http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/11/america/prexy.php

All I can say is, “JESUS CHRIST.” Invoking God to defend a war. How…papal.

…he also won a Grammy, beating out Alan Alda, Maya Angelou, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Good weekend for Big Barak.

Respectfully submitted by your humble author.

• That’s OK, I Wasn’t Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
• Let’s Fix Democracy in this Country First
• If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
• If You Can Read This, You’re Not Our President
• Of Course It Hurts: You’re Getting Screwed by an Elephant
• America: One Nation, Under Surveillance
• Whose God Do You Kill For?
• No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?
• We’re Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
• Republicans Don’t Care About White People, Either
• Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?
• The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
• 2000: Embarrassed. 2004: Horrified. 2008: Terrified.

…but possibly a huge problem down the road a bit for Hillary.

Senators Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton share a common liability. In Obama’s case, it’s having to run a race against Bill and Hillary. In Hillary’s, it’s having to put up with Big Bill not staying on message, and making such grimace-causing comments as these, made in Blackwood, NJ, today:

With a nod to his own economic record while he was president, moving the country into surplus territory with good job and wage growth, the former president said: “We can bring America back. We have done it before and she will do it again.”

We? She? Oh, ouch.

“More than half the world is mad at us,” Clinton observed. “We have to send a different message to the world and she is uniquely qualified to do it

“And the message goes like this,” he continued, and not without some irony:

“We’re back.”

Wait–”we,” the United States, or “we,” The Clintons ™?

Jesus, Bill–you were a damn fine president; even the right-wingers will give you that the domestic product kicked ass and took names when you were in office. But you need to back the hell off. If Hillary’s handlers had any brains, they would have locked Bill in a basement somewhere and brought him out two or three times in the primaries at strategic moments, then, during the national convention, brought him out to speak. That would have been spectacular.

Instead, he’s coming off like a that mouse creature thing on Jabba the Hut’s shoulder, ruining his legacy and what respect he had garnered in the 90s, and becoming a Democratic Dick Cheney attack dog. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

And here’s one final clue, Bill.

While I’ve always held that the entire Monica Lewinsky “thing” was an engineered scandal, and that your private life was your own, you might consider NOT doing the finger-wagging thing. The last time you did that, you were lying out your ass. Granted, about a completely non-political and utterly unrelated topic that the press, nor Ken Starr, nor the Congress had any business asking you about in the first place, but lying all the same. You were a great president, but you have no right to chastise, methinks.

As long-time members of Satirica will note, one of my areas of political interest as a social liberal and fiscal conservative is attempting to discover what happened to the Republican party between the Eisenhower/Goldwater/Nixon years through Reagan and the Falwell-influenced resurgence of religious fundamentalism that has eclipsed true conservatism.

In my reading this week, I found this interesting quote by Barry Goldwater. For those of you too young to remember, the intellectual fuel which powered the Republican party through the 50s, 60s, and 70s can be traced to Goldwater’s ideas. Rejector of the New Deal, Major General in the Air Force Reserves, he was often referred to in the press as “Mr. Conservative.” While his influence after the late 60s began to wane, he was the arch-conservative in the Senate all the way through 1987.

Here’s Goldwater in 1981:

“I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that, if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, or D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism’”

And again, from the same Senate speech:

“The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now…To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.”

And this final fillip, from a Goldwater press conference in early 1980:

“I think every good Christian should line up to kick Jerry Falwell in the ass.”

All this, from “Mr. Conservative.”

Republicans of the universe, especially those who are in favor of the new, tight relationship between the religious right and the Republican party: What happened? I could have easily voted for a Goldwater in the last election–if anyone in ANY party even remotely like him was running. (Of course, a fiery, unapologetic liberal spirit like Hubert Humphrey would get my attention, too; it simply seems that all political figures these days are lukewarm, and therefore I spew them from my mouth.)

Is this new fundamentalist-Republican alliance a marriage of convenience, or are their groups who really wish to break down the customary separation of church and state? (We’re halfway there already, with Bush’s ‘faith based initiatives.’)

I ask without rancor, but as a passenger on a train about whose destination I have grave, grave concerns.

A friend of mine recently remarked, looking at the Democratic field of candidate aspirants, that it would be nice to have a candidate who stood firm on the issues of the day, drawing on their own personal belief system rather than always running off to conduct polls before taking a stand, a la Obama and Clinton.

Aye, and there’s the rub.

I don’t believe ANYONE, regardless of party affiliation, who runs for elected office today, whether in the US or abroad, can possibly ever win if they create their election platform from their personal views on the issues, as unfortunate a situation as that may be.

It’s honest, it’s ethical, it’s moral, it’s correct–and it’s unelectable!

Y’see, today’s politics–and to a great extent, all politics, ever–is just like class elections in high school. It’s a popularity contest, and always has been, save for George Washington’s election. The hoi polloi likes it this way. No thinking required.

And no matter how much John Q. Public personally likes or admires any candidate, or even, upon examination, should he find that a majority of their planks conform to his own ideas, there is bound to be one serious issue on which each candidate and John disagree. If it’s a big enough plank (abortion? Iraq? Church and State? etc., etc.) then it will matter not one whit how fine a mayor, senator, or president they’ll make; based on Mr. Public’s one pet issue, he’ll find someone else who may be a much worse choice overall, but with whom he is in agreement on his pet issue.

Thus, we end up with elected officials who compete for votes based on how honeyed their words are. Fuck truth!  We can’t HANDLE the truth!  (Well, actually, we can, but, as with our dear friend Bartleby, “we would prefer not to.”)

To complete the popularity contest analogy: The above example, my friends, is a microcosm of only those who actually care about the issues–call it 15% of the voting electorate, generously. The vast majority of the voting public, as best illustrated by the idiotic and feckless Mr. Lamar Alexander in a recent interview regarding Fred Thompson’s candidacy, for instance–are more concerned with how “presidential” a candidate looks on TV. Or how craggy their face appears, how photogenic they are or the size of their boobs, and so it goes.

Truth be told, as a nation, we are a superficial bunch of moronic ninnies, and we get just what we deserve–superficial and moronic public servants.

It’s easy to say Al Gore would have been a “better” president (I happen to think our cat Stirling would have been a better choice, but I digress) but without the 2000 election, the latent statesman in Gore never would have made an appearance. (don’t believe me, have a look at his record on issues pre-2000 and post-2000; he’s MUCH more of a true leader now). Even folks who are dyed-in-the-wool conservatives at least respect Al Gore now, which is a story unto itself.

Looking at the current crop of Democrats, I see no current candidates that I truly endorse. I like Barak Obama, but more because he’s a literate man of African-American descent who stands a chance than for any other reason. Hillary, as polarizing as she may be, has bigger ‘nads than Bush OR her husband, but as an acquaintance of mine so aptly illustrated recently by declaiming how much he “hated Hillary Clinton!”, the media and religious-right conservatives are so in the habit of disbelieving anything she says that I doubt she would be effective. (note: most people that say they “hate Hillary” cannot offer one solid reason WHY they hate her, which should make us all triple-wary of the media. Generally when I hate someone, I at least am capable of offering an immediate, concrete reason!)

In short, we’re probably screwed again, and will get some lukewarm dungball–and who will care or even notice if s/he is a liberal, moderate, conservative, or religious nutbag–who parrots what his/her advisors put in the 2 page brief.

Hurray for us. America rocks.

Democrats to fund Iraq war with no pullout date

What a bunch of vaginas.

I can’t even speak. Let’s just go to a one-party system–oh, wait, WE’RE ALREADY THERE.

A quote worth repeating:

When the enemies of freedom come to “rescue” us from the regnant social chaos, they will not be wearing brown shirts and hailing der Führer; they will come waving the flag and clutching the Bible—seemingly innocent symbols of American culture. –James Luther Adams, in 1972.

Haven’t read it yet–am GOING to.

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America
Satirica rating:	Four stars: Not bad at all; good points, well written. Recommended.
Author:	Chris Hedges
ASIN:	0743284437
Label:	Free Press
Date added:	2007-05-03 15:07:27

---

We report, you decide…

With Molly no longer with us, Texas, rather than having one lone voice pointing out that the Emperor is, in fact, butt nekkid, now has absolutely no perspective. God help us all.

A few of my favorite incisive and discerning quotes from Ms. Ivins…

On the 2000 campaign:

• “It’s like having Ted Baxter of the old ‘Mary Tyler Moore’ show running for president: Gore has Ted’s manner, and Bush has his brain.” (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 10/25/2000)

On George W. Bush:

• “If you think his daddy had trouble with ‘the vision thing,’ wait’ll you meet this one.” (Progressive, June 1999)

On Bill Clinton:

• “If left to my own devices, I’d spend all my time pointing out that he’s weaker than bus-station chili.” (Introduction to “You Got to Dance With Them What Brung You”)
• “No one but a fool or a Republican ever took him for a liberal.” (”You Got to Dance With Them What Brung You”)

On George Bush Sr.:

• “Calling George Bush shallow is like calling a dwarf short.” (Mother Jones, February 1990)
• “The next person who refers to David Duke as a populist ought to be Bushururued, as they now say in Japan, meaning to have someone puke in your lap.” (Mother Jones, May/June 1992)

On Ronald Reagan:

• “You have to ignore a lot of stuff in order to laugh about Reagan — dead babies and such — but years of practice with the Texas Lege is just what a body needs to get in shape for the concept of Edwin Meese as attorney general. Beer also helps.” (Progressive, March 1986)
• (Responding to the Reagan warning that “The Red Tide will lap at our very borders.”) “These sneaky bastards from Nicaragua — there’s 3 million of ‘em down there, there’s only 16 million Texans, and they’ve got us cornered between the Rio Grande and the North Pole.” (Progressive, May 1986)
• “I have been collecting euphemisms used on television to suggest that our only president is so dumb that if you put his brains in a bee, it would fly backwards.” (Progressive, August 1987)

On Texas:

• “I dearly love the state of Texas, but I consider that a harmless perversion on my part, and discuss it only with consenting adults.” (Fort Worth Star-Telegram column, March 1, 1992)
• “I love Texas, but it is a nasty old rawhide mother in the way it bears down on the people who have the fewest defenses,” Ivins wrote in September 2002.

On the National Rifle Association:

• “You can count on the NRA to put on a show that makes King Lear look like a master of understatement. I suspect they’re all thwarted thespians: If we could just get them into show business we wouldn’t have to listen to them carry on about how freedom is just another word for a .357 Magnum. (Progressive, August 1999)

On Berkeley, Calif.:

• “If there are hookers in this town, they wear Rockports.” (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, March 12, 1997)

On Camille Paglia:

• “Christ! Get this woman a Valium!” (Mother Jones, 1991)

On Jerry Brown:

• “Question: What would happen to Brown’s face if he smiled? Second question: What would it take to make him smile?” (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, March 10, 1992)

On H. Ross Perot:

• “It’s hard to envision a seriously short guy who sounds like a Chihuahua as a charismatic threat to democracy, but it is delicious to watch the thrills of horror running through the Establishment at the mere thought.” (Time, June 1992)

On cancer:

• “I’m sorry to say (cancer) can kill you but it doesn’t make you a better person,” she told the San Antonio Express-News in September 2006, the same month cancer claimed her friend former Gov. Ann Richards.

On Texas voters:

• “Naturally, when it comes to voting, we in Texas are accustomed to discerning that fine hair’s-breadth worth of difference that makes one hopeless dipstick slightly less awful than the other. But it does raise the question: Why bother?”, in a 2002 column about a California political race.

On Bush Jr.:

• “The poor man who is currently our president has reached such a point of befuddlement that he thinks stem cell research is the same as taking human lives, but that 40,000 dead Iraqi civilians are progress toward democracy,” from a July 2006 column urging commentator Bill Moyers to run for president.

On Pat Buchanan:

• “Many people did not care for Pat Buchanan’s speech; it probably sounded better in the original German,” Ivins in September 1992, commenting on the one-time presidential hopeful’s speech to the Republican National Convention.