Some Things Are Just So Predictable

Yesterday, The Atlanta Journal Constitution ran this Op/Ed piece:

A case for term limits in Congress

By Lee Raudonis

Whenever I see a column by someone with whom I am not familiar, the first thing I do is check the author info at the bottom of the column to see if it's anyone with an obvious axe to grind. So who is Lee Raudonis?

Lee Raudonis of Big Canoe is a former executive director of the Republican Party of Georgia.
(Big Canoe is the name of a town in GA)

Ah, now it makes sense. Republicans only care about term limits when they are in the minority.
From the Gingrich "revolution" until 2008, you never heard them talking about term limits. Hell, term limits was even part of the Contract on America, but as soon as they took power, eh? Term limits? mmmm, no thank you.



Lee Raudonis knows what I'm talking about:

Remember the “Contract with America,” a document that some believe helped Republicans gain control of both houses of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years? I remember it well, because I was working in the House of Representatives at the time and suddenly found the member for whom I worked in the majority party. I also remember the “Contract,” because one of its key provisions was support for congressional term limits.
At the time, I thought this provision was more of a political gimmick than a serious proposal to reform government, and I was not all that disappointed that the House could never muster the 290 votes needed for a constitutional amendment to put term limits in place.

Oh, they tried so hard to muster those votes! So much effort. . . oh, wait! I'm thinking of all the effort they put into trying to destroy Bill Clinton! Watergate, Filegate, Troopergate, Travelgate, and when they couldn't find anything, they impeached him for getting blown. I guess that's what distracted them from their efforts to install term limits.

But I digress. Go on, Lee.

In the 15 years since I left Washington, I have become a supporter of term limits

Qu'une surprise !
I bet it was for the reason usually given.

I have become a supporter of term limits — but not for the reason usually given.

Whaaaaa???

Rather than favoring term limits as a way to prevent representatives from becoming corrupted by power and out of touch with their constituents, we need to limit congressional service in order to break the unhealthy bond that exists among many representatives, their political party and their constituents. Too many members of Congress have become so dependent on their constituents and party for their identity that they seem incapable of making any decisions that might upset the voters, even if the future of the country depends on those decisions.

Yes, clearly that is the problem. Congressmen are just too responsive to their constituents. It's so obvious now! Also, they are just so dependant on their party, that's why Barack Obama had such an easy time getting healthcare to sail through the legislature! Members of Congress were just so closely tied to their reform-favoring constituents and their reform-proposing party that they just never thought to oppose. . . wait a minute! That's not how it happened.

Max Baucus (D-Healthnet)

By way of example, few politicians in either party appear capable of making the difficult decisions needed to bring the budget deficit under control.

And that brings us to the second thing that is just so predictable. Once out of power, Republicans quickly rediscover their fear and hatred of deficits.

I seem to remember someone saying. . .



just a few years ago, when Bush 43 was running up deficits that would have made the Gipper blush. No one on the right was complaining about fiscal irresponsibility then, just as they weren't griping about deficits in the '80's. But as soon as they are in no position to do anything about it, MY GOD!!!! THE DEFICIT!!!!!!

It's just so predictable!

The third thing that is just so predictable: The "Vote Out All The Incumbents" movement that surfaces when the majority of the Incumbents are Democrats.


here's one example:

The objective of Vote Out Incumbents Democracy is to force Congress to act more responsibly as representatives of the American people, present and future, as well as in their role as caretakers of our nation.

Here's another:



See, it's got nothing to do with which party is in charge! Of course not! The fact that there are currently 257 Democrats out of 435 seats isn't the point. And the fact that if every incumbent is voted out there would be 257 Republicans instead, well gosh! That never even occurred to me! And even if all the incumbents aren't voted out, each one that is is voted out has about a 60% chance of being a Democrat, so that an anti-incumbency-themed election could only help Republicans, well, Gee! I never even thought of that! It's just that we didn't happen to be in an anti-incumbent mood from 1994 through 2008. Party has nothing to do with it!

It's all just so predictable!


P.S. I don't know why this strikes me as so funny, but when I did a Yahoo image search for Newt Gingrich, Yahoo advised me of this:

Others who searched for Newt gingrich also searched for...

• • 

    kirsten dunst

  • 

    katee sackhoff

  • 

    bret mich...

  • 

    laura ling

  • 

    lindsay lohan

Not a political figure in the bunch! Apparently people who like Newt also like drunk girls, over-the-hill rock stars, an actress I never heard of, and some girl's butt in a thong.

Yeah, that sounds about right!

Bill Maher Is A Dick

I never thought Bill Maher was funny. Worse, he comes across as such a smug, self-impressed, condescending little prick that you kinda just want to smack him. I saw his old show "Politically Incorrect" a few times during its brief run on network TV, and just the fact that he named his show "Politically Incorrect" should tell you all you need to know about Bill Maher.
The phrases "politically incorrect" or "politically correct" Os "PC" or any of its variants are pretty much the sole province of the completely douchebaggish. Generally, those phrases come up in a conversation like this:

Douche: I hate those (fill in ethnic group)
Normal Person: Dude, that's a pretty dicky thing to say!
Douche: Oh, you're so politically correct!

or

Total Ass: That guy's a total fag!
Normal Person: Why would you rip on someone's sexuality? What's your problem?
Total Ass: Well, I guess 'm just politically incorrect!

Somehow, these terms are seen by the assholes of the world as a way to excuse their assholishness. As if anyone who takes offense at their nasty comments is just being "PC" and being "PC" is like totally gay or something.

But I digress.

On his show "politically Incorrect" Bill would introduce the various guests one by one and when they came on stage, he would greet male guests with a handshake and a "hello" or "how ya doin" or whatever, but female guests, when they came out, Bill would kiss them like he was Richard Dawson and greet them with "hiya gorgeous!" or "how ya doin' sexy!" or the like. It was a shame, because that could have been an interesting show with someone else hosting.

So now, he's got another HBO show, which I've never seen because I don't want to pay for HBO. But I saw this clip on the intertubes:



Wow! What an asshole! Could that have been more blatantly racist? That's how a "real black president" would behave? Like a stereotype street thug? That's what acting black means to you?

Bill Maher, you are a dick. And you're not funny. You never were funny. Even when I agree with you, which happens fairly often, I wish I didn't because I hate to be in agreement with someone who is such a complete ass.

PS, here's Bill Maher dressed as Steve Irwin for Halloween. Stay classy, Bill!

Now can we stop pretending that Israel is the "good guys?"

From Reuters:

Nine dead as Israel storms aid ship

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israeli marines stormed a Turkish aid ship bound for Gaza on Monday and at least nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed, triggering a diplomatic crisis and an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council.

European nations, as well as the United Nations and Turkey, voiced shock and outrage at the bloody end to the international campaigners' bid to break Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Let's see, the UN, Turkey, Europe, who's missing from that list? Oh, I know. Us!

Well, surely President Obama must at least have had harsh words for Israel, right?

'Obama wants facts on tragic aid raid'

Mon, 31 May 2010 17:56:12 GMT

US President Barack Obama has called on the Israeli premier to launch an investigation to find "all the facts" surrounding the attack on the Freedom Flotilla.

Yeah, he wants Netanyahu to go ahead and investigate this himself. Israel gets to do the investigation into Israel's actions. Which is sort of like asking Ken Lay to investigate whether there was any wrongdoing at Enron.

I don't get it. Why do we always have to take Israel's side no matter what they do? They can keep expanding further and further into Palestine, and we pledge our support to our good friend Israel. They can bulldoze Palestinian homes and we just send them more foreign aid. An Israeli bulldozer killed American citizen Rachel Corrie, and Israel faced exactly zero consequences.

It doesn't make sense. Israel can only survive with the monetary and military aid of the United States. We should own them. We should be able to tell them to withdraw from the occupied territories, tear down the separation wall, etc. etc. and they should ask "how else may we serve you, oh master?" But no. We prop them up, we defend them in the UN, we arm them and we still have to kiss their asses. What the hell? What has Israel ever done for us? Or for anyone for that matter? We don't need them, they need us.

I should take a second to be clear, I am not criticizing the Jewish people. I assume that your average Israeli is a perfectly nice person. My neighbor is an Israeli immigrant and he's a perfectly nice person. In fact, his criticisms of the Israeli government's policies are harsher than anything you'll read here. Judging the average Israeli person by the actions of their government is as unfair as judging the average US citizen for the actions of the Bush administration.

That being said, fuck Israel! I don't understand why the defense of Israel is the US's problem. They've done nothing to deserve our help, and our support of their thug government is one of the major reasons terrorists see us as a target. (Although the Bush Doctrine gave them much more powerful reason to hate us.) Nothing good has come from our unwavering support of this country, it certainly isn't in our National interest to be their protector, so what gives? Why is support for Israel the sine qua non of American foreign policy? Hell, you can't even suggest, as Jimmy Carter did, that Israel might bear some of the blame for the violence in the region without being attacked as if you had slandered Uncle Sam and Jesus. It makes no sense.

For Memorial Day: Erick Erickson's Unassailable Logic

Okay, here's the background on this:

Barack Obama is attending a Memorial Day service in his hometown of Chicago. VP Biden will be laying the wreath at Arlington. To Erickson and the rest of the nutsos, this is proof, undeniable proof, of the President's disdain for the troops.

Media Matters pointed out that this was hardly unprecedented:

In 1983 President Reagan attended a "summit meeting in Williamsburg, Va." on Memorial Day while Deputy Secretary of Defense W. Paul Thayer laid a wreath at Arlington Cemetery. In 1992, George H.W. Bush attended a ceremony in Kennebunkport, Maine (where he also reportedly played a round of golf) while VP Dan Quayle laid the wreath at Arlington. In 2002, President George W. Bush commemorated Memorial Day at Normandy.

So Erickson came up with this argument. It's different for Obama because we have been slandering him with bs about his supposed hatred for the troops.

Then there's this,

From Erickson's ridiculous Redstate.com:

The problem for Barack Obama is simple.

The troops don’t like him no matter how much the White House propaganda machine tries to gin up staged pictures of Obama voting soldiers fawning all over him. But see the tepid response from cadets at West Point or talk privately with lots of soldiers and sailors and you get something else — they fundamentally do not respect their Commander in Chief.

Obama may talk about the government in the first person, but the men and women lying at Arlington know differently.

Yes, the corpses in the cemetery know differently. That's how you bolster your argument, with an appeal to the knowledge of dead people? The dead bodies know differently?
(grammar police: I think you mean they know "different" not "differently" To know differently would be to know by a different means of acquiring knowledge. For instance, I know about the battle of the bulge because I read about it in history class, whereas Grandpa McVet knows about it differently as he came by his knowledge by being present at the actual battle.)

Of course, Obama really doesn’t like the military, does he. [A period there, not a question mark, is intentional]

He doesn't like the military because we say that he doesn't like the military which proves that he doesn't like the military. It's hard to argue with logic like that.

There is Something Wrong with The American Public.

From Yahoo News:

In the five weeks since an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig sent hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico, Obama had largely escaped political fallout. But as BP attempts yet again to seal the leak, a new USA Today/Gallup Poll finds a majority of Americans unhappy with Obama's handling of the spill. According to the poll, 53 percent rate Obama's handling "poor" or "very poor"; 43 percent believe Obama is doing a good job.

43% think that President Obama is doing a good job handling the oil spill? "Cuz I really can't think of anything that he's done besides wagging his finger and clucking his tongue at BP. 43% of Americans think that's a good job? God, I'd like to work for one of those people!

But wait, it gets better! (or worse)

Yet the poll also finds that the public tends to blame others in the mess more than it blames the White House. Asked broadly about the federal government's role, 60 percent rated the response "poor."

So 7% think that Obama is doing a good job, but that the Federal Government is not.

BP got the lowest marks: 73 percent of Americans gave the company's handling of the spill a "poor" rating. Still, a whopping 68 percent say BP should remain in charge of the cleanup.

68% think that BP is doing a poor job, and should reamain in charge. Wow. I gotta look into moving to Canada.

PS I will be in Charleston, SC for the next couple of days. I don't plan on being able to post until I get back. I don't think they have computers in Charleston, I think there's a city ordinance banning anything that can not be described as "quaint."