Jack who?
From USA Today, so much for the "Jack who?" defense...
Contrary to their headline, there is nothing at all controversial about Abramoff. All sides agree (belatedly on the republican side, but whatever) that Jack is a lying, thieving sonofabitch. The USA Today headline is thus nothing more than another idiotic attempt to appear "fair and balanced" - at least to dumbass republican voters. A more correct headline would be something like "Lobbyist felon had close contact with Bush team".
A few more items, in case anyone is still not up to speed:
(1) The Abramoff crime scandal is a REPUBLICAN crime scandal (clip from Crooks & Liars). Abramoff is one of the primary architects of the "culture of corruption" we've heard bandied about. Don't let anyone lie and tell you otherwise. To the best of anyone's knowledge (any people have been looking hard), Abramoff never gave a dime to a Democrat.
(2) 200 contacts with the bush administration? I wish I knew what the greatest number of contacts was, so that I knew where to place this fact.
(3) I wonder how many republicans will go down on charges before republican voters take their heads out of their asses.
(4) Another republican talking point is that the current republican Congress is no worse that the Democratic Congress before Newt's "velvet revolution". First, what the hell kind of defense is that? From the perspective of the people putting this point out there, it's like saying you're no worse than a murderer. Great defense - sheesh.
Moreover, even if it were true that the Democrats of 10+ years ago were that bad, notice that it took them 40+ years to get that way. Republicans started off that bad from the get-go, and achieved indictment fame after only about 10 years.
(5) There's a lot of talk from republicans trying to cover their asses about "lobbying reform". That's approximately the least relevant thing in the world - don't fall for it. Not that lobbyists aren't oftentimes sleazy folks - they are. But the problem with Abramoff was quid-pro-quo (tit-for-tat) stuff. Without the quo (tat) side, Abramoff is nothing but a tit. The real problem is simple: republican officeholders are criminals. If Abramoff had not been around, the criminals would have found another outlet for their criminal instincts. The solution is equally simple, theoretically at least: get rid of all Congressional criminals. At the moment that means republicans, but in general it could include Democrats as well.
We'll see what happens though, as to which republican voters care more about: not being ruled by criminals, or protecting their various bigotries. They can't have both.
Contrary to their headline, there is nothing at all controversial about Abramoff. All sides agree (belatedly on the republican side, but whatever) that Jack is a lying, thieving sonofabitch. The USA Today headline is thus nothing more than another idiotic attempt to appear "fair and balanced" - at least to dumbass republican voters. A more correct headline would be something like "Lobbyist felon had close contact with Bush team".
A few more items, in case anyone is still not up to speed:
(1) The Abramoff crime scandal is a REPUBLICAN crime scandal (clip from Crooks & Liars). Abramoff is one of the primary architects of the "culture of corruption" we've heard bandied about. Don't let anyone lie and tell you otherwise. To the best of anyone's knowledge (any people have been looking hard), Abramoff never gave a dime to a Democrat.
(2) 200 contacts with the bush administration? I wish I knew what the greatest number of contacts was, so that I knew where to place this fact.
(3) I wonder how many republicans will go down on charges before republican voters take their heads out of their asses.
(4) Another republican talking point is that the current republican Congress is no worse that the Democratic Congress before Newt's "velvet revolution". First, what the hell kind of defense is that? From the perspective of the people putting this point out there, it's like saying you're no worse than a murderer. Great defense - sheesh.
Moreover, even if it were true that the Democrats of 10+ years ago were that bad, notice that it took them 40+ years to get that way. Republicans started off that bad from the get-go, and achieved indictment fame after only about 10 years.
(5) There's a lot of talk from republicans trying to cover their asses about "lobbying reform". That's approximately the least relevant thing in the world - don't fall for it. Not that lobbyists aren't oftentimes sleazy folks - they are. But the problem with Abramoff was quid-pro-quo (tit-for-tat) stuff. Without the quo (tat) side, Abramoff is nothing but a tit. The real problem is simple: republican officeholders are criminals. If Abramoff had not been around, the criminals would have found another outlet for their criminal instincts. The solution is equally simple, theoretically at least: get rid of all Congressional criminals. At the moment that means republicans, but in general it could include Democrats as well.
We'll see what happens though, as to which republican voters care more about: not being ruled by criminals, or protecting their various bigotries. They can't have both.
posted by sherifffruitfly | 8:40 AM
1 Comments:
Perusing your blog, specifically, "Punditician", I have arrived at what I believe is a defensible inference. Both you and your readers would welcome news of in-your-face overt opposition to your "smirking chimp", my "dum'ya botch".
In plainer terms, cdj, I want to run for Representative for Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District on a platform calling for the impeachment of President George Walker Bush.
Incidentally, I deliberately referred to your blog, to indicate that I visited your blog as an individual, and not as a spammer. Yes, that last is an illustion to a "pre-deconstruction" chick flick with a rating of two and a half hankies.
Oh, alright (!) already, I'll own up to it. I owe getting my message out to so many bloggers to COPY/PASTE ... gim'me a break ... will'ya puh-lease! I got to get the word out somehow.
Ah, before you click on any of the enclosed hyperlinks, please read the entirely of my comment. For example, the three planks I nailed together in my platform out to get me elected. "impeach bush" is the first plank. The second is "impeach bush". The third is like the second, "impeach bush".
To continue, the first hyperlink below leads to the opening salvo of my campaign.
http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/danger-senator-specter-danger.html
As for the second hyperlink, it leads to evidence that my candidacy is about more than opposition solely for the sake of opposition.
http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/dispelling-stench-in-oval.html
toodles
......\
.he who is known as sefton
oh, by the bye, it's a good guess you'll find what I have to say in PROMETHEAN COMMENT interesting to the point of startling. In that segment, I advance the case that the mere nomination of Judge Alito is tantamount to treason.
Post a Comment
<< Home