Sanity Pills

Well well now. It appears DeLay is a little more involved with TRMPAC than he suggests. We all knew it, but where was the proof? I’m sure Earle has plenty of proof… but here’s a little appetizer for whats about to come.

Yes yes, we are here today with LEAKED MEMOs. I love leaked memos. There’s really never enough leaked memos in this world.

On with the show!

Memo #1
Memo #2

Lets all send Tom some lube as a going away present.

Exactly what kind of democracy are we spreading? Lets see what George W. Bush has to say.

Some have tried to pose a choice between American ideals and American interests—between who we are and how we act. But the choice is false. America, by decision and destiny, promotes political freedom – and gains the most when democracy advances. America believes in free markets and free trade – and benefits most when markets are opened. America is a peaceful power – and gains the greatest dividend from democratic stability. Precisely because we have no territorial objectives, our gains are not measured in the losses of others. They are counted in the conflicts we avert, the prosperity we share and the peace we extend.

Ok, I think I’ve got it. Political freedom, gains the most when democracy advances, peaceful power, gains from democratic stability, no territorial objectives, and gains not measured in the losses of others.

O RLY

You know what the GOP really thinks about this?

Allow me to elaborate:

Despite a zero-tolerance policy on tampering with voters, the Republican Party has quietly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide private defense lawyers for a former Bush campaign official charged with conspiring to keep Democrats from voting in New Hampshire.

O. I. C.

Link (Source: Las Vegas SUN)

Bob Woodward claims that Cheney might run for President in 2008.

I hope it’s true. Cheney has so much cred with the primary-type Repug voters that he would wallop any challenger, whoever they may be. Frist doesn’t have the same gravitas (ahem), Cheney might actually tear Guiliani’s heart out and eat it, Cheney would rip off Romney’s clothes to expose his Mormon undergarments and then laugh as he gives Mitt a golden shower, and McCain would be left wishing that his skin cancer had spread to his brain. They’d all be left groveling for the chance to share the ticket with the remarkably well-hung Cheney.

I’ve no doubt that Cheney would run away with the nomination, which is why I’m so excited about the prospect.

Although 30% of the country may want to have his babies, at least 40% wants to see him have a massive heart attack on national television. As hated as Bush is, I think Cheney is more so.

I think he has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the Presidency, although just to make sure the cliche is correct, we should ask Cheney if there are in fact snowballs in hell, he being born and raised there.

But, if this country looks past everything that Cheney has done and still elects the man, which wouldn’t surprise me, I’ll give up and be on the first plane to Sardegna to live out my days feasting on suckling pig, Carta da Musica, and mirto.

George Pataki has decided not to run for reelection. I’m heartened by this. It’s only a matter of time before Mitt Romney makes a similar announcement. NY and MA have seen more than enough Repug governors. It’s time for the Governor to be representative of the voters. I can’t imagine Pataki just going into retirement.

Is he considering a higher office? Surely he can’t be considering the White House, he’s too boring and too moderate. Maybe he wants to give Hillary some competition next year? If he’s smart, he’ll follow Guiliani’s example, start a consulting firm in NYC, and make shitloads of money. That’s the pasth I hope Romney follows, he can go back to work for the raiders at Bain. Although, I doubt that’s Mitt’s plan.

It’s pretty clear that Romney plans to run in 2008, actually it’s obvious. Especially after he vetoed the emergency contraception legislation and wrote a moronic letter to the Globe to explain his reasoning. I don’t think he can come back from that stance in this state. Moderate mothers, charmed by his good looks in 2002, won’t support the man after taking such an anti-woman stance.

Kerry Healey as the Repug gubernatorial nominee would be a laugh riot, I can’t wait. Check out the links between her husband’s company (just look at all that fucking money) and the Massachusetts Repug party. Surprisingly, Beverly Farms, MA is the power center of Massachusetts Repugs. The Healeys live at 10 Curtis Point (nice huh?), her husband’s company is just down the road (the big building on the hill), the Mass GOP chairman Darrell Crate is further down the road, and Crate’s parents just moved to nearby Oak St.

The question is, how creepy can I get with Google maps?

DailyKos posted a straw poll to gauge who progressives want to see as the Democratic nominee in 2008. Surprisingly, Hillary isn’t the top choice, unfortunately Wesley Clark is. I still don’t understand the allure of the guy; he’s boring as fuck and a total centrist. Who cares if he was a Rhodes Scholar, so was George Stephanopolous.

As of 12:25 EST, the results were:
Who would you like to see as our ’08 nominee?

Evan Bayh 130 votes – 2 %
Joe Biden 168 votes – 3 %
Wesley Clark 1483 votes – 28 %
Hillary Clinton 493 votes – 9 %
John Edwards 401 votes – 7 %
Russ Feingold 623 votes – 11 %
John Kerry 122 votes – 2 %
Bill Richardson 260 votes – 4 %
Mark Warner 285 votes – 5 %
Tom Vilsack 41 votes – 0 %
Other 374 votes – 7 %
No Frickin’ Clue 821 votes – 15 %
5201 Total Votes

Maybe this poll will give Joe Biden the information he needs to decide not to embarrass himself or his party in ’08. It might just be me, but I don’t feel like supporting a plagiarist or a puppet of the credit card companies for President.

I voted for Feingold, although my real feeling is closer to “No Frickin’ Clue.”

In another instance of a Repug showing disdain for the Constitution, Utah-transplant Mitt Romney wants a referendum on gay marriage AND civil unions. ‘Yes’ means I hate gays and can no longer make the argument that I just don’t like the idea of homosexual marriage, and ‘No’ means I’m not a fucking moran.

Hey Mitt, go kill yourself.

I can’t wait for this fucker to be out of office and investing tons of his own money into what will surely be a failed bid for the presidency. He may be a conservative Christian, but Southern Baptists and Methodists are just as freaked out by Mormons as they are by Catholics.

We’ll have to keep our eyes on Deval Patrick. He’s got the public and private job experience that opponents can’t poke holes in, has powerful Democratic friends, seems to be a real liberal (MA actually doesn’t have too many), has had to do shitloads of public speaking, is running against a very stiff Attorney General, and he is an outsider (for whatever that’s worth).

Unfortunately, as of now, he doesn’t have a name, his website BLOWS (where is the clearly marked “Issues” section?), and, of course, there is that whole pigment thing……this is Massachusetts afterall. (Sorry about the small size, it was the only one I could easily find.)

I’ll probably see him this weekend, and I’ll report back. As far as I’m concerned, though, let’s go full steam ahead and deify him like we did with Barak Obama. That’s usually a smart thing to do.

Let’s hope that he’s not a whore like most of the other people in the Clinton Administration. Reich wasn’t, that’s probably why he left early. Who else wasn’t a whore? Dee Dee “Can’t Call it Genocide” Myers? George “Professional Softball Player” Stephanopoulos? Larry Summers? Bill Richardson? Willian Daley? Give me a fucking break.

HA!!!

It looks like the Repugs are getting ready to lighten their load for 2006.

Let’s see what the Hammer does; you can bet he will be mad as hell. He’ll need all the tricks he learned in his previous profession.

After getting in an argument this weekend over the same issue, I want to continue the debate about the 2006 Massachusetts Governor’s Race here. Can Willard Romney retain the position or will Tom Reilly or some other Democrat take back the job after a decade-plus Republican reign?

My take is….

Romney can win if:

a.) Massachusetts residents keep their heads up their asses.

b.) The Democratic nominee is a pussy, and/or the Democratic leadership in the state doesn’t care about the race, like they didn’t in 2002.

c.) He again convinces the voters that he is a pro-business moderate Republican, even though he is actually a far Right-wing social conservative.

d.) Business interests back him. This might not happen, given Romney’s opposition to stem cell research; the biotech and medical industries might take him on (Say goodnight, Mitt).

e.) He distances himself from the Repug Party nationally. Going to be tough, because he can’t afford to be seen as a Bush cheerleader, but he also needs to retain Party favor for a run in 2008.

f.) He promises not to run for the Presidency in 2008. This might fuck him over during the 2008 Repug primary if he actually does run. Someone like Frist will crucify him for a lie like that, especially since it will be recorded and replayed over and over.

Romney can lose if:

a.) Democrats successfully show, and it will be easy, that Romney plans to leave the Commonwealth for a run at the White House and leave totally useless Kerry Healey at the helm. This time it won’t be a mediocre Argeo Cellucci leaving a more mediocre Jane Swift to run the state. Kerry Healey is unknown, horrendous in public, lacking experience, unfriendly, mostly brain-dead, an enemy to public education, and worst of all, thinking she is entitled. The Dems will do well to run a strong campaign directed against Healey.

b.) Romney aligns himself with the Repugs nationally, and Bush in particular. People are still pissed about pretty much everything Bush has done and may take it out on any Republican candidate, even if they voted for Weld and Cellucci in the past. Beware the Bush backlash.

c.) The Democratic candidate attacks and shows how far Right Romney really is (this might only take a short explication of Mormonism during a debate) .

d.) The Dems in the State House, now led by a real liberal, join the fight unlike they did when the fascist and moderate conservative Finneran was running the show.

e.) Howard Dean directs some national power to the race. Massachusetts Dems usually don’t need the DNC’s help, but money flowing in from NY and CA might hurt Romney.

f.) A well-liked, smart as hell, and tough-as-nails Democrat like Tom Reilly comes out swinging. Shannon O’Brien was a weak candidate because she was relatively unknown, she looked like a bitch if she was tough, and she looked like a fool if she was nice. Romney will get the deathblow if he doesn’t come out as the Golden Boy in the debates.

Any thoughts?

I’m probably being too optimistic……oh well.

I haven’t posted much on the Terry Schaivo issue for two reasons: (1) there is just way too much lunacy, misinformation, and general ridiculousness to possibly address fully and (2) the whole thing pisses me off so much I can’t rationally discuss it. However, I do have some ideas regarding how Democrats might be able to use this issue to their political advantage:

First, I’d like to join the “Democrats should stay away from this issue” camp. I know that the majority of Americans agree with the Dems, but I think the best thing to do is to stay away and let the Republicans self-destruct here.

That being said, the legal aspects of this issue are just ripe for the picking. There is no doubt that, long after this issue is resolved (either by Terry’s merciful death, or our country falling further towards theocracy) Bush is going to be attempting to nominate a host of conservative judges to various courts including the Supreme Court in the next several years. This is where I think Democrats can use this issue to great political effect.

I think every Bush nominee should be asked by the Dems on the judiciary committee how they would rule on the various aspects of the Shaivo case: (1) How would they have ruled on the facts of the case? (2) How would they have ruled on appeal? (3) How would they have ruled on the constitutionality of the congressional law that was passed?

The reason these questions are good for Dems is that no matter the answer, Dems win. If the nominated judges would have upheld the courts rulings on these issues then the religious right gets pissed. If they disagree with the courts here then (a) they are incompetent and (b) the American people overwhelmingly disagree with them. Thus, this strategy might be a way to prevent right wing judges from being nominated without having to even ask them about Roe v. Wade or admit that their position on Roe is has anything to do with why we oppose them.

I’m not a political strategist, so I could be way off base here. But this seems like a win-win for Dems if they play it right.