As we head into the 2008 elections, I have but one question for the powers-that-be in the Republican party: What the f*ck were you thinking?
When you praised Bush’s tax cuts way back when, and talked endlessly about how they would strengthen the economy, did you not think that John. Q. Middleclass would eventually realize that his share of the pie didn’t even come close to covering what he would be paying at the pump, no less the constant rise in the cost of living under Bush’s regime? Did you not think he would come to realize that what trickled-down his way smelled more like piss than money? Did you not think he’d figure out that you had lied to him?
When you supported programs like No Child Left Behind, did you not think that tens of millions of American parents would notice that their kids aren’t getting an education, but are merely being taught to rattle off test answers by rote – without any understanding of what the questions mean? Did you not think those parents were going to catch on sooner or later, and know that you had lied to them?
When you touted the incredible success of the war in Iraq, did you not think that the pure puff stories about how well things were going would be completely undone by the stories told by returning soldiers? Did you not think that a zillion upbeat, totally-fabricated MSM ‘good news’ items wouldn’t hold water when Minnie-down-the-street’s-son returned from his third tour of combat and started telling the neighborhood what was really going on? Did you not think that people in neighborhoods all over America would hear the truth, and know that you lied to them?
When you held yourselves out as the party that Supports the Troops, did you not think that gutting their pensions, extending their tours, refusing them appropriate rest periods away from the war zone, and denying disability claims for combat-related injuries was going to be perceived as a little less than actual support – and be something that would come back to bite you in the ass? Did you not think that those who really support the troops would come to the conclusion that you were lying yet again?
When you accused those who wanted our troops out of Iraq of being unpatriotic, did you not think that when the majority of the country eventually agreed with that sentiment, your constituents who now hold that opinion might take offense at having been labeled cut-and-run traitors, and probably won’t vote for your party again until hell freezes over?
When you thumped your chests as the great defenders of the country when you invaded Iraq, did you not think that when the inevitable outcome became apparent, i.e. that terrorism is on the rise as a result of your president’s policies, you’d be collectively up shit’s creek?
When you bragged endlessly about the wisdom of fighting ‘em over there so we wouldn’t have to fight ‘em over here, did you not think that every time this administration raised the specter of yet another possible attack in the US – which they have done every time their poll numbers drop – that might lead the country to believe you’re talking out of both sides of your lying mouths?
When you repeatedly placed the GOP on the moral values pedestal, did you not think that once the Foleys, the Allens, the Vitters (and the rest to be named at a later date) were eventually exposed, the Fundie crowd would abandon you faster than you can say “Jesus Wept”? Did you not think that this group would be especially turned-off by being lied to?
When the madman you’d placed in the White House issued signing statements, refused to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, pushed torture as an American policy, and engaged in illegal activities like warrantless wiretapping, did you not think that failing to speak up and exercise your obligations of oversight might lead the voters to believe you’re a bunch of spineless yes-men – you know, the kind of people nobody wants running their country?
When your idiot of a president acted like a clown in public, especially at international meetings of import, did you not think that the phrase ”the Republican party will bring dignity back to politics” would sound like the punchline to a really bad joke – the kind of joke that people with common sense don’t find the least bit funny?
When you went on and on and on about being the party of fiscal responsibility, did you not think a national debt of unprecedented proportions might get noticed? Did you not think that the constant cutting of every program from highway maintenance to food inspection would catch the attention of the average working stiff?
When your president and his administration started denying access to the minutes of every meeting, the testimony of every government employee, and every scrap of paper ever produced during their entire time in office, did you not think the citizenry might come to the conclusion that these people are a bunch of corrupt crooks out to cover their own tracks?
When you insisted on clinging to the president’s disastrous stay the course until we win in Iraq strategy while you give it some more thought between now and September, did you not think the voters would be keeping count of how many are being wounded or killed while you’re mulling things over?
So I’ll pose the question again: What the f*ck were you thinking? – even though the answer is all too obvious. You weren’t f*cking thinking at all. And now the whole country knows it – other than that 26% who, at the present rate, will be down to 2% by the time we go to the polls next November.
To blatantly lie to the American people about anything is bad enough. But when you lie to them about things they are undoubtedly going to find out you’ve been lying about, they get really pissed-off. They tend to think you’ve been treating them like dumbasses who are too stupid to catch on. That leads to people getting riled, getting mouthy, getting fired-up enough to go to the polls and teach the liars a lesson they won’t soon forget.
Well, all is not lost. You can still campaign on the Bush made the country safer thing – because he did. Thanks to his disastrous tenure in office, and his party members’ unwavering support of his every idiotic policy, the country is safe from having a Republican president elected to office for many, many, many years to come.
As they say, behind every dark cloud created by lyin’, theivin’, too-smart-for-their-own-good Republicans, there’s a silver lining.
As always, good luck in ’08!
May I add, "good luck America in ’08"
"Expanding claim of executive authority, White House official tells paper staff can't be charged" by John Byrne, Raw Story
A senior Bush Administration official unveiled a new strategy in Friday's Washington Post -- anonymously -- to combat Democrats in Congress who are clamoring to file contempt charges against officials who refuse to talk about the firings of nine US prosecutors.
A senior Bush Administration official unveiled a new strategy in Friday's Washington Post -- anonymously -- to combat Democrats in Congress who are clamoring to file contempt charges against officials who refuse to talk about the firings of nine US prosecutors.
In sum, this strategy amounts to, "once we say no, we can't be charged."
Ironically, President Bush's new legal argument hinges on whether one of his own US prosecutors can file charges against his staff.
According to the Post, "Administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts."
"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," a senior official told the Post, which granted the official anonymity because 'he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly.' "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."
Under law, a contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to Washington, D.C. US attorney, who then brings the charge to a grand jury.
"It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys," the anonymous Bush official added.
George Mason University professor of public policy Mark J. Rozell called the administration's stance "astonishing" in the article.
"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell told the reporter. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."
The White House did not inform Democrats of the plan, which the Post called a "bold new assertion of executive authority."
Reached for comment, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told the paper it was "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."
Another example of the Bush Administration's pledge in 2000 to run the honest and open Administration actually means. His Administration is "honest and open" except where they need to protect their collective ass.
No comments:
Post a Comment