been significant concern expressed by Federal Reserve Board Members, academics, business leaders, Members of Congress and the public. Although the goal of quantitative easing was, in part, to stabilize the price level against deflationary fears, the Federal Reserve’s actions have likely led to more fluctuations and uncertainty in our already weak economy.
We have serious concerns that further intervention by the Federal Reserve could exacerbate current problems or further harm the U.S. economy. Such steps may erode the already weakened U.S. dollar or promote more borrowing by overleveraged consumers. To date, we have seen no evidence that further monetary stimulus will create jobs or provide a sustainable path towards economic recovery.
Ultimately, the American economy is driven by the confidence of consumers and investors and the innovations of its workers. The American people have reason to be skeptical of the Federal Reserve vastly increasing its role in the economy if measurable outcomes cannot be demonstrated. We respectfully request that a copy of this letter be shared with each Member of the Board.
Sincerely, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Rep. John Boehner, Sen. Jon Kyl, Rep. Eric Cantor”
“I plan to be the firstpresident to be marriedfor the 4th time in the White House.” In the wake of his eighth-place finish (out of 10) in the Ames Iowa Straw Poll last Saturday, Professor Newt Gingrich is far off course as a serious candidate for the GOP presidential nomination. Known to his supporters as an idea-a-minute seer and scholar, he seems to have failed to convince those at the Ames BBQ. Mr. Gingrich gracefully acceded to our request to sit down with me and one of my unpaid staff members, who I prefer to call my next-door neighbor. So, early this morning we three somewhat bleary-eyed political junkies visited the famed Capitol Rotunda restaurant, the Disgruntled Toad. As we downed cup after cup of coffee and feasted on a delightful breakfast buffet, we spoke of Iowa. . .
Your Editor [Me, Editor]: Mr. Gingrich, may I call you Gingo? Gingrich: No. My Next-Door Neighbor (NDN): I told you he wouldn’t. Me, Editor: Well, you’re still not getting back your lawn mower. NDN: Yeah, yeah, that’s all I hear . . . Me, Editor: Excuse us, Professor. Gingrich: No.
Iowa? Where’s Iowa?
Me, Editor: Well, let’s move on, shall we? Professor, how do you feel about your finish in the Iowa straw poll Saturday? You garnered 2% of the vote. You were 8th out of 10 candidates. Do you consider that a repudiation . . .? Gingrich: Well, first off, as I told FOX’s Chris Wallace at last week’s debate, I wish you would put aside the gotcha questions. How I did in Iowa is irrelevant to my candidacy. Me, Editor: Yes, but how you finished in the poll does have some effect, after all. You are now viewed as a long shot for the nomination . . . Gingrich: Wait, wait a minute. Who says I was entered in the Ames Iowa straw poll? Me, Editor: Um . . . well your straw poll entry documentation for one thing. Your appearances there. Your name on the ballot. Your . . . Gingrich: Wrong. Clearly, anyone who says that I was involved in the Ames thing is lying. I was not there. I did not compete. I was not on the ballot. Ballots can be faked, photoshopped. . . Me, Editor: (Quickly, I show Mr. Gingrich the many news accounts and photos of him in Ames, Iowa.) But I have these pictures, and news stories, and your own words . . . Gingrich: Quit! Quit with these “gotcha” questions. I was in New Hampshire, a state whose presidential primary has importance, not Ames. I couldn’t find Ames on a map. The Ames thing is a beauty pageant. I have no doubt I’d have won, but I decided months ago to forgo such silliness. Manifest silliness. I was not there. Me, Editor: You maintain these hundreds of reports are fabrications. Gingrich: Yes. I was not there. I did not compete. Clearly, these news accounts and pictures are false. Can we move on, please, to some of my ideas? Ideas that can help revive our great country? Me, Editor: Well, I would rather speak more of the obviously false news accounts of your appearances in Ames, Iowa. That’s a big story.
An Executive Order A Minute
Gingrich: No, it is not. America is. Let’s talk about my ideas for America. I have two ideas a minute. Giuliani noticed that. And here’s the title of my new book, Let’s Talk About My Ideas. I Have 2 A Minute! Me, Editor: Interesting. That brings up an observation. Your books are more often co-written. There is speculation. How much, on average, do you contribute to the actual writing? Gingrich: As Reagan said to Carter in a 1979 debate, “There you go again.” You do that. You just asked another “gotcha” question. Look. My name’s on the cover. It’s in the biggest type face. That’s all I’m going to say on that matter. Now, about my ideas for America . . . Me, Editor: Please. Gingrich: First, as President, through an Executive Order – E.O. 1 – I’ll rename the country. I’ll call us “Cash Only.” No more credit buying. No more big deficits. In fact, here’s another idea. We’ll forgive our debt to others. E.O. 2 will do that. I’ll send a powerful message to others . Me, Editor: Which is . . . ? Gingrich: Another “gotcha”? Again . . .?Me, Editor: Proceed. Gingrich: So, as President, on day one, with E.O. 2, I’ll say to the world, “We’re going to see you straight. We’re not paying our debt at all. In fact, who says we owe anything to anybody? Show me the paperwork.” So That’s The First Hour Of My First Day As President. Already, We’re Completely Debt Free. Me, Editor: Sir, we all know there is more than ample paperwork. Countries from China to Saudi Arabia hold hundreds of billions of Treasury obligations . . . Gingrich: They can be forged. They can be manipulated. Computers can be hacked. People can be bribed. Me, Editor: So, do you plan to just blow off the entire amount we owe? Trillions? The world would collapse economically. The United States would be humiliated . . . Gingrich: Remember my first idea. We’re not the “United States” anymore, we’re “Cash Only.” NDN: I actually likethat idea! Me, Editor: That’s a good speech, NDN. Remember, you’re just here as an observer.
Medicare? Social Security? Easy Peasy
Gingrich: So, that’s the first hour of my first day as President. Already, we’re completely debt free. Next, I’d make Social Security and Medicare secure for future generations, and not like Eric Cantor or Paul Ryan would, not by a nasty form of privatization. Me, Editor: That’s intriguing. As you know, much has been suggested for many years by all political parties, economists, policy analysts . . . How would you propose to secure these programs? Gingrich: I wouldn’t “propose.” President Gingrich would do. It’s simple. It demonstrates my knowledge of history. I’d employ my mastery of policy. I’m futuristic. Me, Editor: This could be a magnificent demonstration of that. But I can only imagine fixing Medicare and Social Security and maintaining its stability, affordability, and viability would be complicated . . . Gingrich: Complicated? Not at all. It’s just that no politician has the ability to think my ideas. For both programs, I’ll invoke the Alien and Sedition Acts. Me, Editor: Excuse me . . . um . . . Gingrich: You don’t know the history. To keep Medicare and Social Security on the books, I’ll invoke one of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Alien Act. It allows the president to deport any resident alien considered dangerous to our safety. Me, Editor: Have you read these centuries old laws? Under no possible interpretation do they apply to your purposes. But, even assuming they did, how are Medicare and Social Security recipients dangerous to our safety? How are they “aliens,” for Heaven’s sake? And did not Supreme Court Justice Douglas say that the Alien and Sedition Acts “constituted one of our sorriest chapters.” . . .? Gingrich: I remember a summary of it all in graduate school where I earned a PhD. in history. Regardless, the Alien and Sedition Acts were never held unconstitutional. In any event, applicable or not, on day one of my presidency, in the early afternoon, I’ll issue E.O. 3, and use the Alien Act to deport all persons receiving Medicare and Social security benefits to the Scandinavian countries: Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and any others in that group. They like socialist parasites. And such people are, by definition, dangerous to our security, are they not?” And what could be more “alien” to our values? Scandinavians love socialists, they would welcome these people. Me, Editor: But, but . . . but . . . but . . . they don’t mean “alien” like that, they meant it as in “immigrant,” not as in American citizens. Gingrich: Not in my dictionary. Clearly, you need to look up “parasite.” NDN: Right on, professor. I’m on Medicare and Socialist Security, and I agree with you. I’m a parasite. Me, Editor: Yes, you certainly are. . . And, Professor Gingrich, to be candid, your ideas in this area are stunning. Literally. I’m stunned. Numbed. I cannot feel my arms. Gingrich: Thank you. I’m unapologetically proud of my audacity. And since I’ll use E.O. 3. to accomplish it, I’ll bypass Congress, and, then, with E.O. 4, I’ll abolish the federal judiciary, permanently neutralizing their influence. And I’ve only revealed a few of my ideas. But most of all, as President, I will reduce the size of the federal government and the power of “imperial presidency” that President Obama has radically expanded.
Bidding farewell and good luck
NDN: Excuse me, Professor. I have a question. Maybe you have an idea. . . Suppose your neighbor borrowed your lawn mower, your car, your savings. He’s had these items for more than three years. You’ve asked for them back, a lot. But you get no reply. He gets you confused into working off an imagined debt to him by working full-time in his online publishing venture . . . Any ideas how to get out of this? Gingrich: Well, sure I do. First, you simply . . . Me, Editor: Well, I see our time is up. Thank you for your time, Professor. We’ve all gained from your insights and your crackerjack ideas. Two a minute. Well, I say, keep on noodling about America’s problems. Until next time, good luck on the campaign trail!
What Texas Miracle . . .? Jobs miracle . . .? Well yes, if you consider that Texas sports among the lower median hourly wage in the country ($11.00/hour) . . . and that wages have grown less that 3/4% in the last four years, as opposed to around 4.5% nationally . . . and that Texas has the highest number of workers in the U.S. making the minimum wage ($7.25/hour) . . . So much of Perry’s miracle employment – the jobs miracle he boasts – results in very low paying jobs.
Check it out: the median Texas wage is $11.00/hour. That means half of all workers make $11.00 or less per hour, and my guess is there are a lot of folks making less than $11.00/hour since Texas, on Rick Perry’s watch, leads the nation in the number of workers making minimum wage. Well, a 40-hour week at $11.00/hr. yields $440/week/pre-Federal taxes (there’s no Texas income tax, that would be socialism). One can eke out a living at $440/week but recall that Texas also boasts the highest percentage of people without health insurance, 25%. So, even with Texas’s somewhat low cost of living and housing expenses, how far does that $440/week go? What jobs miracle is that? There’s a lot of wage slavery, and that’s no miracle.
Rick Perry, now, in what passes for “legitimacy” in the GOP, is a legitimate contender for the GOP nomination. I’ll follow him here like a foxhound on a hunt because I think he’s the front runner. So, the Governor is very proud of his miraculous touch, but the data doesn’t lie. Governor, you should know that in Texas, they say, “You can put your boots in the oven, but that don’t make em biscuits.”
Older Americans do not intend to ruin America, but as a group, that’s what they’re about. Robert J. Samuelson, Why are we in this debt fix? It’s the elderly, stupid. Washington Post, July 28, 2011
Answer: The Bucket. Mr. Samuelson, a right-wing economist, in yesterday’s Washington Post POSTOPINIONS column didn’t bury the lede: Why are we in this debt fix? It’s the elderly, stupid. This (unfortunately) memorable title tells you where this is going, and Samuelson does not disappoint, except one does walk away from his screed a bit more disappointed than usual in how right-wingers think. They relish attacking those who live one crisis away from poverty. Samuelson gives those weakened geriatric gray hairs a good beatdown, like Seinfeld‘s Kramer when he thrashed those prepubescent youngsters in the karate dojo, “I’m dominating the dojo. I’m class champion!” Or the man who plotted to throw his mother off a train, but in that case, decided against it. Samuelson did not.
Jihad Grandpas & Grammas
You may not have known that your seemingly sweet Granny and Gramps were on a jihad bent on burying you and their other children and grandkids under mountains of nationalized debt. I would’ve never suspected my own grandparents, they were always good for a hug and a cookie. (There are exceptions, however. My Aunt Ruth, for example, for my ninth birthday, gave me the 670 page 1955 edition of Emily Post’s Etiquette: The Blue Book of Social Usage. Obviously, by that act alone, she proved that she’d do anything to anyone. Thus, she, now at 89 years, remains suspect of burying us all under mountains of public debt.)
Samuelson’s point is obvious, a lot of those rampaging elders are gaming the system, many do not need the benefits they receive, especially from Social Security and Medicare. He ignores the fact that a national social welfare program ought to embrace all the elderly; after all, well-off elders may, during their retirement, lose everything. (And don’t be fooled, Samuelson believes that poor Americans in any age group don’t deserve their benefits either.) Statistics show that the majority of elders need social security to live any kind of decent life at all. Medicare to live a healthy life at all.
Of course, Obama and the Democrats are Samuelson’s villains de jour, but he includes his own companions:
“the shunning [of even discussing entitlement cuts] is bipartisan. Tea Party advocates broadly deplore government spending without acknowledging that most of it goes for popular Social Security and Medicare.”
Thus he proves that he is worse than Tea Partiers. He forgets that the vast majority of retirement aged Tea Partiers collect Social Security and Medicare, (rightfully) believe they earned it, are therefore “entitled” to it, and would smack you with their canes should you try to even discuss cutting benefits. Of course, they also believe that other groups of elderly persons do not deserve what they have; funny how that works, eh? Samuelson doesn’t understand politics very well, doe he?
It’s the Social Contract
The social contract which we have includes income and health security, and yet does not eviscerate free enterprise. It’s benefits are for all citizens. Samuelson is no friend of our social contract:
“By now, it’s obvious that we need to rewrite the social contract that, over the past half-century, has transformed the federal government’s main task into transferring income from workers to retirees.”
To him, and the GOP/TP when it suits them, the federal government ought to have few mandates, i.e., foreign relations, border protection, building a national armed forces, and, most of all, cutting taxes paid by those who, by and large, are already doing quite well. For people like Samuelson, doing well is always the best revenge on those whose paths through life are rocky and dangerous. Tea Partiers, in particular, detest those they consider lazy welfare queens and kings, despite the fact that many Tea Partiers collect what the call “welfare,” within which they have been known to include Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. When this wrongheaded enmity is pressed against the elderly, especially those who rely upon those programs, on those who have lived long enough to achieve old age, it’s akin to saying to them, “Thanks for your hard work, and drop dead.”
Robert Samuelson’s Why are we in this debt fix? It’s the elderly, stupid proves he’s comfortable warring on the nation’s elderly. Period. Paragraph. Throw him off a train . . .
WHOOPS, There It Is! In the wake of NY Congressman Anthony Weiner’s Twitter woes, in the wee hours of Friday morning things got worse. Lots worse. Not for Mr. Weiner, but for the U.S. Senate. At 1:00 am (EDST) before a solemn and sleepy Washington D.C. press corps, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), announced that his Twitter account had logged 12 tweets from 12 senators. Each tweet featured “a picture of the legislator in his underpants.” Reid then promised “to investigate quickly, before a bunch of basically inanimate senatorial reproductive organs sully the entire Senate’s moral reputation. I have already called on Minority Leader McConnell to assist me in this effort.” At present, however, Reid told reporters that he “firmly believes” that the dozen senators involved “acted alone, as individuals. God help us should we discover a coordinated congressional cabal of penis poppers in the people’s house.”
He continued, clearly embarrassed, “I cannot understand this. The median age of the offending senators is in the mid-70s, and due to advancing age, many have not, shall we say, ‘noticed’ their own reproductive organs for many years. Why then this flurry of activity?”
U.S. Senate Psychiatrist Opines. Reid then introduced the Senate psychiatric team Director, Dr. Drew Edwards, who speculated, “Although the team has yet to forensically examine the 12 [senators], we suspect the sudden appearance of Congressman Weiner’s difficulties pushed these senators’ innate competitiveness to levels they could not suppress. For example, Senator Reid’s office informed us that some of these senators will run for re-election in 2012. Seeing the attention Congressman Weiner has captured, they may have considered his alleged tweet a savvy political move, and simply copied it. Since the first Congress, the two bodies have pursued a lively competition. Mr. Weiner’s leadership role in this issue area likely caused a state of deep discomfort among senators, which may have unleashed the dragons within.In any event, the mental health team plans to move quickly. And perhaps through the agency of elderly senators’ underpants and penises we shall learn more about how to prevent this inexplicable behavior that has the Senate in its grip . . .”
Mr. Reid, however, applauded Edwards’s plans to examine the inner workings of certain senators’ heads. Addressing Dr. Edwards, he offered “hands-on support to the Senate Mental Health Directorate. I will bypass the rigid Senate rules implemented during the Clinton era – rules dealing directly with underpants, penises, and other suchlike sex organs and the things they do.”
As for the federal budget discussions, the debt limit battle, and the “various wars we’re in all the damned time,” Reid declared, “these issues will be put aside indefinitely so that the Senate may concentrate all its attention on the senators’ underpants.”
GOP Minority Leader McConnell Displays Rigidity. On the other side of the aisle, Republicans, Senate and House, were silent, although many legislators witnessed freshmen congressmen and congresswomen giggling, and consequently wetting themselves.
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Minority Leader was, however, far from silent, accusing Senator Reid and Senate Democrats of trying to “push the ball down the road on the budget and debt ceiling.” He went on, “Senator Reid demands that I view these underpants tweets. My duty is clear when the Majority Leader speaks. I shall view these images. I shall do so, however, without the Majority Leader or any staff present. I will examine these emails, or tweeties, or whatever they are called, very closely. Moreover, I intend to review the disgusting images again and again until my duties are exhaustively discharged. But I shall not enjoy it.”
After pausing a few moments to rest, catch his breath, and adjust his pants, Senator McConnell went on, “This underpants brouhaha is a false issue, badly delaying the Senate’s legislative duties. Today, however, I must peer into the private life of 12 senators, their underpants, and their clothed peni. The Founders of our great nation mentioned neither underpants nor peni in the Constitution. But the Majority Leader insists. Underpants! Underpants! Peni! Peni!I’ve said enough. Despite my constitutional objections, out of respect for the Majority Leader, this very day in his office, I shall vigorously investigate, and carefully investigate 12 senatorial underpants.”
Man on Dog Santorum enters the GOP 2012 presidential race with dogs snapping at his heels.
Here’s an Unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, 2011, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.:
Senator Rick Santorum: Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —
AP: I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to talk about “man on dog” with a United States senator, it’s sort of freaking me out.
The GOP field wasn’t bizarre enough? Now, Santorum? He has not changed his opinion, by the way. Is this a presidential field, or a circus side show? For example, Napoleon Bonaparte said it all: “In politics, absurdity is not a handicap,” Rick Santorum, in the AP interview, asserted “I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.” Surely. And I have no problem with Rick Santorum. I have a problem with anything he does. One thing though, with Santorum in the GOP field, social conservative voters could not be happier. This will steer things even further toward the cliffs.
Newt “Gingo” Gingrich launched himself from the springboard on March 7, when Fox News host Greta Van Susteren asked what he would do about Gaddafi’s use of heavy weapons and deadly force against peaceful demonstrators. “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening,” he replied. “All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening.”
His first somersault came on March 23, days after the U.N.-authorized military intervention had begun. You’d think he might applaud the operation — enforcement of a no-fly zone and attacks on Gaddafi’s armored columns, all in an attempt to protect civilians from an impending massacre — since that was what he had suggested. But you’d be wrong. “I would not have intervened,” he told NBC’s Matt Lauer. “I would not have used American and European forces, bombing Arabs and that country.” The next day, he elaborated “We are not in a position to go around the world every time there’s a local problem and intervene,” he told Fox.
But then on the following Saturday, at an appearance in Iowa, he spun to what looked suspiciously like his original position, arguing that the United States and its allies should “defeat Gaddafi as rapidly as possible.”
Gingo Confuses Gingo. Gingrich seems to be having a particularly heated argument with himself over the whole “air power” thing. On March 7, pro-intervention Newt declared: “We don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress [Gaddafi’s] air force, which we could do in minutes.” On March 24, anti-intervention Newt scoffed to Fox: “If they’re serious about protecting civilians, you can’t do that from the air. . . . This is a fundamental mistake, and I think is a typical politician’s overreliance on air power.” On March 26, defeat-Gaddafi-rapidly Newt said that vanquishing the dictator should involve “using all of Western air power as decisively as possible.”
In a rare understatement, Gingrich acknowledged Saturday that “obviously there were contradictions” in his various statements. Typically, however, he defended them all.
The fact that he had appeared to take so many sides of the issue, he claimed, was somehow Obama’s fault. Just like not intervening was Obama’s fault, intervening was Obama’s fault, and whatever the allies are doing with air power was Obama’s fault.
Obama moved painstakingly toward committing U.S. forces to the Libya intervention, first securing a U.N. mandate, some measure of support from Arab nations and a guarantee of meaningful involvement by our European allies. He thought about the precedent this kind of humanitarian military action might set. He tried to assess how the other beleaguered autocrats in the region might react to U.S. action or inaction. Leave aside, for the moment, whether Obama made the right call. At least he tried. Gingrich, by contrast, reflexively shoots from the lip. On any conceivable subject, he’s always ready to tell you more than he knows. He is certain that his view is 100 percent right — until he decides it’s 100 percent wrong.
I realize his criticism of Obama from all sides of the Libya question is fundamentally a political tactic — go on the attack, make a lot of noise, attract some attention. But his cavalier recklessness on a matter of war and peace should send chills up the spine of anyone who sees the words “Newt Gingrich” and “presidential candidate” in the same sentence. Heaven help us.
